[extropy-chat] TRENDS: Email is so yesterday

[Emlyn]

I find that Skype is pretty much like this. We've got ongoing multi-person
chat sessions for our dev team in Skype, and I find that if I miss a day or
two, when I come back it's all automagically available in the chat history
(which is all available inline anyway).

Our day to day trivial "water cooler" stuff happens in IM. More complex
ideas get communicated in email. If I'm really forced to, I might actually
use Word to write something up, but pretty much only when required by
external forces (eg: a client wants a "document"). When people need to
really interact, we use voip + gotomeeting (for voice communication + shared
desktop).

Emlyn


On 05/10/06, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/4/06, nvitamore at austin.rr.com <nvitamore at austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > Anyone have thoughts on this?
> > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061002-7877.html
> >
>
> my thought is that convergence isn't happening quickly enough.  We don't
> need to distinguish between IM and Email.  We need only to express an idea
> towards a recipient.  If you are available via IM, we should be
> communicating with a low latency of about every 5 words to a full sentence.
> If you are not available, my entire stream of IM idea-a-grams should
> automatically coalesce into the notion of an email which you catch up on
> when you return to availability.  If I then want that message to be consumed
> by a group, the thoughts should be tagged in a way that authenticates the
> group members to have access to the content.  If I want no access
> restrictions, then my IM/email/blog is world-readable.  I want a Wiki-style
> page that I can grant R/W/RW access to nobody/one friend/all
> friends/everybody or any combination.
>
> The same slow convergence trend is in personal electronics too.  Why do I
> have to decide if I want the 40Gb or 60Gb iPod - If you put wi-fi in it then
> I wouldn't need more than 2Gb and my media could live on a server and stage
> the 'next 3' songs on the device for playback.  Caching software is smart
> enough to anticipate my playlist requirements.  If you network enable the
> music player, why not put a phone in it?  Oh yeah, that's already been
> done.  But then why doesn't that device have a good camera?  1.3megapixels?
> that's not good, that's pre-Y2K.  Let's start with a 5MP camera and add
> phone, no lets add PDA, no music, etc.  Why can't we have one device that
> has all these things in it?  Because people keep spending their money to get
> the next <slightly> cooler gadget in an effort to stay on the cutting edge.
>
> </rant>
>
> I'm sure this is similar to "kids" adoption of the telephone 60+ years
> ago.  Or radio however many more years ago, or any technology that was once
> unavailable until it became ubiquitous.  the only people who worry about
> being "old" because they haven't adopted the "hip" thing are already
> hopelessly uncool anyway.
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20061005/8d65e57a/attachment.html>