A minor semantic quibble, but "push-to-talk(1)" is "walkie talkie" mode that typically implies "live," "instant," and "synchronous" communications with the caveat that it is historically half duplex which remains useful in high-noise situations.
"Push Voice" would imply push notifications indicating the availability of stored audio files probably containing voice data (voice store and forward (2)). (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push-to-talk (2) http://www.answers.com/topic/voice-store-and-forward -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [liberationtech] Why Skype (real-time) is losing out to WeChat (async) From: Nathan of Guardian <nat...@guardianproject.info> To: liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu <liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu> Date: Mon Dec 24 2012 07:10:28 GMT+0100 > > I know in the LibTech and broader global activist/NGO community, there > is still quite a bit of focus on Skype. However, during my recent time > in India with the Tibetan community there, I have seen Skype, on mobiles > at least, almost thoroughly replaced by WeChat, a WhatsApp/Kakao clone > made by TenCent, the same Chinese company who created QQ. To my personal > horror, we have gone from a somewhat secure Skype with a questionable > backdoor policy, to a non-https, China-hosted service who is a known > collaborator with the Chinese government. > > The only I thing I felt productive to do (other than scream and pull out > my hair) was to think about why this is happening from a user > perspective. Why is a text messaging/push-to-talk model winning out over > an instant messaging/VoIP model, in places like Africa and Asia, > regardless of known increased risk and decreased privacy and safety? > > Other than the typical "users are dumb" answer, I think there are some > deeper useful factors to consider. Overall, I think we are seeing that > when smartphones are plentiful, but bandwidth is still a challenge, we > need to think about communications in a more asynchronous model than > real-time. I don't think this community should get too caught up in > building "Skype replacements". I think more we should think about what > features otherwise great, secure apps like Cryptocat, RedPhone, > TextSecure, Gibberbot, etc are missing to make it possible for them to > replace the functionality and experience users are expecting today. > > Why Skype/real-time is losing > > 1) Noticeable impact on mobile battery life if left logged in all the > time (holding open sockets to multiple servers? less efficient use of push?) > > 2) Real-time, full duplex communications requires constant, decent > bandwidth; degradation is very noticeable, especially with video > > 3) App is very large (a good amount of native code), and a bit laggy > during login and contacts lookup > > 4) Old and tired (aka not shiny) perception of brand; too much push of > "pay" services > > 5) Requires "new" username and password (aka not based on existing phone > number), and lookup/adding of new contacts > > 6) US/EU based super-nodes may increase latency issues; vs China/Asia > based servers > > Why WeChat (and WhatsApp, Kakao, etc) async are winning > > 1) Push-to-talk voice negates nearly all bandwidth, throughput and > latency issues of mobile. > > 2) Push-to-talk is better than instant messaging for low literacy, > mixed-written language communities; The "bootstrap" process for Skype is > very text heavy still > > 3) Apps feel more lightweight both from size, and from network stack > (mostly just using HTTPS with some push mechanism) > > 5) Shiny, new hotness, with fun themes, personalization, and focus on "free" > > 6) Picture, video, file sharing made very easy - aka a first order > operation, not a secondary feature; chats are a seamless mix of media > > 7) Persistent, group chat/messaging works very well (since its just > async/store and forward, its very easy to send many-to-many) > > 8) Identity often based on existing phone number, so signup is easy, and > messaging to existing contacts is seamless > > 9) More viral - you can message people not on the service, and they will > be spammed to sign up for the service > > Anyone want to call b.s. on this theory? Is my thinking headed in the > right direction? Should we try to turn Gibberbot into a more-secure > WhatsApp/WeChat clone? > > All the best from the Himalayas, > Nathan > > -- > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
