Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Facebook Messaging System Announced

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the riding-the-wave dept.

Communications 240

Mark Zuckerberg just held a presentation to unveil Facebook's "next generation messaging" system. He repeatedly drove home the idea that "this is not email," nor is it "an email killer." Their plan is to tie together multiple forms of communication — email, texts, social updates, etc. — and blend them into conversations. As users go about their days, interacting with a variety of devices, the communication method automatically updates to whatever is appropriate at the time. If a user receives an email while he's at a desktop, browsing Facebook, it will bring up the message in a Facebook chat window. If the user is browsing on a smartphone, it will bring up the message there, instead. If it's a dumbphone, then a text message can be sent. Another central feature is the idea that conversation histories from multiple sources and different forms of communication can be integrated through Facebook, so that you no longer have to separately root through IM logs, SMS logs, old emails, etc., to see old correspondence. (Users will have the ability to delete these, should they desire.) The last major feature they mentioned is what they call the "social" inbox, which is based on whitelisting. Users will be able to set up primary inboxes which only display communications they definitely want to see, while leaving low-priority messages, spam, and all the other noise typical to email in an inbox they check less frequently. The new system will be rolled out slowly over the next few months.

cancel ×

240 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Gmail/Gchat? (2)

crow_t_robot (528562) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234002)

So, it's gmail/gchat? Whoopdedoo.

Re:Gmail/Gchat? (5, Funny)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234336)

Don't diss the potential of this.

This will allow people to receive a constant stream of idiotic Farmville/Mafiawars/Cafeworld updates all day long wherever they happen to be. Think of the potential this has to increase productivity in the field of lost productivity.

Re:Gmail/Gchat? (5, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234426)

Also, unless you change the default settings, opt out, and keep up wit the changes, other people will be allowed to read your email, and send email on you behalf.

Re:Gmail/Gchat? (2, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234350)

"Will you walk in to my Parlour, Said the Spider to the Fly..."

Tis the prettiest little parlor
That ever you did spy.
The way into my parlor
Is up a winding stair,
And I have many pretty things
To show when you are there."
"Oh, no, no!" said the little fly,
"To ask me is in vain;
For who goes up your winding stair
Can ne'er come down again."

"I'm sure you must be weary
With soaring up so high;
Will you rest upon my little bed?"
Said the spider to the fly.
"There are pretty curtains drawn around,
The sheets are fine and thin;
And if you like to rest awhile,
I'll snugly tuck you in."
"Oh, no, no!" said the little fly,
"For I've often heard it said,
They never, never wake again
Who sleep upon your bed."

Re:Gmail/Gchat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34234568)

I much prefer The Paper Chase's [youtube.com] take on the fable.

Good things die all the time,
God bless your heart, vengeance is mine.
"Kiss me like you mean goodbye," said the spider to the fly.
When all those times you thought that you were wrong, you were right.

Re:Gmail/Gchat? (0)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234368)

It sounds more similar to Motoblur.

Re:Gmail/Gchat? (4, Interesting)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | more than 3 years ago | (#34235130)

Haha! Nope. This is... Google Wave. Anybody remember that that Australian guy that just left Google to work at Facebook? Yep, Wave was his brainchild and his last project for Google. It was all about "conversations" and such. Lars Rasmussen will finally see Wave go prime-time. It'll just be a highly streamlined/tailored version for Facebook. You guys remember the big Wave beta video where people were calling Wave a Facebook Killer? Ironic.

Re:Gmail/Gchat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34234940)

or kind of like wave.google (google wave) not sure if that was an invite only thing but it was stupid as well and this seems like a failure just like it.

All Your Messages Belong To Us (5, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234004)

Facebook wants all your messages so they can mine them for any possible personal information and sell it to the highest bidders. Is anyone surprised?

Re:All Your Messages Belong To Us (3, Interesting)

spazdor (902907) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234024)

Not to worry. If it proves to be a useful and popular feature, Diaspora will undoubtedly implement it too, eventually.

Re:All Your Messages Belong To Us (3, Funny)

digitalsushi (137809) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234246)

People goaded me that all of my friends would never migrate to the Diaspora I am running at home, but I won the challenge -- right after the install was complete, they already had

Re:All Your Messages Belong To Us (1)

diskofish (1037768) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234922)

So your three geek friends decided to join you? That's great.

Rude, snarky comments aside, I'd be really surprised If I could convince ANY of my friends to do this, no one seems to be that concerned about Facebook and privacy issues.

Re:All Your Messages Belong To Us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34235038)

*** whoosh ***

That was the sound of it flying right over your head... And don't ask what "it" is, because you just wouldn't get it.

Re:All Your Messages Belong To Us (3, Interesting)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234250)

Is anyone surprised?

I am a little surprised that there's not already a story about how this will lead to massive privacy breaches. Whether that's because facebook is getting better about privacy, getting better about avoiding bad press about privacy breaches, or whether that's because everyone who would have written an article about the privacy breaches gave up assuming anything facebook does will have the same effect, I don't know.

Re:All Your Messages Belong To Us (4, Insightful)

croddy (659025) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234710)

Violation of privacy is inherent to the existence of Facebook. That is its raison d'être. The only scenario in which Facebook gets better about privacy breaches is "Host facebook.com not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)".

Re:All Your Messages Belong To Us (1)

ausrob (864993) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234298)

My thoughts exactly, but coupled with the thought that this is just another privacy controversy waiting to happen.. New Facebook byline: "Want to share your E-mail messages with your friends?".. [opt out here]..

Re:All Your Messages Belong To Us (1)

blai (1380673) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234534)

Write messages in form of homemade captcha. Waste their space, waste their time, cost nothing if you even set up a bot for this evil endeavour.

Re:All Your Messages Belong To Us (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34234830)

Sounds a lot like Google.

So it's Google Wave re-born? (3, Funny)

moronikos (595352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234008)

Maybe somebody will figure out how to use it this time around.

Re:So it's Google Wave re-born? (1)

spazdor (902907) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234042)

Is that what Google Wave was for?

Who knew!

More like Gmail than Wave (5, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234540)

So it's Google Wave re-born?

Well, except for the fact that its nothing like Google Wave, which was largely a collaborative editing platform.

Its more like googles integrated messaging suite -- with the Gmail integrated interface with chat, email, status updates (Buzz), voice messaging/calling, etc., options for many of those to be delivered to phones via SMS, etc.

Google Wave, Anyone? (5, Insightful)

NickFortune (613926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234032)

That sounds very similar to the idea behind Wave.

Which is interesting, since it's not so long ago that the Wave creator quit Google for Facebook [slashdot.org] .

Let's see if the idea fares any better on facebook than it did on Google.

Re:Google Wave, Anyone? (2, Informative)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234074)

It also sounds like what AOL is doing with Project Phoenix [cnet.com]

There's a "quick bar" at the top for sending short e-mails, instant messages (which pop up in very Google Chat-like windows), and text messages.

Re:Google Wave, Anyone? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234094)

Actually, it sounds more like my Google AFYD accounts.

I get my voice mails, emails, sms and chat all under one account in GMail, with my own domain, and I don't have to participate in the popularity contest/social whoring that is known as Facebook.

Re:Google Wave, Anyone? (0, Flamebait)

countSudoku() (1047544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234146)

It can't help but be better on FB. On Google, I'm doing mail and docs and searches, I'm not looking to mix it up with shitheads (which you call friends). On FB, it's all about nonsense communications and "look at my sandwich!" posts, so Wave will be perfect for that environment, me thinks.

Go Fuckerbert! Roll out whatever comes to mind. It keeps the "look at my sandwich!" crowd entertained and your true customers (crApp designers) in loads of "social data on prospective clicksters." Everybody wins!

Re:Google Wave, Anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34234390)

Have you actually looked at my sandwich yet? signed, your friend.

Re:Google Wave, Anyone? (3, Funny)

Critical Facilities (850111) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234750)

Finally, a clear path to wealth and power!! I'm off to GoDaddy to see if I can get www.lookatmysandwich.com registered quickly before it gets snapped up. Score!

Re:Google Wave, Anyone? (2, Interesting)

AutumnLeaf (50333) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234486)

The similarities to Wave were the first thing that came to my mind. As an aside, I think Google should have blended wave into gmail, not had them side-by-side. None-the-less, I have to think some of this had to been cooking long before the google guy jumped ship - there just hasn't been enough time to design/build/test a change this big to their service, imho... unless I'm underestimating how robust their agile development processes are. . .

Re:Google Wave, Anyone? (1)

werfu (1487909) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234550)

Yeah, sound much like wave to me!

Re:Google Wave, Anyone? (1)

De Lemming (227104) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234932)

One of the great things about Wave was that it was an open protocol - you could set up your own server which could communicate with all other Wave servers. I really don't think Facebook is going to implement that part...

Hurray! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34234034)

Another way to talk to people I never see in person!

Re:Hurray! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34234484)

Zoidberg, get back to work!

Re:Hurray! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34234764)

Anonymous Coward likes this.

Finally, A Visioneer Among Copycats (5, Funny)

SeriouslyNoClue (1842116) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234036)

Facebook is the only technologically literate company to get Social Networking correct. Where all others have failed, Facebook has broken through the weeds into the clearing and are far ahead of everyone else. Even the mighty Google failed with Buzz and now Facebook is doing something new and original by introducing a messaging system that is not designed to replace e-mail. Hopefully, if they get this correct, they will be able to log and store all your messages so that you never lose them even after you get drunk or high and try to delete them!

Zuckerberg has really turned it around with this move and let me be the first to welcome Zuckerberg to my browser where my industrious and productive Farmville makes every visitor happy. The future is here. The future is now. The future is Facebook.

Re:Finally, A Visioneer Among Copycats (-1, Redundant)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234168)

How much were you paid for this? I've seen a lot of astroturfing in my time, but this is the first time I've ever seen a virtual verbal blowjob.

At any rate, I could care less. Facebook doesn't interest me. Not in the least. Don't have an account, won't have an account, and I wouldn't give them any access to my email.

Re:Finally, A Visioneer Among Copycats (4, Informative)

Americano (920576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234370)

Funny, I would've thought a virtual blowjob would read like:

"mmmph mmph mmmmmmph mmmph mmmmmph DAMMIT I SAID NOT IN THE FACE!"

I think the woosh you might be hearing is the humor of the GP post, bypassing your humor receptors.

But we get it, you're too hip for Facebook. Congratulations, and thanks for letting us know.

Re:Finally, A Visioneer Among Copycats (1)

BBTaeKwonDo (1540945) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234464)

let me be the first to welcome Zuckerberg to my browser where my industrious and productive Farmville makes every visitor happy.

Methinks you may have missed the sarcasm in the GP's post, part of which appears above.

Who's Really Clueless Here? (1)

SeriouslyNoClue (1842116) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234526)

Facebook doesn't interest me. Not in the least. Don't have an account, won't have an account, and I wouldn't give them any access to my email.

*snort*

Sounds like someone got pwned at Farmville. Listen, leave Facebook to the hardcore gamers like me who manage to have actual friends, okay? You go back to your ancient MySpace and wussy Rogue game ... it's not even multiplayer!

Like, if you understood Facebook you wouldn't care about who has access to your email! Some people will just never be able to truly appreciate great stuff even when it's free (both library and gracious)!

Re:Finally, A Visioneer Among Copycats (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34234802)

You haven't read many PR sheets then. Another day, another stain.

Re:Finally, A Visioneer Among Copycats (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34235060)

Don't have an account, won't have an account, and I wouldn't give them any access to my email.

Ah, but your real life friends did! Too bad for you, they have already cataloged your life. In fact, your profile just friended my profile.

Re:Finally, A Visioneer Among Copycats (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34235062)

You could care less?
Then please do.

Re:Finally, A Visioneer Among Copycats (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34234462)

original.

Ha! You're retarded.

We've seen this before... (1)

teknopurge (199509) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234048)

when it was called google wave. I suspect it will have similar measure of success, though that will be hard to measure as it's integrated into facebook.

Re:We've seen this before... (4, Insightful)

Americano (920576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234258)

Actually, I suspect that the fact that it's integrated right into Facebook will make it far more successful than Wave was. It may still not be a resounding success / 'gmail killer', but I've already seen a lot of my less-technical friends move to Facebook messaging for most of their communications with friends - event invites, messages, chat, wall updates, etc., all going through Facebook. If Facebook continues to grow, it could very well become the "platform of choice" for messaging for a large number of people. Wave honestly wasn't pushed that hard, and it wasn't really marketed as "something to do awesome messaging!" It was, "This thing we built that's kinda neat, see what you think."

Facebook is also MUCH more aggressive than Google about opting-in users for new services.

I'm not saying any of this is necessarily a *good* thing - in fact, for privacy, it will probably be a very bad thing - but I expect this service will be significantly more successful than Wave, simply because Facebook is huge, and they're not above using that size to opt-in every single one of their users for a new service. And while some of their use-cases seem to be a little creepy, they do (for better or worse), seem to think about "what are our users going to *do* with this thing?" Wave was sort of billed as "a cool collaboration thingy that you should totally check out. if you want to. Maybe? Please?" It was a cool piece of tech, but it was a solution looking for a problem.

FB Chat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34234070)

I have FB's chat turned off at all time, because it sucked. And Google Wave failed. This will fail too. Sometimes I just like to have things separate.

The more elaborate our means of communication-- (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34234082)

The more elaborate our means of communication, the less we communicate.-- Joseph Priestley

Re:The more elaborate our means of communication-- (3, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234144)

The more elaborate our means of communication, the less we communicate.-- Joseph Priestley

"Duhhhhh...." - Jason Priestly

A revolutionary system called... Netmail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34234108)

Each web site will connect to other web sites in the middle of the night when rates are lowest. The web site will transfer mail from its users to the other web site's users, allowing for cheap long distance communication.

Whitelisting facebook (4, Interesting)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234126)

"Users will be able to set up primary inboxes which only display communications they definitely want to see, while leaving low-priority messages, spam, and all the other noise typical to email in an inbox they check less frequently."

In other words, you will now be able to get to see just what you want and eliminate all the noise, spam and crap you never ever wanted to see in the first place...wasn't that the reason we signed up for social networking to begin with?
To me, facebook is admitting that their service is so flooded with crap that they now need a built-in crap filter to make it useful again.

Re:Whitelisting facebook (4, Insightful)

Americano (920576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234442)

Actually your primary communications forums in Facebook aren't "flooded by crap," unless you accept every invite and request sent to you - and in that case, you might as well submit your email address to every web site you visit that asks you to "register", you'll get the same results. If Facebook starts allowing people to message you using "@facebook.com" email addresses, you will rapidly end up receiving spam there. I have no need for a whitelist at present, because my friends on Facebook are only (and actually) the people I care to communicate with, and I ignore any requests from people I don't know. If they were to expose an @facebook.com email address, then any J Random Spambot can message me... and that'd be a problem. Implementing a whitelist is pretty much the only way to prevent that.

Re:Whitelisting facebook (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234542)

Oh so a little notificaiton every time someone plays Farmville, Mafia Wars of some other bs app isn't crap?

Re:Whitelisting facebook (2, Informative)

edmicman (830206) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234702)

How have you not already blocked notifications from those apps? They solved the problem of those things flooding your newsfeed a long time ago.

Re:Whitelisting facebook (4, Informative)

D Ninja (825055) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234718)

Do you even use Facebook? You can block all the apps, or block an specific app on a permanent basis, or block a user (so you don't get any of their spammy invites, but can still be friends with them), or do a wide variety of other things to keep the noise down. Don't get me wrong - I'm not a huge fan of Facebook either. But at least understand what its capabilities are before you go attacking what they can (or can't) do.

Re:Whitelisting facebook (1)

Americano (920576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234792)

If you're still seeing notifications every time someone plays a game and you don't want to see those, then you seriously need to learn how to use Facebook - and we're talking *remedial* education here.

You can suppress all display of notifications from any app with... 2 clicks? Perhaps a mouseover and a single-click. You can also filter your default "feed" to show only status updates, or other things you might be interested in, instead of the "live stream of every update people have made."

If you're unhappy with the info you're seeing, you're either missing some very basic functionality, or you're terrible at choosing who to accept friend requests from.

Re:Whitelisting facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34234916)

I really wish you all would head on over to FB right now. Or back to digg, or wherever.

Frankly, the S/N ratio around here has been going to shit lately ...

Re:Whitelisting facebook (1)

Americano (920576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234970)

Cool story, bro.

Skip the articles with "facebook" in their titles if you're not interested, rather than reading halfway through the dozens of comments posted before you decide that you're too cool for this conversation, and just have to interject to prove that you have absolutely nothing to say.

Re:Whitelisting facebook (1)

makomk (752139) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234570)

In other words, you will now be able to get to see just what you want and eliminate all the noise, spam and crap you never ever wanted to see in the first place

...but only if the spam comes in via e-mail, i.e. from companies that don't participate in the Facebook ecosystem and help make Facebook more money. Nice money-maker.

Re:Whitelisting facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34234608)

Don't describe my homeless sheep baby as "poo" :((

Re:Whitelisting facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34235078)

eliminate all the noise, spam

they will fail at this

Explain to me why I need another email account ag? (1)

bezell (532240) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234134)

Gmail without the Postini love, why do I want this again? What are they going to call it? FMail?

Re:Explain to me why I need another email account (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34234576)

Yes, because FMail comes before GMail, although both come after Email. I propose... AMail.

Re:Explain to me why I need another email account (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34234620)

It'll be called Facebook Mail, or just shortened to Facial.

Re:Explain to me why I need another email account (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34234680)

Fail? :)

all your data are belong to us (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34234136)

Facebook simply wants to coerce its users to put in real contact data, that is a lot more valuable to sell later:

- email accounts
- real mobile phone numbers
- IM accounts

Summary In Two Lines ( (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34234154)

"As users go about their days, interacting with a variety of devices,"

instead of humans.

Yours In Novosibirsk,
K. Trout

Google Wave(tm) - now with less privacy! (5, Insightful)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234162)

I have misgivings about giving Google access to this much data, and at least they promise to act responsibly.

Didn't see that coming... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34234194)

Facebook has just announced a poorly defined incomprehensible complicated "reinvention" of an otherwise simple concept.

Seeing as how this what pretty much everything Facebook has released since the original service has looked like, I wonder how long Facebook will last before people realize the people running it are just really lucky hacks?

So it begins (3, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234196)

It was inevitable that Facebook would decide to become its own little internet. Good luck with that, Facebook.

Re:So it begins (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234348)

> Good luck with that, Facebook.

Yes. The sooner that everyone who thinks that Facebook is wonderful ceases to use anything else the better.

have any of these people considered the idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34234232)

that I might want to keep those things separate?...I know of so many people that meant to send private messages, and ended up posting to people's walls...I bet this will make things much much worse...

Unified Communications? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34234248)

Seriously, this is one of those things that every major player has attempted at one time or another. The idea of having one interface for all of your stuff is great, but ALL of the big players (Apple, Cisco, Google, Microsoft, etc.) have tried their hand at it and failed to seize the market.
And why did they fail? Interoperability and greed. They all want you to use only their platform. Until my Cisco IP phone can display text messages from my iPhone on the Rogers network, or until Exchange can display conversations from Google chat, this will NEVER happen. Facebook may have the majority market share on "Internet presence", but the vendors all need to play nice for truly unified communications.

RFC? Standard? (4, Interesting)

alexandre (53) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234256)

Have they tried pushing this as a standard, distributed, normal internet protocol or is this just one more extension to facebook's "eco-system" that screws up internet principles?

Re:RFC? Standard? (1)

nmoog (701216) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234362)

To be fair though I don't think Facebook is bound legally to internet principles. Besides, Google opened up the federation protocol of Wave and a bunch of other technologies, and look where that got 'em!

Re:RFC? Standard? (1)

alexandre (53) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234500)

Nobody is bound to internet principles no more than people are bound to freedom...
The question is that they openly reject them now and should be boycotted for what they stand for, ie: becoming the new social failure that AOL and Compuserve were.

Three words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34234270)

Dead on Arrival.

the ebb and flow of this (5, Insightful)

digitalsushi (137809) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234308)

In the beginning, the geeks floated in the muck with the commoners. And they were annoyed and so they built a boat on which to hide from that underneath.

And then the commoners heard of the boat and they too, came aboard.

And so then, the geeks, annoyed, hopped back into the mucky waters below, only to find it empty and serene.

And so is my view of the Internet, as I watch the shadows of the SS Facebook floating above me. I can hear it's muted basslines if I stop long enough to listen.

Re:the ebb and flow of this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34235080)

I only wish that Facebook follow SS Second-life and go the hell out of the news. And people stop asking me to join Facebook. I'll telnet to my favorite mud now, thank you!

Re:the ebb and flow of this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34235112)

I liked this comment and quoted it on techcrunch, hope you don't mind. http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/15/facebook-messaging/ [techcrunch.com]

Old people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34234366)

In Korea^H^H^H^H^H Facebook, email is for old people.

You fai8l it (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34234398)

Lite iS s7raining

Dumb whitelisting (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234450)

mean that you actually have to check the spam to be sure that won't be receiving mail from people you didnt approved yet, thats so 2003's. I prefer Gmail approach.

Fark has the best comment on this (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34234512)

"Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has just done the Internet equivalent of starting a land war in Asia"

Re:Fark has the best comment on this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34234964)

One of the classic blunders! Only slightly less foolish is going up against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line!

Nepomuk/Akonadi principles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34234522)

I may be totally wrong, but I always thought that this unified messaging/conversations was what the Nepomuk/Akonadi was trying to eventually achieve. http://nepomuk.kde.org http://pim.kde.org/akonadi

Enough with the social networking. (1, Troll)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234626)

There is WAY to much social online networking happening. Of all the amount of social network that happens, I'll say that less then 10% is actually for networking and 90% is about being pointlessly social. Being social for the sake of being social is useless, great I have 10000000 facebook friend Woot!!!

Great I got 10 emails that aren't useful. I got 10 new text messages that aren't useful. All of these advancement that are meant to tie us closer to social networking are actually making us more Dependant on knowing whats uselessly going on. If we gave 1/2 the amount of effort into improving business that we put into keeping in contact with people we'd have trillion dollar company's that keep increasing in value.

Email works, texts work, SMS and MMS are fine. How many decades have we not had an issue with keeping in contact with who matters. All facebook is trying to do is actually devert the attention we should be giving to our jobs to a site which doesn't assist in completing and useful work. if you want proper social networking that helps you use linkedin if you want to be wasting time and showing off how many friends you have you use facebook.

Another horrible idea from facebook thats going to make that ahole another billion dollars. He has a horrible site that doesn't help anyone do anything but yet is a billionaire. Then again so is Bill Gates and he makes a product which is also horrible. I guess the moral of the story is make crap and make a billion. For once can we stop hearing about what useless feature facebook is adding and maybe focus on what useful feature our computers are going to have or maybe what useful features were getting to make business and engineering more streamed line.

Re:Enough with the social networking. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34234784)

u mad.

Re:Enough with the social networking. (1)

Americano (920576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34235052)

Being social for the sake of being social is useless

Depends on the criteria you use to judge something's usefulness, wouldn't you say?

Chatting with friends, meeting new people, and socializing has never been terribly "useful" when measured in terms of productivity, whether it's done online or face-to-face.

If you insist that every social interaction you engage in be "productive," I suspect you're a very, very lonely person.

IRC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34234656)

facebook is for blonds (C) IRC

not that impressive (1)

pvt_medic (715692) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234726)

Still skeptical on this one, nothing new and just a shiny interface for basically already existing services. And the facebook.com email address I feel will be a bad idea as it will confuse brand from its employees.

Either way, will still be banned at work. (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234790)

.nt

All that I care... (3, Funny)

lusiads (887888) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234800)

Does it have a 'real' delete button?

I watched the live announcement (5, Informative)

Ezekiel68 (652736) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234812)

Zuckerberg made it clear that this service is the result of product research. He said that young people consistently told him email was "too slow." When he dug into their answer they didn't mean slow as in "it takes too long to get to you", they meant they didn't want to have to log into yet another application to read their emails. Among that demographic, a sizable number don't even use a separate email account. They just use SMS on phones and Facebook (either chat or messaging) to communicate. So the main benefits he and "Bozz", his Director of Engineering touted was the reduced friction involved in being able to quickly message through the app you're probably already logged into with the knowledge that your message will get through to the recipient whether or not they use Facebook.

Can't message "off the record"...FB stores all (1)

thatseattleguy (897282) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234818)

Lauren Weinstein raises a few alarm bells:

Based on preliminary information I heard from the Facebook launch announcement today [...] users will not have the ability to declare chats or related conversations to be "off the record" -- everything will apparently be recorded. Individual users will have the ability to archive or delete their own copies of transcripts, but it appears that there is explicitly not a functionality similar to Google's "off the record" chat feature, which permits users to declare that their conversations with given individuals should not be routinely preserved. "It just didn't make sense for us," were pretty much the words that Zuckerberg used in response to a question on this topic."

http://www.google.com/buzz/lauren4321/Am7dw5mhpRi/Facebooks-new-chat-email-feature-apparently [google.com]

Zuckerberg == Case? (1)

VValdo (10446) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234822)

So is Facebook now officially the same thing as AOL from 15 years ago, minus keywords?

W

Facebook...it's no Google (4, Interesting)

gsgriffin (1195771) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234828)

Sorry guys, but I trust the brain power at Google to keep my emails safer than Facebook. Not to dis Facebook engineers, but they are nowhere near the capacity of Google. If I'm going to send information that I don't want leaked or have conversations that need to be private, I'm not looking to Facebook anytime soon as the conduit.

Here's why this will fail (1)

Evets (629327) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234870)

I'm an avid web developer and an early adopter techie. I couldn't pay attention past the first sentence of the slashdot summary, let alone be bothered to figure out what way facebook has figured out how to rob my grandma of her privacy next.

Honestly, it just sounds like whoop-dee-fucking-doo bells and whistles on top of status updates.

Here's some advice Zuckerberg. When you can summarize it in a sentence, people will pay attention.

Then again, what do I know. I never would have guessed you could build a hundred million dollar company by enabling people to tell their friends where they eat dinner and how well they are doing at bejeweled.

Oh, Gee. (1)

scuzzlebutt (517123) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234898)

Where, oh, where do I sign up to have all of my private communications routed through an entity that has zero respect for my privacy?

Yea (1)

the_hellspawn (908071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34234934)

Can't wait for more privacy to be lost to corporate greed.

Facebook Mail - the new Hotmail (1)

MattBD (1157291) | more than 3 years ago | (#34235108)

I think this is more likely to be a threat to Hotmail or AOL Mail than Gmail. Gmail is a power user's tool while Hotmail is more likely to be used by people who share photos/humorous pictures/jokes with friends and relatives - something that has considerable crossover with Facebook. OK, there are people who use Hotmail for professional purposes, but it has to be said that doing so looks unprofessional. As a Gmail user of three and a half years I really don't think Facebook's offering is at all likely to make me want to switch.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?