Facebook and Twitter vs. Email ⇥

Ben Brooks:

Google Wave was an idea with the lofty goal of trying to replace email, that didn’t work out so well for them.

Google Wave’s premise wasn’t “let’s replace email”, but rather “let’s replace email for a specific task”. This is the same case with Facebook and Twitter (though the latter only to a certain extent). Google Wave was designed to allow easier collaboration than email can provide, but had a major flaw: it was invite-only, and invitations were a rare and hot commodity. It was a social experience that lacked the “social” aspect.

If [Twitter and Facebook] were in charge when email services were a hot commodity, you would have had to provide a mailing address when trying to sign up for an email account. So here’s a pro-tip to all current thinkers out there: if you want to build a service to replace email, don’t require the user to provide an email address when they signup.

Brooks’ argument relies on the notion that Facebook and Twitter (and the late Google Wave) are designed to replace email. I disagree entirely. Facebook and Twitter have messaging functions, but are clearly not intended to be full replacements for email^[1]. Rather, these services are designed to augment email with features it doesn’t have, or that one wouldn’t necessarily want.

One cannot, for instance, change the priority of a tweet, or forward an entire Facebook conversation to another recipient. Likewise, you wouldn’t email someone to let them know about the awesome latte you’re having at the coffee shop on 19th and 1st.

1. Facebook is less clear, admittedly. They are revamping their message service to unify a user’s various notifications into a centralised inbox. The company has made clear that they’re not intending it as an email replacement, however, and it will lack most features of email beyond sending and receiving messages to/from a single recipient.