Pros and Cons of 5 E-Mail Alternatives

As messaging services eat into e-mail, what are we losing—and gaining?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

In my

Scientific American column this month I noted that humanity's flood of e-mail seems to be subsiding. The quantity has dropped 10 percent in the last few years, and among young people it's dropped a staggering 60 percent.

But that doesn't mean that written communications are dead—far from it. It means that we've found better, quicker, more targeted channels for sending messages, thanks to our trusty smartphones and tablets. With the rise of these new apps and channels, two key aspects of e-mail are changing: the store-and-forward routine (I send you a message, which waits until you come and get it) and the fact that these communications are typed.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Here's a rundown of the messaging channels that are eating away at e-mail, and why:
Text messages (24 billion a day): Pros: Fantastic compatibility—built into every cell phone on Earth. Easy to send. Can include photos, audio clips or video clips. Cons: No text formatting. Severe length limit (160 characters on some). Often no indication of when your message has been received or read. Costly on some cell phone plans.

Facebook messaging (216 million a day): Pros: No minimum or maximum length. Can include photos, videos, documents or links. Your address book is built in. Very little spam. Incoming messages pop right up on your phone or tablet. Cons: No easy way to format your text. Recipients must be Facebook members. In fact, recipients must agree that they're your “friends”otherwise, your messages go into an "Other" folder that most people don't even realize exists.

Twitter (500 million a day): Pros: Concise. Messages can be either public or private. Not too much spam (yet). New messages appear instantly on your device. You have a huge range of choices for apps, sites and programs to use for sending tweets; in (little-known) fact, Mac and Windows both have built-in features for tweeting. Cons: No text formatting. You can't send private messages except to people who are "following" you. Severe length limit (140 characters). Messages scroll away very quickly if you have a busy inbox.

Apple iMessages (five billion a day):Pros: Unlimited length. Text, photos, videos and audio are all easy to choose or to record on the spot; file attachments can be huge; text formatting available. Clever symbols show you when the other guy is typing a reply or when he's read your note. All of your conversations show up identically on all of your Apple gadgets. Cons: Limited to Apple devices (Macs, iPhones, iPads, iPod Touches). No per-message charges.

WhatsApp Messenger (50 billion a day):Pros: This free app is available on every kind of smartphone (iPhone, Android, BlackBerry, Windows Phone). Messages can be any length; text can be formatted; photo, audio and video attachments are easy. Read receipts, customizable backgrounds, easy group messaging. Cons: Messages show up only on one device (your phone). Most popular overseas. No tablet or computer version. Both parties must have the app installed.

There are dozens of other messaging apps, each requiring the other party to have the same app, but WhatsApp (which Facebook bought last year for $19 billion) is by far the most popular.

David Pogue is the anchor columnist for Yahoo Tech and host of several NOVA miniseries on PBS.

More by David Pogue
Scientific American Magazine Vol 312 Issue 3This article was published with the title “Pros and Cons of 5 E-Mail Alternatives” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 312 No. 3 ()
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican032015-4SUqVsOsVbaTTpj3pUF5ET

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe