Email is a double edged sword which demands discipline and vigilance. But although sometimes troublesome, it’s also one of the most straightforward technologies of electronic communication we have. So what do we do about it, and why’s everyone so hellbent on eliminating it ?
This post is in English, as the subject is not only relevant to Danes
There it is. Again. That pesky blogpost announcing that email must die. It may already be in the hearse, actually. At the very least, it’s drawing its last breath, croaking heavily.
I’m sick of reading those stories. I don’t believe in the grand scheme of emails demise, and I don’t see it coming for the foreseeable future – at least not globally.
Fact is, since the first arpanet email was sent in 1971, email use has grown steadily ever since. Email is kind of the IT worlds answer to an SMS: In its most basic form, it’s probably THE simplest way to communicate something to a select group of contacts.
Simple works. Simple is adoptable. Simple is understandable. You can communicate simple, with great effect. And thus, simple will be able to spread.
So what’s the problem with email, really ?
Oh, where to begin. If we look past the obvious problems with spam and harmful attachments being delivered straight into unsecured inboxes, in unsecure software, there’s the problem of verification and authenticity.
You don’t know if the person sending, is actually that person. Anyone can create an email address and call it whatever they want to, putting on whatever name they see fit.
There are ways around that of course: Certificates.
But, you know. Certificates in the form they have now, is really cumbersome. It’s not simple. So it’s not used very much. I’ve been in the IT business since ’96, and I have yet to see a single business or person who seriously uses certificates either to sign or encrypt mails. They exist somewhere, these fabled users signing their mails so others can verify their identity. I just… haven’t seen one yet.
Then there’s the fact that email is sent in a way that’s easily readable to others. If someone decides to sniff out your emails, there’s nothing stopping them from taking the raw data and just read it. So even though lots of people send sensitive information via email – it’s really not very suitable for that purpose. It’s highly reliant on “I’m not interesting as a target, so nobody will want to get to my email”. But one mans garbage, is another mans goldmine.
Then there are attachments. Apart from the obvious possibility of them being infected with various forms of viruses, there’s the size issue. If an attachment is too large, there’s a very real possibility your mail will never get through. Most of the time, the recipient won’t ever know you tried to send anything. Sure, we live in a Dropbox age. And if you use Postbox or Sparrow, you can integrate those with Dropbox for much smarter attachment handling (really, you should try it out).
But lots of people still don’t know what “a Dropbox” is.
And by the way, where’s that file in that email ? Why is there a funny unknown link in that email you sent me – are you trying to give me a virus ?
In a communicative context, email has its challenges as well. Discussions between more than two people quickly get out of sync. Documents sent back and forth quickly become the wrong versions being worked on, leading to double work. People are CC’ed as a way of establishing some form of authority, or trying to expedite whatever action requested, faster. Mails are forwarded blindly, making it a way to relay responsibility (I did not say “(re)delegate” for a reason 
). And even when emails are sent to a large number of recipients, people will pound that “Reply All” button, creating email storms.
Email can be a world of trouble.
Someone, do something !
People and companies are of course trying to solve these issues, although your benefit arises from a corporate need to gain a firmer grasp of your online identity. Facebook and Twitter are the obvious examples to highlight. Twitter needs no email address for you to communicate with others. You just write, but have a limit of 140 characters in total. And people can write back. Very simple, very focused (I’m on twitter using the handle @jsaaby – I’m fully convinced of its value, come join us). But if you compare it to email, Twitter is limited in its 140 characters when it comes to more explanatory information. It’s not well suited for deep conversation.
Facebook on the other hand, actually lets you communicate longer messages – and have now given you a facebook e-mail address on which people can communicate with you. Mine, e.g. is jacobsaaby@facebook.com. Yes – you have one too (username@facebook.com). But will anyone really take you seriously, if you mail them from Facebook ?
Google has all the potential with Google+, Gmail and their other services, and have started to realize said potential.
Other than that, we see messaging systems like Facebook’s in various collaboration platforms: Podio, Jive, Confluence – very different products, all have ways of communicating with other users within the respective systems.
Then there’s the likes of Yammer, TheFlowr, SocialCast – which are basically really good replacements for email – when used internally (Podio also has a Yammer like functionality by the way). But they “only” solve the communication part of the equation. Yes, there are external possibilities, but getting external contacts into the mix, depends on them accepting to participate within your walled garden. And depending on your garden of choice, this may bring about an identity crisis for everyone: The need to create, hold and maintain several logins and identities. Remembering who to communicate with on which platform, and how to gain access.
In the end – in my world, technologys primary value derives from making my world simpler, more convenient, more accessible. If I have to maintain 4-5+ identities alongside my email address, adding apps to my smartphone etc. – have I really gained a simpler life, or did I add complexity ?
It’s all in the eye of the beholder of course. But, value gain aside, it does create more work for you.
No matter if we choose email or other collaboration/communication solutions, we add or subtract value – depending on what we need the solution for. In any case, we add logins/identities to be maintained. A solution to this could be something OpenID-ish, but I haven’t seen something consumerized yet. Because: That’s a hassle too.
You also have to ask yourself before going all in: Is it well enough supported, and is it worth the effort ? Is it trustworthy enough, that I’ll trust THAT particular company with all of my identities ?
In a world where we can’t even unite in solving bigger issues like famine, poverty and the declining health of the planet (stuff that ACTUALLY matter !), my guess would be that we won’t see a unifying ID service consumerized, anytime soon.
Oy vey, boytshik ! Are there no end to our troubles ? Do we bite one bullet, by dodging another ? Will we ever get to the point where we’re not limiting ourselves, one way or the other ?
We’re halfway there. Todays collaborative solutions have already proved their worth in creating much more efficient ways of communicating within the groups you’re part of, namely in your workplace (I’m assuming this to be the most common denominator). It’s a joy to see the rise of Enterprise 2.0 (to some: Social Business/Social Enterprise, I find the term “Enterprise 2.0″ better, personally).
But it’s also a jungle – there are tools and platforms everywhere ! Will you ever choose the right one ? And even if it’s right to you, is it right to the rest of your world – will it get on board with you ?
Include or integrate, take control, abstract
I understand why companies want to create an enemy picture from email. I do. It’s the easy way to emphasize how much more Company X’s solution can do so much more than when you’re “stuck in Inbox”. I think they’re on the wrong path though. It’s a path of exclusion, and an endless fight against a simpler technology, which has already won based on accessibility and simplicity, security issues be damned.
Here’s my advice: Include email into the products. Make it a part of the core functionality. Because as soon as you direct your communication externally, email is THE only protocol (Strictly speaking email isn’t a protocol, SMTP is, but in this context it’s to be thought of as one) you can be relatively sure everyone can somehow support. It’s THE simplest way of transporting a message from point A to point B, in a world where you can’t guarantee that point B is on the same page as you.
So frakkin’ banal, is it not ? That annoying thing you’re trying to kill, is most likely your solution to success.
The thing is, as a user technology email is basically very flawed. Which is why a lot of people are trying to get rid of it. As a transport protocol though, it’s extremely successful: Adopted by users as one of the most basic technologies you can use, well supported serverside, and basically relies on a generally owned and very basic functionality of the internet: DNS.
Anyone can register a domain name, setup a mail server, and join the party.
If you abstract the concept, email is the M-Pesa of the electronic communication. And why is M-Pesa so successful ? Because even with the simplest device available to most people in some form, you can participate and gain immense value from using the service. Anyone can become an M-Pesa agent. They’ve abstracted the concept of money transfer from a banking function, to a common person function.
The difference is, of course, that by either including email server functionality in the collaboration product – or by integrating with existing mail server standards, you eliminate the need to use more products. The customer no longer have to also depend on e.g. a mail client, and possibly even a mailserver of their own. You’ve greatly simplified their world. A simplification like this translates to less administration, less education, more focus on more important businesssupporting activities.
More value for the customer.
More gratitude for you.
More money for both.
Change
Once you get email under your belt as a functionality, you can start to own the communication process – both internally and externally.
Internally you (the E2.0 vendor) get to define the most efficient way of communicating around whatever other content is generated within your platform. This is likely what you’re doing now, except you’re competing with the customers’ mail system and mailclients (like Microsoft Outlook).
Question is: What do you think would happen, if you provide calendaring and team coordination features in your product, and the users no longer had any reason to switch to a mail client regularly ?
I think you’d most likely completely eliminating the need for email, email clients and competing mail servers. And wasn’t that the goal you had all along – except now you’re doing it like you mean it ?
Externally, I guess you’re not changing much email wise. Emails are emails, once they leave your turf.
What you get though, is the possibility of gaining users: “Hi, this mail is from User N of Corporation N – feel free to just email your reply. If you’d like for your communication to be secure, come join us and use Product X”.
In any case, you get to support and control the whole process. All sorts of possibilities open up. And you’ll actually have a real shot at changing the landscape.
What are your thoughts and experiences on this issue ? Please share, as I’m always looking towards learning from how other people see things.
