The Evolution of Instant Messaging

The Evolution of Instant Messaging Nicholas Bruin May 28, 2018

Abstract Instant messaging (IM) has made tremendous impact on the ability for people to communicate laterally for the last three decades. Growing from its early days of point to point communication on early closed systems and bulletin board systems connecting people and groups around the world in seconds, IM has become a standard tool for many people. Moreover, some predict that IM will become the new users interface for future technology platforms. However, with this popularity, comes great risk. Keywords: Instant Messaging, Messaging, User Interfaces, Social Networking

1

The Evolution of Instant Messaging Today instant messaging is a ubiquitous part of life, almost everyone from every age group uses technology and instant messaging to communicate. The younger generations who have grown-up using this technology are particularly avid users of instant messaging and hav developed the ability to multi-task broadly, as well an intrinsic need for constant communication with instant response. Teenagers text, and message each other using technology such as Instagram, Facebook Messenger and Snapchat almost reflexively. One has only to walk outside or in a public venue such a shopping mall to see even the smallest of children using technology and even playing on smart phones. For those ages 13 and under, they might not envision a time which instant messaging did not exist. However, in reality, instant messaging is an old technology with its roots starting, even before the Internet. Even when few users were connected by single systems, tools were created and used to ensure that those users could communicate in real time. Few adults, however, would think of instant messaging as pre-dating the modern Internet. The Internet explosion and its associated enhance social connection features has brought instant messaging into the mainstream and instant messaging is an expected component of most business and social oriented technology. Yet, instant messaging had its start long before the Internet was in uses. Instant messaging functions evolve as early multi-user operating systems and on early UNIX systems. Programmers and systems administrators used variants of instant messaging and chat to communicate real-time, while sharing systems and resources. Overtime this form of communication was used not only for productivity for also for social interactions. Chat/IM provided a new medium for those “in the know” to communicate with privacy and stealth. It

2

would seem that as long as multiple people were connected by computer systems, there has been a desire to communicate directly in real time. Now this technology and social capability are part the main stream. With the combination of enhanced technology, wide availability of Internet connection, and the human element of social need. Instant messaging has become an essential part of everyday communication and for many essential social connection. Instant Messaging Defined According to Tech Target (2008), instant messaging (IM) is the process of exchanging text-based messages using software applications in real-time. This means that users are conducting synchronous communications back and forth and interacting with each other rather than more passive communications such as email were a message is left for the respondent or target to retrieve at a later date. Users can exchange files via IM, share hyperlinks, conduct voice over IP (VOIP) phone calls, and video chat. Clearly IM has grown in functionality and usefulness from it days as a mere text exchange system. It would appear that a valued aspect of IM communication is privacy (Quan-Haase, 2008). In social setting, people can use IM to communicate with out the communications being overhead. This privacy does always have an exclusionary intent, however. For example, one might use IM communication during a public presentation, where verbal communication might be rude or unachievable. The Converse is also true, in the author’s experience IM can be used to communication secretly or out of sight and mind of other participants in a regular conversation. One example of might be two firms participating in a negotiation over a telephone conference call. Firm A might use IM to communicate data points, suggested responses, and ideas between themselves while

3

talking on the phone overtly with firm B. More over the negotiation team for firm A might make their business decisions in IM, gain consensus from the team and then relay them in voice over the concall. Often IM software applications are generally known to include a functionality to track contacts. This is often referred to as a friends list or a buddy list (Mesch, Talmud &, QuanHaase, 2012). Contacts for IM must have access to the same network or IM service and there third party IM client applications that allow users to use multiple IM services with the same tool. Buddy lists were are core component of initial IM interfaces and for years, uses have depended on them. As IM continues to evolve, providers are trying to emphasize on the personal communications and have combined buddy list and message functionally (Yahoo, 2016). Changes in From and Function Changes in interface and paradigm can be difficult for users and customers. As such Yahoo is facing a challenge with the perception and adoption of its new interface and IM functionality. The author has multiple co-worker express frustration over these changes and the some have expressed a desire to have the work IM client changed as result of these changes. Clearly people can be passionate about their IM experience. You can see in the example below that Yahoo obviously felt the need to educate users about the new IM interface and has put a FAQ and links to their help page to help users navigate the new system and point them to trouble shoot problem (Yahoo, 2016). One might intuit that Yahoo received backlash with the changes, as the Internet, social media, IM allows customers and users to provide instant feedback and communication to service providers and other firms offering products or services to the open market. Based on the level “help” integration in to the new Yahoo IM client, it appear there was a measure of consumer pushback on the change.

4

Sometimes these changes are adopted and sometimes they force the firm to rethink its stance. Time will tell if the Yahoo IM paradigm change was visionary and gets embraced by the user base. Here is a screen shot of the new Yahoo interface with integrated help screens:

Figure 1: Yahoo IM screen shot used for academic purposes. These recent paradigm changes are indicative of the fact that IM is a growing technology that is evolving in its importance to the IT environments worldwide. Users expect the ability to communicate in real-time. In fact some scholars suggest that IM is merging with even social media (Shen, Chueng, Lee, & Chen, 2011; Hogan & Quan-Haase, 2010). A large part of many users experience on Facebook invoices both surfing the Facebook interface and using Facebook Messenger. Facebook for example, made Facebook messenger a separate app for smart phone

5

last year. This move suggests that Facebook identified IM as a unique and valuable technology in and of its own right. However, IM is evolving even more than just into social media. IM activity is growing on smart phones and in business use. Others suggest that IM will replace email in the near future (Lebbon & Sigurjonsson, 2016). IM for the Smart Phone As technology evolved, IM has moved along with it. IM is present on all number of devices to include desktop computers, laptops, tablets, and the growing important and allencompassing smart phone (Latzko-Toth, 2010). Smart phone have become increasingly important as more and more of the population have embraced the technology and they are carried daily by users. Riordan, Markman, and Stewart (2012) found that IM has evolved to be a natural mechanism of communication on par with live speak and has similar social influences and pressures. According to Statistica (2016) the following are the most popular IM applications currently in use:

Most popular mobile IM Applications Application Monthly Users WhatsApp 950,000,000 Facebook Messenger 900,000,000 QQ Mobile 853,000,000 WeChat 697,000,000 Skype 300,000,000 Viber 249,000,000 LINE 215,000,000 BlackBerry Messenger 100,000,000 Telegram 100,000,000 Kakaotalk 45,000,000

6

The Beginnings of Instant Messaging Thought instant messaging, as a term, has only been used the 1990s, IM functionality existed prior to the formation of the Internet and a was a build in feature of operating systems that enabled multiple users such as Multiplexed Information and computing service (Multics) and Compatible Time-Sharing System (CTSS) (Vleck, 2013). These systems was primitive often using ASCII graphics and only text. Further these systems required multiple users to be logged on at the same time. Below is an image of a unix chat window generated by command line.

Figure 2: Image freely license under GNU Version 3, used for academic purposes only.

Bulletin Board Systems in the mid-1980s had a chat functionality that was analogous to IM communication and resembled the Unix split screen form above (personal communication, Jason Thomas, September 22, 2016). Systems operators or SYSOPs owned these personal computer systems that sat idle connected to a phone waiting for users to call via a terminal program. Once a connection was established, the SYSOP could chat with the user logging in in

7

real-time. This this real-time communication was possible, BBS systems were actually intended for asynchronous use rather than real-time communication (Technopedia, n.d.). IM from Service Providers Later as home computers became more popular, online service providers such as Quantum Link and America Online (AOL) offered instant messaging. AOL instant messaging or (AIM) was seen as major value for AOL service, as the author recalls. As Internet access became more widely available and consumers embraced it more heavily, eventually IM client started to appear independent of services, such as ICQ (Petronzio, 2016). ICQ was created, by an Israeli firm, Mirabilis. ICQ has several innovations included such as multi-user chat capability, the ability to search for other users using a directory, and file exchange. AOL acquire Mirabilis in 1998 and enhance AIM which saw the first series of “bots”, which were non-human chat users that users could interaction with. IM from Broad-based Technology Firms In 1998 and 1999, Yahoo and Microsoft entered the chat game with Yahoo Messenger (originally Yahoo Pager) and MSN Messenger (Petronzio, 2016). At this point the stage was set and messaging was a part of the Internet and identified as an important function for many technology companies seeking to provide services to Internet years. In 2000, users started to embrace multi-protocol IM Clients such as Jabber, which could be used to communicate on different IM systems. Now there are firms that specialize in messaging such as Skype adding value with integrated video. The Move into Social Media Social media is very popular communication tool and many people connect to other for social interaction and business interactions (Hogan & Quan-Haase, 2010; Lebbon &

8

Sigurjonsson, 2016). From 2005 to 2008 many social network platforms integrated instant messaging into their offerings such as Google Talk, MySpaceIM, and Facebook Chat (Petronzio, 2016). As social media has appealed to audiences worldwide, this has increase the technology user base and by proxy, the number of instant messaging users. There are many users of Facebook that would not consider themselves “computer people.” However, the strong attraction of social connection with family and friends as well as the ability to share pictures, play games, and communicate via IM has create a loyal and robust users base for social media platform. One would be challenged to find someone who has not heard of Facebook, for example. The Future According to Chaykowski (2016), messaging will be the new mobile home screen. Chaykowski reviewed the Meeker's Internet Trends Report, 80% of most mobile users is in three apps. The majority of these are instant message communications via social media or messaging apps. Marketers have struggled for a long time with integrated marketing communication (IMC) because of the varied communication preferences of different population groups/generations (Gen X vs. Baby Boomers) (Kerin & Hartley, 2016). However, the ubiquitous availability of the internet via mobile devices seems to be changing this as one device can receive multiple channels of communication. Instant messaging seems to be at the fore front of these communications. It is estimated that there are 2.5 billion active IM accounts (Lebbon & Sigurjonsson, 2016). Approximately 47 billion IM messages are exchanged around the world and more than 10 trillion IM message delivered each year. Researchers suggested that smart phone IMs alone would increase to 1.3 billion by the end of 2016 (Ashdown, 2011). Research indicates that employees have a preference for IMs rather than email for time sensitive communication that is

9

not ultra-important or sensitive in nature (Spira & Feintuch, 2005). Further, workers demonstrate a preference for IM communication rather than telephone when multiple users are involved in communication or when privacy is needed and communications might be overheard by unintended recipients (Spira & Feintuch, 2005). The additional benefit of IM as a gratifying social activity that many individual find to be rewarding makes it an effective communication vehicle. Many find it difficult to ignor the visual, audio, or tactile notifications of new message receipts (Lebbon & Sigurjonsson, 2016). Workers become accustomed to instant communication and feedback. Once a history of communication reinforcement is established, IM communication becomes a core part of work interactions. These interactions allow for simultaneous communication that is both personal and productivity base. The combinations of enthusiastic participation by many users, quicks information receipt and dissemination, and the ability to communicate subtlety makes IM a very compelling tool for communication (Lebbon & Sigurjonsson, 2016). It allows the user to decide on both the timing and level of engagement for nearly any communication. This combination of ease of use, convenience, and availability drives use by users for both social and work interaction alike. More than 40% of Americans claimed to use IM frequently (Lenhard, Madden, & Hitlin, 2005). In colleges in the United States 89% of college students reported regular use of IM (Quan-Haase, 2008). In Canada, the numbers were even larger, over 97% of Canadian college students reported frequent IM use. Simply put IM is positioned to be a major communication mechanism in both the near and the long-term and may well become the user interface of the future. With this popularity comes great risks. End users are the one of the most common attack vectors for cyber attacks (Thomas, 2018). As IM has become in such common use, this creates

10

significant opportunities for cyber criminals to infect systems with ransomware which can have devastating consequences for businesses and is growing as the fastest type of extortion malware (Thomas, 2017). Proper backups have been the last line of defense against cyber attacks (Thomas & Galligher, 2018). However, user education and security awareness is believed the be the most effective counter measure (Thomas, 2018). Yet educating adult students requires specific assessment techniques and methods tailored to adult learners (Thomas & Hornsey, 2014). Information Security managers should take these challenges into account when administrating IM systems and education employees.

11

References Ashdown D. (2011). Press Release: Mobile instant messaging use to triple in fiveyears exceeding 1.3 billion users by 2016 says Juniper Research. Retrievedfrom http://www.juniperresearch.com/viewpressrelease.php?pr=248. Chaykowski, K. (2016, January 01). Five Highlights From Mary Meeker's 2016 Internet Trends Report. Retrieved August 01, 2016, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/kathleenchaykowski/2016/06/01/five-highlights-from-marymeekers-2016-internet-trends-report/#7fdd2bc57dac Hogan, B., & Quan-Haase, A. (2010). Persistence and Change in Social Media. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(5), 309-315. doi:10.1177/0270467610380012 Kerin, R. A., & Hartley, S. W. (2016). Marketing: The core (6th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Latzko-Toth, G. (2010). Metaphors of Synchrony: Emergence and Differentiation of Online Chat Devices. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(5), 362-374. doi:10.1177/0270467610380005 Lebbon, A. R., & Sigurjónsson, J. G. (2016). Debunking the instant messaging myth? International Journal of Information Management, 36(3), 433-440. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.02.003 Lenhart, A., Madden, M., & Hitlin, P. (2005). Teens and technology: Youth leading the transition to a fully wired mobile nation. Washington, DC: Pew and American Life Project. Mesch, G. S., Talmud, I., & Quan-Haase, A. (2012). Instant messaging social networks: Individual, relational, and cultural characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29(6), 736-759. doi:10.1177/0265407512448263

12

Petronzio, M. (2012). A brief history of instant messaging. Retrieved September 22, 2016, from http://mashable.com/2012/10/25/instant-messaging-history/#v5eu1bdq9EqT Quan-Haase, A. (2008). Instant messaging on campus: Use and integration in students’ everyday communication. The Information Society, 24, 105-115. Riordan, M. A., Markman, K. M., & Stewart, C. O. (2012). Communication Accommodation in Instant Messaging: An Examination of Temporal Convergence. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 32(1), 84-95. doi:10.1177/0261927x12462695 Shen, A. X. L., Cheung, C. M. K., Lee, M. K. O., & Chen, H. (2009). How social influence affects we-intention to use instant messaging: The moderating effect of usage experience. Information Systems Frontiers, 13(2), 157-169. doi:10.1007/s10796-009-9193-9 Spira, J. B., & Feintuch, J. B. (2005). The cost of not paying attention: how interruptionsimpact knowledge worker productivity. pp. 1–21. Basex Feintuch, Inc. September Statistica (2016). Most popular mobile messenger apps worldwide as of April, 2016, based on number monthly active users (in millions). Retrieved September 22, 2016, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/258749/most-popular-global-mobile-messenger-apps/ Tech Target (2008). What is instant messaging (IM or IM-ing or AIM)? - Definition from WhatIs.com. Retrieved September 22, 2016, from http://searchunifiedcommunications.techtarget.com/definition/instant-messaging Techopedia (n.d.). Techopedia explains bulletin board system Retrieved September 22, 2016, https://www.techopedia.com/definition/2481/bulletin-board-system-bbs Thomas, J. E. (2017, November 6). Combating ransomware with traditional backup. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.15403.13603

13

Thomas, J. E. (2018). Individual cyber security: Empowering employees to resist spear phishing to prevent identity theft and ransomware attacks. International Journal of Business and Management, 13(6), 1-24. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v13n6p1 Thomas, J. E., & Galligher, G. C. (2018). Improving backup system evaluations in information security risk assessments to combat ransomware. Computer and Information Science, 11(1), 14-25. doi:10.5539/cis.v11n1p14 Thomas, J. E., & Hornsey, P. E. (2014). Adding Riger to classroom assessment techniuqes for non-traditional adult programs: A liifecycle improvement approach. Journal of Instructional Research, 3, 27-37. doi:10.9743/JIR.2014.3.20 Vleck, T. (2013). The history of electronic mail. Retrieved September 22, 2016, from http://www.multicians.org/thvv/mail-history.html Yahoo! (2016). View contacts in Yahoo Messenger. Retrieved September 22, 2016, from https://help.yahoo.com/kb/SLN26947.html

14