Microstreaming in the Middle

monkeymiddleI noted, in a post titled Shifting Sands, last week that I am twittering far more than IMing these days and gave the key reason why – it’s about us, not you or me.  I still think that’s the most important reason, but I have also discovered another:

Twittering is neither synchronous nor asynchronous; it lies somewhere in between.

“Whoa!”, you say.  “That’s impossible.”  You are correct from a technical standpoint, of course.  Twittering (and microstreaming in general) is an asynchronous form of communication.  There are delays between tweet publication, reading, and response.  Those delays could take days or hours, but they are most often measured in minutes or even seconds.  It is this broad range of possible interaction time with tweets that leads me to say that microstreaming lies somewhere in the middle of real-time and asynchronous communication.

Let me explain this further by contrasting two other forms of online communication — instant messaging and e-mail.  As the name clearly states, IM is instant or synchronous.  There are slight delays between message and response, but those are generally measured in seconds.  If it is believed that there will be a significant delay in response, most of us would choose to send an e-mail instead.  On the other hand, we may quickly receive a response to an e-mail (i.e. in a minute or two), but we don’t have that expectation when we use the medium to communicate.  We clearly classify e-mail as an asynchronous communication vehicle and IM as a synchronous one.

Microstreaming seems to have a different, flexible set of expectations for communication time associated with it.  In some cases, we hope for a nearly immediate response to a tweet.  Other times, we really don’t care how long it takes to get a reply.  In fact, we occasionally tweet with no expectation of any response whatsoever!  We merely communicate a thought or feeling to the collective just to get it out of our head.  These varying expectations for microstreaming communication time are what leads me to say that the channel is neither synchronous nor asynchronous, but somewhere in between.

Is temporal flexibility the secret sauce of microstreaming?  Please let me know what you think.


4 responses to “Microstreaming in the Middle

  1. Larry, thought provoking post. I’ve picked up on your themes in our exchange at TheAppGap. http://snurl.com/5ezz0 [www_theappgap_com]

  2. It depends, I guess. We’ve now been using an internal microsharing/microblogging plattform to foster project and team communication. we observed both: a) nearly real-time conversations close to chatting and b) conversations spanning days and weeks. Basically it depends on the urgency of the topic.

    But there is one thing that happens for sure: E-mail is beeing pushed back where it belongs: to be truely asynchronous!

  3. Thanks for the comment, Dirk! What you describe is precisely the type of flexibility of use that I believe is a key differentiator for microstreaming. Its too early to tell how far microstreaming will cut into e-mail and IM traffic, but, as your experience reinforces, it has caused a reduction. And a welcome one at that!

  4. Pingback: Twitter Trackbacks for Microstreaming in the Middle « Together, We Can! [lehawes.wordpress.com] on Topsy.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s