I can understand being able to discuss a complex issue over voice, but can you explain how this is possible?
> it is far easier to work through something even remotely complicated with voice instead of text
I find that this is the exact opposite. Trying to explain an error message (or have an error explained to me), or providing numbers, a name, an address, etc. is always a nightmare on the telephone.
"I'm sorry was that a 'e' or a 'z'?"
"Was that a 9 or a 5?"
Maybe it's just a bad phone connection where we can't hear each other properly. But even in the impossible crystal clear reception circumstances:
I find that when typing the way to get through things quickly is to anticipate there responses and try to head them off in the initial email unless you want it to become and endless back and forth of one line emails and this is very hard to do.
I speak much quicker than I type so (250-300 wpm vs 50-60) as do most people so the communication happens a faster.
Finally, it is much easier to convey meaning and feelings g with tonality, non-word sounds (hmmmm, argh, a laugh etc) and then when negotiating tactical silences.
I was trying to renegotiate our payment terms with a supplier last week and while I knew we couldn’t get what we really wanted (even though every other supplier gives us those payment terms) I felt we could get an improvement over the current deal. So I rang their financial director, he asked some clarifying questions to my request (that I couldn’t have easily anticipated being the o my ones he would ask) he said no, I hmmmm, reiterated the problem at our end and implied switching supplier at the end of the season, he hmmmm’d, tried to deflect and when it was my turn to talk I intentionally stayed silent, he waited a few seconds and then filled the awkward silence with an offer of different payment terms that are halfway to what I really want and much better than what we have. If this was done over email he would never of given us the new payment terms as the text medium is too limited for this kind of negotiation.
Oh and when reading our letters just use the phonetic alphabet, much easier.
I’m not saying the phone is perfect t for everything but it is an important part of our cumminication options and is bette than text is an number of sutuations that the OP and many other commenters are ignoring in tech’s need to not talk to people in real time.
I’m 30, a millenial, the FD in question is in his 50s. It wasn’t social engineering it was negotiating to improve my businesses trading position - something that HN’ers should appreciate.
I’m also an engineer with a PhD in electronics, code regularly and run a factory. All this is to say that I’m not some sales/business development person who is clinging on to an old medium, I’m a business owner using the right tools for the job.
> it is far easier to work through something even remotely complicated with voice instead of text
I find that this is the exact opposite. Trying to explain an error message (or have an error explained to me), or providing numbers, a name, an address, etc. is always a nightmare on the telephone.
"I'm sorry was that a 'e' or a 'z'?"
"Was that a 9 or a 5?"
Maybe it's just a bad phone connection where we can't hear each other properly. But even in the impossible crystal clear reception circumstances:
"What are you seeing right now?"
"Navigate to this address: http://<unnecessarily long url> "
"I talked to someone before and they said..."
"Please hold"
These are all limitations of the platform, or maybe limitations with how it's implemented.
How exactly are you able to work through 'complex issues' better through a phone?