Before Facebook owned the domain, it belonged to Microsoft, whose MSN Messenger was once a rival to AIM. Last week we were reminded of the existence of AIM just long enough to reminisce about our youthful indiscretions on AOL’s messenger before its overdue termination in December. Internet messaging is one of those things that has been undergoing reinvention pretty much since the internet began.
#Messenger lite android#
But, for the first time, I am a fan of a particular offshoot of Facebook and that’s the Messenger Lite chat application that recently rolled out to Android phones in the US, UK, Canada, and Ireland. In short: Vlad Savov, not a Facebook fan. I’m baffled by the design of the company’s website, aggravated by the pushy data-thirsty ways of its apps, and unimpressed by the contrived niceness of its founder and boss. Too bad because it would be possible for the user to consume both less data AND less energy.If you’ve ever read praise for Facebook products on The Verge, it won’t have come from me. This choice between energy and data surely comes from the fact that the designers of applications don’t take energy as an important criterion. However, if you are one of the users who have an expensive data plan or a bad network connection, prefer the traditional version which will save you in terms of data exchanged.
#Messenger lite download#
The choice is difficult: prefer to consume less battery or less data? With the Lite version you will consume less storage space, less memory, if your priority is to consume less battery, download the lite version. By using Messenger Lite you will use less battery but will consume more data on the network. The promise of the lightened version is only partially respected, indeed an effort is to be made concerning the volume of data exchanged. It’s the same for the phase of inactivity in the foreground (2.73 mAh against 2.84 mAh) and the phase of inactivity in the background (1.76 mAh against 1.87 mAh).
The difference is more obvious during the chat phase (which here lasts 60 seconds), where Messenger Lite (10.91 mAh) consumes 10% less than Messenger (12.11 mAh). Regarding the launch phase, Messenger Lite (2.79 mAh) displays a consumption 13% lower than the traditional version (3.22 mAh). Messenger Lite’s power consumption is lower than Messenger. Indeed, the weight of Messenger Lite (24.38 MB) is 1.8 times lower than that of the traditional version of Messenger (45 MB). Results Applicationįrom the point of view of the weight of the application, the promise of Messenger Lite is respected. It allows you to send messages, photos, videos, gifs, but also to make audio and video calls. It’s the most popular messaging application in the world with nearly 1,500 million monthly active users. Messenger is an instant messaging app launched in 2011 incorporated into the Facebook social network. This is what we will check in this article comparing the traditional version of Messenger to its light Messenger Lite version. If the first version offered only few possibilities in terms of functionality, it was enriched during the year while maintaining its promise of a lighter version: less data exchanged on the network, less memory occupied, fewer resources engaged on the smartphone.
Facebook has made the choice to deploy Facebook Lite and Messenger Lite in other countries including countries of Europe. Nevertheless, success is also evident in developed countries where the connection in some regions is low. Messenger’s parent company Facebook launched its lightweight Messenger Lite version in 2016, originally intended for developing countries that don’t have stable, powerful connectivity or state-of-the-art smartphones.
0 kommentar(er)
