The fact that an SMS costs money is a feature. That way people will think twice before they SMS you. Free communications is only great if you have infinite time to communicate, as the cost of a bit approaches zero the quantity of bits goes up considerably. Things that before would have been fine to save up until you meet again now need to be sent instantly, and need to receive an instant response as well otherwise there will be a bunch of 'did you get my message' messages to follow up on the first one.

I prefer a slight barrier before I'm interrupted and don't mind paying the cost of sending a message. On top of that I don't like non-regulated foreign companies looking over my shoulder. That this is a non-standard pattern I'm well aware of but it suits me just fine.

I agree to a point. The barrier is something I miss sometimes. Because people will be asking something, and then start spamming question marks after 5 minutes.

If you're on a pre-paid plan then SMS doesn't just cost money. It's actually a finite amount you can send before you need to up it. Whereas Whatsapp can function on WiFi. So that can be a big deal if you have urgency.

> I don't like non-regulated foreign companies looking over my shoulder

I mean sure. You have to trust Facebook that the end-to-end encryption has no backdoors. But SMS is known for being intercepted really easyily.

What about just “apping” is that a word? On a business trip earlier this year my colleague told me (in English) “I’ll meet you down at the bar after apping with my daughter.”

Now that I think about it I’m not sure if “apping” implies texting, voice call, or video call. Lol

They do use "apping" as a shorthand sometimes. Dutch people abbreviate a lot.

Usually it's "I'll send you a Whatsappie", "I'll whatsapp you" or "I'll app you".