Are Phone Numbers Doomed To Die? (fortune.com) 289
HughPickens.com writes: Valentina Zarya writes at Fortune Magazine that the top 2016 prediction for David Marcus, Facebook's vice president of messaging products, is the disappearance of the phone number and its replacement by applications like Facebook's Messenger. " You can make video and voice calls while at the same time not needing to know someone's phone number," writes Marcus. "You don't need to have a Facebook account to use Messenger anymore, and it's also a cross platform experience – so you can pick up where you left off whether you're on a desktop computer, a tablet, or your phone." Jonah Berger, Wharton professor and author of "Contagious: Why Things Catch On" agrees. "For most of us, I think it's really hard to actually remember what someone's phone number actually is. We use our phones so often or we click on a button that has it. But if there was a test where you had to say, do you remember your best friends number or could you type in your best friend's number I think most of us would fail."
But not everyone agrees that Marcus' predictions are objective and disinterested. "It's all very well the company wanting to be the de facto Internet — especially in places like India. But drier minds and eyes might wonder whether the wish to eradicate phone numbers has something to do with not everyone having yet given Facebook their phone numbers," says Chris Matyszczyk. "It may well be that phone numbers will disappear. Some, though, might wonder how making their disappearance a company theme squares with what Marcus claims is the ultimate goal: 'It's all about delight.' This one's easy. It's all about delighting Facebook."
But not everyone agrees that Marcus' predictions are objective and disinterested. "It's all very well the company wanting to be the de facto Internet — especially in places like India. But drier minds and eyes might wonder whether the wish to eradicate phone numbers has something to do with not everyone having yet given Facebook their phone numbers," says Chris Matyszczyk. "It may well be that phone numbers will disappear. Some, though, might wonder how making their disappearance a company theme squares with what Marcus claims is the ultimate goal: 'It's all about delight.' This one's easy. It's all about delighting Facebook."
I can see this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I can see this (Score:5, Insightful)
Facebook boss says people will flock to Facebook. Who'd thunk it?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
They're ramping up their Facebook advertising in order to help offset the huge flop that Oculus Rift will be.
Re:I can see this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I can see this (Score:5, Insightful)
I would love it to be ip addresses, but I want cellphones to be forced to allow me to do address blocks and wildcard blocking.
The fact that I cant on my cellphone put in 1800* to block every single 800 number from calling my phone is stupid. the phones can do it, why the hell doesnt google bake this into the damn os?
Re:I can see this (Score:5, Informative)
The fact that I cant on my cellphone put in 1800* to block every single 800 number from calling my phone is stupid. the phones can do it, why the hell doesnt google bake this into the damn os?
Cyanogenmod. Enable wildcards.
1800.*
Re:I can see this (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that I cant on my cellphone put in 1800* to block every single 800 number from calling my phone is stupid. the phones can do it, why the hell doesnt google bake this into the damn os?
Cyanogenmod. Enable wildcards. 1800.*
Are you some sort of terrorist?
Re:I can see this (Score:4, Informative)
why the hell doesnt google bake this into the damn os?
Because Google is an advertising company, and denying access to their partners would be like cutting their nose off.
Since I remember numbers better than names, I say lets abolish naming your kid, and just buy him/her a SIM card.
Re: (Score:3)
Because Google is an advertising company, and denying access to their partners would be like cutting their nose off.
That makes no sense. Google is not making money from spam calls. The spammers are bypassing Google, so it would be to Google's advantage to help block them.
Re: (Score:2)
Grandcentral R.I.P.
http://www.lylebackenroth.com/... [lylebackenroth.com]
Google acquired them and has done next to no improvements. Off the top of my head, the only change I can think of is that they removed the ability to record calls placed by you while notifying both parties.
nonsense. (Score:5, Interesting)
"phone numbers" are how the switching -- and billing -- are done for landlines, cell phones, and for many data services like DSL.
they are not going away. he can hide his, but he can't change everybody elses.
Re:nonsense. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm willing to bet that Valentina Zarya, David Marcus, and Facebook all have phone numbers which they don't plan to replace with applications like Facebook's Messenger.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Naked-line DSL still has a (non-working) phone number attached to it.
Re:I can see this (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly this! Plus, I'm wondering what the "Facebook" form of calling my local bank would be, or the pizza place down the street to order some dinner, or how about the equivalent of 911? A big part of phone numbers is the decentralized yet cross-compatible networks. Instant messaging services where starting to go this way a decade ago with Jabber, then Facebook and Google decided all of a sudden that this was somehow a BAD idea?
Tweet to order a pizza from Domino's (Score:2)
I'm wondering what the "Facebook" form of [...] the pizza place down the street to order some dinner
Probably something like Domino's Tweetzza [techcrunch.com].
Instant messaging services where starting to go this way a decade ago with Jabber, then Facebook and Google decided all of a sudden that this was somehow a BAD idea?
Because spam. WhatsApp, for example, is built on the same protocol as Jabber but has deliberate incompatibilities to discourage spammers.
Re:I can see this (Score:5, Insightful)
Worse.
"Ok... I got facebook, skype and AIM. You got any of those?"
"Wow, you're old. Nope, don't use those. I got Whatsapp and telegraph. You good for any of those?"
"Nope. Hang on... how about kik? Not used that in a while."
"Kik, no. Really, you should just up... oh, hang on. I think I have ICQ from back in the day. Don't know if it still works, got that one?"
"Not any more. Look, how about we just swap phone numbers?"
Wishful thinking (Score:5, Interesting)
I bet Facebook would think twice about wanting to replace phone numbers with Facebook IDs when they see the regulations common carriers operate under.
Your serious? (Score:2)
Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite a few people are not on Facebook, Twitter, etc. It would also be _hugely_ unprofessional to do any job-related communication over such a venue.
This is just the usual bullshit from people that get starry-eyes when fantasizing how the future will be, but have no clue how reality actually works. Basically the only old global communication channel that has vanished is the telegram. And there are services in many countries that will print out an email and deliver it to the target address for a fee. So, really, complete nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
This is just the usual bullshit from people that get starry-eyes when fantasizing how the future will be, but have no clue how reality actually works.
Oh, I don't think so. It's not starry-eye people at all
Facebook is hoping you would replace your phone with a Facebook (TM) app. And Windows is surely hoping that your Windows Live (TM) login would serve the same function (after you login to your Windows account on your desktop/laptop/phone/car, your calls should just carry over via Skype, right?)
Other venues are hoping for the same thing, but don't have the penetration to seriously expect this.
Re: (Score:3)
I just did an interview over google hangouts, w/o a phone number.
Then how'd you get a Google account with which to use Hangouts? Or, like me, do you get in early enough before Google started requiring [stackexchange.com] new users to provide a mobile phone number to act as an additional means of account recovery and as a means of increasing spammers' cost to sign up?
Re: (Score:3)
Hangouts works just fine in Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
I think AC was trying to say that signing up for a Google account without a phone number requires either an Android tablet with Google Play or an iPad or iPod touch.
Re: (Score:3)
And AC would still be wrong. I just created a new account and didn't provide a phone number. It asks for one during registration and encourages its use for account recovery purposes, but does not require one and doesn't require anything other than tabbing through the field or clicking elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
And you might have driven an electric car to work last week. That doesn't mean ICE cars are obsolete, does it?
A transfer point between subway and bus (Score:2)
Intermodal public transit systems may require the user to transfer from a subway train to a bus.
Are we Doomed to Never-Ending Hype? (Score:2)
Please, someone reply with something hopeful, like "On the whole, overhyping topics is actually on the decrease"....
Did IP numbers disappear? (Score:5, Insightful)
Behind the comms there will still be numbers or codes to lead to the address.
I'd be damned to use Facebook's spying services when I don't even have to log in or go to a specific site or app to press a pre-set button and make a call.
Or simply scan through my address book, click on the name and talk.
Re: (Score:2)
we need a public utility (Score:5, Insightful)
Telephone service is a public utility, and as such has a variety of regulations, including on how pricing works, and where service is provided. If it is to be replaced, we need some other sort of public utility that can be used for communications.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Telephone service is a public utility, and as such has a variety of regulations, including on how pricing works, and where service is provided."
And emails and messaging is already cheaper and available in more locations. I can send an email for free, telephone service costs like 60 dollars a month minimum (and that is not factoring the billions of dollars of public money they suck up). And whole swaths of the world that have no access to any other communication form have email and Facebook.
Based on your me
I pay one-eighth of that (Score:3)
telephone service costs like 60 dollars a month minimum
I don't know where you're getting that figure, as I get telephone service from Virgin Mobile USA for $90 per year.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to pay the phone company an extra $40 a month for email capability on top of the $20 a month for the phone line.
Costs 15 cents to send a message on my cell phone though I could pay $40 a month for unlimited messaging.
For $5 + the $20 a month to the phone company I have unlimited calling anywhere in N. America, and that's without shopping around.
Re: (Score:3)
And emails and messaging is already cheaper and available in more locations. I can send an email for free, telephone service costs like 60 dollars a month minimum
Really? I've known people who live in very rural areas. In such areas, the options for internet access are generally limited to satellite and dial-up. However, as long as there's electricity, phone service is available too.
Also, I have no idea where you get your pricing figures. I pay $30/month for my cell phone service. I don't have a landline, but I imagine if I wanted to get one, it would be a similar price. $60/month sounds more on-par with what I pay for cable internet service.
Re: (Score:3)
You can get e-mail, but not phone, at a public library.
Re: (Score:3)
Here in the UK we went through a great deal of regulatory pain over the last 30 years to go from a single state run monopoly in the shape of Post Office Telephones (yes, I am old enough to remember them), who wouldn't even let you buy your physical telephone from anyone else, let alone the telephone service, to the current state where although British Telecom run
Re: (Score:3)
Telephone service is a public utility, and as such has a variety of regulations, including on how pricing works, and where service is provided. If it is to be replaced, we need some other sort of public utility that can be used for communications.
And most importantly who can listen in on your communications. As much as govt shits me, as least we can vote them out, what happens when a corporation has that power?
Phone Numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
- Universally Ubiquitous
- Nationalized
- Lowest Common Denominator
- (for POTS anyway) Pretty damn rock solid in most of the world
Did Facebook kill Email? No.
Did Google kill the address bar? No.
Did Apple kill the PC? No.
Did solar panels (insert any other energy technology) kill the grid? No.
Will Facebook messenger (or any company-centric IM system) kill telephones? No.
Next flamebait topic please.
Re:Phone Numbers (Score:5, Funny)
- Universally Ubiquitous
- Nationalized
- Lowest Common Denominator
- (for POTS anyway) Pretty damn rock solid in most of the world
Did Facebook kill Email? No.
Did Google kill the address bar? No.
Did Apple kill the PC? No.
Did solar panels (insert any other energy technology) kill the grid? No.
Will Facebook messenger (or any company-centric IM system) kill telephones? No.
Next flamebait topic please.
Yes, but video killed the radio star....
Re: (Score:2)
Next flamebait topic please.
Did video kill the radio star?
Re: (Score:2)
Did Google kill the address bar? No.
Google did kill most of the market for "catchy" domain names and reduced the market share of "mistyped" URLs.
I believe we have another example of... (Score:2)
Betteridge's Law of Headlines. [wikipedia.org]
Not Disappearing Any Time Soon (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Phone numbers are the defacto, common and relatively stable identifier that most people possess today.
Which, ironically, is exactly why Facebook wants to know yours.
Re: (Score:2)
My phone number changes every time I move house, but my email address etc remain the same.
Re: (Score:3)
Phone numbers are the defacto, common and relatively stable identifier that most people possess today. Yes, it may be archaic, but most people are comfortable with it, a global, relatively neutral means of communication.
Not to mention globally unique within a nation. Imagine trying to do that with names.
Frank: Hey John, what's your ID?
John: John.smith.
Frank: I've got 2239 John Smiths.
John: John Smith from Idaho.
Frank: That's narrowed it down to 147.
John: Try John F Smith.
v Frank: Still got 32.
John: OK, let me try to message you... There's 243 Frank Blogs in this state alone, which one are you.
Isn't it much easier to say.
Frank: Hey John, what's your number
John: Give me a moment to look it up, I c
Possible reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a need for a universal identifier standard for recipients and communication of some kind. A proprietary one is not acceptable, in the least because tech companies come and go like pop stars.
A new standard would only replace phone numbers if it offers something significantly better. Standards are rarely displaced by something just a little bit better. It's why QWERTY keyboards and SQL (as a language) are still common.
A communication ID standard that offers letters and longer identifiers may be competitive, but there's nobody pushing such in a non-proprietary way. (Phone numbers can also spell out short mnemonics, but in an awkward way.)
The phone system could morph into such because an existing phone number could still be a valid identifier within the new standard, somewhat like how UNICODE still contains ASCII.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever new standard we had would end with the rough equivalent of a machine-generated Google mail address. BobMa1283.
You could possibly use a scheme like base-36 instead of just numbers. 212-555-1212 shortens up to Z5HXT9, but I'm not sure that's necessarily easier to remember. I can easily see some kind neuropsychologist explaining that a longer all-digit number is actually easier to remember because it has fewer symbols.
Re: (Score:3)
Unlike email addresses, because one would have to pay to keep them*, they should not have bloated name-spaces.
For example, I estimate there are roughly 500 Martha Stewart's in the world. If you don't pay to keep your ID, then it expires and can be used by another Martha Stewart after a grace period.
Thus, you may see many ID's similar to MarthaStewart473, but there should not be many like MarthaStewart473807. Plus, many may opt to use a
Re: (Score:2)
I can only guess that if there was a new schema for phone numbers (er, maybe "communications identifiers") one of two things would happen.
The geeks would win, and the identifiers would be obnoxiously long because some committee decided it needed to scale out to pan-galactic levels, include a cryptographic signature and be directly transliterable across every language, including Klingon, ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics and the language of a tribe in the Amazon basin that only uses clicks and whistles and writ
Re: (Score:3)
It's already pretty much happened (proprietary concerns notwithstanding) with email addresses.
Email addresses have largely become a defacto standard for login usernames.
It's pretty easy to envision a near future where someone "calls your email", and it transparently maps to the phone # you have registered for that address. In fact that's already essentially how it works in certain applications (eg, Skype and iMessage).
And to your point, an email address certainly isn't guaranteed to be "lifetime permanent"
Um no? (Score:2)
Doesn't it bind by phone number if you don't want to create a FB account?
I can't see phone numbers disappearing, but I can see the possibility of shorter numbers being created for accounts that can only handle SMS and data.
Semantically, aren't we already there? (Score:2)
Seven years ago, I met my wife (we were not yet married at the time, I can assure you), and we exchanged phone numbers. That the last time I think I ever looked at or thought about her phone number. I don't call numbers, I call contacts. The number in this case is like an initial handshake; once I have it I don't use it anymore. The phone number can go away quite easily because our mental schema is already prepared for it.
Re: (Score:2)
No we're not because I bet you have your mobile number memorised. Whenever you meet someone and want to exchange contact details you give them your number. The fact that they may load it into a contacts system which obfuscates the number doesn't change that the number was what you exchanged. Also when you have a lower quality sound connection, ie every time you use a phone, numbers are much easier to understand than letters. Zero, four, three, zero, two, nine is much easier to get correct than Esss, Eff
Tango hotel echo golf alpha mike echo (Score:2)
Zero, four, three, zero, two, nine is much easier to get correct than Esss, Eff, Bee, Pee.
That's why schools need to teach the long names of letters [wikipedia.org]. "Sierra foxtrot bravo papa" should carry just as well as "zero four three zero two niner" over any given voice channel.
Re: (Score:2)
This is fine for native english speakers as it's just memorising a couple of extra words. For anyone who is already struggling with the language this will make life hell.
J whiz (Score:2)
I don't see how the International Radiotelephony Spelling Alphabet would cause a problem to speakers of English as a second language. In fact, it might clear up confusion. Case in point: G is called J in French, and J is called G. But the long names are "Golf" and "Juliett", which eliminates the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
The last time someone asked me for my phone number, I FB-friended them instead. We did it by name, and suddenly we were in each-other's iPhone contacts list. Obviously you don't do that for just anyone, but that fact that it's possible is an indicator that phone numbers are no longer as essential, as far as information goes, as they used to be.
Re:Semantically, aren't we already there? (Score:4)
You would never do this for business though. And when it comes to communication methods it is business that wins. That is why email continues to dominate despite how many headlines saying email is dead.
Re: (Score:2)
By going to Walmart, buying a few boxes of DiGiorno pizza, and popping one in the oven. Or by going to Dominos.com or wherever.
Re: (Score:2)
Internet?
Re: (Score:2)
www.papajohns.com
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook will go first (Score:5, Insightful)
I hereby predict that Facebook will disappear before phone numbers.
Let's come back in 20 years and compare my track record with David Marcus's.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It will likely go the same way as Myspace, which is still around, but hardly anyone uses it any more.
Domain names are doomed to die (Score:2)
As a replacement, Google will eventually implement a new system based on HTTP requests to some RESTful API they designed that returns an IPv6 address when queried with a human-readable na
I Am All For It! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Jim, you stay the hell away from Svetlana! I'm warning you.
Sure, online address books are nice... (Score:3)
but there are actually a few phone numbers that I remember, and can type on a telephone keypad (or the numbers-only widget on a smartphone) quicker than I can look them up (even with type-ahead on the person's name). They're also harder make data-entry errors with than a written-out e-mail address, or, worse, someone's Facebook or Google+ name.
That's not how phone numbers are used. (Score:2)
>> "I think it's really hard to actually remember what someone's phone number actually is."
That's not how phone numbers are used. Today, they are one-time use IDs that we use to contact someone else, then both people's phones remember the number forever. In a way, it's like how Skype works: you type in the other person's ID (once) and you're forever connected.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how phone numbers have been used in a long time. That's why we have all-digit-dialing instead of calling ENglewood 3-1234.
So long as you use the same handset (Score:2)
Today, they are one-time use IDs that we use to contact someone else, then both people's phones remember the number forever.
"Forever" or "until I buy a new phone or have to borrow someone's"?
Facebook Messenger will die before phone numbers (Score:3)
Nope (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah but it can be just like an IP address. You don't remember it or use it directly. It can also change from time to time, and you can have more than one.
I want to contact a person, not a phone. I don't care if that person answers from a phone on a 4G cellular network, or computer on a wired network. Therefore, I couldn't care less about the MSISDN.
The best identifier right now is the email address. It is unique, cross-platform, standardized, free and vendor-neutral. Unlike phone numbers and Facebook.
Microsoft ISDN? Oh god no (Score:2)
You still need some id over the mobile network. Ad of 4G it is an MSISDN.
That threw me for a moment. How can 4G be modern if it uses Microsoft and ISDN?
They won't disappear; they'll just hide (Score:2)
Phone numbers may very well disappear, but there will still be some sort of "number" that ties you to whatever communications device you are using, even though it may be hidden. Just like right now on your Smartphone when you hit the "Call Mom" button. You may not even know the phone number, but it's still used. Call it another name if you like, like a userid, but it will still be there in one form or another.
Not Facebook (Score:2)
Phone numbers are going to die. But Facebook isn't the answer. Any proprietary solution isn't the answer.
Re:Not Facebook (Score:4, Interesting)
Phone numbers are going to die. But Facebook isn't the answer. Any proprietary solution isn't the answer.
It's especially not going to happen outside of the US. Imagine the president of Russia ordering military maneuvers using Facebook Messenger. Not going to happen.
It would be extremely complicated to switch away from phone numbers and phone numbers in and of themselves do not have considerable drawbacks, so phone numbers will probably be around for the foreseeable future. We humans will no doubt see the actual number less often as our software gets more intelligent, but the number will still exist, much like the ip address of a server.
Schmercus already (Score:2)
Imagine if you called Marcus ... and got Mercus instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if you called Marcus ... and got Mercus instead.
I'm sorry you've got the wrong number, this is 912.
As Mark Twain might have said (Score:2)
"Reports of the phone number's death have been greatly exaggerated."
(If nothing else, there will always be "867-5309.")
Like any legacy system... (Score:2)
Isn't that what email addresses are for? (Score:2)
In the past 15 years, I've been through over a dozen phone numbers in 5 different area codes, but have had a single email address (using my own domain).
Why would I count on an particular vendor's IM service to be my "phone number"? If I'm going to trust something to be a permanent identifier to reach me, I'm not going to use a company that's only been a public company for 4 years.
A Rose by any other name...? (Score:2)
Does it matter if it's not a "phone number" anymore, whatever it will be (certainly not an Facebook account), will function pretty much the same way, just with less oversight and more government and corporate snooping involved.
Universal (Score:2)
This will have to be more universal, with one provider seamlessly connecting with another. I don't want to keep 1 account per service and only having 1 account might limit who I could speak with. Imagine if email would have caught on if you had to have a gmail account in order to send an email to someone on gmail.
XMPP chat did most of what would be required, but it seems it's not catching on.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the one single thing that pisses me off about all these messaging services. Well, that and needing accounts on all of them.
Re:Universal (Score:5, Informative)
And that's what XMPP was supposed to have fixed. XMPP was really about decentralization and federation. You simply didn't need an account with Google or any particular company to participate. Then Google decided to cut off federation with gmail, making what could have been a great, widely-used protocol, into something incredibly broken. It was this breaking of XMPP by Google (after years of promoting XMPP) that marked the beginning of the change from "don't be evil" into what it has become today.
I used to run my own Jabber server with my own domain, communicating with gmail users and others, and it worked lovely until Google decided to cut off access to their users. Suddenly my own server became nearly useless with all my non-techy friends suddenly unable to communicate. Sure I could have granted them all accounts on my server, but most of them had just used the google chat program, and switching them to something more open would be difficult for them, to say nothing of *their* friends who are on gmail anyway.
So XMPP is essentially dead, thanks to google and we are not better off for it, no matter what they want us to believe about Hangouts.
No (Score:2)
The answer is "no", you ignorant web-obsessed dipsticks.
Phone numbers will be around for a long, long time, so stop babbling this nonsensical bullshit.
Obviously it's "Whackjob Wednesady" at slashdot, where the dumbest "news" article gets posted to the front page while real news is buried where it will never see the light of day.
Simple test (Score:2)
Perhaps (Score:3)
I can see the phone number giving way to an IPV6 addess eventually, but it's not going to transform into some messenger app.
Never! (Score:3)
Re:Betteridge, etc (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep. Trolling by Betteridge effect [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Facebook is in the business of selling Facebook.
That this idiot is saying stupid shit is just a symptom of that.
In general, I find pundits and futurists to be full of shit. In the specific, this man is saying stuff so monumentally stupid as to defy belief.
Sorry, Facebook, you're not going to displace a hundred years of telephone just because you have a fucking app.
I'd throw Zuckerfuck off a bridge before I'd use his crap for my telephone.
Namecoin (Score:2)
but who gets to administer the DNS servers/entries?
Perhaps the blockchain can do it [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
I could see the phone system at work soon becoming integrated with the email address book
You are a day late and a dollar short.
Re:anonymity (Score:4)
FB can wind up abandoned as quickly as it gained steam. We saw that with Geocities, Hotmail, and MySpace. I can trust AT&T to be around a long time.
AT&T can fall off the map tomorrow, and phone numbers continue to work around the world. The advantage of phone and email (as technologies) over facebook messenger is that they aren't tied to a particular company AT ALL.
My email address will work independently of any company. And i move my email address from host company to company, as I see fit, or even self host if I feel the need.
My phone, likewise, I've moved between multiple carriers over the years; if carrier A started pissing me off too much, I'd move to carrier B.
The idea that you can have a messenger account with out a facebook account is just smoke and mirrors... of course you have a facebook account.
Do NOT want.
Re:Who here doesn't have an e-mail account? (Score:4, Interesting)
You have an IP address. Do you know it? Your computer can't really function without it nowadays. It's there, but it's not necessary to know.
Your phone has an IMEI number. Do you know it? Do you know what IP address it was assigned? Do you care? No.
But what detail do you remember? What do you login with? How do you give a contact your details? I don't know about you but I don't read out my phone number except in very rare circumstances. At worst, someone dials the other party's number ONCE, and then we both assign the number to a contact on our phones. With name, and photo. The things that remind us of that person. Nobody cares about the number.
Nobody is saying numbers will go away. We're saying nobody needs know them and it would only take a single protocol to come along with a hint of "coolness" to get rid of them forever.
Rather than "My number is..." and then a string of numbers, you'll just say "I'm fredbloggs21 on Whatsbook". And people will be able to get your phone number (which they'll store as Fred in their phones), email, IM, etc. just from that. They already do. The younger generations don't piss about with phone numbers already. They have no need. They find each other on facebook and then from there it's "What your instagram?" or whatever.
Phone numbers will die out of common use, the same way that IP addresses will. Nobody cares about what their particular one is, nobody need know it, nobody need share it. At worst, you give a descriptive name via a service that encompasses that number without you knowing. No different to DNS or email (Do you know what IP of what email server your email goes to when sent to your domain? Or that it goes to port 25? Because 99.9% of people couldn't give a shit).