
Bing, Wave, and Other Painful Attempts to Change Culture - peter123
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/165815/bing_wave_and_other_painful_attempts_to_change_culture.html
======
swannodette
Unfortunately the article like so many others misses the point on Google Wave.
It really shows how much people can be distracted by visuals. Google announces
a entirely new protocol for internet communication (not just for the web) and
people are complaining about UI complexity? And it's not entirely their fault,
Google really, really hyped the UI.

Google Wave is potentially a new real-time (in the interactive sense) protocol
for the web, one that easily supports many different languages (robots talk to
waves across a protocol). And by open sourcing the server we have a new
scalable distributed ecosystem for user generated content. Extensions (built
on robots) are parasitic, this opens up incredible interactive possibilities.
From the keynote it is clear that you will be able talk to a Wave server as
easily from Vim or Emacs as it is from Google's fancy HTML 5 UI.

~~~
moe
Well, when you look at the google video then Lars says very early on what this
is all about: To supersede E-Mail. The prototype client is just that - a
prototype client.

Without having seen the product I'm very eagerly looking forward to what comes
out of this.

In fact, from the presentation it seems they aim even higher, in good, old
google fashion. Not only do they want to replace SMTP, but also all
proprietary instant messaging protocols, Facebook and twitter - in one fellow
swoop.

I say if there is a company to pull this off then it is google. All of this is
way overdue and they seem to be on a good track; being XMMP based and, most
importantly, _open_.

To put it bluntly: This could be the end of Spam. The end of E-Mail. The end
of multi-protocol IM-clients. The end of icq, msn, aim, qq, yim, jabber,
skype(?). The end of Facebook, myspace, twitter, maybe even flickr. The end of
all the half-baked wiki implementations we have today.

I like it.

------
TomOfTTB
This is just alarmism for alarmism's stake.

Don't make a suggestion engine because it could become massively popular and
cause Google to change the way it does search. Don't introduce a new way of
collaboration because it could take the world by storm and replace the
linearity in communication we have now.

The flaw in that logic, as I see it, is the idea that one type of product will
"conquer" another. An example: Lets say suggestion engines become massively
popular and Google decides to replace their search with a bing-type service.
Don't you think another service will pop up to capture the customers who don't
want that type of service? Do you really think a large group of users will
become disenfranchised with all the startups out there vying for any customers
they can get their hands on? I doubt it.

So given that why wouldn't you let the people who want non-linear solutions
have what they want?

~~~
pohl
I thought the appeal to the 'linearity' of blogs was a bit funny, especially
since this very post that I'm writing now has a parent-child relationship to
TomOfTTB's post above.

Some blog engines don't have hierarchical discussions, but many of the best
do.

------
mean_n_stupid
tech, fear-mongering, culture.

In this story a liberal arts major who spends a lot of time on the internet
writes an attention-grabbing headline that appears to have substance since it
addresses "culture," the ever-useful buzzword of the collegiate essayist.

------
anigbrowl
I don't think much of an article that uses the word 'surface' as a passive
verb, as is 'Bing does more to surface information you're probably looking
for...' ...uh, no.

