

Google Climbs to New Heights of Arrogance with Wave - webwright
http://gigaom.com/2009/05/28/google-climbs-to-new-heights-of-arrogance-with-wave/

======
edmccaffrey
The author thinks that wave is a product, but it is a protocol that they
demoed with an application.

It _is_ like email--they are both communication protocols. Why would he
compare a protocol to a product that uses a different protocol? It's like
comparing bittorrent to Firefox.

The creators rightly dismissed the question of monetization because you don't
monetize a protocol, you monetize programs built with it. The demo is just one
of many potential products that can be built on it, so they can't answer that
question based on it.

They rightly dismissed the competition of Sharepoint and Outlook because that
was primarily a presentation of the protocol. The demo seemed like something
thrown together to show how communication through the protocol looks like, and
not the premier application that they will use it for.

I have an idea for potentially using the protocol for a distributed issue
tracker that would work well with a DVCS; the protocol is not limited to
Outlook and Sharepoint competition.

~~~
tptacek
This is a dodge. Even TechCrunch was unable to talk about Wave without drawing
a direct comparison to FriendFeed, an actual product. Meanwhile, talking about
protocols without talking about applications is cart-before-the-horse
handwaving.

~~~
edmccaffrey
None of the writers at TweetCrunch seem like creative programmers; they
specialize in reporting on actual products, and not underlying protocols, so
there isn't anything for them to report. It's not a dodge because there isn't
anything to compare; you don't compare a protocol to a product that uses a
different one.

I/O is a developer conference; talking about the protocol without an actual
product is just fine--the demo was good enough to show developers what basic
features they can use for whatever product they can imagine.

That demo just shows what you can do. You can't compare it to any existing
product. As terrible as this article is, the author does come to the
realization that it will be useful for their actual email and office products,
however brushing that question off wasn't arrogant; it was a weak denial--a
developer conference isn't the right place to talk about their office
products.

~~~
tptacek
The GigaOm article isn't about what you want it to be about, but that doesn't
make it a bad article. They write on their terms, not yours. Those terms are:
where does Wave fit in with the Google ecosystem? What's likely to happen to
it? Is it worth an investment of time an interest?

The thesis of the article is that the Wave pitch is arrogant. The evidence
mustered is that Google has a poor track record of weaponizing innovation, and
has little to say right now about what they'd actually do with Wave, but is
prepared to say that Wave is more important than SharePoint, and maybe SMTP.

I don't have to agree with this thesis to see that it's worth considering.

~~~
edmccaffrey
"The GigaOm article isn't about what you want it to be about. . .Those terms
are: where does Wave fit in with the Google ecosystem? What's likely to happen
to it? Is it worth an investment of time an interest?"

That's actually exactly what I thought it was about. Your comment, applied to
this article, is the perfect explanation of why it is terrible: The
presentation isn't about what they want it to be about, but that doesn't make
it an arrogant presentation. Google was not doing a product presentation and
GigaOm didn't understand it, and got upset when Google dismissed questions
irrelevant to what they were presenting.

------
lssndrdn
Maybe Google Wave won't be as revolutionary as some think, but calling Google
arrogant for coming up with new stuff seems just ranting for the sake of
ranting.

~~~
joe_the_user
Yes, and they're doubly arrogant because they don't seem concerned with making
money with it. The callus bastards. It's almost like they're just sitting
there enjoying themselves...

~~~
ajju
callus vs. callous, related but not the same.

callus: A callus (or callosity) is an especially toughened area of skin which
has become relatively thick and hard as a response to repeated contact

callous: emotionally hardened; "a callous indifference to suffering"; "cold-
blooded and indurate to public opinion"

------
akamaka
The author cites Spencer Wang's estimate of YouTube's earnings yet again,
despite the fact that most HN reader have pointed out that those numbers are
useless.

It's amazing how crappy information like this keeps getting spread around, and
I think it reflects the authors eagerness to prove his point with little
regard for the facts.

------
Raphael_Amiard
"The breathtaking arrogance of blowing off potential competition and touting
tech buzzwords rather than at least giving a cursory examination as to how one
might make money from a product is the Google way"

One must not forget that, even if it was greatly mediatised, it was still a
develloper conference, not a consumer/enterprise conference. To be sure of
that, you can just search other "non-techy" news sites about it, and you will
see it's quite dead. For one good reason. It's not launched yet.

On the other hand, even if it's not launched, it's of great interrest to us
devs, and there is some rationale behind the fact of unveiling it before a
finished product is available, be it only for information purposes, since it's
gonna be an open platform.

Devs are by nature quite arrogant about their new babies, there is nothing
wrong with that. Wave looks quite exciting, and gigaom looks like they're
lacking some good material to make themselves interresting ...

------
ianbishop
The author mistook Google being 'arrogant' for Google just doing its thing.

Google is truly an idea farm. They push out their ideas in a subtle manner,
releasing rapid-prototypes to see what sticks.

Is that being arrogant or just smart? Have they ever released a product that
was over-hyped, over-marketed and have it flop?

Those are the kind of mistakes that kill companies. Apple could certainly lend
a story or two.

Admittedly, Google definitely goes overboard with some projects but none of
those were mentioned in this article.

------
jmtulloss
I'd hate to be arrogant myself, but I'm pretty sure the author "doesn't get
it". I wouldn't talk about sharepoint in the same breath either. Wave is a way
of tying communication mechanisms together, not a crappy web interface thrown
on top of shared storage.

~~~
tptacek
SharePoint is a huge big deal inside enterprises, and it's not just a crappy
web interface; it's also a crappy SDK for building crappy applications that
fit into that crappy web interface. So without endorsing SharePoint, I can see
how blowing it off is arrogant.

~~~
snprbob86
It should also be pointed out that SharePoint was Microsoft's fastest business
to ever reach $1B annually.

You think Google made Wave federated out of the kindness of their hearts?
Expect an enterprise version.

------
calambrac
This wasn't a shareholder meeting, it was a developer conference.

------
jamesk2
Add directory services and it becomes the way to communicate at a company
replacing Outlook/Exchange, MSN, Twitter, Skype.

I plan on using it at my company.

The only wish feature is directory services with administrative controls.

~~~
qeorge
Use what where? There's no product here.

I don't mean to be rude, but are you comfortable making Wave a big part of
your organization's process and culture? What will you do if Google stops
developing Wave?

~~~
dave_au
They're releasing the spec and large chunk of the code openly - if it's a good
idea and google stop developing it I'm sure someone else will step in.

~~~
qeorge
That's not how B2B services work though. Dependability trumps everything. If
your organization depends on a niche product who's provider exits the business
you've got a big problem.

Lets say Google releases Wave, it doesn't gain a lot of traction, and they
Jaiku it. For someone to pick up where they left off a lot of things would
need to happen:

\- Google would have to enable exporting your data capital into a standard
format

\- The new provider would have to match Google's now defunct service feature-
for-feature

\- The new provider would have to have the infrastructure to handle this
demanding XMPP app, which has real-time editing to the nth degree, and store
all of the associated rich media assets

\- The new provider would have to find a business model which would sustain
such expenses, succeeding where Google had failed

On top of this, the new developers would be expected to iterate the product,
provide customer support, and solve whatever problems caused the app to fail
under Google's tenure.

If you're sure Google will stick with Wave then none of this matters. But
that's not a bet I'd take.

------
mgrouchy
I honestly feel like the cool thing to do these days is hate. I mean everyone
is hating on something, Dave Winer is hating on twitter(even though he uses it
all day every day), Om is hating on wave, just seems like everyone is hating
on something.

I do understand that google is a huge company and definitely has some
financial end game associated with wave, but I don't mind that. What we need
is more companies innovating, regardless of whether they are failures yet or
not.

I think its irresponsible and ignorant to call a company arrogant because they
are not worrying about making money(at least initially). Only thing that is
evidenced by this article is that the author doesn't understand google or its
motivations.

------
mat3
Silicon Valley Google Wave Discussion lunch tomorrow (5/31)

Come, Bring a Friend and let's discuss Google Wave over lunch.

Please use the following link: <http://www.socializr.com/event/976099347> to
RSVP.

Feel free to forward to anyone who might be interested.

------
tamersalama
I'm inclined to think of Google as a platform rather than a product company.
It seems like a strong trend with what they are coming up with/acquiring. When
talking about monetizing a platform, it exactly what you be, get your initial
attempt out (especially if you have the $) and then monetize later.

------
ThomPete
The whole point about this of course is for google to allow for an even more
refined advertising product.

ALL their products fundamentally is about that.

It makes perfect sense.

------
illumen
Google wave will make all sorts of interesting interaction possible.

I love how it mixes and matches a bunch of different technologies and use
cases together.

A really interesting protocol. I wonder if it'll take off like how email did?

------
TweedHeads
And gigaom writers climb to new heights of ignorance with that post.

~~~
qeorge
I disagree. This post really resonated with me, although perhaps the title is
too much.

The half-assed launch of Wave today struck me as little more than an attempt
to steal a few news cycles from Bing. When Google actually develops and
releases a mature product based on the Wave concept I'll listen. Until then
I'll take Wave about as seriously as I take OpenSocial.

~~~
froo
_Until then I'll take Wave about as seriously as I take OpenSocial._

I'll see your OpenSocial and raise you a Knol.

