
Google Wave Drips With Ambition. A New Communication Platform For A New Web. - blazamos
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/05/28/google-wave-drips-with-ambition-can-it-fulfill-googles-grand-web-vision/
======
cschneid
This is silly, it doesn't account for the many, many axes of communication.

* Push vs. Pull. Does the recipient have to ask to get incoming messages.

* Off the cuff vs. Official. How quickly is the communication written, how much thought goes into formal language & proofreading.

* Personal vs. Notification (this is a big problem for communication). Regular mail has fallen to this, 99% of mail is automated messages, both wanted and unwanted. Email is going the same direction. Phone never has moved very far that direction.

* Filtered vs. Raw. Computer filtered, or human filtered. Spam, autocategorization, etc.

And then it adds document problems to it:

* Collaborative vs. Sign off. Am I co-writing the document with somebody or is it a write-revise-signoff cycle?

* Controlled vs. AdHoc. How formal does the collaboration need to be. Does it make sense for us to both be editing things, or is internal consistency too important to allow concurrent edits?

Basically, just saying "screw email, it's a chat! With Widgets!" totally
ignores what people use communication services for, and the varying levels of
formality, proofreading, speed, style, and automation.

A quick rundown of communication protocols that exist:

Email: Delayed, Push for the most part, Filtered, lots of notifications

IM: Instant, Push, Raw, few notifications

Blog: Delayed, Pull, Filtered (RSS reader, you decide what to read), few
notifications.

Waves: Instant, Push (?), Raw, notifications... maybe?

Basically, it fits in the IM category for the most part. Why would this
replace my email to the boss containing a page of pros vs. cons on a new
technology that we were going to adopt? Would this replace the automated
quarterly emails from HR showing me my 401k balance (and does it do the job
any better?).

Summary:

Very technologically cool, but I have no idea how it fits well into the
framework of communication types, and adds anything that's not covered
adequately with current communication methods.

A thought I have had was that twitter flourished because it was a different
set of attributes from anything else that existed (along with other things of
course).

~~~
mlinsey
Tough to say without trying it, but I think this has the potential to be a
very _flexible_ format and therefore potentially cover more use cases than you
are giving it credit for.

As an example, I wouldn't want to turn writing the page of pros vs. cons to my
boss into a big collaborative discussion. But once I write the big long list
in draft mode and then send it off, it would probably be great if the boss and
the whole team could have a conversation about the document in real-time and
at various places in the document. It would sure be more manageable than the
big email chains in outlook that I've got now.

~~~
dkarl
What is "flexibility" from a technical point of view is "ambiguity" from a
social point of view. Is the conversation real-time or only _potentially_
real-time? IM is a real-time conversation, like two people speaking. E-mail is
not. A single protocol and interface for both means people will be constantly
confused about each other's intentions. I like the idea of combining and
persisting all communications about a single topic, but in the screenshots it
looks like all Wave messages look the same. "Draft" mode vs. keystroke mode
provides a clue, but what if I don't see the message arrive? What if I have a
real-time conversation with somebody, and then five minutes after it ends, one
of us posts another message? We have to add some kind of comment indicating
whether it is intended as a continuation of the previous conversation, the
beginning of a new real-time conversation, or a one-off message (with the
sender perhaps not available to chat at the moment.)

Everything that is currently implicit in the mode of communication (email, IM,
etc.) and in mode-specific indicators (IM status, etc.) will now have to be
communicated explicitly. That seems like a big step backwards. Google Wave
will do well if it usefully _aggregates_ many different modes of
communication, but if it attempts to _unify_ them then it will be socially
unworkable, a total flop.

~~~
skorgu
I don't follow your logic at all. I frequently have essentially real-time
conversations via email. If someone steps away the conversation doesn't 'end'
it just reverts to a slower pace. Gmail with its conversation-oriented view is
already closer to an IM flow than most traditional email clients.

I don't have email interactions or IM interactions, I have _conversations_. I
frequently switch off an email chain to an IM or telephone or even in person.
If wave lets me coordinate that all in one interface and let me access the
same history and context from multiple locations it will be phenomenally
useful for me.

~~~
dkarl
I have real-time conversations via email, too. The difference is in the
expectations of the participants. It's subtle and social. I wouldn't just walk
away from a fast-running IM conversation to go to lunch without saying
something to let the other person know I was going to be gone for a while.
That would be rude. Doubly so on the phone. You don't just hang up on somebody
in the middle of a conversation unless you're pissed at them. Email is
different. Nobody thinks it's weird or rude if you disappear from an email
conversation for ten minutes. After sending an email, you can even walk away
from your computer and not check your email again for hours, unless the
content of your message indicated otherwise.

In contrast, an IM that isn't a one-off message says, "If you're there and
available, I would like to have a real-time chat with you." Each mode of
communication sets different expectations. It's quite handy. If you unify
everything into a single mode of communication, then you have to set
expectations explicitly.

"Hi, Joe. Can you tell me XYZ? Please reply when you are available to have an
interactive real-time conversation with me."

"Hi, Joe. Can you tell me XYZ? Please reply at your leisure. I may not be
available immediately to discuss your reply but will respond at some point if
I have further questions."

See the difference? Of course, the different modes of communication don't mean
the same things to everybody. I expect every company and every group of
friends has a slightly different IM culture, for instance.

~~~
skorgu
Your conversational partners are substantially more polite than mine :)

It's not even remotely uncommon for people in my circle to leave an IM or even
a group chat in the middle. We all have dozens of things going on at any given
time and it's expected that, unless the conversation is Really Important it
will take second fiddle to the emergency of the moment.

So for us all conversations implicitly fit into your second category unless
pretty explicitly stated already.

I concede, however, that if your typical behavior doesn't fit this model
already wave is likely to be somewhere between useless and actively
frustrating.

------
Maro
1\. For this to take off, other providers would have to implement the Wave
API/protocol. Other providers like Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook, etc. Just as
today everybody is running SMTP servers.

2\. What does open-sourcing mean? Is Google open-sourcing their server-side
code? Probably not, since it's tied to the Google architecture anyways.
Implementing these APIs/protocols would be a significant expence for the other
providers. Also, open-source or not, this would still be a Google-technology
(controled by Google), and large corporations don't like to invest in other's
technology.

3\. Presumably Google would allow Gmail users to upgrade with a click, so
they'd have a good amount of seed users. But still, most of my contacts are
not @gmail.com, so the experience would be limited.

4\. This probably includes email as a special case, eg. your Wave provider is
still running SMTP servers and receiving email messages coming to your address
(Wave address = email address) and placing them in your Wave inbox, and
sending out emails per SMTP if the other side is not Wave enabled. This means
painless upgrades in terms of "compatibility" for the user.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I've only skimmed the docs!

~~~
Scriptor
_Is Google open-sourcing their server-side code?_

From <http://www.waveprotocol.org/>: _our plan is to release an open source,
production-quality, reference implementation of the Google Wave client and
server_

So it looks like they will release an example of server code, thought it
probably won't be exactly what Google uses. Still, this should allow other
people to copy that implementation and make their own servers relatively
easily.

------
jsonscripter
The web is getting _really exciting_ again! I mean, it always has been, but
these open protocols, open platforms, and general openness has really got me
smiling :)

So many possibilities!

~~~
jzachary
I'm glad somebody is excited. Not to be a downer, but I'm personnaly seeing
copy-cat evolution, not revolution. The new toys just aren't going to change
the way I work and play.

~~~
ThomPete
But for many it will and that will basically create the possibility for google
to do ever more finely targeted advertising

Which is where they make there money and why they are doing all these
products.

It makes perfect sense.

~~~
enneff
It's in Google's interests, as the king of Internet companies, to be at the
forefront of whatever "the future of the Internet" is. I think to imply they
crafted Wave specifically with advertising potential in mind is unnecessarily
cynical.

------
zaatar
It is an open protocol: <http://www.waveprotocol.org/>

~~~
est
it's xml based <http://www.waveprotocol.org/draft-protocol-spec>

looks like XMPP to me

I really hate XML

~~~
known
XML is not suitable for Mobile Platform.

~~~
sketerpot
Why not? It's simple enough, and there exist small, fast XML parsers with low
memory footprints.

~~~
known
I'll enumerate the implications and conclusions:

    
    
       1. XMPP is verbose.
       2. XMPP is inefficient for mobile networking.
       3. A proprietary binary protocol would be more efficient for mobile devices.
       4. The former Android xmppService API will diverge away from XMPP.
    

<http://www.deepdarc.com/2008/02/14/mobile-xmpp/>

------
davidalln
Google Code Page: <http://code.google.com/apis/wave>

------
0xdefec8
This could be revolutionary, however email is the way it is because that's
just how we've communicated as a species for eons, all the way from letters to
tablets to cave paintings. You think carefully about your message, create
something representing it, and share it. It seems like Wave is essentially
condensing that process into one step, more like a conversation. I'm not sure
everyone will welcome that.

~~~
dave_au
It seems to be acting like a lot of communication tools at once. If there's
some way to partition the usage up somehow then it's like a combination of
several quality tools in the one place with the option to let the borders
blur.

It'd be nice to be able to set the communication mode for instance - "this is
asynchronous, like an email", and then you don't have to worry about the
person you're writing to coming online while you're drafting something you
want to word carefully. It sounds like they have something like that but I
don't know what the granularity is like.

If it can do that you can have your cake and eat it to, and I'd be pretty keen
to give it a go.

Hell, I'd be happy with email/chat/feed reader/blog interface as separate apps
in the same page, just so I could get status info from everything in the same
place that I do stuff. Being able to drag and drop things between them all has
a fair bit of appeal as well.

It's probably a fine line between good integration and a huge shiny mess
though.

------
andrewl-hn
So, the new thing they did is that they combined Chat and Wiki and then threw
some API for mashing up. Made it pretty and Ajaxy. Well, mmm, Ok. I guess many
people will like it.

I still prefer plain-text emails, though.

~~~
andreyf
Back in my day, we didn't have any of these fancy real-time-mashups. If you
wanted to mash up, you'd show up at the person's front door, pull out a map,
and point at things.

~~~
aaronblohowiak
Back in my day, we used ICQ for collaborative document editing and chat. It
worked.

~~~
sketerpot
Sounds kind of clunky, though.

------
mrtron
That is the direction AOL always wanted to go with their browser/client.

The key difference being the openness of wave.

~~~
trickjarrett
And that it has Google behind it, not AOL. AOL wasn't able to keep up with the
innovation and so they fell behind, especially as the walls to the full
Internet crashed down and AOL's walled-garden approach became outdated.

------
fauigerzigerk
I was never a big user of IM or any real time communications (not even phone)
so I don't think I would use it much for that.

But I do like that they experiment with new forms of collaborative document
editing. This has always been a big pain. I have thought about it quite a lot
myself.

The really difficult thing about collaborative document editing is versioning.
The more I think about it the more open questions accumulate.

I have my doubts that a tool that wants to be so many things at the same time
can be a good enough collaborative document editing tool. For instance, how do
I separate the content that is edited from the communcation _about_ that
content? Maybe that becomes obvious when we can actually try it.

~~~
Zaak
> For instance, how do I separate the content that is edited from the
> communcation _about_ that content?

In Wave there is a distinction between editing text and attaching a reply or
comment to the text.

------
ttam
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=350262>

------
zaatar
<http://wavesandbox.com/> is where people are getting developer accounts from
the Google I/O Conference. You may directly navigate to it and add yourself to
a waitlist too, if you're not registered at the Google I/O Conference.

Direct link: <https://services.google.com/fb/forms/wavesignupfordev/>

------
jsz0
I guess I'm not hip or social enough to get it. It's like a glorified
e-mail/IM client with avatars and social networking stuff, and a bunch of
other things super glued to it? Seems like it might be too ambitious. Maybe
there's a good idea in there somewhere but, looking at the tools/sites I use
now, I can't imagine why I would want to use this instead. I certainly don't
want to waste my time duplicating my efforts on more than one
site/service/whatever. Looks like there might be a decent barrier of entry too
just figuring out how all these parts work with each other and how you can
modify them to work the way you want them to.

------
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.

------
dave_au
How would this effect mailing lists?

~~~
dave_au
Gah - too late to edit.

I was wondering specifically about how would it effect development mailing
lists - with wave plugins to look at patches / browse repositories / review
code things could get pretty interesting.

Although with non-development mailing lists it could be interesting as long as
you could optionally select the group of people to discuss the contents of the
list.

I'm assuming sometimes it would be better to discuss the contents of the
mailing list (or RSS feed) with a select few of your contacts. Discussing the
content with all subscribers can be done already (although perhaps not as
fluidly) with blog post comments etc...

------
presty
this is what facebook should've gone for. specially them, due to the social
network that they have.

the other contender would be linkedin due to the professional atitude they
have towards social networking.

------
CodeMage
Am I the only one wondering how Google Wave is going to combat spam?

~~~
elidourado
I think I heard someone say whitelisting, but I lost the reference.

~~~
dave_au
Well, if you're going to try to reinvent email you've got a better chance at
making whitelists useful.

Even if your inbox (or whatever the wave equivalent is) could divide incoming
waves based on whether they were from whitelisted contacts or from unknown
contacts, it gets a lot more useful if people whitelist each other by default.

------
nickpp
A solution in search of a problem.

------
c00p3r
There are almost nothing new about this project - the big idea is "lets put
all out services together" under new buzzword with the same proven strategy -
"we will host and monetize your data" and "we published an APIs, you wll code
it out".

The same principle is about technology - put it all together XMPP + XML
documents (for easy data extraction and indexing) (google docs) + version
control (git) + wiki-style editing (wikipedia) + maps, of course + profiles
(facebook) + feeds (twitter).

And it will probably work, because it is targeted for mobile devices (android)
as clients which means instant and short messaging by definition.

------
tybris
Woah, that could be some pretty disruptive technology.

------
omouse
So something ambitious is going to be built ontop of complete junk and by
forcing the HTTP protocol to handle shit it wasn't meant for. Wonderful.
Fucking wonderful.

Can we get a time machine and go back to the 80s and start all over again and
build up a proper platform _before_ the WWW becomes popular??

~~~
tlrobinson
No, it's an extension to XMPP: <http://www.waveprotocol.org/draft-protocol-
spec>

~~~
omouse
Erm, I was talking about the web-end. I didn't realize there was a separate
protocol for it but in any case, XMPP is heavy because it uses XML (which is
also somewhat junk).

------
joepestro
We agree with Google. This is the same idea behind our newly launched startup,
<http://www.browseology.com>

If you don't want to wait for Google Wave to see updates from everyone in real
time, check it out.

~~~
zimbabwe
Google Wave actually looks nothing like your product whatsoever.

We already have real-time updates. What we don't have is a system where every
sort of update is treated in a single place. That's what Wave is.

If you want to advertise Browseology, do it with a post to the front page, and
only advertise in other threads if it's relevant to the story. You're
borderline spamming right now.

