

Why Google Wave "Failed" - bjnortier_hn
http://www.1011ltd.com/web/blog/post/why_wave_failed

======
Jd
Fantastic article. Hits the nail on the head.

Shortly after the announcement of Google Wave I flew out to the Bay Area for
the introductory hackathon. I was intrigued, in fact fascinated by the idea of
a federated protocol layer to replace email, something that could empower
collaboration and community building by distributing power across multiple
nodes, instead of the overly centralized and unsecure model of Facebook or the
defunct mode of email. A new form of communication was desperately needed and
Wave seemed to bring together all the missing pieces for what could be a new
era in computing and collaboration.

While most people talk about the product when they speak of Google Wave (as at
the Harvard Business Review ), they show their lack of appreciation for what
Google Wave was below the surface. Fundamentally, ultimately, Google Wave was
a new way of looking at the world. It was in many ways a protocol with no
particularly good interfaces, largely because it was so ambitious and because
efforts were made to popularize Wave rather than finish promised work on core
functionality.

This is unfortunate. While I was upset when I first read of the decision to
“kill” Google Wave, I now feel that there is, in fact, even more potential.
Approximately a month ago the Google Wave Developers blog promoted a new
independent attempt to create a Google Wave powered online forum. Despite the
recent announcement of Google Wave’s death, it seems that many people were
inspired by Google Wave and will keep development moving forward.

What will they create? Surely, some concepts (like online facebooks) require
time to be appreciated and understood, but this is all the more reason for
persistence, not giving up when there is no immediate response to an
unfinished product. Sadly, it seems Google’s CEO never understood Wave. It was
not a clever product, it was a vision in search of a product. And this
unmaterialized vision that required more than a keynote speech, bit of
marketing, and hope for rapid mass adoption.

Hopefully Google will remain true to its original promise to open source the
“lion’s share” of its code, including a working server and client. It is
understandable that Google would take the great innovation started with Wave
and roll it into its own products, but how can they say the problem is “user
adoption” if they never delivered the tools originally promised?

~~~
bjnortier_hn
Thanks :)

Yes, you're right. There's a lot underneath the surface that most people are
unaware of, only having been exposed to the Google Wave client. It never got
to the point of showcasing the distributed collaboration.

------
Tycho
Personally I don't think wave failed to solve a problem for people, rather it
solved too many problems for too many people. Like the article says it was
hard to define. Google said it was email if it had been designed today, but
email which is used for so many purposes (letters, discussions file transfer,
chat, SMS, advertising, authentication, correspondence chess...) grew
organically over a long period (I remember years ago email bugged me because I
felt it purpose was unclear). Google needed that kind of organgic growth
accelerated. But who knows, it might still happen..

Incidentally I can see something like Dropbox picking up a few of Wave's
features.

------
dublinclontarf
What the hell is Wave for? I'm a reasonably technical person, I can build
crappy webapp servers from scratch(none that I've published, like I said,
crappy) and even webapps on decent app servers and I STILL had no idea of what
wave was for.

As a side note, I did have a dream a few months ago where I realised Wave
could be used to add a huge number of really usefull features to my site,
wrote it down after. At the time it seemed really profound but now I'm not so
sure.

~~~
vinodkd
From the server to the client these are the things wave is/was:

1\. server: the ability for you and me (or equally easily your company and
mine) to run our own exchange servers

2\. client: the ability have true threaded conversations - not crude
conventions that denote conversations, which could at any point be converted
into finished documents

3\. client: the ability to include new participants into the conversation
while allowing them to actually see the progression of the conversation before
they joined.

4\. client: the ability to have an arbitrary amount of _open_ automation at
every point of the message's lifecycle. emphasis on open because anybody could
write an automaton (robot, agent) to automate things - not just google.

there're more but that list in and of itself is a few orders of magnitude
better than the current state-of-the-art for email.

 _What it has, but neednt:_

1\. the update as you type feature. it is still cool, but really not required
for everything else that wave is.

2\. the unnecessary digressions from standard web technology. why did we have
to have a huge public discourse on a scroll bar, for eg?

 _What it should have had, but didnt:_

1\. a way to bridge current email into wave. This was the single most
important thing google should have done - allow people in email land to send
you an email that would show up as a "dumb" wave, and have the ability to send
out email updates to such people with the full snapshot of the wave as the
response. yes, its dumb again, but we're used to "reply all with inline
comments".

2\. artificial scarcity on access to wave. worked for gmail because you could
taunt others by sending them emails. not so much with wave.

