Slashdot Mirror


A Curmudgeonly Look At Google Wave

rsmiller510 writes "For those of you who think Google Wave is all that and a bag of chips, I put on the brakes and give you a few questions to ponder."

47 of 197 comments (clear)

  1. First Wave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    First Wave

  2. Please repost your article. by argent · · Score: 4, Informative

    Please repost your article on a site that doesn't use Vibrant's rollover advertising technology.

    Given that Daniweb not only uses Vibrant's abusive rollovers but doesn't allow you to disable them without signing up, I'm going to blackhole their site in my DNS until they change that absurd policy.

    1. Re:Please repost your article. by bconway · · Score: 5, Informative
      --
      Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
    2. Re:Please repost your article. by SuperSlug · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Geeze FF with adblock and some half decent filters.

      --
      The information wants to be free, I just give it somewhere to go.
    3. Re:Please repost your article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      My solution:
      1) Click on printable view
      2) Immediately copy/paste into notepad
      3) ???
      4) Profit!

    4. Re:Please repost your article. by I'm+not+really+here · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, I had already gone to the link and when I started reading this comment, I'm like "Vibrant rollover technology? What's that?" I had a completely normal web page experience, and was unaware that they were using any kind of intrusive technology...

      Firefox with the proper extensions just makes the web better.

      --
      Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
  3. Rebuttle by Norsefire · · Score: 5, Insightful

    * What happens when you have conversation with more than say five people.

    It becomes harder to manage, just like an IRC, IM or real-life conversation with more than 5 people. It gets noisy, confusing and you will probably miss quite a bit. Wave isn't magic, it will have limitations just like anything else does. Or perhaps I am wrong and it will have tools to manage this, either way it's a non-point.

    * Key Stroke by Key Stroke View Could Be Annoying

    Could be useful too. Turn it off if you don't like it. Another non-point.

    * Editing Ability Could Get Out of Control

    There is a history bar. Presumably there will be a history tab/page. What exactly do you want from Wave? Something that allow the entire playerbase of WoW to interact in a single document or something to allow collaberation between 1-20 people working on a FOSS project, or in a business?

    * Too Complicated for the Masses

    Email is too complicated for the masses. The Internet is too complicated for the masses. The ones that picked up email and internet will pick up Wave, if they have to.

    Essentially, this "look at Wave" made me remember this comic (the bottom one).

    1. Re:Rebuttle by patro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It becomes harder to manage, just like an IRC, IM or real-life conversation with more than 5 people. It gets noisy, confusing and you will probably miss quite a bit. Wave isn't magic, it will have limitations just like anything else does. Or perhaps I am wrong and it will have tools to manage this, either way it's a non-point.

      It's non-point also because he criticized the default, reference implementation interface. No one said this the only possible way you can look at waves. I can imagine an interface which is much more stripped down, maybe even by disallowing some features of the protocol to keep it simple.

      Since the main point is the protocol I expect several different GUIs developed for it, each with a slightly different philosophy. The most important thing is the protocol right now. A good interface is not here yet, and it will surely require several trial and errors until someone finally gets it right.

    2. Re:Rebuttle by fatalwall · · Score: 2, Insightful

      there paying you so its there time to waste

    3. Re:Rebuttle by ucblockhead · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The whole "see every character typed" amuses me massively. The very first time I ever did anything like IRC or IM was way back in the eighties, when I chatted with friends using Apple ][+ software and 300 baud modems. The software was too primitive to do it line-by-line. I found it interesting because more of a person's personality came through. It seemed more like text coming from real human beings when you could see them back-space, and the characters came through in a non-regular fashion.

      --
      The cake is a pie
    4. Re:Rebuttle by Yobgod+Ababua · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It also reminded me of the old UNIX "talk" app that I used quite a bit in college.

      Last year I had the opportunity to use some chat applications for work and I definitely noticed this concept coming up as a problem while trying to get across complicated or lengthy concepts. Many of us self implemented a workaround of entering sentence fragments with "..." between them rather than full sentences because the silent wait was too long otherwise. It was especially important when you want to reply to someone else before other people start chiming in or the conversation moves away.

      The OP's "thoughts" overall didn't feel very well put together. For example, he contrasts joining an edited wave late (where you are presented with the latest version) with going to a wiki page (where you are... presented with the latest version) and doesn't seem to get that wave "playback" is identical to and just as accessible as the wiki changelog. In fact, it takes the changelog one step further by allowing you to see the changes happen rather than just browse the descriptions of the changes (although the latter should also be easily possible, if not in the basic GUI than in a very simple extension).

      He also missed the hectic but rather interesting segment later in the presentation where six people are all editing at once.

      On my part, I'd love to have something like this subsume my regular forum posts, email, and messaging. My communication was good for a while, but lately it fragmented out and now I have too many disparate places to check. A new protocol that allows sufficient functionality to replicate email, IM, talk, wiki, and discussion boards, with extensibility on both the server and client, *is* pretty exciting.

      My only real concern is the permission issue, but if the protocol allows subtrees of your wave to be made "private" to a specific group, it's only a small step to use the same sort of structure to make subtrees "read only" to a specific group. Problem solved.

      If you haven't watched the whole thing, you need to see the auto-translator near the end of the presentation. It's pretty sweet.

    5. Re:Rebuttle by D+Ninja · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can imagine an interface which is much more stripped down, maybe even by disallowing some features of the protocol to keep it simple.

      Absolutely. If the author had actually watched the entire demo (rather than just the first 40 minutes), he would have seen that developers are free to design their own GUI implementations. (The demo showed a text-based, stripped down version.) And, of course, the other thing to remember is that Wave is currently a developer preview (alpha? pre-alpha?). There is a lot left to do/create/work on.

      I agree with the GP post...this article addresses issues that aren't really issues.

    6. Re:Rebuttle by Rary · · Score: 2, Informative

      * Key Stroke by Key Stroke View Could Be Annoying

      Could be useful too. Turn it off if you don't like it. Another non-point.

      Reading this point, I wondered what the guy does in meetings. You know, the real world kind of meetings, where a bunch of people are sitting in a room together, talking. Because, you see, when you speak in a meeting, the other attendees hear each word in real time. There is no backspace key.

      The only potentially good point he made was at the very end, which is basically that nobody's really looking for an alternative to IM/email.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    7. Re:Rebuttle by whoop · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The author states he only watched 20 out of the 80 minute presentation. Thus his whole post ends up being a bunch of pointless nitpicking.

      But at least the article does follow the There-Can-Be-Only-One mantra of Slashdotism. This will, after all, replace all email, IM, mailing lists, forums, documents, etc. You will not be able to do anything else once Wave launches later this year.

    8. Re:Rebuttle by gd2shoe · · Score: 2, Funny

      Uh, Slashdot hasn't gone wave yet... If you're trying out that context based - auto correcting - spell checker from the demo... It isn't working here.

      (there, they're, their)

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    9. Re:Rebuttle by linzeal · · Score: 2, Funny

      Its like the non-studying student in class who thinks he is so smart when he asks questions that will be answered in later in the same class, while everyone else who has kept up with the reading understood that aspect of the material before they open their mouths.

    10. Re:Rebuttle by mcvos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Check the video on youtube of the Google Wave demo at Google IO conference, they show several reference implementations including one that is CLI.

      Is that the same demo as the one at wave.google.com? Because that one had one reference implementation, another server that used a copy of that with cosmetic changes, and one complete re-implementation as an ascii interface. I don't think that last one was a reference implementation (although I'm not sure), and while it was plain ascii, it didn't look like a cli either. Not everything ascii is cli, you know.

      Anyway, the existence of various implementations, and the fact that you can operate your own wave server completely independent from Google's wave server, is I think the blow that makes a real killer app. It's just as decentralised as email and usenet are. You don't have to put everything on google's server. If Google ever goes down (yeah right), then other servers can just continue independent from them. It's completely unlike Facebook, Skype and many other modern not-quite killer apps, and very much like email, usenet, web and classics like that.

  4. Too integrated by JSmooth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It seems every company seeks the holy grail of integrated software. One interface to do everything and time and again the general public ignores these "advances" (anyone remember GEOS?)

    Why? Let's look at the latest massively successful "product", Twitter. Summary of twitter: Send 140 Characters to the world. Wow. Stunningly complex (from the user's perspective), huh?

    What made Google so successful was doing one thing and doing it well. Wave holds 0 interest for me (disclaimer: neither does twitter but at least I get it). Another integrated communication method to take all my avenues of communication and point it to one. Oof. Sorry. If there is one thing we have too much of these days is communications. At least having to use separate programs or channels slows it down just a little. Who wants more mail, more IMs or more anything?

    -Joe

    1. Re:Too integrated by Norsefire · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wave holds 0 interest for me

      I'm not all that interested in the latest Porsche. Is that because Porsches are bad cars or because I'm not in the target audience?

      If there is one thing we have too much of these days is communications. At least having to use separate programs or channels slows it down just a little.

      I agree, we use computers too often as well, at least downgrading the RAM from 2GB to 256MB slows it down just a little. And the Internet, gosh darn how I hate it, at least I can cripple it by downloading ad/spyware.

      Who wants more mail, more IMs or more anything?

      I don't want more, I want the same amount in the same unified program.

      What made Google so successful was doing one thing and doing it well.

      • Search engine
      • Email
      • Online advertising
      • Online documents
      • Mobile OS
      • OOS repos
      • Browser
      • $EVERYTHING_I_FORGOT
        • Geese, I wouldn't want "What did Google do right" for the million dollar question.

    2. Re:Too integrated by malefic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For teams working on projects within an organization I can see this being a killer app. Keeping the documents together with the discussion of those documents is useful (I know other office type apps attempt this, but more as a hack bolted onto a word processor or something, as opposed to part of the original design as it is in Google Wave) The question will really be adoption. Which, I imagine, is part of the reason Google is open sourcing it. If it becomes something that people find useful in a business environment, then it'll become common enough that it'll get used at home as well. And although the 40+ crowd will likely have problems getting used to it, the upcoming generation who grew up with email, IM, online photos, facebook, etc... won't have a hard time adapting to this.

    3. Re:Too integrated by brkello · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uh, they all have advertising integrated in to the products. That's sort of the point and how they are all profitable. You are saying all the sites out there that make profit through online ads aren't profitable because their product isn't online ads? That doesn't make any sense.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    4. Re:Too integrated by g0at · · Score: 2, Funny

      Geese, I wouldn't want "What did Google do right" for the million dollar question.

      Geese? Google is raising birds, too? No surprise I guess.

      b

    5. Re:Too integrated by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2, Funny

      Google is raising birds, too?

      For several years now.

    6. Re:Too integrated by jalefkowit · · Score: 2, Informative

      Slashdotters all seem to think that advertising is Google's only source of revenue...

      Probably because, realistically speaking, it is. Non-advertising revenue makes up a tiny fraction of Google's overall earnings. Their most recent quarterly SEC filing makes this plain: "Advertising revenues made up 97% [of our revenues] for the three months ended March 31, 2009." All the other stuff (like selling search appliances, GDocs licensing, and the like) is the other 3%.

    7. Re:Too integrated by AnyoneEB · · Score: 2, Informative

      Google Wave is an XMPP (Jabber) extension. Like XMPP, servers choose which other servers to federate with. Also, communications will only touch servers which the wave's participants are connected to. Therefore, it is perfectly possible for a company to run its own Wave server(s) and keep internal communications within their control while allowing external communications through the same server.

      In short, unlike someone using a Google account is invited to a wave or it is made public, Google can't see it.

      --
      Centralization breaks the internet.
  5. 40 minutes by MindStalker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why does everyone keep saying to watch the first 40 minutes. The most exciting part and rarely mentioned in articles comes at the end. They plan to make the entire protocol and the majority of their implementations open source so that anybody can install their own wave servers. Thus it can be a full replacement for email as you can have your own corporate wave server independent from google with all the features and people on your system can send out a wave to someone on google system just as they can with corporate email.

    1. Re:40 minutes by Etylowy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Come on - 40 minutes attention span for the twitter folk is already impressive ;-)

    2. Re:40 minutes by Norsefire · · Score: 4, Funny

      Come on - 40 minutes attention span for the twitter folk is already impressive ;-)

      I'm surprised they got past the first 20-odd words, and didn't give up at the first "@" symbol.

    3. Re:40 minutes by MindStalker · · Score: 2

      Yea I know but it kinda bounces of the viewer without much notice. At the end they show using several servers one text based even, and how waves stay on your independent server unless you add a different servers user to it then its shared between the servers though I'm still not 100% sure of all the multi server implementation details, its still pretty interesting.

  6. What about spam? by Etylowy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What I am really concerned about is SPAM.
    Real time bayesian filtering? Not really. And that's the most common solution.

    1. Re:What about spam? by Norsefire · · Score: 2, Funny

      They're going to add a paperclip to the UI and whenever you type something that matches its filters it'll come up with a speech bubble saying "It looks like you're writing spam, would you like to ..."

      Spammers will go back to the traditional approaches fairly quickly.

  7. Bandwidth and Hosting by Marc_Hawke · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The concerns I noticed were more technical than the ones he looked at.

    Hosting... Every email/every conversation will need to be stored on some central server, complete with any images and change history. Switching to a central location seems like a step backwards from the distributed system we have already with email.

    Bandwidth. Every change, send character by character to whoever happens to have it open. That's a lot of 'real-time' bandwidth for this central location. Both of these would work great in a corporate level with a WAVE server running on the LAN, but when it goes global, those servers will be smokin'

    Especially with the concept of wave enabled blogs. If you blog hits DIGG, then the wave server will be sending out your edits to thousands of people simultaneously. I wonder what the datapath is. I'm sure Google/Blogspot has a lot of bandwidth, but when you combine all IM, EMAIL, BLOG traffic along the same pipes to a central location....

    I just wonder about the scalability of the hosting solution.

    They did say that organizations can start their own WAVE server. Sounds like it works much the same way the Jabber (XMPP?) protocol works. But still, if this catches on, I see a future of new congestion problems.

    On the flip side...I was very impressed by the demo...and if this catches on in a big way (and works) it could be a serious redefining of communication on the web.

    --
    --Welcome to the Realm of the Hawke--
    1. Re:Bandwidth and Hosting by MindStalker · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hosting... Every email/every conversation will need to be stored on some central server, complete with any images and change history. Switching to a central location seems like a step backwards from the distributed system we have already with email.

      Nope, the wave protocol allows for email like hosting. Its not centralized at all other than the fact that Google will be the most popular wave provider for a long time.

    2. Re:Bandwidth and Hosting by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hosting... Every email/every conversation will need to be stored on some central server, complete with any images and change history. Switching to a central location seems like a step backwards from the distributed system we have already with email.

      I don't see the difference. Right now we use e-mail servers to centrally manage e-mail and they interact with other e-mail servers. Wave works the same way. Jabber works the same way. Wave just consolidates the two and adds some more features in.

      Bandwidth. Every change, send character by character to whoever happens to have it open. That's a lot of 'real-time' bandwidth for this central location.

      It's not so different from chat servers today. With the move towards video and audio chat, this will be the least of the real time bandwidth issue.

      Especially with the concept of wave enabled blogs. If you blog hits DIGG, then the wave server will be sending out your edits to thousands of people simultaneously.

      For most blogs this is more like sending it to your grandmother immediately. There are a few really popular blogs, but that's a niche issue.

      I just wonder about the scalability of the hosting solution.

      It's not so different from e-mail. The protocols are open and there is an OSS reference so the market should take care of the problem if it arises.

      They did say that organizations can start their own WAVE server. Sounds like it works much the same way the Jabber (XMPP?) protocol works.

      I believe it actually uses an extended version of XMPP.

    3. Re:Bandwidth and Hosting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      They did say that organizations can start their own WAVE server. Sounds like it works much the same way the Jabber (XMPP?) protocol works. But still, if this catches on, I see a future of new congestion problems.

      It is XMPP Extension. http://www.waveprotocol.org/draft-protocol-spec

  8. Waste of time by slustbader · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why does slashdot allow people to submit stories about their own blog posts? It seems like that bypasses an important filter - someone else finding the story and deciding it's important. Clearly, this story wouldn't have made it to slashdot if the author hadn't submitted it, because 90% of it is just nitpicking at minor details of a system that hasn't even been released yet.

    1. Re:Waste of time by prograde · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why does slashdot allow people to submit stories about their own blog posts?

      Are you familiar with the Firehose? It's just how it works, don't complain about options, etc.. Clearly, someone thought this was interesting enough to get modded up to a level where The Editors noticed it and thought it was worthy (or, in this case, might incite enough bloodshed to become amusing).

      ...or, with even more cynicism:

      1) submit ad-laden story to Slashdot
      2) submit kick-back to editors
      3) Profit!

  9. Re:Can't See Comment Titles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Modded off-topic, sure, but Slashdot is a broken mess. Wish they'd stop trying to be cute with their useless ajax bullshit and just fix their fucking code. An ideal non-broken Slashdot should look and behave like this.

  10. He lost me... by sglewis100 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Finally, at the behest of one of my online friends I looked at the first 40 minutes of the 1 hour and 20 minute presentation from last week's Google I/O conference, and I finally had an inkling of the potential.

    I tuned out right after the opening where he talks about not even bothering to watch the whole presentation. I can form my own poorly researched opinions.

  11. Noscript/adblock doesn't solve the problem by argent · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's no different than saying "spam isn't a problem, my spam filters get almost all of it".

    And I'm sure that's a few antisocial psychopaths who will immediately pop up and say "yeh, spam isn't a problem", well, I say arseholes to the lot of you.

    1. Re:Noscript/adblock doesn't solve the problem by dwpro · · Score: 4, Funny

      Is that all it takes these days to hit the antisocial psychopath arsehole level? Man, all this work for nothing.

      --
      Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
    2. Re:Noscript/adblock doesn't solve the problem by dangitman · · Score: 2, Funny

      Which implies that it is a one-size-fits-all solution, because who on slashdot doesn't already know of noscript? Obviously, noscript would already have been considered and rejected, so why mention it?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  12. You damn kids! by nilbog · · Score: 5, Funny

    This guy is like and old man standing on his lawn shaking his fist as the future drives by and lobs a large bowling ball into his mailbox.

    I, for one, have always missed keystroke-level chat. That's how it used to work in the old days of dial up BBSes and it WAS more efficient. I didn't have to wait for some slow-typer to finish hunting and pecking before I could start calling them retarded.

    --
    or else!
  13. Re:Can't See Comment Titles by 427_ci_505 · · Score: 2, Informative

    If it's such a problem, browse in Low Bandwidth mode with NoScript turned on. Turns into a very nice website indeed with those options.

  14. Re:Give me THREADED multi-user chat. by Jellybob · · Score: 4, Informative

    Have you seen the video?

    That's what it does. Exactly.

    You can split the thread into further sub-threads at any point, and also limit certain threads to a specific group of people.

  15. Re:Can't See Comment Titles by dzfoo · · Score: 4, Informative

    I know it sucks, I get the same problem; but here's a quick-and-dirty work-around: Click the "Change" button, even without making any changes. The page re-post will cause the titles to magically appear.

          -dZ.

    --
    Carol vs. Ghost
    ...Can you save Christmas?
  16. No more complex that things already are by newhoggy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The article needs to make a better case for why wave is more complicated.

    Myself, I find the status quo hugely complicated:
    Switching between various native and web applications with different log-ins, hugely different ways of doing things and no easy way to search and aggregate all the information or transition between them.

    I don't twitter, facebook, wiki or blog much because of the amount of effort to partipate in all of them and 'context switching' between them. It's simply to complicated.

    If wave brings all these different things together under a consistent workflow, that is simplifying things greatly.