Google Wave Backstage

As Google Wave is about to be released to 100,000 beta testers tomorrow, reader snitch writes in with a link to an in-depth interview with Dhanji Prasanna, whose title is Core Engineer. It covers some of the technologies, tools, and best practices used in building Wave. "InfoQ: Would you like to give us a short technical outline of what happens to a message (blip) from the moment a user types it in the web client, until becomes available to every one else that is participating in that wave — humans or robots? ... Dhanji: Sure, a message written in the client is transformed into a series of operations that are sent to the server in real time. After authenticating and finding the appropriate user session, the ops are routed to the hosted conversation. Here these ops are transformed and applied against other incoming op streams from other users. The hosted conversation then broadcasts the valid set of changes back to other users, and to any listening robots. This includes special robots like the ones that handle spell checking, and one that handles livesearch (seen in the center search-panel), as well as explicit robotic participants that people have developed. Robotic participants write their changes in response to a user's and these are similarly converted into ops, applied and re-broadcast."

Comments

I've been looking forward to this.

[GMFTatsujin]

Let the never-ending beta begin!

Re:I've been looking forward to this.

[gilgongo]

I think we should take bets now. I've got five bucks that says the "beta" tag will be removed not before 5 years from today.

Re:I've been looking forward to this.

[drodal]

<quote><p>I think we should take bets now. I've got five bucks that says the "beta" tag will be removed not before 5 years from today.</p></quote>

Probably true, and it will probably become a used and useful to millions in 2 years!

Re:I've been looking forward to this.

[Anonymous Coward]

What difference does it make to you?

Do you pay Google for support?

Do you pay Google for anything?

Google wave...

[martas]

... is making waves.

I'll let myself out.

Cautiously Optimistic

[rehtonAesoohC]

I have to say that I am excited about the prospects of a chat/im/document/wiki/social network collaboration system all rolled into one, but I am very skeptical if they will be able to pull it off the way they have been touting it.

For starters, most people are very well ingrained into their way of using the particular applications that accomplish the things Wave does (all independent of each other), so I think a massive component to the success of Wave will be how good the integration tools will be. Will we be able to import contacts from Exchange straight into Wave? Will we be able to use waves in email services other than wave? IE: Could a wave user interact with a wave with someone who is using MS Exchange the same way as they interact with someone who is using Wave also?

That said, I think Wave could seriously revolutionize the standard of email communication, and I really hope for all our sake they are able to pull it off.

Re:Cautiously Optimistic

[edmicman]

If anything, I see this being the closest thing to actually *subvert* Exchange usage in a corporate setting. Granted, all I know is what I've read and seen in the video, but the concept strikes a chord with me. For example:

At work, we use Exchange, and I suffer from information overload. We aren't taking advantage of the calendaring features really, other than to schedule reminders of when we have meetings. The VAST majority of my work processes involve email exchanges between multiple people, emailing copy of spreadsheets and screenshots to all of them, who in turn respond to everyone else with their own docs, etc. I may be working on any number of tasks or projects at a time, and each of those has their own threads, sets of documents, IM exchanges, everything. I try to organize them via folders, categories, posting docs to a share and telling everyone to go there to view them, but it's a mess. Granted, a lot of the problem may be lack of organization all around, but this seems to be the case no matter where I've been. We could try and copy everything to a wiki, or try and force Sharepoint to work for us, but it just doesn't work, at least right now.

From what I understand of Wave, instead we could have a dedicated wave to each task or project. Everybody communicates via that (replacing IM and email), posts documents there (essentially replacing file shares, emailing multiple copies back and forth to everyone...and didn't I see there was some sort of version control built-in?), and everything from start to finish is contained there. It sounds like a wiki, kind of, but in real time and organizing everything communication related that you'd normally use other apps for and have that data stuck elsewhere.

Sure, Exchange interaction should be there. But why keep using Exchange if Wave can manage your data and workflow for you? Maybe I'm off, maybe that's not how it works, and maybe I'll be disappointed. But it sounds really cool at this point :-)

Re:Cautiously Optimistic

[takowl]

IE: Could a wave user interact with a wave with someone who is using MS Exchange the same way as they interact with someone who is using Wave also?

I don't think so. But this is as much a conceptual matter as a technical one. Wave is based around the idea of a 'shared conversation', a common document on a server which several people can update. I'm not familiar with Exchange, and I know that it does have some collaboration features as well, but I believe that for communication, it is essentially an e-mail platform. E-mail is based on the concept of messages, sent to a number of people or services, which are fixed once you hit send.

It should be possible to build a bridge between Wave and e-mail, and I hope that someone does. But it won't let you interact with the other participant in the same way as if they were on Wave. E-mail simply has no way to do that.

Of course, it's built to federate, so maybe one day, Microsoft will write Wave support into Exchange. I'm not holding my breath, however.

Re:Cautiously Optimistic

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I doubt that they will initially, wave certainly wasn't designed to be protocol compatible with any of that; but it is (conceptually) simple enough to see how it would all fit together.

If you are using jabber, you can't talk to AIM users, because AIM doesn't speak XMPP. However, there are "gateway" mechanisms that speak XMPP on one side, and talk to AIM on the other, that allow you to, transparently(to you), communicate with AIM users from a jabber client.

In the same fashion, the existing services won't talk to wave, and wave won't know what to make of their inputs either; but it would be (conceptually) simple enough to build interfaces that communicate with existing services on one side, and talk to wave on the other. Whether or not third parties will bother to write decent implementations of such mechanisms is a separate question; and how well this would work depends strongly on that; but integration would certainly be possible, given a decent level of motivation.

Re:Cautiously Optimistic

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I think a massive component to the success of Wave will be how good the integration tools will be. Will we be able to import contacts from Exchange straight into Wave?

Of course not. How can you interact the same way you did with a Wave user when someone is using Exchange which does not support the vast majority of those features? Wave isn't e-mail it is a replacement for e-mail. It might be able to interact with existing e-mail systems in a limited way but it's not going to magically upgrade Exchange.

Will we be able to use waves in email services other than wave?

Can you use Yahoo chats in email services other than Yahoo chat?

That said, I think Wave could seriously revolutionize the standard of email communication, and I really hope for all our sake they are able to pull it off.

I think Wave has real potential to replace e-mail and chat and standard blogs. I have a lot of hope for it, but a lot depends upon what sort of deals they can manage. Will it work on the iPhone out of the box? In iChat? Will multi-protocol chat clients that are standard on various platforms incorporate support for it? Will Google get stand-alone clients up on all platforms? Will Google get major Web service providers embedding Wave in their pages as a means of supporting richer discussion boards? Wave can be the coolest thing ever, but without promoting it strongly to users it won't go anywhere. There are more than just technical challenges for Google here.

Re:Cautiously Optimistic

[interval1066]

@rehtonAesoohC: "I have to say that I am excited about the prospects of a chat/im/document/wiki/social network collaboration system all rolled into one..."

I'm not. As I type this (14:45:00pdt 92-9-09) my home page, which has been igoogle since igoogle's inception, looks broken. It appears as though the themes server is down. WTG google.

Re:Cautiously Optimistic

[edmicman]

Lucky for you, as I understand it, is that you could roll your own and host your own wave server...which would also be able to interact with other wave servers, a la email servers today. Just like how the world's email doesn't stop working when gmail hiccups (although reading the headlines it would seem that way).

Re:Cautiously Optimistic

[IGnatius T Foobar]

If anything, I see this being the closest thing to actually *subvert* Exchange usage in a corporate setting.

Screw that, I see this being something that could subvert Facebook. There's really very little difference between groupware and social media anyway -- it's just how it's optimized and featureized. So let's move back to a world where everyone is working -- or playing -- on the site or server of their choice, yet everyone is still connected together, instead of forcing everyone to join one single site.

Re:Cautiously Optimistic

[slim]

Will we be able to import contacts from Exchange straight into Wave? Will we be able to use waves in email services other than wave? IE: Could a wave user interact with a wave with someone who is using MS Exchange the same way as they interact with someone who is using Wave also?

At a guess, I think that non-Wave email users will be able to participate in Wave discussions in a limited manner. Limited enough that if you were that user, you'd soon be tempted to move over to the "first class" experience.

That's a hell of a way to build a user base.

Re:Cautiously Optimistic

[Anonymous Coward]

Why wait for Microsoft to write one? I am sure some 3rd party company or even Google themselves could write a Exchange/GoogleWave bridge plugin that will let users interact on some level. Also, a bigger thing would be to write a plugin for outlook so that users can keep their outlook clients and use wave.

Re:Cautiously Optimistic

[That's Unpossible!]

I think for the most part, asking if Wave can integrate with Exchange is like asking if you'll be able to send an email to Google Docs. I mean, I guess you could, but what would be the point?

If you sent someone on Exchange a Wave, what would you expect them to be able to do with it?

I'm guessing you'll be able to send most Waves as emails, but all the interactivity will be gone. Like having a printed copy of a document.

I feel that Wave has the potential to replace email/IM/collaboration, and possibly more (could it replace feeds? blogs? etc). Pretty much any interactive medium where the point is the information exchange and not the environment seem suited to being replaced by Wave.

After all, it's open. Make your own Wave server. Integrate it into your existing services.

Definitely looking forward to it...

Re:Cautiously Optimistic

[Tony Hoyle]

I presume that you can make a wave message unmodifiable (I have a number of tasks that kinda require that) - from the looks of it you *can* use wave like threaded email, just faster.

Re:Cautiously Optimistic

[Tony Hoyle]

Eventually, yes. I imagine that there will be an apt-gettable wave server within a few months.

Theoretically it has the potential to replace email, facebook, irc and twitter all in one - but it may end up just carving its own niche... one thing I see as a potential downer is the requirement to host it in a browser.. you lose things like new message notification, which is a biggie.

Re:Cautiously Optimistic

[fabs64]

Ha. I was just thinking the other day how if you turn email into waves, facebook offers little more than an old-style mailing list.

Re:Cautiously Optimistic

[edmicman]

I guess I hadn't looked into it much further, but I thought since it was a protocol spec, too, that you could have a desktop client implementation, too? I thought when I was looking through the sample code docs that it even came with a CLI interface for testing.

Re:Cautiously Optimistic

[afidel]

one thing I see as a potential downer is the requirement to host it in a browser.. you lose things like new message notification, which is a biggie.

I take it you aren't familiar with the concept of XMLHTTPRequest aka AJAX? The gchat html client works just fine for notification.

Re:Cautiously Optimistic

[FloydTheDroid]

But a tool like this is only going to be as good as the people who use it.

I understand your pain at work since I have the same email problem as you. People use email as a substitute for a meeting and try to come to a consensus all while constantly asking everyone else for input. So you end up with an email chain 50 replies long with more questions than you started with and somehow you have to decipher what people meant when they said, "yeah, let's do that."

Our signal to noise ratio probably won't be any better with Google Wave but at least everything will be in one place so if you have a project manager they can hopefully moderate the discussion in a meaningful direction.

I shudder to think of the bandwidth pipewise and processorwise that this protocol will take and am sufficiently awed at Google's sheer audacity to do such a deed.

Re:Cautiously Optimistic

[hjmiii]

I agree, though if MS were smart they could look in their own backyard and subvert the subversion. I think OneNote would be one of the best Wave clients out there.

Re:Cautiously Optimistic

[dakameleon]

one thing I see as a potential downer is the requirement to host it in a browser.. you lose things like new message notification, which is a biggie.

That's only Google's implementation - there's no requirement to host it in a browser. If you watched the original video all the way through, they demonstrate a command line interface that integrates just as well.

Re:Cautiously Optimistic

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the most important difference b/w how Exchange and Wave work is that the later is hosted by Google and hence controlled by it. Exchange is hosted on a n/w within an organization and hence easier to control. With Wave we would all have to trust google with our data, which a lot of companies in the world may not be willing to do.

So yes, may be it will revolutionize personal communication, but I doubt it will be able to make serious inroads into the corporate setting.

Then again, even though the concept is good, I fell this team has done a really sucky job with the UI. It is def. one of the most cluttered UI's I have ever seen from google. I don't know how an average joe would respond to that.

Re:Cautiously Optimistic

[Genda]

Personally, I'm waiting until Google to releases a chat/im/document/wiki/social network/mouthwash/photo album/birth control/banana peeling/data storage/corkscrew/nail-file/feminine hygiene spray application. I'll marry it, settle down, and never leave my home office again...

Re:Cautiously Optimistic

[GooberToo]

One of the most important difference b/w how Exchange and Wave work is that the later is hosted by Google and hence controlled by it.

The protocol is open and Google has publicly stated anyone is free to host their own server. So we can safely toss that concern right out.

With Wave we would all have to trust google with our data, which a lot of companies in the world may not be willing to do.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. The truth is, Wave is built from the ground up to concurrently integrate, in real time, both open (Google or 3rd Party) and closed (company x's own ) Wave servers in a transparent manner. With wave, you have to trust no one other than your self. Period. In fact, that is so much so the literal truth, you are less dependent on another company for your own technological collaborative destiny; which is absolutely not true for Exchange.

Wave understands locality and security so its possible to security integrate public Wave services with private Wave servers and services without ever sharing data outside your own company.

In short, nothing you've offered as fact is even remotely true.

Re:Cautiously Optimistic

[GooberToo]

At a guess, I think that non-Wave email users will be able to participate in Wave discussions in a limited manner. Limited enough that if you were that user, you'd soon be tempted to move over to the "first class" experience.

Actually, a properly written Wave server can allow non-Wave email users to fully participate in Wave discussions in a nearly unlimited manner. The difference is, your interface is still the same old email interface while Wave has some very clear and powerful collaborate advantages. If you're not sure what I mean, you REALLY need to go watch Google's Wave demo video.

Re:Cautiously Optimistic

[js_sebastian]

One of the most important difference b/w how Exchange and Wave work is that the later is hosted by Google and hence controlled by it.

Bullshit. It is an open protocol. In fact, I plan to run my own wave server whenever code for it is released. If this takes off like google hopes, every company/institution will be running its own wave server just like today it runs its own email server.

Re:Cautiously Optimistic

[Anonymous Coward]

Google Wave == IRC with a GUI!

Re:Cautiously Optimistic

[Anonymous Coward]

If you sent someone on Exchange a Wave, what would you expect them to be able to do with it?

Links to the work being done, RSS to updates of the conversation. Basically it would be a form of the ADA only electronically. Giving you access to view the wave as best as possible from your current abilities.

Re:Cautiously Optimistic

[Kashgarinn]

"From what I understand of Wave, instead we could have a dedicated wave to each task or project. Everybody communicates via that (replacing IM and email), posts documents there (essentially replacing file shares, emailing multiple copies back and forth to everyone...and didn't I see there was some sort of version control built-in?), and everything from start to finish is contained there. It sounds like a wiki, kind of, but in real time and organizing everything communication related that you'd normally use other apps for and have that data stuck elsewhere. "

- yes, it sounds awesome doesn't it :) I'm looking forward to test it out, email is getting completely out of hand for large bureaucratic companies.

I'm hoping that the Google wave API can be extended to contain not only text, extending it so that painters could work together on a painting, accountants could work together on a spreadsheet, or musicians could work together on a composition would be really nice.

Future looks bright, and open-formatted :)

Re:Cautiously Optimistic

[v1z]

http://code.google.com/p/wave-protocol/wiki/Installation ?

I like the idea of wave to a certain extent -- but I'm sceptical about the architecture. For IM/collaobration sure -- but as a *replacement* for email/news ? Email is pretty much bulletproof, with failover, handling of temporarily downed servers etc straight out of the box.

Wave (as a protocol) seems far less scalable.

Re:Cautiously Optimistic

[js_sebastian]

I like the idea of wave to a certain extent -- but I'm sceptical about the architecture. For IM/collaobration sure -- but as a *replacement* for email/news ? Email is pretty much bulletproof, with failover, handling of temporarily downed servers etc straight out of the box.

Wave (as a protocol) seems far less scalable.

I don't know how robust/scalable it is. We will have to try and see. Anyhow I don't think it will replace email. I think it is complementary to email, and will replace some uses of email (like the endless reply-all threads that you get when collaborating on a project).

Re:Cautiously Optimistic

[baharris18]

The major obstacle to wave, google docs, etc for usurping MS is who controls the data... at least from a large corporate company's perspective. If I'm a Fortune 500 company I don't want to be at the mercy of Google's servers and my ISP, let alone trust them with me data and IP... even if it can save me money by firing my IT staff, I gladly pay a fortune keeping them around to insure my IP stays mine, on my servers, under my control. If google can port docs and wave and other tools to apps/servers that can stay behind my corporate firewall on my *protected* intranet, then maybe it could replace MS... but still a long shot.

Re:Cautiously Optimistic

[slim]

Google Wave == IRC with a GUI!

I'm learning a lot about IRC today.

I didn't know that an IRC message was a persistent object that would be around forever.

I didn't know that IRC users could retrospectively edit messages that had already been sent. Nor that IRC allowed you to navigate through the history of changes to a message.

I didn't know that IRC messages were arranged in a hierarchical thread structure.

So it's been a good day for learning.

(Score:-1, Sarcastic)

Re:Cautiously Optimistic

[esper]

Based on what I have read of Wave thus far, I am highly confident that it will support the sort of non-text collaboration you've described (there are already drop-in chessboards and the like for "collaboration" in the form of games). I would actually be mildly surprised if third-party devs haven't already started prototypes of Wave-based painting, spreadsheet, and musical composition apps.

Re:Cautiously Optimistic

[esper]

Although this doesn't apply to Google Docs, it's been pretty heavily publicized from day 1 that Wave is an open protocol, running on open software, so companies will be able to build and host their own private Wave servers.

Sounds to me like IRC and chat bots

[Anonymous Coward]

I may be wrong, but this sounds "amazingly" like any chat room I've ever been in.

Re:Sounds to me like IRC and chat bots

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's also like a wiki. And a forum. And email. And a blog. All at the same time, in real time, in your browser.

Re:Sounds to me like IRC and chat bots

[Neil Hodges]

If it's in a web browser, there's no way it'll be real-time. Sure, it'll appear that way, but wait until network latency goes up.

Re:Sounds to me like IRC and chat bots

[Anonymous Coward]

That is true of any Web Application - regardless of platform. And this is not like a web page you are refreshing from what I understand.

Re:Sounds to me like IRC and chat bots

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like gmail and facebook and all those other web-based chats aren't real time? Maybe I should include mibbit in that list. Latency isn't a world ending this-will-never-work problem here.

Re:Sounds to me like IRC and chat bots

[gnick]

Nothing is real time. Not even real life in most cases. Some things are just closer to real-time than others. Sure the term is overused, but it's really just a description for how things are behaving behind the scenes - E.g. Is it a requested refresh or a push? Is the lag significant enough that the user/target will notice or be meaningfully affected?

Re:Sounds to me like IRC and chat bots

[Beetle B.]

All at the same time, in real time, in your browser.

And there's no constraint that it has to be browser based. It's open, and Google encourages others to set up their own servers, and/or clients.

Re:Sounds to me like IRC and chat bots

[Anonymous Coward]

Wave is based on XMPP (jabber),therefore, in principle they are creating a sophisticated chat room with ability to handle documents as a protocol extension to core xmpp. Although, the xmpp extensions dont seem to have a reference to wave??

Re:Sounds to me like IRC and chat bots

[Tony Hoyle]

Sure it doesn't have to be browser based but it has to be hosted by something that speaks HTML well enough to understand the contents of the messages (which are far from just being text).. so for the time being that means browser.

Re:Sounds to me like IRC and chat bots

[Beetle B.]

Sure it doesn't have to be browser based but it has to be hosted by something that speaks HTML well enough to understand the contents of the messages (which are far from just being text).. so for the time being that means browser.

And most email clients - including text only ones.

Stuff like Javascript being key to a wave may prove a more browser dependent issue. HTML - not quite.

Re:Sounds to me like IRC and chat bots

[GooberToo]

Not even real life in most cases.

Not even in real life in ALL cases. Remember, its takes time for light to travel and you see the entire world as its reflection...and then it still has to be processed by your brain - regardless of which sense is in use.

People completely misunderstand what real time means. In this case, real time is the more loosely accepted definition, meaning updates are immediately pushed to all clients; whereby clients may actually be other servers. In other words, as user 1 updates a wave, user 2 is able to see those updates in his client as close to user 1's actual event, as bandwidth and latency allows.

Re:Sounds like Bullshit

[Red Alastor]

Did you ever think you just watch the video demo Google did or you feel that'd be too similar to RTFA to know what you're talking about?

Google farts..

[Anonymous Coward]

and slashdot is there to sniff it!

Where is my invite?

[ultrabot]

...you insensitive clods.

Where is the CLI version?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the original Google Wave uber-long youtoob video there was a CLI client but I could never find anything more about it. I hate web interfaces / web applications and would much prefer something like this.

I know it is all supposed to be open source and everything but there is no Client-server protocol because it is assumed to be a web application so for a long time all we will have is Google's bloated JavaShit-filled and presumably ad-laden perpetual beta web interface.

And anyone who actually calls it "gwit" needs to have a hatchet put through their skull.

Re:Where is the CLI version?

[tyroney]

I know it is all supposed to be open source and everything but there is no Client-server protocol because it is assumed to be a web application so for a long time all we will have is Google's bloated JavaShit-filled and presumably ad-laden perpetual beta web interface.

uh... http://www.waveprotocol.org/

Re:Where is the CLI version?

[jcwayne]

Somebody needs a hug.

Re:Where is the CLI version?

[Mia'cova]

The parent wasn't referring to federation, which is the server-to-server communication. The parent was referring to client-server communication, in which google's servers and their web client are all wrapped up together. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he's saying that we wouldn't be able to write a rich-client for google's servers. So you'd need to start an independent server and build up a protocol from scratch essentially.

Re:Where is the CLI version?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything that has an interface can have a program written for it, anything.
Messages, headers and the like can all be easily faked with the right code.

I doubt Google will even bother trying to lock it down, if they did it could hurt its growth as a platform.
Obfuscation = slower (the obfuscation we would be talking about to try hide code decently, not something as simple as eval'ing a bunch of words)

It won't take that long to write an app for it, i doubt their client-end code is *that* complicated.

Re:Where is the CLI version?

[JStegmaier]

The "Informative" moderation on this should itself be modded +5 Funny

Re:Where is the CLI version?

[Braino420]

The parent wasn't referring to federation, which is the server-to-server communication. The parent was referring to client-server communication, in which google's servers and their web client are all wrapped up together.

I believe what he was referring to, cryptically, was the already open source console client for wave. It was released, as an example, when they open sourced some of the federation code. It doesn't have the realtime updates, so it's kind of meh. Either way, client-server communication and a rich client is definitely possible, and I'm having trouble figuring why someone would think otherwise.

Re:Where is the CLI version?

[DragonWriter]

The parent wasn't referring to federation, which is the server-to-server communication. The parent was referring to client-server communication, in which google's servers and their web client are all wrapped up together. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he's saying that we wouldn't be able to write a rich-client for google's servers. So you'd need to start an independent server and build up a protocol from scratch essentially.

Or write a client that pretended to be a server and use the federation protocol directly.

Re:Where is the CLI version?

[marcansoft]

won't work, because you actually need to be a server (i.e. you need a domain with SRV records and open ports and a reasonably static IP and whatnot).

The open client protocol problem is simply a problem that hasn't been solved yet. I'm sure a solution will arrive. As long as the server-to-server federation protocol is open, you're golden.

Re:Where is the CLI version?

[stephanruby]

No, they said, they were going to release the Javascript for their web client (plus, it's not like you can't already take a peek at it right now with firebug).

It's just that their web client code is still a moving target at this very moment. And they did release a primitive console client at least (so third parties could get started in at least testing their own implementation of a wave server).

Re:Where is the CLI version?

[KIngo]

Her

Re:Where is the CLI version?

[slim]

there is no Client-server protocol because it is assumed to be a web application so for a long time all we will have is Google's bloated JavaShit-filled and presumably ad-laden perpetual beta web interface.

There is a client-server protocol, and it is that protocol you would use if developing a robot:

http://code.google.com/apis/wave/extensions/

The robot acts as a user. It gets notified of new blips, can create/edit blips.

social networking, business collaboration...

[circletimessquare]

nah, none of these things

google wave is going to be the backbone of a thousand homebrew MMORPGs, probably nethack interface style at first, but i don't see why eventually it couldn't look like WoW

heh, thanks google, for giving us our own battle.net to play with in the style of an easy programming interface

Ew

[Anonymous Coward]

tl;dr:
"What happens when you type something in?"
"Well, it goes to a server and then the server decides to send it to some other clients"

NO SHIT REALLY
THAT'S EXACTLY HOW ALL CHAT SYSTEMS WORK.
But I'm glad you took the time to explain to us that Google Wave is client-server, I mean otherwise I would have thought "well the message gets carried to the other client by fucking space aliens"

>:(

Re:Ew

[pwfffff]

OK? Thanks for sharing?

If it pissed you off that much reading it why the hell do you think we'd like to read all about not only it but how angry it made you?

Re:Ew

[drodal]

most of these people are soooo stuck in the past... they will be obsolete in 10 year....

Either that, or in 10 years they will complain about how new things are just like wave....... and insult you.....

Re:Sounds like Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

You suggest he watch an 80 minute video presentation on it? I mean at that length I would expect a documentary, not a presentation.

great news for cloud computing

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been looking forward to google wave for some time, especially considering the new client/server bssed cloud paradigm that this entails. The fact that we can now communicate on a global basis while still maintaining the orthodox model of local fat client computing aligned with mobile services gets me hard. When you align this with a local, services-based vertical operation you can really understand how this can compete with global iterations of matrix-based local operators. In fact, as i write this, me penis is getting hard and i am forced to take short breaks from typing while i slowly rub it up and down. When we look at the phenomenon of Google wave, and of course, of The Google itself, we cannot fail to look both to the past, and the future, as I slowly insert a dildo in my anus and begin to slowly fuck myself while rubbing my cock against a printout of the google home page, hopefully, to ejcaculate upon it and thus acheive catharsis.

Re:great news for cloud computing

[mujadaddy]

I thought *I* had a relaxed work environment!

You get to print in color?!?!

Re:great news for cloud computing

[BrentH]

Thanks for making me laugh ;)

Yeah, You're Wrong

[hax0r_this]

Have you tried Wave? Its nothing like a chat room, mainly because it has threads and an editable history. Think 10 people editing a google docs document specifically designed for communication between participants.

Its far closer to a wiki than a chat room. Imagine a wikipedia discussion page (click 'discussion' at the top of any article for an example) in real time.

Re:Yeah, You're Wrong

[mblase]

I was trying to figure out exactly how the collaboration is supposed to work, or rather how it's intended to be used. Web video isn't so great on my old machine.

Is a Wave document meant to be written collaboratively, or just re-written? Can an author use it to solicit feedback and corrections without implementing them until they're individually approved? Are the documents just formatted text, or multimedia?

Re:Yeah, You're Wrong

[nmb3000]

Imagine a wikipedia discussion page (click 'discussion' at the top of any article for an example) in real time.

To be honest, the thought makes me cringe. It seems like it would be impossible to maintain any kind of threaded conversation with that kind of chaos.

The nice thing about email and instant messaging (IM or IRC style) is that it is stateful. At any one point you have a conversation state that can be referenced and responded to. With the kind of multi-user editing and discussing this seems to suggest, it becomes impossible to reference any state except the current one. Instead of past, present, and future, you only have present.

I've tried editing Google docs with other people at the same time. It's complete unordered chaos (unless you have some other directed medium of communication such as voice chat). I guess I like the idea of trying to combine the various methods of communication into a unified system that works better than any of the sole constituents, but if information overload (as discussed above) was a problem with a system like Exchange, what will it be like with this?

I haven't used Wave, but I'm more interested in seeing what people do with an extensible cross-system information exchange that operates in near realtime. I think the Google demo of an online chess game using Wave is a better example of how this might be really cool than the "normal" use cases.

Re:Yeah, You're Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why you have the opportunity to "rewind" and view any particular "state" at any given point in the history of the conversation.

Re:Yeah, You're Wrong

[GooberToo]

I was trying to figure out exactly how the collaboration is supposed to work, or rather how it's intended to be used.

They really don't define that and the protocol supports pretty much any model I could conceive. Once such model they show is, rather than approval, each user simply updates the wave. They can collaborate via the wave about the wave, concurrently. Or, as you suggested, you can have the old approval process. The later may be used if everyone is not available. But should everyone be available to concurrently collaborate, everyone can participate at the same time.

Also, since it supports journaling and play back, imagine that "late user" coming in, and rather than disputing the meeting for thirty minutes while he comes up to speed, which was almost over, he simply replays the collaboration and can immediately begin to contribute - as he now has context which brought everyone the nonsenses of the current state of collaboration.

So imagine the major parties providing their parts, the grammar freaks walking behind to clean things up, all at the same time. Followed by each party revising and making suggestions about each other's parts. And then when you're finished, you can share your work product without a Wave, as a concise, printable document which leaves out the journaled history. Or if you like, share all or portions of the wave, as needed.

Re:Yeah, You're Wrong

[GooberToo]

To be honest, the thought makes me cringe. It seems like it would be impossible to maintain any kind of threaded conversation with that kind of chaos.

Which is also why its supports threads, which can optionally, be compressed to its non-journalized representation at any branch/leaf in the wave's tree of branches and leafs.

Abridged version

[Fastolfe]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itc4253kjhw

Re:Sounds like Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't actually answer his complaint. Don't be such a fanboi.

You've got it right.

[copponex]

It's a real time protocol with built in journaling, that is both free and open. Think of it as HTML written after the knowledge that connections will be mostly persistent and fast. Waves are going to replace damn near everything displayed live on web pages. It's basically an open and extensible combination of wikis, sharepoints, calendaring, and web forums.

Google OS + Waves + commodity hardware. If anything, at least the next version of windows will be much less expensive.

Re:You've got it right.

[religious freak]

Exactly. The thing that always trips me out is that this is a *protocol*, which means (should mean) it's open, extensible, and the software in the Google demo is just the beginning of applications we'll be seeing with wave tech. When folks begin adding their own custom software to "ride on top of the wave" (I guess that's the correct terminology), we'll see the true power of this tech.

The applications for wave haven't even begun.

Re:You've got it right.

[D Ninja]

Google OS + Waves + commodity hardware. If anything, at least the next version of windows will be much less expensive.

So, basically, you're saying we can (wait for it)...wave...goodbye to high Windows prices?

Alright, alright. I'm letting myself out...

Wave need a killer app.

[Tei]

It seems the Killer App of Google IO and Google Gears is Wave, but Wave lacks a killer app. Withouth that, It will not be popular.

Wave may need a killer app that needs a 90% of the features that provide, or only a 10%. Also, a killer app will cement some ideas about what Wave is. Another problem with Wave, is that is nothing just now, is nothing and everything, but need to be something, and that nameless something is yet to be invented. I suppose Google want exactly that, some guy inventing a killer app for Wave, or even some usefull toys. But I don't think have it yet. Is everyone listening? Google has created Gears, and Gear can add "offline" features to any webpage. Google IO can add streaming features to any app and more. We need to listen to Google more, because is releasing some technologies and ideas that are worth our time. The XMLHttpRequest was behind our radar a few years, before people realized his raw power. I suspect theres some untapped power on some of the latest tools released by Google, and is not Wave, is what move Wave.

Of course, I can be wrong. Who I am? another random guy on the internet :-/

Re:Wave need a killer app.

[Joe Random]

Wave lacks a killer app.

Wave is the killer app (the reference implementation, I mean). It is, at its core, a replacement for email, IM, and wikis. In fact, that diversity may be its biggest stumbling block. As your comment shows, people will want Wave to be "something". People understand email. People understand IM. People understand collaborative editing. But what do you call something that rolls all of those together? How do you create a niche for something that encompasses functionality from what are currently considered separate niches? It's like trying to explain to someone 50 years ago about how wonderful smart phones are. "What do you mean, text messages? If I want to send a letter I'll go to the post office. Calendar? I already have one on my desk!"

I think that this massive level of generic utility is going to slow adoption somewhat, and adoption past some threshold is exactly what Wave needs to break into mainstream usage.

Re:Wave need a killer app.

[Rip Dick]

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on /. is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no mod-points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Re:Wave need a killer app.

[LotsOfPhil]

Do you think you could talk a little about killer app?

Re:Wave need a killer app.

[PaulIsTheName]

Wave will be the killer app by itself if (and only if) there will be free and open source versions of the Wave frontend and server they use to present you their own Wave system. In that case you and your company can each have their own server, data silo and therefore enforcable data security without the *need* to be a silo - just drag in an external user to share and the federation magic will open up the silo for just this wave or wavelet (that is, a sub-wave).

Not being able to decide what data stays with me and what may be seen by public (=Google) servers is the one key reason that "cloud advocates" have no chance in any data-conscious company. Wave (the protocol) makes it possible to have your own data silo that is optionally able to exchange the data with any(!) other Wave server and their users. Add a policy to that decision and there you go with an email-killer in corporations.

Writing your own POP3-client is reasonably possible - replicating the Wave software as is in beta now requires a complete Google-team to do. Read as: It's not easy at all. And anything less usable than the Google Wave frontend will be ditched by all people but techies.

Re:Wave need a killer app.

[Anonymous Coward]

Google has said from the beginning that they intend to open-source the Wave software as soon as it is ready. The protocol development itself is open.

Re:Wave need a killer app.

[PaulIsTheName]

That is exactly what I am talking about: Iff(!) they are actually and usably making it free and open, it will be a success almost immediately. If not, it will be another Google App. Though a great one. Hold your thumbs and pray for less email attachments with exponential distribution numbers.

Re:Wave need a killer app.

[ImNotAtWork]

Writing your own POP3-client is reasonably possible - replicating the Wave software as is in beta now requires a complete Google-team to do. Read as: It's not easy at all. And anything less usable than the Google Wave frontend will be ditched by all people but techies.

Sounds like those techies that to decide to learn something new have an opportunity to make some serious cash as 'Wave Implementation Consultants' I for one welcome our new WIC Overlords. Selling this to Academia will a cinch, they are always looking for viable collaboration technology and the fact that they can set up their own server and not have to trust google with their data is the cherry on top of the whipped cream.

Re:Wave need a killer app.

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems the Killer App of Google IO and Google Gears is Wave

wave uses gears ONLY for drag & drop of images directly to web server. Google has submitted a standard for that that they hope to bring into HTML soon, removing the need for gears.

At least that's what they said at the demo.

Re:Wave need a killer app.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Another problem with Wave, is that is nothing just now, is nothing and everything, but need to be something, and that nameless something is yet to be invented."

What the fuck. Thanks for the headache.

Re:Wave need a killer app.

[watergeus]

I agree, Wave has everything to become a killer app.
Now let us see how people are going to use it.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Re:Wave need a killer app.

[dscruggs]

Half the reason e-mail caught on is that it contains the word "mail." "Wave" means nothing to me. Even Lotus Notes used a name that kinda sorta hinted at what it could do, then someone coined the term groupware.

Re:Sounds like Bullshit

[slim]

You didn't actually answer his complaint. Don't be such a fanboi.

Why paraphrase when you can link?

Robots?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope the robots are cute, like little Roombas, zoooming around in a happy, happy, joy, joy world.

Still looks like portable "Word w/ Track Changes"

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Every time I look at Wave and its threaded conversations I think of Word documents when you track changes. (shudder) I think the most popular option on Wave will be a "ignore everyone's inane comments and just let me look at the original content" option.

Wave looks pretty nice

[PhrostyMcByte]

The feature I look forward to most is how easy it is to have multiple people in one conversation.

I have to deal with people pretty often, who are older and somewhere between "complete technophobe" and "AOL mom". I usually end up in a two hour long conference call that could have been done faster, clearer, and unscheduled via email. If only they could grasp the concept of not top replying that the Open Source and newsgroup community has used so well. A forum is too heavyweight and met with just as much resistance.

Wave seems like the perfect middle ground, the ease of email with a sprinkle of organization. And a lot of extra power if needed, but given the typical Google polish to keep the interface clean and easy to use.

Once again...

[stinkbomb]

...someone has reinvented IRC.

Congratulations morons!

Re:Once again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone didn't watch the original video or RTFA!
Congratulations moron!

Re:Dilbert

[Anonymous Coward]

Aww fuck YEAH! Jerk that cock! Jerk that cock! Jerk that cock! WHOOOO WHOOOO

It looks like a cluttered mess

[rbanzai]

Every time I try to take a closer look at Wave it just looks like a horribly cluttered mess. It's like they said "Why use ten different programs when we can replace them with one? How? By stuffing the data from ten different programs onto one screen! GENIUS!"

Are there any videos of this product that don't look like digital throwup? There has to be more to it than what I've been seeing, because what I've been seeing looks absolutely unusable.

Re:It looks like a cluttered mess

[planckscale]

That's probably how Outlook looks to a lot of people when they first see it. For Wave, a user list on the left, in the center, a list of Wave "conversations", and on the right, the actual content. Does that seem to overwhelm you? That's pretty much the standard format for any website or application (three frames). The bulkiness of what I've seen seems to be Facebook-y design elements like the user icons. In addition screen resolution on screenshots and demos seem to be around 1024x768. If there is a way to use small user icons or a "detailed view" of waves, then I think it will be a pretty fluid environment.

Re:It looks like a cluttered mess

[Zerth]

Instead of your coworkers top-posting responses with the same subject line but different threads of conversation, email could look as clean as a message board.

That's all I want.

If you watch the original video, it shows a pine-lookalike client. Simple and organized, unlike any involved email conversation with multiple particpants.

Re:It looks like a cluttered mess

[GooberToo]

Not to mention, Google made it very clear it will be easy to create fully compatible clients sporting whatever UI design and/or layout you wish. In fact, they are counting on it. The current interface is simply Google's first whack at it. Expect both additional iterations from Google and a polithera of third party options. Of the potential Wave issues, somehow I seriously doubt clients and/or user interfaces will the be obstacle to overcome in anyway, once Wave grabs any serious traction.

Re:It looks like a cluttered mess

[mcvos]

Instead of your coworkers top-posting responses with the same subject line but different threads of conversation, email could look as clean as a message board.

That's all I want.

Exactly! I get more and more annoyed by email due to the way co-workers use it. If Wave offers a cleaner form of communication, I'm in!

Re:It looks like a cluttered mess

[Zerth]

For that matter, you can go back and fix their misusage of apostrophes and slang that they clearly don't understand.

Well, more likely you'd have a robot do it.

Wow. It's IRC with pictures.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is such a revolutionary app!

Google Wave will change the face of communication forever!!!

Imagine IRC. Ok now imagine you have fucking PICTURES in your irc client!! HOLY SHIT!!!111

Not only that, but all of this runs at the blazing fast speed of JavaScript!! OMG!!!!111

I would eat a plateful of a hobo's dick cheese for the chance to get an invite to this amazing service. Sign me the fuck up.

PyGoWave

[simon13]

If you're itching to try out Google Wave like I am, a bunch of developers have already launched their own wave server implementation. A combination of Python + Django Framework + Javascript. You can create an account and have a play around, or you can download and run your own. Note that its still in early alpha state.

http://pygowave.net/

Re:PyGoWave

[Nasarius]

It's buggy as all heck, but it seems like a really decent start. Plus Django is a huge draw. If I don't get a Wave invite tomorrow, I think I'll pitch in. Thanks for the link!

Re:PyGoWave

[D Ninja]

I am assuming this is built on Google's Wave technology? Or is this entirely your own implementation?

Re:PyGoWave

[mcvos]

Cool! Thanks! Haven't gotten an invite yet, so this is a great way to play around with it.

Re:Still looks like portable "Word w/ Track Change

[Shortgeek]

Good thing they have it. It's at 0:33:20 in the big fat video http://wave.google.com/help/wave/about.html#video.

Re:Sounds like Bullshit

[lysergic.acid]

You only need to watch about the first 15 minutes to get a good understanding of what it is and why it's innovative. I'd skip the boring hyped up intro though—not that it doesn't deserve some of that hype, just that it's not very informative. Personally, I think it's a really cool app. This is the first time I've heard about it, but I'm already eagerly awaiting its public beta.

It probably won't be as revolutionary or game changing as e-mail, instant messaging/text messaging, or wikis. But it seems like it will at least have as much of an impact on the online community as other innovative, well-designed applications like Google Search, Gmail, Firefox, etc., each of which used preexisting ideas to re-imagine a common everyday tool/application. Though none of these applications contain any groundbreaking ideas of their own, they nonetheless deliver a novel user-experience by the seamless integration of preexisting ideas in a new and refreshing way—or sometimes just by their flawless execution of existing ideas.

My title is just Software Engineer

[dhanji]

Been taking shit at work all morning, afaik I don't work on any "cores" =) Dhanji.

Re:My title is just Software Engineer

[Anonymous Coward]

We have pictures that prove otherwise.

What a hottie !

[Anonymous Coward]

Dhanji is so hawt, I want to marry him one day.

I wonder if I might be getting an invite.

[Hidyman]

I logged onto the wave.google.com site and it says: Your Google Account has not yet been activated for Google Wave.

developer's sandbox account == fun

[MarkWatson]

I've had a developer's account for a while, and I think that wave is fun. Most fun is writing robots that receive events (which events is a configuration option) when people add text to a wave, join a wave, etc. A robot can then itself modify or add to a wave.

Re:developer's sandbox account == fun

[mu22le]

I've had a developer's account for a while, and I think that wave is fun.

Do you have any invite for the sandbox? Care to send me one? (muzzle at gmail)

Re:Wow. It's IRC with pictures.

[petrus4]

Imagine IRC. Ok now imagine you have fucking PICTURES in your irc client!! HOLY SHIT!!!111

Yeah. The sad part is that they went to the trouble of writing their own protocol from scratch, too.

This looks good, but Google could have bought a BSD license from whoever writes X chat, and hacked that to include a built in graphic viewer, and possibly XDCC for sending the files.

I'll probably at least give it a try, and maybe even like it, but you've gone to a lot more trouble here than you needed to, Google. We've known how to write IRC fserves for 14 years now. If you wanted one, all you had to do was ask. ;)

CLI for Google Wave

[KIngo]

Here it is:

http://code.google.com/p/wave-protocol/wiki/ConsoleClient

Re:Still looks like portable "Word w/ Track Change

[Anonymous Coward]

That shouldn't be too much of a surprise. The most popular option on Wikipedia is "ignore the edit history and just show me the article". The most popular option on svn is "ignore the revision history and just give me the most recent revision". That doesn't mean "everyone's inane comments" are useless just because you hide them by default.

Re:Sounds like Bullshit

[mcvos]

Some of the cooler bits are towards the end, though: a dozen people editing the same document simultaneously, completely open protocol and open source server and client so you can set up your own Wave server, and a console client (rather than Google's own web client) to prove that point.

Re:Wow. It's IRC with pictures.

[Anonymous Coward]

They did not write a protocol from scratch. Had they done that they probably would've tried to make it slightly more bandwidth efficient via binary encoding or somesuch. Instead, they did the smart thing and built the Wave protocol as a XMPP Component extension to the IETF XMPP spec.

Wave rides on top of XMPP. For a lot of organizations, this is extremely important because it eases the way for implementation (and discussion). To wit: "You know that Jabber client you've been using for a few years and like so much? Yeah, it's based on the same foundational technology, but with more security and more features."

In order to implement the reference server, you have to install OpenFire or Camel (or some other XEP-somenumber compliant XMPP server) and then compile the source on top of that. The XMPP server can even continue doing the normal XMPP things (e.g. Jabber) and just pass off Wave discussions to the Wave source.

Could they have used IRC? Sure. Was XMPP a better choice? Yes. The protocol, by definition, is extensible.

Wave's UI is only half the story. The protocol spec has the power to drive a significant change in how data to shuttled around the Internet. As another poster mentioned, the problem with Wave won't be in finding a killer app, but rather in defining how the platform can best be used by folks who are accustomed to well-defined product niches in the current space. The power is the extensibility and flexibility of the protocol - especially in the exposed APIs that will allow you to project Wave into whatever your current app is.

No one needs another silo. We do need interoperability between silos. Like SMTP before it, Wave has the potential to bridge that interoperability gap.

Re:Still looks like portable "Word w/ Track Change

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, just like here everyones RTFA instead of mangling with pointless comments.

Re:Still looks like portable "Word w/ Track Change

[hot soldering iron]

Already there, it's called "History". If you watch the 80 min video, you'll see them demo it as a slider on a timeline. Cool, yes?