Slashdot Mirror


Google Wave Out of Beta

googlePLEXS writes "Google Wave is open to all users at wave.google.com, as a Google Labs product — no invitation needed. Google Apps administrators will also have the option to add Wave as a Labs feature for their domains, helping groups of people communicate and work together more productively." If you haven't played with it, it's worth your time just to try to think beyond the bounds of IRC/Email. It's not going to change your work flow, but I still think it's worth a bit of your time to see it.

255 comments

  1. Yay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now more people than ever before can not use Wave.

    1. Re:Yay? by pdboddy · · Score: 1

      Haha, think Wave will get Slashdotted?

      --
      Julie Moult is an idiot.
    2. Re:Yay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, it's just the CueCat of social networking

    3. Re:Yay? by __aamnbm3774 · · Score: 2

      Google Wave might be the biggest *Techno Bust* I can think of in a long time.

      It had a mountain of hype surrounding it, yet is less effective than a multiple person Chat Room, and 15 times as laggy/chunky/choppy.

    4. Re:Yay? by ronsr · · Score: 2

      It had a mountain of hype surrounding it, yet is less effective than a multiple person Chat Room, and 15 times as laggy/chunky/choppy.

      Oh come on, Wave is much more than that! The advantage is that you can spend all your time deleting what other people have written and replacing it with "I'm gay!" or other such witticisms.

      At least that's all I've seen it used for. Luckily as you noted, Google have a built in feature which will stem the flow, as participants have to dedicate more and more RAM to their browser just to open the wave.

    5. Re:Yay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yea but it's a Google product, so stop hating and get with the program, bitch.

    6. Re:Yay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are the bitch, AC

    7. Re:Yay? by Spiflicator · · Score: 0

      I have to agree that it seems pretty bad, though I can't wait to come back in a couple of years and read this comment and have to eat my words when wave has taken over the world.

  2. Heh... by pdboddy · · Score: 1

    Probably the fastest a Google product has ever gotten out of beta. :) It's definitely worth a look though!

    --
    Julie Moult is an idiot.
    1. Re:Heh... by tarscher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Google Chrome came out of beta in just 3 months

    2. Re:Heh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chromium has perhaps the fastest development pace of any open project I've seen. It's unreal. Anyone know just how many employees Google has working on it?

    3. Re:Heh... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      Google wave might be just out of beta, but was it worth pursuing in the first place?

    4. Re:Heh... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It's also probably the single most useless Google product or service that ever did that.

      (I otherwise use - and enjoy - a lot of Google products, from GMail to Web Apps to N1.)

  3. Dupe? by icebraining · · Score: 4, Informative
    1. Re:Dupe? by hedwards · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nope, that's just a glitch in the Matrix. It happens whenever they change something.

    2. Re:Dupe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Open to all
      2. Coming out of Beta

      Different things.

    3. Re:Dupe? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Except that the summary links to the same press release from May 19th as the article the GP posted. And the press release states nothing about coming out of beta.

    4. Re:Dupe? by AnswerIs42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, it did not work the first time to get people to use Wave... so maybe submitting the "story" (or is it advertising now?) again will get people to use it... doubt it.

    5. Re:Dupe? by Abstrackt · · Score: 1

      That was a good movie. Too bad they never made any sequels.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    6. Re:Dupe? by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      they did. where have you been living all this time?

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    7. Re:Dupe? by MoldySpore · · Score: 1

      I think he means GOOD sequels...

      --

      "I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."

    8. Re:Dupe? by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

      Relevant XKCD comic: http://xkcd.com/566/

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
  4. How old is this news? by neiltrodden · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's been out of beta for over a month as the DATED press release states!

    1. Re:How old is this news? by omnichad · · Score: 2

      And nobody noticed-hence, it's still news to many people.

    2. Re:How old is this news? by wye43 · · Score: 1

      Very old news. Slow news day I guess ....

  5. Great! by pknoll · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now everyone can try to figure out what the hell it's for.

    1. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Secret government databases.

    2. Re:Great! by thenextpresident · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's actually not difficult to see what it can be used with. Basically, anything you type can be a wave. Any content you create can be a wave. The problem is people see Google Wave as the product. Google Wave is just the interface. Gmail would be useless if Email wasn't as widely used as it is. The Wave protocol exists for a reason.

      These comments here could all be waves. Facebook could be based on waves. Forums as well. You would still use the same interfaces as you do now, but you'd have the added benefit of a standard API to access that information, the way email works today.

      Google Wave is Thunderbird. Wave is Email.

      --
      Jason Lotito
    3. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because it can be, doesn't mean it should be.

    4. Re:Great! by OverlordQ · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's actually not difficult to see what it can be used with. Basically, anything you type can be a wave. Any content you create can be a wave. The problem is people see Google Wave as the product.

      No, most people see it as a solution in search of a problem.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    5. Re:Great! by xtracto · · Score: 1

      Deffinitely. I opened an account back (about one month ago) when it was news that wave had come out of beta.

      I had a look at it and even played with it trying to setup a meeting for an actual project I am working on. Unfortunately I decided not to go with it due to the awkward interface.

      Right now we do our conferences using skype or Flash Meeting. I have also used DimDim for when you fancy doing a presentation or having video feed of everyone else (DimDim is just OK albeit a bit slow).

      In Wave I found it to cumbersome to prepare a meeting, specially aimed to scientists who do not have time to be tinkering with the darn technology. We usually work with one-click solutions (doodle, DimDim direct link, etc).

      IMHO Google has already fire two of their bullets and missed great deal with Buzz and Wave. Nobody really cares about these two technologies because there are already other easier and more familiar ways to do the same.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    6. Re:Great! by xtracto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Moreover, just because it can be, it does not mean it actually IS.

      Wake me up when someone has built an interesting application/solution using the Wave platform.

      So far I see a bunch of applications that are nothing more than gimmicks.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    7. Re:Great! by nmg196 · · Score: 1

      It's exactly the same as Facebook, except it doesn't have any of your contacts on it.

    8. Re:Great! by Xest · · Score: 1

      I'm still a little lost, perhaps it's one of those things that isn't obvious until you've used it. But what advantage does creating content as a Wave have over just creating it normally? If it's just a protocol for information interchange that wraps around content which is what it sounds like from your description, then what was wrong with XML, or is it literally just a pre-defined XML schema for content?

      Or I suppose to put it another way, what does it let us do that we couldn't do just as well already?

    9. Re:Great! by solanum · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one that is none the wiser for that post? What is a 'wave' supposed to be or do? Can someone explain in plain English what the purpose of Google Wave is?

      --
      Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
    10. Re:Great! by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Ermmm...kind of.

      Wave is kind of a mashup between wikis, e-mail, and IRC and IM. Think of it as digital whiteboarding with chat and messages. I see it as a great tool for brainstorming. I think it would work well for an online classroom environment as well.

    11. Re:Great! by icebraining · · Score: 1

      It's a realtime protocol, not simply a document format. For example, the federated protocol uses XMPP.

    12. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or I suppose to put it another way, what does it let us do that we couldn't do just as well already?

      Mass scale collaboration:

      Example, this is how we do code today you type it you submit it and you retrieve things done by others. Wave does this but on a much more practical level, where each edit is ONLINE all the time. So you can see where what somebody is typing. Making it easy for you to fix their mistakes while they are there. like saying hey did you spot this bug?

      Hardly anybody outside programming does this regularly. Wave wraps this one up.

      Second let us say you have a massive array of data that needed sorting, put it in wave and if you have enough participants it starts to magically solve itself in pieces before your eyes because its self organizing

      Its a bit gimmicky on top yes. But it actually does work fairly well much better than mail.

      its legally not so good tough :)

    13. Re:Great! by PerfectionLost · · Score: 1

      No, I think it has your gmail contacts on it.

    14. Re:Great! by tpholland · · Score: 1

      Sure: Wave is a new paradigm that disrupts preconceptions about how users can be empowered to create collaborative social content in real time, and it's situated at the convergence of several key web 2.0 technologies.

    15. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. And one of the things i realized after trying wave is that the web doesn't really need realtime editing for most of the use cases.

    16. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason email is so popular is because it's not centralized. Everyone can communicate, with everyone. Wave seems to try to replace email, but can't. When 1 in 5 of your contacts have a Google account, it's fucking useless for personal use.

      Shit, for every-day common people, it's even worse. They still use Hotmail, Yahoo, AOL, and etc. For them, it's more like 1 in 20. One thing I've noticed is that only technologically literate people have Google/Gmail accounts.

    17. Re:Great! by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Good. I have gotten tired of trying to find a use for it all by my self. Much harder to figure out alone than sex.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    18. Re:Great! by tpholland · · Score: 1

      You can be as arch as you like, but until this "Slashdot" thing allows me to respond to your comment by inserting an interactive Sudoku, I'm sticking with Wave, thank you very much.

    19. Re:Great! by Tom · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, if only now someone who understands something about good interfaces came out with a Wave client, I'd be happy.

      I love the concept behind Wave. But Google Wave is a close-to-unusable mess. And yes, I've tried pretty hard to use it, with several different groups of people.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    20. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And all the contacts from your Android phone, including SIM card....

      I would assume it also includes Youtube contacts, and any other services that Google manages.

    21. Re:Great! by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Well, the interface sucks and this jeopardize the spread of Wave as a protocol. That is sad because the idea is certainly worthwhile.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    22. Re:Great! by Macrat · · Score: 4, Funny

      Can someone explain in plain English what the purpose of Google Wave is?

      No.

    23. Re:Great! by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      Doesn't Facebook already do that pretty well?

      --
      I hate printers.
    24. Re:Great! by LordLimecat · · Score: 5, Informative
      Several points.
      1. It seems (so far as I can see) to be a direct replacement for email if it gains enough adoption. All data is encypted, and (as i understand it) all senders are verified, so spam and eavesdropping problems are pretty neatly dealt with. It extends the functionality quite a bit too, allowing for native video, widgets, etc.
      2. It simplifies multi-person communication vs what you get with email-- currently adding a new person to a chain of emails is rather clunky: you have to forward the chain to them, and then hope that they correctly reply-all, otherwise the whole chain is messed up and if you need to add another person, he misses chunks.
        With wave, just click the "add another person" button, and they can see the entire conversation-- unless you want to keep certain parts private (which is easy to do)
      3. It consolidates messaging on the internet. Currently, you go to JoeSchmoes blog, 2 forums, and slashdot, and leave posts at each. In order to check your replies, you need to visit each site and dig around to find your post.
        With wave, the blog comments could be a wave, the forum threads each could be waves, and the slashdot comments be waves. You reply, and your inbox now reflects the subscriptions to each. You could reply from your inbox, while others reply from slashdot or the blog-- but its all one messaging system, which means that doing it mobile is now a lot easier as well (you just need a mobile wave client).

      Point 3 is especially big. Its kind of hard to see the benefit until youve actually tinkered with it and seen what it can do. For example I created a blogspot account, set up a test blog, and embedded a wave with an embedded sudoku board, and added the "everyone" member. Within seconds, on my blog, i had about 3-4 people playing sudoku and leaving comments-- in real time and with no refresh. I could later check my wave inbox and see any changes that had been made.

      THAT is a big leap forward IMO-- if we can have a better messaging system with unified contacts and a unified interface, thats huge. All of a sudden we dont rely on 30 different websites producing an interface suitable to a 5 inch screen; we can just look for a suitable mobile client.

    25. Re:Great! by LordLimecat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Reading your comment, I had a sudden vision of someone saying the same thing about email-- "wake me up when someone can build an interesting application using the email platform".

      It doesnt have to be "interesting" to be phenomenally better or useful.

    26. Re:Great! by unwesen · · Score: 1

      Hey, I had tons of invites, perhaps we could've done that before... but nobody asked for them for some reason.

    27. Re:Great! by mikes.song · · Score: 1

      It's awful for general conversion, but it's great for working together with others.

      Basically, it's a real time wiki, without the stupid name. What are wiki's good for creating? Well, documents and articles. Wave is good, perhaps better, for the same thing.

    28. Re:Great! by mikes.song · · Score: 1

      Well, do something about it.

      http://www.waveprotocol.org/

    29. Re:Great! by VShael · · Score: 1

      But if wave is email, and I already have email, why do I need wave?

    30. Re:Great! by omnichad · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Doesn't Google's wifi van do that pretty well?

    31. Re:Great! by omnichad · · Score: 1

      In other words, Google Wave is Gmail. I want a Thunderbird. Wave might not be so freaking slow if it were running on a native desktop client.

    32. Re:Great! by kestasjk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Group e-mail is definitely a problem.. E-mail is a problem period; really I think it's safe to say when a company like Google recreates e-mail, and the result is a superset of e-mail, it's probably going to be at least a step forward.

      I just don't think people should dismiss it; I understand people not using it, which is a chicken and egg problem Google need to figure out and probably won't figure out, but don't dismiss it out of hand.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    33. Re:Great! by pdboddy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It works pretty nicely as a platform for play-by-post roleplaying games. It can act as the forum, the wiki, the live chat, and has gadgets for mapping, dice rolling and character sheets.

      --
      Julie Moult is an idiot.
    34. Re:Great! by HeckRuler · · Score: 1
      Yeah, I've had Wave explained to me like this before. Like only a zen master can truely understand what it does.
      I boiled down his explanation and it seems like it's a chat program, using chat protocols, where you can interject lines between previous lines. Which is neat, but not quite up to snuff with google's other tools.

      Basically, anything you type can be a wave. Any content you create [by typing] can be a wave.

      That's great. But what's a wave? And if you say some marketing bullshit like "it's a tool for collaboration" then I'm going to just tune you out.

    35. Re:Great! by HeckRuler · · Score: 1
      Because I'd love to code in chat. Also, I'd LOVE to log into a chat room and watch someone code.

      Second let us say you have a massive array of data that needed sorting, put it in wave and if you have enough participants it starts to magically solve itself in pieces before your eyes because its self organizing

      Dude, really? This is the sort of fanatical starry-eyed bullshit which makes me doubt Wave so much.

      There is no magic there. The "participants" are flesh and blood humans that would be trying to perform a mechanical turk version of quicksort. Why employ a host of people to perform menial tasks? Why not use quicksort? That would be the case if it's something that doesn't lend itself to discreet sorting, if it's subjective. And so now you have a hundred "participants" bickering over which movie is the best.

    36. Re:Great! by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      *golf clap*
      That's beautiful yo. It's like you learned a foreign language of start-up bullshitese

    37. Re:Great! by MooseMuffin · · Score: 1

      I've found it to be a very useful tool to help someone edit and proofread their writing.

    38. Re:Great! by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

      Slashdot prevents all of that some of thing for a reason...

      GOATSE!

      As soon as you can find a way to prevent goatse waves I'll consider using it, until then - keep it plain text and watch out for those hyperlinks ;p

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    39. Re:Great! by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      my wife and i use it to plan vacations. It's a fairly convenient form of self documenting communication. We can discuss things we want to see, places we want to go, etc. I can highlight where our stops will be on the map, and she can pick out stuff around there to do. All of it is stored for later reference.

      We could, of course, communicate these ideas by email, chat, im, and text message, but then it wouldn't be all in one place. Honestly we found using wave produces a pretty coherent plan for us.

    40. Re:Great! by noahm · · Score: 4, Funny

      Am I the only one that is none the wiser for that post? What is a 'wave' supposed to be or do? Can someone explain in plain English what the purpose of Google Wave is?

      The best answer I've heard to date for this question is "It's something that's supposed to make young people understand the confusion that old people feel when they try to use a computer."

    41. Re:Great! by KnownIssues · · Score: 1

      These comments here could all be waves. Facebook could be based on waves. Forums as well. You would still use the same interfaces as you do now, but you'd have the added benefit of a standard API to access that information, the way email works today.

      Not only that, but the big "paradigm shift" I see with Wave is that you don't have the multiple products (even if from the same vendor and "integrated") you typically do. How many times, in a work context at least, do you start a conversation in email, then get going so rapidly that email is silly, then switch to IM, then want to make it available to a group of people to comment on and refine on an ongoing basis (forum)?

      How much easier to have one technology that offers those features in one context. The "wave" takes on the characteristics of whatever is most appropriate.

      If this fails, it won't be because this wasn't a good idea. It will fail because they can't get the technology right, or they can't market it because it's too new a way of thinking, or because other vendors build competing protocols and confuse the market.

    42. Re:Great! by NapalmScatterBrain · · Score: 1

      My team members at work use it for our list of tasks we are assigned/working on/have completed. It is actually extremely useful for this. We can all immediately edit the same document, and see each other's edits in real time. We use to have to update a task list in excel every 2 days and this was rarely effective.

    43. Re:Great! by Unequivocal · · Score: 1

      API overview: http://code.google.com/apis/wave/guide.html

      Design principles: http://code.google.com/apis/wave/extensions/designprinciples.html

      I found these two docs pretty much cleared things up for me -- assuming you can program, they hopefully will for you too. Core concept: threaded messaging with real-time, programmatic interfaces (aka gadgets).

    44. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh. Except the Google Wave interface is much, much worse than GMail's.

    45. Re:Great! by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      When people start saying "you don't get it because you don't understand it, it's a dessert wax and a floor topping and you'd know that if you got it"... I get very suspicious.

    46. Re:Great! by bonch · · Score: 1

      Dude, we get what it's supposed to be for. It's just pointless in practice, and frankly, cumbersome to use in a high-traffic scenario. Every article about Wave hyped it up as the next historic step after email, and it was bullshit from the start.

    47. Re:Great! by bonch · · Score: 1

      But is it synergistic?

    48. Re:Great! by thenextpresident · · Score: 1

      Sorry. I didn't get into too much detail because I've done it so often. Wave is a pretty big idea, so it's reasonable that it might be difficult to grasp what it can be.

      I'll try. Keep in mind I'm not known for brevity.

      My elevator pitch would be: Wave is a real-time content sharing system. That's the best I can come up with right now, though I think it fairly describes it.

      Now, it doesn't sound impressive, but it really is, and better expressed with real world examples. This is easy.

      Let's look at this threaded conversation here. If I hadn't come back here looking for any responses, I wouldn't have known you'd respond. I have to come back to /., find my post, and than dig through all the replies.

      This entire commenting system can be duplicated inside a Wave. That doesn't mean comments here have to change. Rather, they are linked into Wave. How? The same way email is used currently. However, instead of using an email address, you'd use a wave address.

      In fact, anywhere email is used, wave can be used as well.

      Now, you're probably wondering if this is the case, why not just use email? The thing is, email only works in one direction. You email me. I email you. Wave works off the premise that communication is bidirectional. So, if /. comments were in Wave, I'd be able to use my Mozilla Thunderfox (My imagined Mozilla Wave client) to see the comments, as well as reply to /. from the client.

      Of course, here is where it get's interesting. As I said, I tend to ramble quite a bit, so I'd want to bring in a friend that can better explain this to you. Maybe a bit more concise. Worded nicely, and a lot shorter. He'd do a better job, so I'd share him with the conversation in Thunderfox. He'd be able to see what the conversation is about, and add his own two cents. He'd reply to your comment. He'd also reply to mine, making some mention about how I can't shut up.

      He'd also drop in the video of Google showing off Wave, just in case you missed it.

      All of this would appear on /. in real time if they wanted.

      Being the smart dapper guy I am, I'd steal my friends concise comment, and put it up on my blog (iDontKnowWhenToShutUp.BlogSpot.com). The blog post would let people comment. All 1 of my readers would, probably something like "Honey, don't forget the milk." Everyone subscribed to that Wave (You, my friend, me) would probably be able to see that.

      This is all done in real time, on a standard base. Real time communication. Maybe a better way to think of it is IRC meets Email.

      This handles a lot of the cases where developers have to create their own APIs to access the inforamtion in a system. If I want to develop an application that posts updates to various social networks, I have to learn a different API for each place. Integrating Wave into these system kinda negates that need for the content sharing side.

      I'm not a Wave expert. I'm not going to pretend to know everything. But Wave's goals are big. If they are realized, it will be bigger than email. The problem is, it's so big, so ambitious, it can get rather confusing.

      Hopefully I've gotten you thinking. My examples aren't perfect, but I'm sure if you sit back and think for a bit, you could see all the possibilities.

      --
      Jason Lotito
    49. Re:Great! by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      The comments here and facebook could also be made by pissing in snow, but using Wave or pissy snow for either would be a fucking retarded idea. There are already standard APIs for the things you listed, just no one uses them because once you make the data easy to get in and out, someone writes an automated method of raping it and ruining the medium with spam of one form or another. Hell, 'forums' or .. news groups as I like to call them are older than most slashdotters.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    50. Re:Great! by 14erCleaner · · Score: 1

      Good luck getting those 30 other websites to bet their future on Google. While I admire your optimism, my take is that now you'll have 31 websites to check instead of 30.

      --
      Have you read my blog lately?
    51. Re:Great! by Denihil · · Score: 1

      it's like the 4chan party van, except without government oversight

      --
      WÌÌfÍ--ÍSÌÒÍ...Í...ÌHÌÍfÍÍÍ--ÍÍÍ
    52. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yes, if only now someone who understands something about good interfaces came out with a Wave client, I'd be happy."

          Great, so now we wait for Apple to come out with a Wave app for iPad.

    53. Re:Great! by yusing · · Score: 1

      Sure! Just go to "google.com" and type in "Google Wave" !! Isn't that amazing? It says: "A wave is a live, shared space on the web where people can discuss and work together using richly formatted text, photos, videos, maps, and more."

      But you don't have to trust me: try it for yourself!

      If you insist on a vetted answer (with controversial discussions, humorless asides, and potentially damaged POVs) try here: http://en.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Google_Wave

      --

      "You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson

    54. Re:Great! by geschild · · Score: 1

      "No."

      Your comment seems to end rather abruptly. Did you lose carrier while submitting? I was sure you were going to say:

      "No one can be told what Wave is. You have to see it for yourself."

      *sigh* I guess we'll never know for sure, now.

      --
      Karma? What's that again?
    55. Re:Great! by Macrat · · Score: 1

      *sigh* I guess we'll never know for sure, now.

      No.

    56. Re:Great! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Can someone explain in plain English what the purpose of Google Wave is?

      Mu.

    57. Re:Great! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Great, so now we wait for Apple to come out with a Wave app for iPad.

      If Apple ever does a Wave client, it will only work with apps/extensions obtains via Apple's app store. ~

    58. Re:Great! by k8to · · Score: 1

      It is absolutely NOT a superset of email. It says "you can only participate if you're connected, and connected most of the time, and using a web browser that is capable of running all the new fancy stuff on hardware that can run the new fancy web browser.

      Email works on *everything*.

      Email has a client, that client can work the way the user needs it to. Wave requires the user to adapt to it, rather than the other way around. Wave is moving backwards, to tightly coupled systems and interfaces. The reast of the world is currently still digesting the last wave of interoperability called "Service Oriented Architecture" which dictates esentially that you do the opposite of what Wave does.

      Wave is already obsolete, even though the technology for it doesn't yet exist.

      --
      -josh
    59. Re:Great! by k8to · · Score: 1

      It is absolutely NOT a superset of email. It says "you can only participate if you're connected, and connected most of the time, and using a web browser that is capable of running all the new fancy stuff on hardware that can run the new fancy web browser.

      Email works on *everything*.

      Email has a client, that client can work the way the user needs it to. Wave requires the user to adapt to it, rather than the other way around. Wave is moving backwards, to tightly coupled systems and interfaces. The reast of the world is currently still digesting the last wave of interoperability called "Service Oriented Architecture" which dictates esentially that you do the opposite of what Wave does.

      Wave is already obsolete, even though the technology for it doesn't yet exist.

      --
      -josh
    60. Re:Great! by mxh83 · · Score: 1

      Google wave is software that constructs a use case that doesn't exist. That's why it's a failure. I wonder if there's anyone who has replaced their email with google wave.

    61. Re:Great! by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      The protocol is open, you can interface however you want.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
  6. Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too late, Google. The hype is over.

    You should have made GoogleWave open since the beginning.

    1. Re:Too late by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Google Wave has been open since May 19th going by the date in the press release linked in the summary.

    2. Re:Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that nobody actually knows how long it's been available doesn't bode well for the product.
       
      I assumed it had been available for a while now. I just didn't care.

  7. No email integration by slasho81 · · Score: 1

    No email integration == no future for wave.

    1. Re:No email integration by icebraining · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Wave is a federated protocol. You could easily write an email gateway.

      But Google themselves should do it, I agree.

    2. Re:No email integration by slasho81 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's their ship to launch. If they don't do it proper, no one else will care.

    3. Re:No email integration by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

      You get email notifications. I guess people trying to read via email would make all the amazing stuff that Wave does rather useless.

    4. Re:No email integration by canix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You miss the point: Wave should include email functionality so that people have a "one stop shop" not waves should be forwarded to email to read.

    5. Re:No email integration by Ephemeriis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No email integration == no future for wave.

      Why would wave integrate with email? Or, rather, in what way do you think it should?

      IRC doesn't integrate with email. AIM doesn't integrate with email. HTTP doesn't integrate with email. BitTorrent doesn't integrate with email.

      Wave is a new protocol. It isn't really supposed to replace email. It's supposed to be a different way to communicate and collaborate. Somewhere between Microsoft Word and WebEx.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    6. Re:No email integration by Esospopenon · · Score: 1

      No email integration == no future for wave.

      Check out the Mr-Ray extention, it's featured too. http://wave.to/projects/mr-ray

    7. Re:No email integration by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      You can get email notifications of changes to your Wave inbox now. Use the little drop down next to the Inbox label.

    8. Re:No email integration by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

      2nd sentence: "I guess people trying to read via email would make all the amazing stuff that Wave does rather useless."

      But yeah, Google should provide an open-source (who would trust them otherwise?) offline email reader that covers POP3, Gmail, Wave, Buzz & RSS with Bayesian anti-spam.

      Sadly, the IE Frame for Wave is borked and hence only FF & Chrome support Wave.

      Wave is superb though - best thing to happen to the internet since Slashdot. ;)

    9. Re:No email integration by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      It already has email integration via extensions.

      It looks like the question of wave's future rests not on whether its better (it is) or its useful (it is) or whether it has email integration (it does)... but on whether people will respond with a "its new, I dont understand it, I'm not going to acknowledge its merit", or if theyre willing to actually give the thing a try, do a little research, and judge it on its merits or lack thereof.

    10. Re:No email integration by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Forwarding an email you've received to a wave email account to turn it into a collaborative discussion. Having a nice offline rich editor when no Wave desktop client exists is nice, too (Yes, I know Google Gears exists for that). Being able to set up mobile devices or programmatic scripts to be able to create waves would be simpler if an already-understood protocol could be used. Think of email-to-txt gateways as another example of why this is helpful.

    11. Re:No email integration by slasho81 · · Score: 1

      You're right about everything, but missed the key issue: adoption. It's not an issue with other protocols but it is with Wave. Extensions or notifications or any of that stuff isn't enough. Unless email integration (and for that matter IM integration) is native to wave people won't make the transition.

    12. Re:No email integration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      E-mail owns a large portion of the market that Wave wants to step into, and wave like many other technologies requires buy-in.

      For example, AOL's AOLIM used to be just for AOL members, but to make it a useful product for their AOL members they had to open the application up to all people, so their AOL members would have someone to talk to. Thus, the proliferation of AIM.

      I like Wave, but I can't use wave if everyone else I communicate with is still using E-mail. Unless, here is the obvious part, Google Wave integrates with Gmail. I currently have no overwhelming reason to send any waves to anyone(I don't even have more than a handful of wave contacts), but if I could manage me E-mails from Google Wave, then I could replace checking my Gmail with checking my Google Wave.

      Even though it might be awkward to imagine sending an E-mail from your Google Wave account, It would ease the transition from one medium of exchange to another.

      Google Wave is a good product, but Google is currently shooting them selves in the foot, by not making adoption as easy as possible with gmail integration.

    13. Re:No email integration by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

      Forwarding an email you've received to a wave email account to turn it into a collaborative discussion.

      I don't think I'd call that "integration" any more than I'd call it "integration" when Facebook sends me an email to let me know somebody sent me a message.

      Still, it would be handy.

      Although you could probably do something similar with copy & paste.

      Having a nice offline rich editor when no Wave desktop client exists is nice, too (Yes, I know Google Gears exists for that).

      Why can't you have a rich desktop client?

      I realize that there aren't any right now... But that isn't really a failing of the protocol, is it?

      Being able to set up mobile devices or programmatic scripts to be able to create waves would be simpler if an already-understood protocol could be used. Think of email-to-txt gateways as another example of why this is helpful.

      So, what, we shouldn't develop new protocols because nobody understands them yet?

      I understand that it would be handy to be able to route waves to simpler devices. I understand your reference to email-to-txt gateways. I get it.

      But I don't see what this really has to do with email integration. And I don't really see what it has to do with the wave protocol itself.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    14. Re:No email integration by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Wave functionality is a superset of email functionality. If it catches on, there would be little reason I can think of for email to continue to exist.

    15. Re:No email integration by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Email integration is a good idea for a server feature, not a protocol feature. I think you're confused.

    16. Re:No email integration by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

      You're right about everything, but missed the key issue: adoption. It's not an issue with other protocols but it is with Wave. Extensions or notifications or any of that stuff isn't enough. Unless email integration (and for that matter IM integration) is native to wave people won't make the transition.

      They would if it was compelling enough.

      I don't think the core problem with wave is that it is a new protocol or that it doesn't integrate with existing protocols. I think the core problem is that it doesn't really add functionality that folks are looking for.

      It may very well be incredibly useful for some folks... But I don't think it does anything that the vast majority of people need.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    17. Re:No email integration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 Informative!

    18. Re:No email integration by bonch · · Score: 1

      If it's not supposed to replace email, why did nearly every article written about it and every presentation begin by describing the history of email and implied Wave was the next step after email? Saying it's not intended to replace email is basically going back on everything that was said about Wave.

    19. Re:No email integration by zuperduperman · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm mystified that they never built a gateway to email. That might (emphasis on might) have pushed it over the edge into mass adoption.

      It's pretty hard to launch a new communication service and a) not open it to everyone while b) having no integration with communication systems everyone else is using. Communication is all about network effect. Heck, even Facebook sends you emails to notify you when when someone messages you in Facebook. It isn't pretty but it is necessary.

      However I do think the problems go just a little deeper. Even when I got my whole company onto it, we tried it 4 or 5 times for things and then stopped using it. Mostly we went back to Google Docs - yep, Google Docs is a better collaborative editor than Wave. I think Wave underestimated some very important human factors that make other mediums successful. For example, how we model things in our minds is well matched by email. Each email often contains a whole thread of replies in its body. It is insane from an IT point of view, but from a human point of view it perfectly matches what I want - I can pick out any email and see the entire state of the conversation captured in a single document. Wave has the timeline for that which serves functionally the same purpose but breaks my mental model of wanting an actual document. These subtle psychological issues make Wave less "sticky" - you can't explain why, but you're not particularly keen to go back to it, even when it works for you.

  8. it wan't a beta before! by dougmwne · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I think that this implies that Wave has moved INTO beta, as in being feature complete, but full o bugs. previously it was a barely working alpha that lacked major functionality.

    1. Re:it wan't a beta before! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe "Beta" is what Google calls their finalized public release version. Even Gmail is in Beta still. Wave may not have been in Beta before, but because it is now doesn't mean it's full o bugs.

    2. Re:it wan't a beta before! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even Gmail is in Beta still.

      Wrong. You can add the beta logo back with a Gmail lab feature though.

    3. Re:it wan't a beta before! by Mascot · · Score: 1
  9. Wave by dandart · · Score: 1

    Google Wave releasing on time.

    Sorry, I have an addiction.

  10. IRC With Pictures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have this brilliant idea, ready to hear it? You'd better be sitting down, buddy.

    Ok, so you take IRC, right?

    Now you take that and you . . . wait for it . . . add the ability to post photos! Holy shit! I am a genius!

    For my bonus, I will take a million shares of GOOG, thanks.

    1. Re:IRC With Pictures by icebraining · · Score: 1

      It's like IRC, except the "channels" are all by private invitations (there's no public wave list), you get the messages even when offline, and it's way more media rich, and the servers are federated*
      It's like email, except you can write in real time and collaborate in writing documents.

      There's probably some more similitudes - but it's not quite the same as anything else. The thing is, is it useful?

      *so like in email, you can use different Wave providers and talk to each other.

    2. Re:IRC With Pictures by alc6379 · · Score: 1

      Actually... There are public waves. You can search for waves with a "Public" attribute on them, that anyone can follow.

      --
      I don't moderate anymore. Karma penalty for 90% fair mods? Can I mod that unfair?
    3. Re:IRC With Pictures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like IRC, except the "channels" are all by private invitations (there's no public wave list)

      There are thousands of public waves & public waves have been a part of the system since early beta. It seems to be the main use of google wave.. as a forum-lite for various interest groups.

  11. No federation by Dishwasha · · Score: 1

    You'll notice that Google hasn't finished the federation stuff and what they currently have loses all data on restart.

    1. Re:No federation by butlerdi · · Score: 1

      Federation has been out for a while. Have been running it on our servers for some time due to the Operational Transform features. Not using a front end but for M2M stuff. It is a bit buggy but not too bad. It will federate with anything other than wave.google itself. It federates with the sandboy and all non google installations.

      --
      "If the King's English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!" -- "Ma" Ferguson, Governor of Texas (circa
    2. Re:No federation by omnichad · · Score: 1

      The example server they created loses all data on restart. The federation protocol works fine - write your own server.

    3. Re:No federation by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Is that still true now that it's gone public? I thought they would open up federation at that point.

    4. Re:No federation by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      What do you mean "now" gone public? It went public a month ago. This is just a stale story.

    5. Re:No federation by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I mean since a month ago. If it's still public, then I think "now" is perfectly appropriate. I set up a federation server and tried it out back when it was still closed beta.

    6. Re:No federation by butlerdi · · Score: 1

      It is ok. Major issues yes... however they have made a good go of it. We ahve been using JUXTA then XMPP for years for apps and this on top of XMPP is a real plus. They may be wankers at times but this (forgetting the social shit) is ggod.

      --
      "If the King's English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!" -- "Ma" Ferguson, Governor of Texas (circa
  12. A bit of time.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but I still think it's worth a bit of your time to see it.

    It'll take a bit of your time just to write a sentence.

  13. So why should I care? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

    I can already send any data through email, so what exactly makes Wave worth my time?

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:So why should I care? by MosX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can already send data through the US Postal Service, so what exactly makes email worth my time?

    2. Re:So why should I care? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      people can watch you type the email.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:So why should I care? by Ephemeriis · · Score: 3, Informative

      I can already send any data through email, so what exactly makes Wave worth my time?

      Real-time collaboration.

      Wave isn't intended to have you compose a message and send it off. And then somebody else reads the message later and replies to you. It isn't intended for a thread-like conversation.

      The idea is to have multiple people contributing to a discussion more-or-less simultaneously.

      Kind of like if you were to cross email with AIM, Microsoft Word, and WebEx.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    4. Re:So why should I care? by PerfectionLost · · Score: 1

      lol. So people like me who need to put the 5 minute delay on their email to stop them from sending stupid emails are best off skipping this all together.

    5. Re:So why should I care? by Dishevel · · Score: 2, Funny

      I would think that you are better off skipping a lot of things.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    6. Re:So why should I care? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Because you can post to whatever forums you want, whatever slashdot articles you want, and if they are set up as waves, you will be automatically subscribed to those waves and can view them all from a single inbox. Additionally, email is to wave as txt is to html. You can "do the same things" with both, in only the weakest sense-- Wave is far more capable and (as I understand it) should eliminate a great portion of the anonymous spam that we see now were it to replace email.

    7. Re:So why should I care? by Mascot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you can't see a reason for using it, you either don't understand how it works, or don't have a use for it. Both are valid reasons.

      I use it a lot at work myself, and absolutely love it. For example, instead of sending an email to 5 people, each of them replying with different bits of information that I then have to collate myself, we use a wave.

      Instead of sending the boss email updates on critical on-going tasks, I keep them in a wave the boss has access to and update that as I go along.

    8. Re:So why should I care? by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      I signed on and no-one else was on, and I couldn't think what to do with it, so it must be a really silly idea right?

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    9. Re:So why should I care? by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

      I signed on and no-one else was on, and I couldn't think what to do with it, so it must be a really silly idea right?

      Meh.

      It might be useful.

      I tried it out for a while. Tried to use it to communicate with some friends and family members. Didn't find it terribly useful myself. But I was really trying to use it more like chat and/or email. We weren't really collaborating.

      Maybe it would be more useful if we were trying to accomplish something, instead of just chatting?

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    10. Re:So why should I care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, uh, what DOES make email worth my time? There are answers to this question, and though they aren't relevant now they were certainly relevant when email was introduced and the post was still widely used. And saying "I can already send data by talking face to face, so what exactly makes the US Postal Service worth my time?" wasn't a valid response to people asking why email was so great back then. Nor is what you said a valid response now.

      I'm kind of dismayed that you've been modded +5 Insightful. That would seem to show that the general public of slashdot feel that, whenever a new product is introduced that serves basically the same function as an old product, the mere fact that it's newer and that newer products have had success in the past is an adequate and even insightful answer to anybody asking why the new product is better than the old product.

    11. Re:So why should I care? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Real-time collaboration.

      yeah, like chat.

      Did you know there are chat programs out there that send every keystroke? Turns out it's pretty annoying. It shows how bad of a speller I am.

    12. Re:So why should I care? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Well that's new.
      How would the wave email stop spam?

      And this may bee really basic, but please describe HOW wave is "more capable". What's it do?

    13. Re:So why should I care? by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

      Real-time collaboration.

      yeah, like chat.

      Chat... With graphics... And multiple people typing simultaneously... And relatively slow refreshes through a web UI...

      Did you know there are chat programs out there that send every keystroke? Turns out it's pretty annoying. It shows how bad of a speller I am.

      I agree that it is annoying, though not really because I'm a bad speller. I just don't like to wait for someone to finish typing.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    14. Re:So why should I care? by MosX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just like there are advantages to email over postal mail (speed, ability to easily send to multiple people, etc), there are advantages to Wave over email (the ability to see what the others are saying as they type, gadgets and robots that can be embedded into the Wave, etc).

      People seem to be dismissing it before actually checking it out just because what they have seems good enough. That kind of thinking is not really good for technology.

    15. Re:So why should I care? by The+Great+Pretender · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My entire team was asked to look at it, I took neutral opinions from all the members. It gave us less functionality than our existing collaborative documents system and Adobe Connect Pro and appeared to be less streamlined and we had security concerns. In my opinion, as the CTO of a small (30 people) technology company, it has no utility for us or our partners. I hope it works for others out there, and we'll look at it again if there's a compelling reason given to us.

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
    16. Re:So why should I care? by severoon · · Score: 1

      This is a good question, the same thing a lot of people are asking. It's unfortunate that Google isn't making more effort to clarify this because I think Wave should take off, and it will help us all in the end if it gets over this hump.

      Look briefly at the history of email. It starts as structured ASCII text with some headers. Then it gets attachments. Then it get HTMLized so images can be embedded in line. The point is: everyone wants to put their content in line, no matter what it is: pictures, movies, a gadget. That's one thing Wave can do, and has led to this strategy of a "soft rollout," by which I mean to say that Google apparently thinks we can't handle the truth and has decided to sell Wave on this idea. But for what it is, it's way too complicated to just be an email replacement.

      What Wave actually does to achieve this capability of embedding content anywhere is this: Wave has inverted the typical application model. What is an application? It's a bunch of functionality bundled together. If you think deeply about it, for any particular task at hand, an application is actually a bunch of related, yet mostly arbitrarily chosen functionality that is bundled together. The problem is, when you want to type up a simple letter, you're confronted with a UI that does things you're not interested in, like mail merge. (When was the last time you used the mail merge feature of your word processor? When was the last time you exercised a significant chunk of any application?)

      In order to let you embed whatever, Wave breaks the application up and disperses functionality into gadgets and robots. You want to do something weird with a piece of content right where it lives in the wave? Ok, just get the gadget that renders it that way. You want to have some functionality change the content? Get the robot. If you think about this, we've been on this path since the componentization of apps have made the more into extensible frameworks than anything else: Firefox comes to mind as a basic browser that you can infinitely configure to do pretty much anything you want. (Emacs was first, I know.) Eclipse without plugins is like a Linux kernel without a shell--it literally is just a framework for plugins that does nothing else without at least the default plugins.

      Anyway, so that is, I believe, the idea behind Wave. Invert the application model, let people focus on content as a first order thing, not as a mere byproduct of some application.

      So now on to the practical...what is Wave actually good for? I don't think the main use case Google is using to sell wave, as a modern replacement for email, is the right thing. Wave is very good when you want to create a work product that is the result of many people playing different roles (provided the right widgets and gadgets exist, of course). Think not about email, where two people are playing the same role (email author, bouncing back and forth). Think about writing a book, where you have an editor, an author, a layout person, etc. Think about the traditional way a book's content moves around from person to person, their view of that content and how they'd like to work with it. Then think about how that same thing could be done with Wave with much greater ease, with each participant controlling exactly when and how they want the others to access the content and play out their role.

      I'm not the only one advocating this as the type of use case for Wave either. Check out the concept for film making and the managing the workflow of a science research lab too. The three ingredients where Wave will excel: complex workflow, multiple people, different roles. You just need the gadgets and robots specific to that workflow.

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    17. Re:So why should I care? by curunir · · Score: 1

      See replies below...

      How so?

      This post is an example.

      True, but email is simplistic in some ways that can become confusing.

      Because each email becomes its own entity rather than being integrated into a server-managed entity. And each user and email client can have it's own way of tacking on a response.

      Yes, but I can do that with email too, right?

      As you can see, it is possible.

      You can put anything you want into a Wave!

      And this is why you'd want to.

      --
      "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
    18. Re:So why should I care? by LordLimecat · · Score: 2, Informative
      How shall I count the ways?
      1. All server-to-server communication is TLS encrypted and authenticated. All wave origins are verified using digital signatures, so, to quote from wikipedia,

        Therefore, a downstream wave provider can verify that the wave provider is not spoofing wavelet operations. It should not be able to falsely claim that a wavelet operation originated from a user on another wave provider or that it was originated in a different context.(source)

      2. Real-time communication is possible-- that is, if you so desire, letter-by-letter updates are possible. This is not possible in email, so wave is in that way "more capable". Ill leave it to marketing droids to find use-cases for this.
      3. you can extend it with native widgets and/ or videos. For example, if you want to discuss where to go on vacation, send a wave with a "vote" widget, and just check the wave for results. Email cannot do this; you need to link to an HTML page to get anything remotely similar.
      4. Waves can be embedded. Blog comment sections can be replaced by waves; forum threads by waves. All comments would appear in your inbox. Email cannot even hope to replicate this other than with the clunky-and-annoying "notify me when someone responds" forum setting.
      5. You can easily add people to the discussion. The only way to do so with email is to re-forward the whole chain of emails to them and ask them to reply-all; or to include them in the next reply-all and hope that noone else responds first. This is a pretty glaring flaw of email that Wave fixes.
      6. You can retract statements and comments and actions on a wave so that they dont appear in the finished result, though they still appear in the history (its only a superficial change). Email doesnt really have this capability.
      7. Waves can be made global and public. Theres no "everyone.on.the.internet@internet.com" email address (i hope)
      8. Waves can be moderated; just because someone is a member of the wave doesnt mean they can forward (copy-paste works tho). Emails cannot-- all participants have equal control.

      Need I go on? Lets face it, SMTP was a decent protocol, and has lasted a long time, but its age is showing, and its really time to move past something so antiquated and problem-ridden (spam? spoofing? reply-all fun? lack of encryption-by-default?).

      There may indeed be good criticisms of the protocol, but the majority of the posts here seem to boil down to "I dont understand it, therefore it must have no uses". Is it just because it was Google that released it that it must be evil?

    19. Re:So why should I care? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      I've spent years figuring out good ways to get out of meetings. This is just a method to drag me back in. Lets point out, Wave is nothing like WebEx, really, just because you can share a dynamic image doesn't make it like a desktop application viewing setup. IM and EMail are effectively one and the same if you don't have email servers that suck ass.

      Contrary to popular belief, 'real time collaboration' using a PC is not as good as face to face collaboration, regardless of how many new ways someone comes up with to shoe horn all the traditional methods into a new medium where they simply aren't effective.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    20. Re:So why should I care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm can't take anybody seriously who advocates Adobe Connect Pro; that software is so buggy and unusable that it is better not to use it at all.

      Also, Adobe Connect Pro is live only. Your "collaborative documents system" is likely not live. That means you have two separate systems that people need to learn and move data between. Wave does it all with one simple system.

    21. Re:So why should I care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait--when did Google become evil?

    22. Re:So why should I care? by alanvgreen · · Score: 1

      FWIW, you can now enable Wave in Google Apps For Your Domain, and set your domain to closed. This ensures that information in waves won't move out of your domain.

    23. Re:So why should I care? by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

      A quick persistent email/chat hybrid.

      --
      I am not devoid of humor.
    24. Re:So why should I care? by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      Your use sounds exactly like a Wiki page to me? If you've already got a Wiki (We do), what would a wave add?

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    25. Re:So why should I care? by Mascot · · Score: 1

      I didn't intend to evangelize or start a Wave vs. insert-other-technology-here competition. Log on and test it out if you're curious. It's there, it's free, and should be of enough interest for any self respecting geek to spend at least an hour or two fiddling with.

  14. Out of Beta? by somaTh · · Score: 1

    So, it's further along the development cycle than Gmail?

    --
    Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
    1. Re:Out of Beta? by theREALtimewarp · · Score: 1

      Gmail has been out of beta for nearly a year.

    2. Re:Out of Beta? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Well, that's embarrassing. It's times like this I wish Slashdot had a "-(infinity) User wishes this never to be seen again"

  15. Shiny! by Arancaytar · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    :-)

  16. why you might care by jDeepbeep · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I can already send any data through email, so what exactly makes Wave worth my time?

    Real-time collaboration.

    --
    Reply to That ||
    1. Re:why you might care by jimicus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But what you wind up with is something that looks like an interactive chat session - you can put together ideas that way but there's no structure to the end result.

      If you're collaborating on something that, say, will eventually become a document, it's next to useless because you still need to re-write the fruits of your labour into that document. With a Wiki, that's a non-issue because you're working towards the final version.

      More useful would be real-time collaboration integrated with Google Sites and Google Docs.

    2. Re:why you might care by numbski · · Score: 1

      Even worse, you're "collaboration" will have a serious case of "data lock". Don't want it at Google? Tough.

      --

      Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

    3. Re:why you might care by kaizendojo · · Score: 1

      I can already send any data through email, so what exactly makes Wave worth my time?

      Real-time collaboration.

      I already have two options for this: a face to face meeting and a phone.

      What's with this increased distancing we're doing to each other with technology, anyway? It's just like Facebook turning the meaning of 'friend' into some perverse economy of your status.

      I thought tech was supposed to bring us together; now it seems we're using it to become more isolated from each other. I can see the application may be useful for remote, widely distributed individuals working in teams who absolutely need real time feedback - but that need is more hype than actual IMHO and Google keeps pushing Waves as if we *all* need it..NOW.

    4. Re:why you might care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even worse, you're "collaboration" will have a serious case of "data lock". Don't want it at Google? Tough.

      If you don't want it at Google, host it on your own Wave server

    5. Re:why you might care by jimicus · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't quite go that far:

      http://www.dataliberation.org/

      But Wave is a particular issue because it's not supported for data export right now.

    6. Re:why you might care by MisterZimbu · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Google Wave really needs the ability for a user to host their own server. They should really develop an underlying protocol and open-source it so people would be able to host (or write) their own server.

      Bonus points if the (hypothetical, because it seriously really really doesnt exist yet) protocol would be federated so the different servers could talk to each other.

    7. Re:why you might care by Schadrach · · Score: 2, Informative

      Umm, Wave is a protocol, with Google Wave being the reference implementation. The protocol supports what they call "federation" -- If my Wave address is Schadrach@Schadwave.com (a third party Wave server) and yours is numbski@googlewave.com, we can create a wave with each other invited, and it will maintain it on both wave servers. However, if everyone that is part of a given Wave is one the same server, that Wave never leaves that server. It is also possible to set a Wave server to not federate or to restrict who it will federate with, allowing you to create an "in house only" Wave server or a "only federate with other branches" Wave server or whatever.

      What you just said is analogous to "Your e-mail has a serious case of 'data lock'. Don't want it on the Hotmail servers? Tough luck."

      There are already some projects developing 3rd party Wave servers that are moderately far along -- as in they work, can be connected to, and have the basic features in place.

    8. Re:why you might care by numbski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Somehow I had the misconception that all API data went through Google. My mistake. Thank you for clarifying! :)

      --

      Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

    9. Re:why you might care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There *is* a mediawikiwave interface. Still needs a bit more work though ;-)

    10. Re:why you might care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what you wind up with is something that looks like an interactive chat session - you can put together ideas that way but there's no structure to the end result.

      Everyone can edit the original wave to treat it as a living version-controlled document. In addition to being able to post responses within or "after" the document.

      If anything, Google Wave is like the first wiki with an interface that isn't prohibitively awful. No one should need to learn an obscure markup language specific to a single wiki product just to edit a document.

    11. Re:why you might care by Chatterton · · Score: 1

      User already have the ability to host their own wave server. The thing is that only the server is open source. Not the nice google client :/

    12. Re:why you might care by hamsjael · · Score: 1

      Real-time collaboration.

      well "real-time" would be quantum computing, AND it would'nt, or maybe both ?

    13. Re:why you might care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A wave is a document. It's time to give up framemaker...

    14. Re:why you might care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you missed the snark. Everything in the GP post already exists (and is indeed the point of the Wave project).

  17. Are you kidding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wave should still be in the development phase now, it's completely unpolished (granted it's come some ways since they first released it). I think it's great and it's got plenty of potential, hell, I think Wave could even replace alot of Google's myriad services with one UI, but it will never fly with the internet as long as it remains as complicated and convoluted as it is now. Until they add email integration, table support, and make it easy enough for the average MSOffice jock to figure out it'll never fly. And if no one else uses it, what's the point? It's a communication medium, it needs people to function, otherwise why would anyone bother switching from e-mail if they have no one to communicate with on there?

    Not to mention the "Settings wave" has been eternally 'under construction' since I first started up Wave.

  18. How do I get others to use it? by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Every time I've tried to use it, the conversation dies off quickly and new ones go right back to Email. As a last ditch effort I even added a small paragraph at the top of a Wave that explained how to use it, and still the very first reply to it was sent over Email.

    It's just not intuitive or compelling enough to replace anything with.

    1. Re:How do I get others to use it? by ducomputergeek · · Score: 1

      We tried it a work, but it lasted less than a week before we went back to emails and skype. We couldn't figure out any advantage to it what so ever. It didn't replace anything in our existing work flow and it didn't add anything of value either. End of the day, Email for most stuff works and then we have skype for anything urgent.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    2. Re:How do I get others to use it? by D+Ninja · · Score: 1

      Email for most stuff works and then we have skype for anything urgent.

      I agree e-mail works for most stuff - assuming you have threaded conversations (Outlook...I'm looking at you), collaborative documents (something like Google Docs), and an instant message/instant access program (Skype, Communicator, etc). However, Wave does fill a very nice niche for certain people. But, I think the major problem is that most individuals just don't understand, or can't grasp, how Wave might actually be used.

    3. Re:How do I get others to use it? by diegocg · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not surprising, at least, Gmail has a scroll bar. I mean, a real scrollbar, which apparently they are not cool enought for Wave.

    4. Re:How do I get others to use it? by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 1

      I deal with some people who would rather wait a week to have a 30min phone call than have a short conversation over the course of a day via email between three people. Not for lack of trying, some people simply seem incapable and stuck in their old ways. I had hopes that Wave would give just enough extra interface over what email provides to make having these 3+ person conversations work for them, but it still wasn't enough.

      Other than that, yea I didn't really know what I was going to use it for -- I'd hoped that if I could get someone to use it for longer than a week, some greater understanding would "click" and we'd find a good use.

    5. Re:How do I get others to use it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> We couldn't figure out any advantage to it what so ever.

      The advantage is it makes you look cutting edge until all the other wanna-be's try it and also discover its uselessness.

    6. Re:How do I get others to use it? by am+2k · · Score: 1

      I deal with some people who would rather wait a week to have a 30min phone call than have a short conversation over the course of a day via email between three people. Not for lack of trying, some people simply seem incapable and stuck in their old ways.

      In my experience, that's actually something else. Some people simply are unable to express themselves in writing. They rather prefer to babble on via the phone for hours instead of stopping to reflect on what they're trying to say and write it down in a single easy to understand sentence.

      It's not the technology itself. I have a co-worker who is like that, and we're even having these conversations via VoIP right there in a chat program. After such a conversation (the record duration was around 2.5h I think), I'm usually so tired that I can't do any more work, so lose the rest of the day. I've resigned to not picking up the phone when he calls due to that.

    7. Re:How do I get others to use it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my experience, that's actually something else. Some people simply are unable to express themselves in writing. They rather prefer to babble on via the phone for hours instead of stopping to reflect on what they're trying to say and write it down in a single easy to understand sentence.

      Are you joking? In my experience, the same people who babble on about utterly useless affairs, are the same ones who post useless shit to Facebook or Twitter or texting or any other messaging service. Those who don't commonly use e-mail are generally the reserved ones who keep to themselves.

      As for the few who talk long on the phone, but not email, this is simple. These are active people. They chat on the cellphone while doing other stuff. Asking them to sit down at a computer and type away is an exercise in futility. And no, these people aren't weird. Quite the converse, really.

    8. Re:How do I get others to use it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ?????? Outlook has threaded conversations. It's on by default?

    9. Re:How do I get others to use it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's always the problem. I've tried.. several times.. to get projects that are 'wave like' (as in would benefit from that kind of collaboration) to use wave.

      Invariably it goes like this.

      1. Bitching that it doesn't work on IE6 (unfortunately, corporates still insist on this, and a few % of users see it as a big deal)
      2. "Why don't we just use email"
      3. "Why don't we just use skype"
      4. "What do I do? It's too hard"

      Followed by responses coming back by email because item 4. is a showstopper. The interface is designed for geeks, by geeks. Nobody else knows that double clicking in *precisely* the right place is what you need to do (click in the wrong place and it'll split a paragraph, or put your reply somewhere wierd)... new users want it to work like (or at least be as easy as) gmail, and until it does, it's doomed.

    10. Re:How do I get others to use it? by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing traditional scrollbars don't work very well with a dynamically expanding+contracting collaborative message. You'd be chasing the scrollbar button all over as people add and delete chunks of text.

    11. Re:How do I get others to use it? by complete+loony · · Score: 1

      I tried printing a wave once and because of the silly scroll bar (on firefox) all I got was the visible content.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
  19. Sometimes we do send data like that by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Funny

    Never underestimate the bandwidth of an envelope full of DVDs.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Sometimes we do send data like that by Jazz-Masta · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or Pigeons with SD cards on their legs.

    2. Re:Sometimes we do send data like that by BrettJB · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not sure if you were trolling or being serious (haven't had my morning caffeine infusion yet), but here's a real-world example of pigeon-net doing exactly what you describe:

      http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_6209735

      --
      Smell that? You smell that? Burning karma, son. Nothing in the world smells like that...
    3. Re:Sometimes we do send data like that by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes but the pigeon protocol is very vulnerable to hawking.
      And the latency on resends is painful.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    4. Re:Sometimes we do send data like that by russotto · · Score: 1

      Yes but the pigeon protocol is very vulnerable to hawking.
      And the latency on resends is painful.

      Don't mess with TCP and resends; send the data redundantly using FEC -- Flock Error Correction.

    5. Re:Sometimes we do send data like that by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 1

      I have a photographer friend that attaches CF cards to homing pigeons. Way quicker to send via broadband or 3G, even if the pigeons have to fly a couple of hundred miles.

      A double backup is made on a RAID hard drives first, though.

    6. Re:Sometimes we do send data like that by ReadParse · · Score: 1

      I think I heard this analogy as "a station wagon full of backup tapes" :)

    7. Re:Sometimes we do send data like that by uniquegeek · · Score: 1

      Probably referring to RFC 1149 and its successor, RFC 2549. And yes, it's been implemented.

    8. Re:Sometimes we do send data like that by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Yes but the pigeon protocol is very vulnerable to hawking.
      And the latency on resends is painful.

      And you pay per byte, too!

      (the grain isn't free)

  20. Neat and cool, but necessary? by adosch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Besides the Grocery List, Map Gadget and the Yes/No/Maybe gaget extensions, I don't see Google Wave making much of a dent in the social networking arena if that's their ultimate plan. This seems more of a collaboration tool for work, new ideas, coding, entrepreneurial type stuff. It has potential, but it's not developed around being friendly for someone to use personally on a daily basis. I like it, but it's something 'else' I have to log into to use it.

    If Google were to integrate it into Gmail, then I'd be more apt to force myself into using it. But then again, I feel I have all the communication tools I need in Gmail: gtalk, e-mail and Buzz, not to mention my cell phone, txt messaging, ect. This whole drive by Big Company to come up with the next medium for real-time social interaction is exhausting; I don't want 10,000 ways to talk to my family and friends, I just want one that works.

    1. Re:Neat and cool, but necessary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Together with fellow students we developed a UML and business process modeling tool for Google Wave. It's fully collaborative and you can see what others do in real-time.

      Check it out at https://wave.google.com/wave/#restored:wave:googlewave.com%252Fw%252BkLecqOufA or http://www.processWave.org

    2. Re:Neat and cool, but necessary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wave needs a killer app. So far, I have waved, and well that's about it. We don't need another Email or twit or facewhatever and Wave is none of those things. It is the fabric that would, could should? make them better. Wave is where apps should be made. Security, speed and functional diversity should make wave happen, but first there must be an app.

      I wonder if any of the social networks have looked at wave as a back end yet? It would open up many possibilities. My guess is that it will take 3-5 years before wave happens, and people will simply think it is a few nifty new features.

    3. Re:Neat and cool, but necessary? by thenextpresident · · Score: 1

      That's the thing. People look at Google Wave as the interface. The real interface is all the things they are using every day (Gmail, /. comments, Facebook, Twitter, etc) integrating into Wave.

      Email is the same way. Systems integrated email, and now email is useful.

      --
      Jason Lotito
  21. Useful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This just in: Google Wave out of beta. This also just in: Google Wave still not useful.

  22. I love wave by Gnaythan1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    last week my wife made a schedule for potluck plans, in a wave.

    bulleted list of items, detailed dates and times, some friendly ribbing about doing the dishes, and a lot of things involving many other people.

    she included me in the wave, but no one else at first.

    some side bar sort of things got added, I sent some funny pics, we added a little "will you attend" applet, deleted the whole dishes thread, added the potluck menu items, and went back and corrected my spelling.

    she looked over that, made a few more changes while I was watching this time, then added several other people to the wave.

    they then looked at it... MORE side bar conversations happened,the potluck items started including pictures and diet information, and we got a rundown of who was coming.

    an hour before the potluck, one person changed his rsvp, and several more people wanted to come, we added them to the wave, they saw the entire thread of events, and picked up complementary things from the store on the way over. we threw in a map. and used a sketching tool to draw on it.

    I love wave.

    the coolest thing about this is how seemless that all was. My mother in law, and several non-techy neighbors were able to puzzle out the entire thing and add to it with very little problem.

    on a completely unrelated series of waves, I'm having political debates, discussing singularity related web-finds and running a hell of a mage game.

    1. Re:I love wave by dcherryholmes · · Score: 1

      Mage over wave, you say? How can I subscribe to your newsletter? :)

    2. Re:I love wave by Terrasque · · Score: 1

      Mage over wave, you say? How can I subscribe to your newsletter? :)

      Newsletter, you say? How interesting, could you print it out and send it by postal mail?

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
    3. Re:I love wave by dcherryholmes · · Score: 1

      Sorry if my attempt at a joke made it sound like I was criticising something. I wasn't. I like Wave and I love Mage, and was just wondering if I could play or at least lurk.

    4. Re:I love wave by Gnaythan1 · · Score: 1

      I'm using wave to store character sheets, waves for each person detailing all of the rotes they have created,other waves for their background, and lists of "issues"... dice rollers, xp tallies, and most of all... a summary of the gaming sessions. these have pretty much turned into several novels, and are fun to read.

      All of the group are tech savvy, very imaginative and wanna-be writers, so its a pretty kick ass game.

      we play in person every friday night, and all of us update the wave afterwards.

      I do all arete quests and side adventures in wave chat.

      I do all my own notes in wave form as well, and I have several master waves, consisting mainly of a collection of links to other waves.

      Since I have PDF's of all my ascencion books, I can run the entire game from a a hand held machine if I really wanted to.

    5. Re:I love wave by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      I imagine he'd want to add you to his Wave-letter. So go get an account and sign up ;)

    6. Re:I love wave by mxh83 · · Score: 1

      Sounds a lot like the sample waves Google put up?

      Are you connected with Google perchance? I am finding it hard to believe that wives and mother in laws who have "potlucks" can figure out the purpose of wave, let alone add Applets, Maps and pictures. Basically, no offense but I think you're lying.

    7. Re:I love wave by Gnaythan1 · · Score: 1

      no, I'm not... heh. I'm pretty techie. So is my wife. and so were most of the potluck attenders. but it really is pretty easy to do. I live in Seattle, and assist field techs in installing fttp. My wife works for a major RPG company, and half my friends work for big software companies based in Redmond, or big industrial facilities based in Everett.

      but the real point here is that my mother in law, ex wife, and several friends are NOT technical, and were able to pick up what we created and use it fine.

      as for working for Google... naw, but if they'd offer, I'd consider it.

    8. Re:I love wave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So something that could have been done with a one line invitation "Pot Luck Dinner at our place... date and time".

      Instead you consumed orders of magnitude the amount of time an effort. This may be fun for a one off, but for anyone with a life, this devastating!

    9. Re:I love wave by Gnaythan1 · · Score: 1

      Not really no.... It took a little longer than a fast email note, but I built it pretty quick. and I kept dashing in and adding stuff every so often as I went about my day... that's kinda the point. I'd say it might be a multiple of time, but not logarithmic.

      I do tend to leave a wave tab open in my browser, so I can see if someone has added stuff or sent me a message... but I'm starting to prefer it over Facebook for most of my "Hey guys, check this out" kinda stuff.

      Yeah, there's a lot on wave I want to see an improvement on, but I really like it.

      This message on slashdot took me longer to write, than a quick wave I sent to a friend with several pictures and a video on it. mostly due to the annoying way I check the formatting with the preview button.

  23. extensions? by jDeepbeep · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But what you wind up with is something that looks like an interactive chat session - you can put together ideas that way but there's no structure to the end result

    Isn't that where extensions would come in? I'd prefer that Wave itself not define what an end product would be and impose that on me.

    --
    Reply to That ||
    1. Re:extensions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly.

      It's a platform, not a product. The end product is whatever you and your bots, extensions, and collaborators create. It's a wiki, if you use it that way. It's email, if you use it that way. It's a collaborative print document editor, if you use it that way.

  24. Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the bandwidth of a fully loaded 1968 Chevrolet Caprice Station Wagon

    1. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or the bandwidth of my 1988 Buick driving down the highway at 40 mp/h.

    2. Re:Or... by Ambvai · · Score: 1

      Or pigeons with envelopes full of DVDs on their legs in a fully loaded 1968 Chevy Caprice?

    3. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know, if you put the pigeon inside a fully loaded Caprice, it wouldn't be able to fly very far, unless it's a damn strong pigeon.

  25. OK - The WTF is Wave? - Open Challenge: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have one sentence (bonus points for brevity) to explain WTF is Wave, what it does and why I need it? Replies using the word "revolutionary" will not be considered, thank you.

    Winner lands a job at Google Research, VP of Justification of Vast Expenses upon Useless Projects in which No One is Interested Dept.

    1. Re:OK - The WTF is Wave? - Open Challenge: by am+2k · · Score: 1

      Let me try:

      It's a real-time communication system that combines the good parts of IRC, Mail, Wikis and IM.

    2. Re:OK - The WTF is Wave? - Open Challenge: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you Sir, we have a contender.

      See ROOLZ: Why do I need it?

      Thank you for your participation, you have 2 plays remaining.. (minus points for not modding up beforehand tho.. ;-)

  26. i think Google Wave is like the Apple Newton by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Interesting

    the Apple Newton is the Apple iPhone, 10 years too early:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_(platform)

    in other words, Google Wave is where we are headed, yes. but its too early. it has to be the most painful of technology-related efforts: your passion is correct, your efforts are noble... but no one adapts it only because there is no critical mass of people to use the tech to its righteous, intended effect, just yet

    or more exactly, Google Wave is like AJAX. everyone knows AJAX as the ascendent internet development model that pretty much came to public conscience with Google Maps: "you mean i don't have to click and submit a form and reload the page entirely every time? wow!"

    but did you know XmlHttpRequest (the X in AJAX) was originally a Microsoft Exchange Plug-in for IE 5.0 in 1999?

    and that Microsoft dominance in browsers at the time (and its noncompliance) made use of the technology feasible, and therefore other browsers adapted it? too many people believe standards drive technological development. when the truth is, everything starts out as nonstandard, the standards only lag behind, making uniform the popular feature sets of the time. standards do NOT drive innovation. if you want to do exciting groundbreaking tech: fuck the standards

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMLHttpRequest#History_and_support

    The concept behind the XMLHttpRequest object was originally created by the developers of Outlook Web Access for Microsoft Exchange Server 2000.[4] An interface called IXMLHTTPRequest was developed and implemented into the second version of the MSXML library using this concept.[4][5] The second version of the MSXML library was shipped with Internet Explorer 5.0 in March 1999, allowing access, via ActiveX, to the IXMLHTTPRequest interface using the XMLHTTP wrapper of the MSXML library.[6]
    The Mozilla Foundation developed and implemented an interface called nsIXMLHttpRequest into the Gecko layout engine. This interface was modelled to work as closely to Microsoft's IXMLHTTPRequest interface as possible.[7][8] Mozilla created a wrapper to use this interface through a JavaScript object which they called XMLHttpRequest.[9] The XMLHttpRequest object was accessible as early as Gecko version 0.6 released on December 6 of 2000,[10][11] but it was not completely functional until as late as version 1.0 of Gecko released on June 5, 2002.[10][11] The XMLHttpRequest object became a de facto standard amongst other major user agents, implemented in Safari 1.2 released in February 2004,[12] Konqueror, Opera 8.0 released in April 2005,[13] and iCab 3.0b352 released in September 2005.[14]

    The World Wide Web Consortium published a Working Draft specification for the XMLHttpRequest object on April 5, 2006, edited by Anne van Kesteren of Opera Software and Dean Jackson of W3C.[15] Its goal is "to document a minimum set of interoperable features based on existing implementations, allowing Web developers to use these features without platform-specific code." The last revision to the XMLHttpRequest object specification was on November 19 of 2009, being a last call working draft.[16] [17]

    do you think Microsoft knew where their minor sideshow Exchange Server ActiveX tech was headed? Microsoft constantly lags in the innovation department: silverlight competing with flash, zune, their tablet technology upstaged by iPad, their moribund smartphone OS competing with blackberry, android, apple, etc.

    and yet Microsoft actually had a truly groundbreaking world changing piece of tech on their hands... and they pretty much relegated it to Microsoft Exchange Server plumbing. hilarious

    this will be the development arc of Google Wave:
    1. eventually forgotten after the initial publicity blitz
    2. then someone rediscovers it in obscurity, repurposes it, and reintroduces it
    3. 5-10 years from now, Google Wave

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:i think Google Wave is like the Apple Newton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironically, Google Wave is broken on Apple's Safari 5 32-bit. Sucks to have an old MacBook; Wave is the only reason I still have Firefox.

    2. Re:i think Google Wave is like the Apple Newton by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

      I have to disagree, this isn't tech 10 years too early, but more like 20 years too late. Wave seems to simply be an integrated toy set of IRC, e-mail, media player and some other assorted things we've had for decades. It's IRC / MSN with widgets in the conversation and realtime updates - nothing to see, move along. I can see some businesses pounding it into the square hole just because they mistakenly believe they need it...and a vanishingly small number who do really need it. Some enthusiasts will get their friends to play with it for a few weeks - then find themselves alone in a wave app wondering why they are getting email responses instead or realtime wave.

      It's interesting, and a decent toy, but expect uptake to either be very slow or not at all.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    3. Re:i think Google Wave is like the Apple Newton by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1
      This "truly groundbreaking" part of this "world changing piece of tech" from Microsoft was simply the fact that it was supported by IE. As a technology, it was a terrible hack then, and it is a terrible hack now. The only reason it became popular was that, finally, web-developers didn't need to wait for Microsoft, and could use this hack without needing to use Microsoft only technology and dev tools.

      It's no wonder nobody at Microsoft noticed the possibilities of XmlHTTPRequest. As it allows using the non-Microsoft web in myriad ways, they sure as hell would have pulled the plug on that one, fast!

  27. a glitch in google easyness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    all google products are easy to use,
    except one, must of us dont know how to use it
    or why we should care about it instead of well known google services.

    to me it's dead
    i hope im wrong

  28. Stale by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 2

    Except that the summary links to the same press release from May 19th as the article the GP posted. And the press release states nothing about coming out of beta.

    This is a side effect of relying on readers to do the firehose filtering.
    Stuff like this gets through instead of being flagged as stale, just because it's not utter spam like the vast majority of firehose submissions. It's probably a small price to pay.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  29. What company is stupid enough to use this by AthleteMusicianNerd · · Score: 1

    If a company used this, they'd effectively be sharing all of their trade secrets with Google. Why would anyone do that?

    1. Re:What company is stupid enough to use this by cpscotti · · Score: 1

      Well.. just insert lots of "\/|aGr/\", "C|aLi5".. "enlarger your.." to the waves you feel carry sensitive information. In this way, your wave will fall into Sergey's spam folder and he'll never notice.
      !!Bang.. and you are planning the next google-killer using google features. Ironic isn't it?

      Now I wonder... did the street view sniffer filtered out spam-like data? For example some non-protected "free wifi" in London's centre?

    2. Re:What company is stupid enough to use this by AthleteMusicianNerd · · Score: 1

      That's a good one. I may do that on top of sending password protected .zip files when sending sensitive info (if I must)

  30. wave blocked. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    wave blocked at work.
    As are all chat formats.
    What I need is something like a chat client that uses emails as a basis for the chat.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    1. Re:wave blocked. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Do they block GMail, too? That has a web-based GTalk client in it...

    2. Re:wave blocked. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      gmail works... but gmail chat is blocked.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  31. Multi-player notepad by Bardwick · · Score: 1

    Fun.

  32. I don't understand it... by Zelgadiss · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't know how to use it, and it's not from a lack of trying I can assure you.
    I read all the tutorials and watched all the videos.

    Some things in Wave are just weird/annoying,

    For instance, threading.
    Why are the replies on the same level as the post being replied to? EXCEPT when you reply to a post in the middle of a chain of replies, then suddenly it indents.
    This is totally different from every forum on the internet.
    Then there are in-post replies. Why aren't these collapsed by default? They break up a block of text into unreadable fragments upon load, and you have to explicitly use a command to collapse them all make the post readable.

    What aren't there "write controls" to prevent people from editing something. I know there is a playback feature.
    But honestly I don't see the harm in letting a moderator control what is a "public area" and what is not.

    Maybe I'm not getting it - this whole new paradigm. But I doubt I'm the only one.

    It would be nice if Google provide a detailed step-by-step video as to how to use it.
    And by that I mean details like, when to use the reply "button" at the bottom of a chain, and when to use the reply button on the toolbar at the top, should be included.
    They will literally have to explain the whole paradigm or most of us won't get it.

    1. Re:I don't understand it... by butlerdi · · Score: 1

      There are many annoying bits however there are also some killer bits like Operational Transformation which is really cool. I am not into social net type stuff but for many things this is great.

      --
      "If the King's English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!" -- "Ma" Ferguson, Governor of Texas (circa
    2. Re:I don't understand it... by Zelgadiss · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what exactly is Operational Transformation.

      But if it's the multiple people editing a document at the same time in real-time feature, it has been back ported to Google Doc. :P
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_hJ3R8jEZM#t=0m47s

    3. Re:I don't understand it... by butlerdi · · Score: 1

      do not know, however it has been a god send to our project. http://blogs.gartner.com/ray_valdes/2009/05/31/the-secret-sauce-behind-google-wave/

      --
      "If the King's English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!" -- "Ma" Ferguson, Governor of Texas (circa
  33. Trash basically useless; no absolute deletion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Know what you still can't do in Wave? Empty the trash. In other words, remove a wave entirely from the system. Google is hellbent on keeping every last bit and byte entered into Wave on their servers forever apparently.

    I do not like this, and I'm wondering why no one has brought up privacy concerns over this yet.

    Also, what happens when you get someone posting offensive material in the wave? What do you do when you can never get rid of it? You can "edit" the wave to remove something from the current view, but it will still show up in playback, yes?

    I'd settle, at least, for permanent "item" deletion.

    [tinfoil hat (extra thick)]
    Furthermore, what happens if someone jokes around with something like "hey check out this homemade bomb making site LOL" and the government decides to visit you when their secret monitoring software catches those 'evil terrorist keywords'? Besides not being able to delete it, if you do not make the effort to tediously, manually edit the site link "away" from the current view, or post a response stating your firm position that posting such material is bad, does the government get to assume you approve of it and claim you're guilty by association because you did not "go on record" in the 'offending' wave and condemn such material?
    [/tinfoil hat]

    I think there's a lot of questions (regular, and even tinfoil-ish) that need to be asked, and answered (obviously), about the ramifications of keeping these waves around forever with no way to delete anything individually from them or delete the entire wave itself. This seems worse even than forums that don't let you delete your own posts at the very least, depending on just how 'public' you've made it (how many people you've added to it, or if it is in fact a 'public wave').

  34. Another fantastic idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh. It's another one of those "paradigm-bustin' breakthrough concepts that promise to revolutionize everything, once somebody starts to use it" ideas. Just like the last zillion or so I've heard about in the last couple of decades.

    Meh.

    I promise I'll look into it, once countless hordes - other than me - start to use it, and Wave starts to become useful. Until then, this is just another routine 'please come and use our technology or else our investment will turn out to be worthless' plea for users.

    Back to our regularly scheduled program...

  35. Great but nobody still knows what to do with it? by fuzzylollipop · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The problem with this product is nobody beyond developers really knows what it is supposed to do?

  36. GoogleWave is awesome for .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sharing PORN Pics, .. have a couple of waves started PICS-SFW and PICS-NSFW ;-)

  37. The closed Beta killed this. by Torinaga-Sama · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I started using Wave in the Beta. At first my level of excitement was very high as I figured out ways that technology could be useful.

    Unfortunately that excitement waned as I discovered I had very few people to share it with as invites were scarce and not many people I wanted to communicate with regularly had one.

    Now the product is free and open but it has missed its opportunity to integrate itself into my routine. I think that Google might have lost a lot of community Evangelists on this one.

    --
    (/local/home/curiosity)-#who -u|grep thecat|cut -c 44-49|xargs kill -9
    1. Re:The closed Beta killed this. by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Okay, pretend today was the first chance you had to use it, and your previous experiences don't exist.

      I don't really see why you can't use it now if its so great. Its more along the lines of realizing how useless it really is rather than the lack of people who can use it being the issue.

      If it was really useful, there would have been an actual demand for it.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re:The closed Beta killed this. by Torinaga-Sama · · Score: 1

      Pretending my previous experience doesn't exist is a futile experiment.

      Unless I can be reinfected with the excitement I previously had I will most likely not change my habits. For something like Wave to be successful it needs to change your behavior and it missed its opportunity to do that easily with me.

      To address, the demand issue, there WAS demand for it back when invites were difficult to get. Had they thrown open the flood gates then they would have had a better chance of being successful. The only time the invite only Beta has been exceptionally successful for Google has been with Gmail and Gmail wasn't really changing a behavior for most people.

      --
      (/local/home/curiosity)-#who -u|grep thecat|cut -c 44-49|xargs kill -9
    3. Re:The closed Beta killed this. by complete+loony · · Score: 1

      Wave is a new protocol. Google should have focused more on releasing a point and click install for running your own private server when they announced it.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
  38. Latency, not Bandwidth by rsborg · · Score: 1

    Never underestimate the bandwidth of an envelope full of DVDs.

    The latency will kill you. About 50% of my group's uses for emails could be solved with IM, because they're quick pings... all they require is an ACK/NACK (email > IM for non-repudiation purposes). Of the remaining 50%, 2/3s requires a latency of about one business day (ie, approval with comments, mass-updates, clarifiations, etc).

    In short, email based on postal would grind our business to a halt. That's not even mentioning the grep-ability of email vs. dead-tree and the fact that 1TB of PDFs has less space concerns than a roomfull of paper boxes.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  39. BANG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *dropped carrier (pigeon)*

  40. BANG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *Dropped Carrier*

    pigeon, that is.

  41. hhmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wave looks more like facebook for nerds...

  42. ugh Wave by Peganthyrus · · Score: 1

    So. I'm moving into a group house with some friends. They started using Wave to organize possibilities, comment on them, and vote on them.

    But the person who tended to dump possibilities into the wave always just dumped the Craigslist URLs. Pretty hard for me to decide between one long string of random alphanumerics and another. So I started cutting and pasting the actual listings in. Collaborative editing! Awesome!

    Well, awesome up until the point where it'd start saying "This wave is experiencing some slight turbulence" and make me reload it, without my changes. Not so awesome. Frustrating, in fact. The kind of frustration that quickly made me want to throw something.

    And don't get me started on that horrible, horrible little custom scrollbar...

    --
    egypt urnash minimal art.
  43. Wave commentary by jhhl · · Score: 1

    It's true that the Google Wave UI is pretty confusing. But I've been wanting to design an email replacement protocol that sits on XMPP for a while now and was happy to see that happen. That it also attempts to solve other problems, like capturing threading in a sensible way, allowing data to be presented in multiple forms and allowing robots to participate in these conversations, really sums up and simplifies a lot of issues in communication in general.

    --
    -- Real Stupidity is the Artificial Intelligence of the 21st century
  44. Connect it by Asaf.Zamir · · Score: 1

    The only chance I would use Google Wave is if there was a way to connect it to Facebook and Twitter. Otherwise I'll be creating waves by myself. And a one man's wave always looks ridiculous.

  45. Someone did not see the Wave update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess someone forgot to put it in Wave that this story has already aired on Slashdot, so in an effort to make sure it makes it there, it has been reposted without being double checked here first so that we can have a double for our benefit.

    Seriously, it is a good tool for those hard to get to meetings.

  46. Technology not ready by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been using wave for DnD game discussion for a bit over a year now.

    Largely my group likes the product, and will continue using it, however here are our complaints

    1 - Large waves (over 100 messages) freak out and suffer performance
    2 - Anything more than plain text or images seriously harm wave performance
    3 - Lack of group features for new waves (new wave with everyone here, is a recent feature and helped a lot)
    4 - All problems are VASTLY exacerbated on firefox. In fact, firefox has a tendancy to crash a lot when using wave and lose a lot of precious data