Slashdot Mirror


Why Wave Failed

Florian Wardell submitted a little discussion piece about Why Wave Failed. He blames marketing and the staged rollout. Personally I think that what killed it was that I should have transparently been able to see my gmail inside wave. Requiring a separate window guarantees that I wouldn't use it regularly. Had I been able to read my regular mail in the same UI, I might have been tempted to use it more.

27 of 350 comments (clear)

  1. I Guess I Don't Exist Then ... by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Whatever the reason for Wave’s failure is, the fact remains: There are two types of people, the ones that love Wave, and the ones that don’t know what it is.

    Well, I guess I don't exist then. I tried Wave, I understand that it's supposed to be a collaboration tool more than just a glorified IM Client. And I don't love it -- I don't hate it, either. If it cost money I would hate it. But since it's open source and free I kind of view it as a solution to a problem I don't have. My coworkers and I played around with it for a day, noticed some tiny problems with arrival times of messages and the like (things that would probably be ironed out) but after that small amount of time, I grew bored of it and didn't consider it a viable or necessary communication channel. Of course, I'm not trying to write code with someone on the other side of the world either.

    Personally I think that what killed it was that I should have transparently been able to see my gmail inside wave. Requiring a separate window guarantees that I wouldn't use it regularly.

    Well, to counter that, I personally found it to be too confusing and not intuitive enough. Adding in my e-mail would have just made it an indiscernible mess. GMail is already busy enough, I'm not going to be able to consume that inside Wave. Doing one thing really well is often more valuable to me than doing a lot of things really well and trying to cram them into one experience ... this UI bloat really wears on me.

    Meanwhile, we’ll have to include Wave to Google’s increasing list flops: The Nexus One, Google Answers, Google Checkout, Google Viewer, the Knol, Orkut, Wave, and Buzz.

    Fail early, fail often, right? I feel bad for Novel's Pulse and SAP's Cloudave which I think were built up to interact with Wave but at the same time I don't think it was forced on them nor do either of them have to stop working on that product if Google is dropping out of the game (open source is great!). Google's failures are far less painful to me than another company's failures so I'll gladly tolerate them ... maybe even appreciate them because they'll get something right one of these days (look at Android going nuts).

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:I Guess I Don't Exist Then ... by cgenman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why wave failed: Because it didn't do anything. It was a glorified chat box. Document collaboration is neat, but you've been able to do that with Google Docs and others for years. Realtime document collaboration? I can think of some times when that would be neat, but most documents have one owner. Besides, you would need to be able to edit MS Office documents realtime for that to be useful. It the "innovations" you bring to the table are drag 'n drop and live typing updating, it might be time to throw in the towel.

      I'm glad Google has released a ton of things that haven't caught on. The things that has caught on, like Google Voice or maps or Android, has become incredibly useful. And there are parts of the world where Orkut is essential. But Wave was one of those failed experiments. It just didn't push far enough.

    2. Re:I Guess I Don't Exist Then ... by pudge · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, eldavojohn, I knew what it was and tried and never thought of a reason why I would want to spend time trying it again. I didn't even play around with it for a day ... maybe 15 minutes, got bored, moved on, never looked back.

      I suspect most people who tried it did similarly.

      The thing about putting Gmail inside it is that then it might have given someone a reason to use it. As it stood, most people had no reason to use it.

      It was a busy and complicated solution to a problem almost no one had.

    3. Re:I Guess I Don't Exist Then ... by imakemusic · · Score: 4, Funny

      It took so long to render that I never saw the bottom line.

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    4. Re:I Guess I Don't Exist Then ... by DancesWithBlowTorch · · Score: 4, Interesting

      after that small amount of time, I grew bored of it and didn't consider it a viable or necessary communication channel. Of course, I'm not trying to write code with someone on the other side of the world either.

      Just recently, I was trying to write code (Matlab code, and the resulting academic paper in LaTeX) with someone on the other end of the continent, so we gave Wave a try. Within minutes I realised that it's useless even for this, the task it was seemingly built for.

      The reason: It's a sandbox. If you write code, you like to be able to save it, and compile it. To do either of the two you have to, literally, select, copy and paste your code from the wave into your IDE / text editor / local file system. That of course breaks the whole "keep everything in sync in one place in the cloud" idea.

      So I guess there is one, and only one use case for wave: If you want to write unformatted text in collaboration with others, for the sole purpose of notetaking and, eventually, printing it on a piece of scrap paper. I guess there are not that many people out there in the world who actually need this sort of functionality. For everyone else, Wave is a hassle.

      Now here's what would be awesome: If I could share a window in my text editor / IDE with someone else on the planet, edit a piece of source together in real time, and still be able to save and compile directly from within the software. Oh, wait...

    5. Re:I Guess I Don't Exist Then ... by somersault · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As of July 2010, Alexa traffic ranked Orkut 65th in the world; the website currently has more than 100 million active users worldwide

      Orkut doesn't sound like a flop to me either. It may not be popular in the US, but that really doesn't make it a flop.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    6. Re:I Guess I Don't Exist Then ... by hedwards · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Nexus One and Google Checkout are hardly flops, I have a Nexus One and when available I prefer Google Checkout over Paypal.

      The problem with Wave was that it was an invite only service which didn't interoperate with anything that had an established install base. Likewise, when I logged in the couple times I have, I couldn't figure out what it was really for.

  2. Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Requiring a separate window guarantees that I wouldn't use it regularly.

    Funny, I feel the same way about websites whose style sheets involve great big floating things that don't go away when I scroll down. :)

    (Serves me right for reading TFA...)

  3. It's simple: Performance by Admodieus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The poor performance of Wave when it first debuted quickly killed any hype it had going. Everybody was eager to try it out, then realized it ran like a dog in pretty much everything except Chrome (and even sometimes in Chrome, too.) That and the fact that it was a standalone app - I wanted to be able to work with my Google Docs, share items from my Reader, and work on emails from within Wave, spreading information between all three if I desired.

    --
    "It's a reverse vampire...they....they crave the sun!"
  4. Save Wave by curtix7 · · Score: 5, Funny

    There should be a movement to save it if for no other reason than it rhymes.

  5. I blame (the lack of) security options by AtariDatacenter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Google Wave was only useful to me if I could trust 100% of the participants in the Wave. Yes, yes, there is a roll-back to undo damage. Not good enough.

    If I had a group of Internet participants, that absolutely wasn't the case. There was no in-between. Either you trusted someone and they could do almost anything, or you didn't. And damage was extremely easy to do. There wasn't anything else that I could find, like moderator pre-approval.

    Public groups were too much trouble under Google wave. A group of students collaborating on a private assignment? Not so much.

  6. Google needs to fully open source it by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google needs to release the source code to their client. I think if it were available as a reference implementation to be tweaked and forked for free that it could be turned into something very useful, especially in corporate settings.

  7. Solution in need of a (perceived) problem by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why did email become so successful? It solved a problem that seemed real to most people: the ability to send text over long distances very quickly and without paying a lot.

    What problem did Wave solve? None of the problems Wave solved were perceived as problems by most people, so nobody saw Wave as a "killer app."

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  8. I've Heard of It a Few Times by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Funny

    .. he is probably right. I never heard of the thing before now (though I probably would not have been interested).

    CC.

    I'm not quite sure what you're talking about we've covered it a few times.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:I've Heard of It a Few Times by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Funny

      Read that aloud in your best Shatneresque cadence :-)

  9. Frontend vs. Protocol... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The aspect of Google's wave rollout that I found baffling was their more or less complete inability to conceptually separate(at least in their marketing messages, which is bad, possibly in some of their internal thinking, which would be worse) the specific "Google wave" webapp they had created; frankly a rather rough and somewhat niche-y thing, from the wave protocol, which had considerably greater potential to power a variety of frontend activities in a standardized way that would allow for productive interaction between them.

    The closest analogy that I can think of offfhand would be if XMPP had been introduced by releasing a Pidgin fork named "XMPP" and offering no particularly interesting benefits aside from instant messaging over XMPP rather than Oscar or IRC or whatever. The world would have greeted it with a collective "meh." As it is, though, XMPP is capable of running all sorts of more or less real time communication scenarios behind the scenes, basic chat being a small subset of that. Similarly, Wave the protocol is quite powerful and interesting, "Wave" the webapp is kind of blah.

  10. Re:It was an email application?! by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here's a good demonstration of wave: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcxF9oz9Cu0

    --
    I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
  11. Re:It's all your fault by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Informative

    If only you could just set up your own Wave server...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_wave#Other_Compatible_Servers

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  12. Re:Already? by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think the problem is that it was in a restrictive invite state too long.

    People would get access, realize they only had 2-3 contacts that also had access, and then return to communication methods that were more accessible. I tried Wave for a little, but I basically only knew one other person that had it. I think I stopped bothering after a week.

    GMail, on the other hand, could survive for a long period of heavy invite restrictions because it was fundamentally designed to communicate with other email users. So it didn't matter much if your friends had gmail, as long as they had ANY email access, GMail was an improvement in your ability to communicate with your friends.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  13. Invitation strategy. by SirGarlon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    After a year, was there anyone who wanted to try out Wave who had not gotten an invite?

    Yes. I would have downloaded it the first week if it weren't for that "invitation" gimmick. I had a specific use case in mind and a specific group of people to use it with, but I realized I probably couldn't get my collaborators (non-IT people) to watch the 1-hour video (hell I could not sit through all of that), and to try to explain to them "you need an invitation to download this" would have resulted in blank looks at best. I figured I'd just wait till Google did something to make adoption easier.

    I could have probably networked and asked someone for an invitation, but that is rather missing the point that I don't feel I should have to beg for an invitation to try out Google's new software. If they had wanted me to try it, they could have, you know, tried not preventing me.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  14. Subliminal messaging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Insightful is the fact that the comment gets moderated according to it's first word. Let's see if this works...

    1. Re:Subliminal messaging by Abstrackt · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Insightful is the fact that the comment gets moderated according to it's first word. Let's see if this works...

      Interesting, your theory appears correct.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    2. Re:Subliminal messaging by EdZ · · Score: 5, Funny

      Funny, I never noticed that happening before.

    3. Re:Subliminal messaging by dokebi · · Score: 5, Informative

      Informative, this thread was.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, articles before post read *you*!
    4. Re:Subliminal messaging by Lord+Grey · · Score: 5

      "Underrated" is the word you're really looking for.

      --
      // Beyond Here Lie Dragons
  15. Not enough time by Mascot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wave has existed for three months or so. That's roughly how long it's been fast, stable and available to everyone. Just what did Google expect to happen in such a short time?

    Wave needed at least another _year_ or two to gain traction, not a few weeks. I somehow suspect the cost of running it was too high compared to any perceived way of monetizing it in the short term, and they pulled the plug.

    I suppose the good thing about it is that nobody's had time to become too dependent on it just yet. We do use it where I work, but so far we've held off on making ourselves dependent on it; wise choice it would seem. We did have plans in that direction though, wrongly assuming that since Google added it to Apps it was here to stay.

    I for one will miss it quite a lot, it made some activities so much easier than the alternatives, but I'll live.

  16. Re:Failed because it was stupid by slim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Solution in search of a problem"?

    Here's the problem. This week, I dragged a work related email out of my archive, hit reply-all, added a couple of extra recipients, top-posted a "why has nothing been done about this yet" comment at the top, and hit send.

    There were a few replies, some of which added new people to the conversation. So there were multiple threads going on with different subsets of the relevant people seeing them. Then another colleague chimed in independently, so I forwarded him one of the mails, which contained some, but not all, of the conversation so far.

    If all this had happened in a Wave, everyone would have been party to the whole conversation, and latecomers would have been able to catch up.

    That it could seamlessly turn into a chat, is great. That we could collaboratively edit a wavelet is useful too.

    I'd have used Wave a lot more if we'd had one inside our intranet firewall.