Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

A Curmudgeonly Look At Google Wave

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the get-your-cynic-on dept.

Google 197

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

cancel ×

197 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First Wave (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28167539)

First Wave

MAY I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE - DO NOT MOD DOWN (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28167969)

My message to you is about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the way to end it. I had not intended to speak to you about this issue, because, for us, this issue is already decided on: diamonds cut diamonds. Praise be to God, our conditions are always improving and becoming better, while your conditions are to the contrary of this. However, what prompted me to speak are the repeated fallacies of your President Bush in his comment on the outcome of the US opinion polls, which indicated that the overwhelming majority of you want the withdrawal of the forces from Iraq, but he objected to this desire and said that the withdrawal of troops would send a wrong message to the enemy. Bush said: It is better to fight them on their ground than they fighting us on our ground. In my response to these fallacies, I say: The war in Iraq is raging, and the operations in Afghanistan are on the rise in our favour, praise be to God. The Pentagon figures indicate the rise in the number of your dead and wounded, let alone the huge material losses, and let alone the collapse of the morale of the soldiers there and the increase in the suicide cases among them. So, just imagine the state of psychological breakdown that afflicts the soldier while collecting the remnants of his comrades' dead bodies after they hit mines, which torn them. Following such situation, the soldier becomes between two fires. If he refuses to go out of his military barracks for patrols, he will face the penalties of the Vietnam butcher, and if he goes out, he will face the danger of mines. So, he is between two bitter situations, something which puts him under psychological pressure - fear, humiliation, and coercion. Moreover, his people are careless about him. So, he has no choice but to commit suicide. What you hear about him and his suicide is a strong message to you, which he wrote with his blood and soul while pain and bitterness eat him up so that you would save what you can save from this hell. However, the solution is in your hand if you care about them. The news of our brother mujahideen, however, is different from what is published by the Pentagon. This news indicates that what is carried by the news media does not exceed what is actually taking place on the ground. What increases doubts on the information of the White House's administration is its targeting of the news media, which carry some facts about the real situation. Documents have recently showed that the butcher of freedom in the world [US President Bush] had planned to bomb the head office of al-Jazeera Space Channel in the state of Qatar after he bombed its offices in Kabul and Baghdad, although despite its defects, it is [Al-Jazeera] one of your creations. Jihad is continuing, praise be to God, despite all the repressive measures the US army and its agents take to the point where there is no significant difference between these crimes and those of Saddam. These crimes include the raping of women and taking them hostage instead of their husbands. There is no power but in God. The torturing of men has reached the point of using chemical acids and electric drills in their joints. If they become desperate with them, they put the drill on their heads until death. If you like, read the humanitarian reports on the atrocities and crimes in the prisons of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. I say that despite all the barbaric methods, they have failed to ease resistance, and the number of mujahideen, praise be to God, is increasing. In fact, reports indicate that the defeat and devastating failure of the ill-omened plan of the four - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz - and the announcement of this defeat and working it out, is only a matter of time, which is to some extent linked to the awareness of the American people of the magnitude of this tragedy. The wise ones know that Bush has no plan to achieve his alleged victory in Iraq. If you compare the small number of the dead when Bush made that false and stupid show-like announcement from an aircraft carrier on the end of the major operations, to many times as much as this number of the killed and injured, who fell in the minor operations, you will know the truth in what I am saying, and that Bush and his administration do not have neither the desire nor the will to withdraw from Iraq for their own dubious reasons. To go back to where I started, I say that the results of the poll satisfy sane people and that Bush's objection to them is false. Reality testifies that the war against America and its allies has not remained confined to Iraq, as he claims. In fact, Iraq has become a point of attraction and recruitment of qualified resources. On the other hand, the mujahideen, praise be to God, have managed to breach all the security measures adopted by the unjust nations of the coalition time and again. The evidence of this is the bombings you have seen in the capitals of the most important European countries of this aggressive coalition. As for the delay in carrying out similar operations in America, this was not due to failure to breach your security measures. Operations are under preparation, and you will see them on your own ground once they are finished, God willing. Based on the above, we see that Bush's argument is false. However, the argument that he avoided, which is the substance of the results of opinion polls on withdrawing the troops, is that it is better not to fight the Muslims on their land and for them not to fight us on our land. We do not object to a long-term truce with you on the basis of fair conditions that we respect. We are a nation, for which God has disallowed treachery and lying. In this truce, both parties will enjoy security and stability and we will build Iraq and Afghanistan, which were destroyed by the war. There is no defect in this solution other than preventing the flow of hundreds of billions to the influential people and war merchants in America, who supported Bush's election campaign with billions of dollars. Hence, we can understand the insistence of Bush and his gang to continue the war. If you have a genuine will to achieve security and peace, we have already answered you. If Bush declines but to continue lying and practicing injustice [against us], it is useful for you to read the book of "The Rogue State", the introduction of which reads: If I were a president, I would halt the operations against the United States. First, I will extend my apologies to the widows, orphans, and the persons who were tortured. Afterwards, I will announce that the US interference in the world's countries has ended for ever. Finally, I would like to tell you that the war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever as the wind blows in this direction with God's help. If you win it, you should read the history. We are a nation that does not tolerate injustice and seek revenge forever. Days and nights will not go by until we take revenge as we did on 11 September, God willing, and until your minds are exhausted and your lives become miserable and things turn [for the worse], which you detest. As for us, we do not have anything to lose. The swimmer in the sea does not fear rain. You have occupied our land, defiled our honour, violated our dignity, shed our blood, ransacked our money, demolished our houses, rendered us homeless, and tampered with our security. We will treat you in the same way. You tried to deny us the decent life, but you cannot deny us a decent death. Refraining from performing jihad, which is sanctioned by our religion, is an appalling sin. The best way of death for us is under the shadows of swords. Do not be deluded by your power and modern weapons. Although they win some battles, they lose the war. Patience and steadfastness are better than them. What is important is the outcome. We have been tolerant for 10 years in fighting the Soviet Union with our few weapons and we managed to drain their economy. They became history, with God's help. You should learn lessons from that. We will remain patient in fighting you, God willing, until the one whose time has come dies first. We will not escape the fight as long as we hold our weapons in our hands. I swear not to die but a free man even if I taste the bitterness of death. I fear to be humiliated or betrayed. Peace be upon those who follow guidance. [unchainyourdog.org]

Can't See Comment Titles (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28167571)

Can't See Comment Titles

Take a break from your open sores circle jerk and fix your fucking code.

Re:Can't See Comment Titles (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28167993)

Can't See Comment Titles Take a break from your open sores circle jerk and fix your fucking code.

Hey wait a minute! Those aren't labia majora, they're niggerlips!!

Re:Can't See Comment Titles (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28168035)

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

Re:Can't See Comment Titles (0, Offtopic)

fatalwall (873645) | more than 5 years ago | (#28168881)

I think i saw that before in a dream of a dream

That or years ago when i started using /.

Re:Can't See Comment Titles (2, Informative)

427_ci_505 (1009677) | more than 5 years ago | (#28168959)

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

Re:Can't See Comment Titles (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28169659)

Slashdot is it's own app, right? I don't mind it half broken, it works well enough -- go slashdot! Go use wordpress you haters.

Re:Can't See Comment Titles (4, Informative)

dzfoo (772245) | more than 5 years ago | (#28169615)

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

      -dZ.

um why is the top bar red? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28167587)

Dumb and non topical I know but all the title bars on the articles are blue except this one which is red. What's up with that?

What I'm Worried About... (0)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 5 years ago | (#28167589)

Conversations are known as Waves, but the demo included just three people. What happens when you are on team with 15 or 20 people or on a mailing list with 200 people? Won't it get crowded and out of control fairly quickly? Won't the interface itself overwhelm those of us who have trouble processing too much information in a single view. It will surely please some people, but I can see it getting overcrowded and noisy in a hurry. It will definitely need well designed filtering controls to avoid this problem.

"Dear Google Apps,

Sorry for being such a gigantic, insecure shitlord and sending you gimmicky Google app shit twice a year for no damn reason. As a token of the sincerity of my apology, here are pictures of me killing myself by ingesting metal scraps. It was extremely painful. I hope you will remember me in death as the attention-whoring sycophant I am, and tell your children about the dangers of mercury poisoning.

May God bless you and keep you in His heart and in yours!"

Please repost your article. (4, Informative)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#28167609)

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

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

Re:Please repost your article. (5, Informative)

bconway (63464) | more than 5 years ago | (#28167685)

NoScript [noscript.net] .

Noscript/adblock doesn't solve the problem (3, Insightful)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#28168483)

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

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

Re:Noscript/adblock doesn't solve the problem (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28168647)

He didn't say Noscript was the one-size-fits-all solution, he just said "Noscript." It won't solve the problem, but it will get it out of your face, which is good enough for most people.

Re:Noscript/adblock doesn't solve the problem (4, Funny)

dwpro (520418) | more than 5 years ago | (#28169189)

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

Re:Noscript/adblock doesn't solve the problem (1, Offtopic)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28169231)

(warning, offtopic coming, mod appropriately)

Spam may not be a problem to me, but it is a general problem. Likewise, those ads are. Allow me to elaborate.

I don't get to see spam. My spamfilter is set well, it works great, it catches 99% of the trash. All peachy. But the problem of spam isn't just that I might get to see and have to delete it. The problem is that spam is one vector of infection for malware. People with less restrictive spamfilters (who usually are also less computer savvy) get to see it, might click it and become part of a botnet herd. Ready to spam or execute DDoS attacks. And then it may well be your problem again when your server goes down due to overload.

Likewise, those ads. I don't like adblocking software. Adblockers increase instead of solve the ad problem. First of all, people making pages for me to view have bills to pay. And they either pay them themselves, have advertisers pay them or have me pay them. The first is usually short lived because invariably they run out of money or simply lose interest in sinking money into something that they may not enjoy anymore one day. The last is out of the question, I won't pay for something I get free elsewhere. So ads have to generate the revenue. They can only do that, though, if I get to see them. I don't mind banner ads or other forms of advertising between the content.

Worse, though, those ad blockers scrub away those obnoxious full screen in-your-face ads. Without blockers, people would eventually simply ignore those pages and go elsewhere, because they don't want to put up with the junk. Which leads to fewer impressions and thus might have some "educational value" for webmasters who could maybe gain the insight that less obtrusive ads is the way. Since adblockers take this nuisance away, visitor numbers are steady and thus full page ads are here to stay.

Re:Noscript/adblock doesn't solve the problem (1, Offtopic)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 5 years ago | (#28169737)

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

Actually, it's very different. When a jerk sends spam, they suck up resources within the network, where it must be transmitted, and on the servers and clients, where it must be stored and filtered.

Annoying popups and rollovers, on the other hand, may never be downloaded at all (thanks to NoScript), meaning no waste, other than the extra bit of javascript that's downloaded but never executed. And even if the content is downloaded but just not shown (as is sometimes the case with AdBlock and similar tools), it's a fairly small amount of extra crap, so it's not a lot of extra expense... and the lions share of that expense is actually paid by the provider of the content (who must serve all those page views), rather than the user viewing said content.

Re:Please repost your article. (2, Insightful)

SuperSlug (799739) | more than 5 years ago | (#28167869)

Geeze FF with adblock and some half decent filters.

Re:Please repost your article. (2, Insightful)

I'm not really here (1304615) | more than 5 years ago | (#28168361)

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

Firefox with the proper extensions just makes the web better.

Re:Please repost your article. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28168037)

Had no problem viewing that site without the rollovers on my browser [opera.com] .

Re:Please repost your article. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28168049)

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

Wannabe Google Tester (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28167619)

Dude's post reads like a wannabe Google tester that's just scratching the surface. If they haven't thought this out or experienced them before with Google docs, they're dead in the water. Just relax and try it out before you play the role of beta tester and say it's not going to work.

Rebuttle (5, Insightful)

Norsefire (1494323) | more than 5 years ago | (#28167621)

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

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

* Key Stroke by Key Stroke View Could Be Annoying

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

* Editing Ability Could Get Out of Control

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

* Too Complicated for the Masses

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

Essentially, this "look at Wave" made me remember this comic [penny-arcade.com] (the bottom one).

Re:Rebuttle (5, Insightful)

patro (104336) | more than 5 years ago | (#28167937)

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

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

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

Re:Rebuttle (1)

chaim79 (898507) | more than 5 years ago | (#28169575)

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

Re:Rebuttle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28168021)

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

The problem I see with these dumb web apps is that a manager can dictate you use an unsuitable tool simply because they're comfortable with it. Basecamp is useless for software developers but I've been forced to use it on a couple of occasions. So I'm sure I'll be asked to use google wave before long -- a waste of my employers time.

Re:Rebuttle (2, Insightful)

fatalwall (873645) | more than 5 years ago | (#28168999)

there paying you so its there time to waste

Re:Rebuttle (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 5 years ago | (#28168181)

[...] in a unified interface in real time, right down to seeing individual keystrokes as you type if you wish.

I'm using an interface like that right now, as I... well, as I type this reply!

Re:Rebuttle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28168643)

* Key Stroke by Key Stroke View Could Be Annoying

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

Do not be so dismissive. There is no way to turn it off. (don't believe me? - go check, read reviews)

Re:Rebuttle?!?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28168651)

Umm, just curious, what does being a butler [wiktionary.org] again have to do with this article or the body of your post?

And how exactly does one re-buttle?

Re:Rebuttle (3, Interesting)

ucblockhead (63650) | more than 5 years ago | (#28169137)

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

Why not ask a distributed team? (-1, Offtopic)

davecb (6526) | more than 5 years ago | (#28167679)

The Samba team already use email and IM effectively, try asking them.

--dave

Too integrated (4, Insightful)

JSmooth (325583) | more than 5 years ago | (#28167731)

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

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

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

-Joe

Re:Too integrated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28167837)

That's what desktop environments are for.

Re:Too integrated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28167875)

Strongly disagree. Wave is not 'another integrated communication method'. It is simply email successor. Everyone using email is going to be a wave user. At least in the simple way of 'email++'.

Re:Too integrated (4, Insightful)

Norsefire (1494323) | more than 5 years ago | (#28167919)

Wave holds 0 interest for me

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

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

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

Who wants more mail, more IMs or more anything?

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

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

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

Re:Too integrated (1)

Trojan35 (910785) | more than 5 years ago | (#28169371)

No offense, but there's only one product in that list that actually turns a profit. If those were all separate businesses, all but one would be bankrupt.

Re:Too integrated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28169651)

link?

Re:Too integrated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28169789)

But isn't that all Google needs? Isn't that their whole shtick? They have online advertising as their profit-making product and their other products serve to channel traffic, directly or indirectly, to their advertising. Just like the way television has worked for decades, they give people free goodies and in exchange there are advertisements that come along with it. Seems pretty time-tested and reasonable.

Re:Too integrated (2, Insightful)

brkello (642429) | more than 5 years ago | (#28169845)

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

Re:Too integrated (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 5 years ago | (#28167959)

If there is one thing we have too much of these days is communications.

Clearly you don't see the dream behind every ICT Instant messaging services, ERC, even email were a complex thought at one point. Signing into a server with an alias, reading and sending messages. Low and behold they caught on. And this is no different, its comprised of the same 2 activities, sending and recieving data, except this time, you don't need to sign into your MSN Messenger to check your hotmail to get the email confirmation for the forum registration password! The question as to "Who wants more anything?" : A Vast Majority.

Re:Too integrated (5, Insightful)

malefic (736824) | more than 5 years ago | (#28168077)

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

Re:Too integrated (1)

jdenver (1554803) | more than 5 years ago | (#28168585)

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

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

You're right in that every company seeks the holy grail of integrated software, but what's perhaps important here is not the end-user product, in this case. Google is providing an infrastructure and not a holistic product -- it's allowing people to BUILD on a new algorithm, protocol, and structure for the web. Much like the early World Wide Web lead to the break-through of linking and deep linking and what not, there's a whole new structure inherent to the wave. And it will be open source, unencumbered by patents, and people can run their own stuff (sound like the early days of the web?). I read this article on it that makes some pretty good points [sitesteady.com] about where Google may be going. Isn't this a game changer for the Web 2.0 stuff that's come to be quite a bit of what the average person does online?

Re:Too integrated (1)

gun26 (151620) | more than 5 years ago | (#28168755)

I think the integration and interface complexity pitch this more toward corporate users and other organized groups who want to brainstorm and develop policies together. There is growing dissatisfaction with the amount of employee time that is sucked away by email. This could make in-house discussions much more effective. For individuals I think this is a better replacement for things like message boards and email lists.

Maybe the best thing Wave has going for it it the openness and extensibility. If it does turn out to be a game changer, the change will come from outside developers who will use it in ways its inventors hadn't thought of. Twitter is simple, yes, but that simplicity limits the blue-sky possibilities compared to Wave.

Re:Too integrated (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 5 years ago | (#28169005)

You make some good points, but don't forget the other lesson of the dot-com boom - even an unoriginal, unremarkable, unsustainable, stupid, worthless idea can make you a shitload of money if you embrace it early and don't get too greedy to get out before it explodes.

Re:Too integrated (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#28169367)

Twitter is merely popular. It will be successful if they start making giant stinking piles of money off of it.

40 minutes (5, Insightful)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 5 years ago | (#28167769)

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

Re:40 minutes (5, Funny)

Etylowy (1283284) | more than 5 years ago | (#28167867)

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

Re:40 minutes (4, Funny)

Norsefire (1494323) | more than 5 years ago | (#28167953)

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

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

Re:40 minutes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28168129)

40 minutes attention span for the twitter folk is already impressive

Processing 140 characters in 40 minutes sums up a Tw@tter user's intellectual capabilities quite admirably!

Re:40 minutes (1)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 5 years ago | (#28168105)

What's so special at the end?

"They plan to make the entire protocol and the majority of their implementations open source so that anybody can install their own wave servers." - They say this at the very beginning, even before they start demoing the product.

So far I've only seen the first 15 minutes (had to go to work)

Re:40 minutes (2)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 5 years ago | (#28168171)

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

Re:40 minutes (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 5 years ago | (#28168859)

They could have done that more cooperatively : they already use the Jabber protocol for gTalk but incompletely implement it. They could have use it instead of designing a new one to make exactly the same thing. But Ok, I guess it is better than having a closed-source implementation. Note however that they "plan" to make the entire thing open source. I'll wait for the possibility to set up a wave server that is not hosted in mountainview before getting interested in this "revolutionnary" technology.

A contender (0, Flamebait)

edittard (805475) | more than 5 years ago | (#28167771)

This might not be the shittest story on the slashdots evaaaar, but it's certainly a contender.

What about spam? (5, Insightful)

Etylowy (1283284) | more than 5 years ago | (#28167789)

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

Re:What about spam? (2, Funny)

Norsefire (1494323) | more than 5 years ago | (#28168019)

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

Spammers will go back to the traditional approaches fairly quickly.

Re:What about spam? (1)

Etylowy (1283284) | more than 5 years ago | (#28168617)

While that would scare the bejesus out of me I have a sneaking suspicion spambots are immune.

Re:What about spam? (1)

Terrasque (796014) | more than 5 years ago | (#28168981)

According to what I've read they haven't been thinking too hard on that yet, but the protocol says that all messages need to be cryptologically verifiable from a user on a server. That alone will hopefully make spam less of an issue.

Re:What about spam? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28169421)

Yea, what they really need is a more appropriate metaphor. To scare the spambots, maybe a talking multipart MIME header? That's about the digital equivalent of a paperclip...

Re:What about spam? (1)

Etylowy (1283284) | more than 5 years ago | (#28169707)

And once any wave server run by any of the multiple companies is compromised: their captcha is bypassed, the weak user passwords are cracked or snatched by spyware or any of the multiple things that are now problem with email spam happens wave users are spamed till they admit they need viagra ;-)

Since the communications between wave servers seems more secure all that will be gone is forged senders.

Bandwidth and Hosting (4, Interesting)

Marc_Hawke (130338) | more than 5 years ago | (#28167861)

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

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

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

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

I just wonder about the scalability of the hosting solution.

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

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

Re:Bandwidth and Hosting (3, Informative)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 5 years ago | (#28167995)

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

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

Re:Bandwidth and Hosting (1)

Terrasque (796014) | more than 5 years ago | (#28168033)

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

Google says they'll release a production-ready open source wave server. Servers communicate using XMPP. It's decentralized, just like email.

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

Well, single characters are not exactly known to take a lot of bandwidth. Depends on encapsulation I guess..

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

Now here I partially agree with you. Both bandwidth and processing might be a lot on huge waves. I just hope they made a solid enough system for it.

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

It might, it might not. Remember, email already do much of the same thing (but with more delay).

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

Absolutely agree! This have the potential to gather most of our internet communication channels in one elegant interface, and will probably create a lot of new ways to communicate. Google have proved earlier that they can make high load systems, let's hope they make this one solid enough, and I really hope this replace email and IM for the majority of people.

Re:Bandwidth and Hosting (1)

dzfoo (772245) | more than 5 years ago | (#28169533)

>> Well, single characters are not exactly known to take a lot of bandwidth. Depends on encapsulation I guess..

Have you taken a look at XMPP? Let me give you a hint: it's XML. Is the picture clear enough already? Every character will be wrapped in mark-up that ensures routing delivery, order, and integrity.

Sure, it looks nifty when two or three people are doing it on a demonstration, but I also have concerns of its scalability to a larger user-base.

      -dZ.

Re:Bandwidth and Hosting (2, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 5 years ago | (#28168085)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just wonder about the scalability of the hosting solution.

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

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

I believe it actually uses an extended version of XMPP.

Re:Bandwidth and Hosting (1)

Macka (9388) | more than 5 years ago | (#28168277)

Both of these would work great in a corporate level with a WAVE server running on the LAN, but when it goes global, those servers will be smokin'

So there's something new coming along that might require a beefy server to drive it. I can see the sales guys from {HP,IBM,Sun/Oracle} wiping the dribble off their chins already. Would you like a SAN with that Sir?

It will be useful to know (when its released) what size of server and how much bandwidth Google recommend to support # numbers of users.

Re:Bandwidth and Hosting (1)

patro (104336) | more than 5 years ago | (#28168597)

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

Well, email is also stored centrally on providers' servers (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) which can talk to each other.

It is the same with wave: anyone can run a wave server and these servers can talk to each other.

Re:Bandwidth and Hosting (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28169247)

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

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

Re:Bandwidth and Hosting (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 5 years ago | (#28169561)

The only extra bandwidth from character by character is packet overhead, you're transmitting the individual characters regardless.

For reference it doesn't work 'the same way as the jabber protocol works', IT IS XMPP. They aren't really doing anything new, they aren't the first to make software such as this, and its already been done on top of XMPP.

If you're impressed with the demo, you'd probably also be impressed if you saw an Exchange demo and weren't aware of the fact that you were using Exchange. Demos are never impressive unless you think that theory and practice are one and the same, which they are in theory, but never in practice.

Wave? While they ignore Gmail? (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 5 years ago | (#28167917)

Google Wave is beautiful, innovative and indeed holds great potential, I'd rather have Google get its products and especially Gmail out of beta.

How about improving Google Docs? Zoho's Writer is better and more functional in my opinion.

Back to Gmail: There are a host of features that have little attention, yet they could make the lives of users even better.

Heck....do something about Gmail.

Re:Wave? While they ignore Gmail? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28168895)

I think they want this to replace gmail.

Re:Wave? While they ignore Gmail? (1)

Terrasque (796014) | more than 5 years ago | (#28169033)

They are doing something for gmail, docs and similar. They're trying to make them obsolete :)

Real Time Conversation Tool (1)

rshol (746340) | more than 5 years ago | (#28167983)

We already have a ubiquitous, real time conversation tool that allows us to communicate simultaneously with multiple people in a "team". We can use it just about anywhere, any time and get to just about anybody. Its called a phone, its already in your pocket. I am amazed by my 19 year old college student son. I ask him, "Did you talk to ?" The answer is always that he had an extended conversation, but it was by text or FaceBook. What gives? I find you can accomplish more, in a more nuanced manner, in a 2 minute phone conversation, than in 20 minutes of texting, emailing or waveing.

Waste of time (5, Insightful)

slustbader (584904) | more than 5 years ago | (#28167991)

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

Re:Waste of time (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28168201)

heavymp3.at.ua

Re:Waste of time (3, Informative)

prograde (1425683) | more than 5 years ago | (#28168209)

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

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

...or, with even more cynicism:

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

Re:Waste of time (1)

jully (680766) | more than 5 years ago | (#28168357)

I agree. TFA is just naysaying, it says nothing that the average person couldn't think up themselves with about 30 seconds thought and is an obvious troll. Go get your publicity and ad hits somewhere else.

Re:Waste of time (1)

Co0Ps (1539395) | more than 5 years ago | (#28168401)

I agree, it's like the no original research policy on Wikipedia. If your blog post is so damn important that it deserves to be slashdotted, someone else will do it for you. And I think the biggest problem of the criticism in the article was that it was fuzzy and irrelevant. Irrelevant because it was based on features the author himself think wave will have. Features he made up, like "hundreds of people will be able to edit the same wave". Google has never said this. And it's still under development, and reviewing something that hasn't been made yet doesn't make sense.

Re:Waste of time (1)

mmkkbb (816035) | more than 5 years ago | (#28169253)

Actually, it would be more like the "no self-linking" policy on MetaFilter.

Call that curmudgeonly?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28168013)

Pish tosh! You didn't even get red in the face about the stupid name they're giving it.

Wave?

Weren't "message" or "mail" already perfectly acceptable terms for this kind of communication?

Why are people so eager to corrupt their language at the whim of moronic marketing committees?

There is no "tweet", no "wave" or "scrobble". I'm not "writing on your wall", I'm "posting a message".

Gah! </head-explode>

heh, funny (0, Offtopic)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#28168045)

I checked my submissions. I have a pending submission that turned a year old last month and crap like this makes it through. Good QC, /.

Give me THREADED multi-user chat. (1, Interesting)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | more than 5 years ago | (#28168059)

Throwing every chat comment into a linear sequence certainly doesn't scale well for large conversations. Has anyone tried building chat into a tree, much like we see right here? It might tend to fragment conversations, but if the conversation gets too large, that's what's supposed to happen.

What I really want to see is something like the "decision duel" system from Marc Stiegler's David's Sling.

Re:Give me THREADED multi-user chat. (4, Informative)

Jellybob (597204) | more than 5 years ago | (#28169255)

Have you seen the video?

That's what it does. Exactly.

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

Yeah and you could distribute different parts (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 5 years ago | (#28169509)

on different servers, so to could scale to everyone on the internet and only the people who subscribed to the bit which was interesting to them would see that bit.

God, I'm too old. I'm going to go take up farming or something.
 

Re:Give me THREADED multi-user chat. (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 5 years ago | (#28169607)

Holding a coherent conversation with threads is practically impossible unless you like jumping all over the place.

People do not hold a threaded conversation. They sometimes hold multiple conversations about different threads, but thats an entirely different beast.

We need to stop feeding this bullshit of letting people wonder all over, whereever their minds want, regardless of the focus point or task at hand.

You don't need a threaded chat client, you need to learn to focus.

Google's smart, think possibilities, not problems. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28168135)

A very well put response- but Google is a big company, smart too. If I were Google, I would definitely think first before creating a supposedly unified web application to make all communication devices and workflows before obsolete. "We need you to complete the product for us" - no, you think?

The web is changing, no more do web applications simply display text, images and video. It's a whole new beast that's completely different from the desktop world. It might should like tosh for other geeks who love their mutt, pine, finch- but I won't find it surprising if you find morons who find things like Facebook appealing to easily accept Google Wave. If they accept it easily, it'll grow- want to make it emulate email or perhaps solve those problems mentioned in the post before? Well, you now have such an extensible framework and protocol you can easily write bots for to make it from what it is to what you want. How much power does that leave Google? Hell lots.

successful apps (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#28168169)

always seem to be the ones that only do one small thing really well that everyone suddenly needs and wants. then it bloats and adds new features as it matures. but the app probably won't get mindshare without the initial hyperfocusing of functionality on one really cool must-have

but a collage of preexisting functionality that promises to do "everything"? that actually isn't really sexy or attention grabbing. if i were a google executive, i would leave all the expansive functionality out of the picture, still functional, but just not talked about. then i would insist the marketing of the app present only one really cool, truly innovative tiny piece of the picture as what the app is all about. if this little piece is truly amazing and new and must-have, the app will go viral like twitter. otherwise, this focus here on a hundred bits of functionality sewn together that other apps do successfully already will just put people to sleep

yes, i know putting it all in one place is a big deal, but i'm not talking about what makes sense, i'm talking about what is sexy and makes people take initial interest

Re:successful apps (1)

jully (680766) | more than 5 years ago | (#28168485)

I think you'll find that with a technology like Wave it needs to do everything at once, or it won't do anything at all. It will replace many things [blogs, forums, some IM and even Office Suites] and will be the paradigm in computing but only because it can replace everything. Once a user gets used to using Wave they will want to use it for everything that they do. This seems obvious to me, as soon as I saw the video. I don't think I'm blowing smoke up Google's arse here when I say they've nailed the next big thing right on the head and everyone will be using it. Microsoft is dead, long live Google!

inertia (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#28169169)

you're talking about what makes sense. i'm talking about what's sexy and makes people flock to something new. if google does what facebook does, but better, nobody won't migrate. simply out of inertia. which of course is a shame, but better products die in the face of worse products all the time, simply because they don't get adapted out of simple human inertia

i'm talking about the hook, the sexy cool thing, what makes users salivate and want to switch to wave. so google really needs to talk up that one little sexy cool thing, not the whole boring redundancy with facebook. that will just fall into place later, after you've hooked them with a wow factor

Re:successful apps (1)

twoshortplanks (124523) | more than 5 years ago | (#28168571)

Facebook is basically "put everything in one place" and that doesn't seem to be doing that badly.

i think if you asked someone (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#28169339)

who switched from myspace to facebook, why they did it, the answer wouldn't be "because it boringly replicates the featureset of what myspace already does"

i'm talking about the sexy hook. the one little must have. yes, facebook does exactly what you say it does, but that's not what made people adopt facebook in the first place. consider the full range of functionality in facebook: 90% of the people who started using facebook did so because of only 1% of that full range functionality. the rest just fell into use later. that's my whole point: identify what that must have 1% functionality is, and you have a successful product

and what i am saying isn't an original or obscure comment. cars do a thousand different things, but they are basically all the same. the primary functionality of a car: getting from here to there, isn't even the prime motivator for picking one car or another. so why does someone pick car A over car B? "oh because i can plug my iPod into it". and so you see that prominently featured in the car's ad. not its transmission or fuel injection system

see my point? the sexy hook. the tiny little almost unimportant and obscure must-have. thats what wave needs to be successful, and that's what google should trumpet to the media. not "it does everything facebook does better and more!"

who cares? not sexy

irc with some bling? (1)

Pvt_Ryan (1102363) | more than 5 years ago | (#28168213)

It looks like IRC with a few other features just combined in to one interface.

1 sentence summary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28168237)

Is this some new kind of way to try to make us read the article? Soon we're going to get nothing but a title and most people still won't read TFA.

He lost me... (5, Insightful)

sglewis100 (916818) | more than 5 years ago | (#28168335)

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

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

5 steps (1)

Co0Ps (1539395) | more than 5 years ago | (#28168471)

1) Write an Article about what you think, and why you are right.
2) Post it on a crappy site with lots of advertising.
3) Slashdot yourself.
4) ???
5) PROFIT!

Still in Beta (1)

happy_place (632005) | more than 5 years ago | (#28168477)

Hey! Dontchya know that it's No fair to raise questions about Google tools!? They're all in Beta... all of em... forever...

Re:Still in Beta (1)

maroberts (15852) | more than 5 years ago | (#28168911)

I thought the Wave that was demoed was still an alpha version.So its fair to question it until it gets to Beta

Some don't get the point... (1)

hitech69 (78566) | more than 5 years ago | (#28168623)

It seems that people are missing the point with this technology.

Think about all the enterprise services that this spans. I'm seeing a Sharepoint, Exchange, and LCS killer here at a minimum. I was hoping to see Google Video/Voice chat mixed with this, but I would say that it's probably not too far off. If it had that, goodbye to WebEx, Genesys, etc.

This is a collaboration tool, and that's it. There's no spam in a controlled audience. Even where this thing can be exposed like blogs and wiki sites, you have complete control over what gets included and published.

You damn kids! (5, Funny)

nilbog (732352) | more than 5 years ago | (#28168877)

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

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

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?