Forum Moderators: goodroi
Here's how it works: In Google Wave you create a wave and add people to it. Everyone on your wave can use richly formatted text, photos, gadgets, and even feeds from other sources on the web. They can insert a reply or edit the wave directly. It's concurrent rich-text editing, where you see on your screen nearly instantly what your fellow collaborators are typing in your wave. That means Google Wave is just as well suited for quick messages as for persistent content — it allows for both collaboration and communication. You can also use "playback" to rewind the wave and see how it evolved.
Google's CEO introduced Google Wave, a revolutionary way of communication model, during the Google I/O Summit 2009 at San Fransisco.
[cnn.com...]
It appears they are trying to be the first with HTML5 standards integrated into Wave.
Might be Web 3.0 in the making or might also give Google a good opportunity to capture what GMail could not.
Some people say it might be Twitter Killer, but Google guys just claim it would compliment Twitter.
[edited by: tedster at 8:46 pm (utc) on May 28, 2009]
They came up with Google Wave, which organizes Internet discussions in the trendy stream of consciousness fashion. It's a little bit Twitter, a little bit Friendfeed, and a little bit Facebook all in one service, allowing you to send direct messages to online contacts with real-time replies, share photos or documents, and add or delete members of the conversation as needed.In that sense, it's not a completely public discussion, nor a completely private one. A user creates a "wave" by typing a message or uploading photos and adding contacts to the wave as they see fit. Other contacts can be added later, and those people can add other contacts to the wave unless the original wave starter forbids new entrants.
Gmail in real-time: Google does the Wave [news.cnet.com] (CNET article)
Sergey Brin Interview on Google Wave [youtube.com]
Look out Outlook, Google's Wave is coming to swamp you [smh.com.au]
.... interesting to see it's a contribution from an Australian team and Sergey reflect's on the benefit's of isolating teams.
The product concept is certainly a compelling advancement. [ A Wave ]
Kind of the next generation of Lotus Notes with IM and some ajax stuff jammed in it.
Consider: Your basic web site once offered an email line and what you saw what what you needed. Today your basic web site has to have video, Twitter, IM, blogs, maps-- I'm not so certain this is so great for the biz. Lots to do, but not a lot of added value for the customers and probably not that much for the users.
And G is moving rapidly down the complexity lane, it's a bit contradictory to their own only successful principles: keep it simple. Point in hand, the G search engine is the most successful piece of the G empire, and all it's enhancements have been simple, and the complex ones (like comments and etc) are completely useless.
But we must contrast websites to what G is trying to do: websites should remain content/e-commerce, and that's what independant webmasters can do. G (and Twitter, and Facebook, and MS, ...) are not making websites anymore, they are making web-APPS. On that field, the independent webmaster can not compete: you need a real software company to back you.
And you shouldn't want to compete anyways, because of all the web-apps out there, all the free ones (that is the majority) are less profitable than your all-html based review site ;)
[edited by: Hugene at 7:10 pm (utc) on May 29, 2009]
I picture a site like Walmart sticking a team of live greeters on their website so that when you visit a page you end up with a guided tour of the store/products where you can ask questions live and get help in buying EXACTLY what you want online.
That would probably be the most powerful application right off the bat, sites having LIVE people ready to guide you to what you're looking for, right in the browser. Hey, if someone else comes to the site looking for the same product they can join the wave and get up to speed and now 3 people can exchange information before buying.
It's open source too, I have to say i'm extremely impressed.
I'd love to use a wave to discuss the difference between wave (this thread) and Bing (on another thread) live right on this page with everyone.
My loard it is going to take some time to change SEO thinking patterns in order to get the most out of ever evolving content. Yikes.
Almost done yet Brett ?
Google Wave + Wikipedia = Wavepedia ? Wave could be a wikipedia killer especially since Wikipedia content is free for everyone. Wave seems lightyears more intuitive than the wikipedia interface.
[edited by: JS_Harris at 4:25 am (utc) on May 30, 2009]
This could be major competition for social networking sites. Let's hope they start competing more intensely.
And you shouldn't want to compete anyways, because of all the web-apps out there, all the free ones (that is the majority) are less profitable than your all-html based review site ;)
Indeed!
You only should build the new big site in the web if you have 468M$ to throw out the window (as G did last year with Youtube) or you know how to pinch 200M$ to a naive investor (Facebook did it again!).
I can see loads of client service type uses for this software. Loads of them actually, and how is live person gonna respond to this?
However, the appeal of social networks will be ease of use and familiarity to those less tech savvy like my dietitian sister or my almost completely offline mother.
Wave will open many interesting doors for us webworkers and the like but beyond us I not see it gaining traction for those not immersed in the web.
[edited by: Skylo at 7:05 am (utc) on June 2, 2009]
One strategy is to drive down the value of copyright material on the internet to zero. Google has a ruthless and calculating view of the real value of stuff. It reasons that if all we do on the net is talk to each other, then it's merely fulfilling the role of a switchboard operator at a Soviet-era state monopoly telco - connecting us, while listening in. That's a pretty unglamorous business, it doesn't save the world... and hey, where's the money?The YouTube experience has taught Google that the value of "user generated content", of the "new era of creativity" is as close to zero as a rounding error - while quite irrationally we continue to throw money at DVDs, CD box sets of stuff we already have, Susan Boyle, and even ringtones. That's all copyright stuff. They are clever people, and this hasn't escaped their notice.
[theregister.co.uk...]
Well, I watch presentation partially, and is it just me or this is nothing more than a glorified chat? In fact it is NOT an email and NOT a chat, they pieced it together and didn't even implement a most important feature of the email - which is most people DON'T want others to see what they type before it gets sent.
Oh, and in business world if you include a person in an email conversation, chances are you don't want him to see what has been discussed previously (especially on important threads where authority figures are involved). Doesn't work with Wave.
But we'll see how it develops.
As far as real time translation, Google already provides military with devices that do it, so should be no problem implementing it into a chat software.
IF this is going to evolve as a platform that is plugged into Google, i.e. where info/data is exposed to / owned by (temp or otherwise) Google then I'm sorry but the world is getting just a bit too BIG BROTHER-ish for my likes. Someday everyone will have a horror story and what follows that epiphany is anyone's guess.
Interesting stuff IF it's entirely an opensource product
Googles marketing strategy is like the local crack dealer giving away free rocks..until you have based your life style around them and cant live without them ..then you need him more than he needs you
They watched MS be unsubtle ..they learned better PR ..but Ballmer or Schmidt ..same dance ..same "ethic" ..sing it ""wont' be fooled again" ..
L&S ..descended into PR sock puppets for "the man"
