No Please Don't. Google had the good sense and humility to let a failure fail. Don't y'all go fucking that up.
Save Google Wave
31–40 of 65 posts
Re: Save Google Wave
#32The ridiculously confusing interface to the Wave loaded on this page, plus the fact that it takes 30 seconds to load and then runs like a dog, is the perfect explanation of why Wave is being shut down. It's almost like that's what they were trying to demonstrate.
You’re confusing Wave and Google Wave. Google killing Google Wave essentially kills Wave as a whole, at this point; we all think Google’s web-client sucked fucking balls, but there’s not much we could do about that. What matters is that Google killing their shitty client, along with their back-end provider, also kills the ecosystem, because it’s so young.
Fine, try again with better execution. No need to keep a brand name associated with flops.
Re: Save Google Wave
#33I know the protocol is a bit complicated, but didn't they say a while back they're going to open source a reference implementation of the server? Is this it?: http://code.google.com/p/wave-protocol/ I do not know if that's a complete Wave server, or if it's missing a piece. But if it is a complete Wave server, there's nothing to "save". It's already been saved. You just need to run it yourself, and possibly support f…
What people want to "save" is Google's backing, proselytization, and continued investment into the project. The demand was never there—because Google never gave Wave a big marketing push, the way they did with, say, Chrome (no Wave TV commercial?) Wave is a new and unadopted protocol, and as such it won't grow organically; it needs a big company to force it down people's throats. People want to "save" the unfulfilled…
That's terrible reason. If it was a startup, they'd either sink or swim. Maybe better marketing would have helped, maybe the client sucks, maybe the concept sucks. But there's no reason for Google to throw good money after bad, it's not like there's nothing else they could be working on (including the next, better Wave from the etherpad guys).
Re: Save Google Wave
#34.... not
Re: Save Google Wave
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
What people want to "save" is Google's backing, proselytization, and continued investment into the project. The demand was never there—because Google never gave Wave a big marketing push, the way they did with, say, Chrome (no Wave TV commercial?) Wave is a new and unadopted protocol, and as such it won't grow organically; it needs a big company to force it down people's throats. People want to "save" the unfulfilled…
That's terrible reason. If it was a startup, they'd either sink or swim. Maybe better marketing would have helped, maybe the client sucks, maybe the concept sucks. But there's no reason for Google to throw good money after bad, it's not like there's nothing else they could be working on (including the next, better Wave from the etherpad guys).
> But there's no reason for Google to throw good money after bad
That's the thing—they haven't thrown any money at the problem at all. The whole problem is that it was a half-hearted effort from the start; Google didn't put Wave anywhere visible, they didn't integrate it with Gmail or Google Talk, or do anything else to get traction. They just sort of put it out there and hoped people would subscribe. That's how products work, but Wave isn't a product, it's a technology—and you have to sell a technology, company by company, until it's in use in a sufficiently large user-base that it becomes self-sustaining.
Imagine if the concept of "electronic mail" was invented today. You couldn't pull that off as a startup; you'd have to be Google-sized to even get off the ground.
Now, what Google could have done, would be to go to Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, and whoever else that has any product or service that's vaguely message-/chat-oriented, and offer to help them rebuild that product/service on top of Wave. Wave Facebook walls, Wave MSN, Wave Flickr, etc. Just making one crappy AJAX client is exactly not the winning strategy.
Re: Save Google Wave
#36The ridiculously confusing interface to the Wave loaded on this page, plus the fact that it takes 30 seconds to load and then runs like a dog, is the perfect explanation of why Wave is being shut down. It's almost like that's what they were trying to demonstrate.
You’re confusing Wave and Google Wave. Google killing Google Wave essentially kills Wave as a whole, at this point; we all think Google’s web-client sucked fucking balls, but there’s not much we could do about that. What matters is that Google killing their shitty client, along with their back-end provider, also kills the ecosystem, because it’s so young.
I could really care less if google killed their own hosting of Wave servers. That's never what I was interested in anyway. A ubiquitous messaging federated service as an alternative to email? Now that's what I was looking forward too and simply never materialized. Where's the download link at google.com to a Wave Server with a much simpler Wave client I can run on my own servers?
Re: Save Google Wave
#37I never found out what Google Wave was for, so it is really not a big loss.
Do people really think like this?
It wasn't obvious to me what it was for or how to use it, no-one I knew personally was using it, and I don't have the free time to casually learn an entire new paradigm to do... whatever it was you did with Wave.
Re: Save Google Wave
#38The most obvious feature Google should have invested 5,000 man hours in: making Wave seamless in GMail as a standard. If you are talking to another GMail user, Wave should be automatically turned on for that message. I do not understand why this wasn't deathly obvious to them from the day that they announced Wave at Google IO 2009.
They were too busy botching the Buzz rollout.
Re: Save Google Wave
#39I know the protocol is a bit complicated, but didn't they say a while back they're going to open source a reference implementation of the server? Is this it?: http://code.google.com/p/wave-protocol/ I do not know if that's a complete Wave server, or if it's missing a piece. But if it is a complete Wave server, there's nothing to "save". It's already been saved. You just need to run it yourself, and possibly support f…
I haven't run it, but by the description installing this software will get not you a whole heck of a lot closer to having your own Wave implementation in terms of server-protocol-web client that I think everybody is envisioning.
Re: Save Google Wave
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do people really think like this?
It wasn't obvious to me what it was for or how to use it, no-one I knew personally was using it, and I don't have the free time to casually learn an entire new paradigm to do... whatever it was you did with Wave.
How can you say 'no big loss' just because you personally didn't find it useful?