›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

R.I.P. Google Wave

DaikunDaikun
edited August 2010 in Technology
You'll be missed. Or not. Whatever.

Yeah, that weird thing that Google tried to make us ride (or whatever it was supposed to do) is dead now.
«1

Comments

  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    Google what?
  • GreatTeacherMacRossGreatTeacherMacRoss
    Exactly.
  • RymRym
    So much potential. We need an aggregated, multi-aspect, multi-stream, ubiquitous means of communication and collaboration. We need this desperately. Google got a quarter of the way there and bailed. -_-
  • GeoGeo
    So much potential. We need an aggregated, multi-aspect, multi-stream, ubiquitous means of communication and collaboration. We need this desperately. Google got a quarter of the way there and bailed. -_-
    That raises the question of what exactly was it that Google Wave lacked that made it a failure?
  • AprecheApreche
    That raises the question of what exactly was it that Google Wave lacked that made it a failure?
    They didn't implement all of the features they had promised. For me, at least, they failed to really integrate Wave with the rest of the Internet. It was supposed to be a federated system where anyone could run their own Wave server, but that never really happened. Also, while they eventually made it so you could embed a Wave into another page, it was janky. We needed to be able to collaborate on a document in Wave, and then have it embeddable as a document.

    I think really what we need is some sort of Wiki that is powered by Google Docs. You go to the site, and it looks like a Wiki. But then when you click edit, suddenly it's a Google Doc with real-time collaborate editing the way Wave does it. Even cooler if the non-editable page updates in real time, so you can see the people editing as you read.
  • RymRym
    That raises the question of what exactly was it that Google Wave lacked that made it a failure?
    Didn't integrate with docs. Wasn't easily extensible in basic ways. Didn't have enough shared resource options.
  • ChurbaChurba
    edited August 2010
    To steal a joke from twitter, You just know there's some homophobic, right-wing son of a bitch who was planning to use Google wave to plan his Celebrate prop 8 rally who is having a really shitty day right now.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • BridgerBridger
    I really liked wave, even in it's feature-barren form. I really wanted other people in my social group to adopt it so I could use it to plan things like RPG meeting times and character concepts. Not enough techies in my group though :(
  • CremlianCremlian
    They Kill Google.Wave and now they.....We are fucked.
  • Luke BurrageLuke Burrage
    I listened to This Week In Google from the TWiT network. In the time they recorded it they got two pieces of news, one about Prop 8 and one about Wave. One of the presenters is gay, and already married, but sells a book about Wave. It was a show of highs and lows for her.
  • Victor FrostVictor Frost
    They Kill Google.Wave and now they.....We are fucked.
    Okay, so Google is now officially evil. Now what?
  • Nine BoomerNine Boomer
    They Kill Google.Wave and now they.....We are fucked.
    Okay, so Google is now officially evil. Now what?
    Google says it's a fabrication.
  • AprecheApreche
    Google says it's a fabrication.
    There's nothing about it on the official Google blog. Also, many news sources are reporting, or re-reporting, the information. If it's false, then it's a major fail for all those that reported it.
  • Nine BoomerNine Boomer
    Google says it's a fabrication.
    There's nothing about it on the official Google blog. Also, many news sources are reporting, or re-reporting, the information. If it's false, then it's a major fail for all those that reported it.
    Major fail.
  • GreyHugeGreyHuge
    I was worried for a second there. I'm sorry that I ever doubted you, Google.
  • AprecheApreche
    New York Times and other newspapers always blaming the Internets that nobody is paying for news anymore. They're also coming down hard on shit like Wikileaks.

    Meanwhile, they're selling the news for money, with paid journalists, and they can't even get it right. Maybe they should fix their own shit before they start blaming someone else for their problems.
  • Victor FrostVictor Frost
    I was worried for a second there. I'm sorry that I ever doubted you, Google.
    Yes, in retrospect, this would have been a complete face heel turn.
  • StarfoxStarfox
    It’s OK to discriminate across different types, so you could prioritize voice over video, and there is general agreement with Verizon and Google on that issue.
    Um, bad news, right? A packet is a packet.
  • Victor FrostVictor Frost
    edited August 2010
    It’s OK to discriminate across different types, so you could prioritize voice over video, and there is general agreement with Verizon and Google on that issue.
    Um, bad news, right? A packet is a packet.
    Ehhh... But that's just QOS Prioritization. You want VOIP traffic to go faster than, say, web traffic; I don't want my sister's web browsing to take priority over my Vonage call. What's not okay is filtering based on source or destination
    Post edited by Victor Frost on
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    It’s OK to discriminate across different types, so you could prioritize voice over video, and there is general agreement with Verizon and Google on that issue.
    Um, bad news, right? A packet is a packet.
    Ehhh... But that's just QOS Prioritization. YouwantVOIP traffic to go faster than, say, web traffic; I don't want my sister's web browsing to take priority over my Vonage call. What'snotokay is filtering based on source or destination
    Can you cite a legitimate source where ISPs said they would discriminate based on source(websites) and not protocol(types of packets)?
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    edited August 2010
    Can you cite a legitimate source where ISPs said they would discriminate based on source(websites) and not protocol(types of packets)?
    It hasn't happened...yet.
    Post edited by George Patches on
  • ......
    Ehhh... But that's just QOS Prioritization. You want VOIP traffic to go faster than, say, web traffic; I don't want my sister's web browsing to take priority over my Vonage call. What's not okay is filtering based on source or destination
    Okay, so Google is now officially evil. Now what?
    Make up your mind plskthx. The article that made you claim Google was evil wasn't about filtering at all, just speeding up certain data. 'QOS Prioritization' (which is imho just a fancy word or "We're going to rape net neutrality and privacy slowly so you won't notice") is what the article was about.
  • Victor FrostVictor Frost
    edited August 2010
    Ehhh... But that's just QOS Prioritization. YouwantVOIP traffic to go faster than, say, web traffic; I don't want my sister's web browsing to take priority over my Vonage call. What'snotokay is filtering based on source or destination
    Okay, so Google is now officially evil. Now what?
    Make up your mind plskthx. The article that made you claim Google was evil wasn't about filtering at all, just speeding up certain data. 'QOS Prioritization' (which is imho just a fancy word or "We're going to rape net neutrality and privacy slowly so you won't notice") is what the article was about.Yes, but they were talking up speeding up certain types of data from Google. Source based prioritization and filtering and Packet Content Filtering are what bother me, not packet content prioritization (note the difference between prioritization and filtering).
    Post edited by Victor Frost on
  • ......
    edited August 2010
    Yes, but they were talking up speeding up certain types of data from Google.
    The article talked about ISPs providing QOS prioritization for certain kinds of data to content providers willing to pay for it. Please note the quoted posts you made.

    EDIT: Note your edits and fuck off with your over-emphasizing.
    Post edited by ... on
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Yes, but they were talking up speeding up certain types of data from Google.
    The article talked about ISPs providing QOS prioritization for certain kinds of data to content providers willing to pay for it. Please note the quoted posts you made.
    While I have no problem with QOS standards (all VOIP packets have X priority) I do have a problem with content providers paying for QOS for their own packets.
  • Victor FrostVictor Frost
    Yes, but they were talking up speeding up certain types of data from Google.
    The article talked about ISPs providing QOS prioritization for certain kinds of data to content providers willing to pay for it. Please note the quoted posts you made.
    While I have no problem with QOS standards (all VOIP packets have X priority) I do have a problem with content providers paying for QOS for their own packets.
    Yep.
  • ......
    Call me when you guys finally realize the error in your statements.
  • Nine BoomerNine Boomer
    Yes, but they were talking up speeding up certain types of data from Google.
    The article talked about ISPs providing QOS prioritization for certain kinds of data to content providers willing to pay for it. Please note the quoted posts you made.
    While I have no problem with QOS standards (all VOIP packets have X priority) I do have a problem with content providers paying for QOS for their own packets.
    Yep.
    The fuck is this shit? Should we slow down bittorrent traffic while we're at it?
  • DaikunDaikun
    edited August 2010
    They Kill Google.Wave and now they.....We are fucked.
    Um... What?

    I read that article, and all I saw was a bunch of colorful "GOOGLE AND VERIZON EAT BABIES!" whining. Nothing about any actual deal, and if it existed, what the deal did or what consequences would come out of "faster content for Verizon customers."

    Besides, they already have a partnership with their Android. Maybe that's what they were talking about? It's not like Google (or anyone in particular) has any power to hand over the whole Internet to anyone.

    EDIT: Oh, and the FCC is striking it down.
    Post edited by Daikun on
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    The rumors were true?
Sign In or Register to comment.