3 ms·

All online communication methods are trending towards being Google Wave. I've believed this for a while and haven't heard a good counter argument (open to them!

All online communication methods are trending towards being Google Wave. I've believed this for a while and haven't heard a good counter argument (open to them!). If you believe this then I think there are a couple of conclusions one could reach: 1. Google are smart. They saw what the logical conclusion of trends was and designed a product that satisfied those, yet users didn't want it. 2. Moves by communication tools in that direction, adding scope or "bloat" to their featureset is therefore doomed to failure, which fits with the cycle we see of productivity tool disruption -> bloat -> reduced productivity -> newer simpler disruptors.

lucideer 7y ago
I think it's a bit more nuanced, and is not quite either. Google Wave had two relevant components: (a) its network infrastructure and (b) its user interface. - by (a) I mean the extension of xmpp - by (b) I mean not only the visual design and ux, but also the accompanying development ecosystem around integrations/media renderers/etc. The innovations of Wave were, I believe, primarily in (a). Anything cool in (b) was merely a feature built directly because of/on top of something novel in (a) I'm not sure why exactly Wave failed, but I suspect it was primarily because of the execution of (b). And I think your point about online communication methods trending toward Wave are largely concerned with Google's innovations with xmpp
- WorldMaker 7y ago
  It didn't even seem like (b) failed so much as Google decided to leave the (a) game entirely because standards-based or standards-proposing social networks were out and the Google+ proprietary walled garden was in.
- acdha 7y ago
  B) is Google’s Achilles heel. Their corporate culture just doesn’t take UX seriously even as it kills products — I’ve been seeing GCP fall into disfavor because the UI is second-tier, and that’s something where a tiny team could make big improvements very quickly because there’s so much low-ganging fruit.

lucideer 7y ago

I think it's a bit more nuanced, and is not quite either. Google Wave had two relevant components: (a) its network infrastructure and (b) its user interface. - by (a) I mean the extension of xmpp - by (b) I mean not only the visual design and ux, but also the accompanying development ecosystem around integrations/media renderers/etc. The innovations of Wave were, I believe, primarily in (a). Anything cool in (b) was merely a feature built directly because of/on top of something novel in (a) I'm not sure why exactly Wave failed, but I suspect it was primarily because of the execution of (b). And I think your point about online communication methods trending toward Wave are largely concerned with Google's innovations with xmpp

WorldMaker 7y ago
It didn't even seem like (b) failed so much as Google decided to leave the (a) game entirely because standards-based or standards-proposing social networks were out and the Google+ proprietary walled garden was in.
acdha 7y ago
B) is Google’s Achilles heel. Their corporate culture just doesn’t take UX seriously even as it kills products — I’ve been seeing GCP fall into disfavor because the UI is second-tier, and that’s something where a tiny team could make big improvements very quickly because there’s so much low-ganging fruit.