9 ms·

Google Climbs to New Heights of Arrogance with Wave

38 points by webwright 17y ago

jmtulloss 17y ago
I'd hate to be arrogant myself, but I'm pretty sure the author "doesn't get it". I wouldn't talk about sharepoint in the same breath either. Wave is a way of tying communication mechanisms together, not a crappy web interface thrown on top of shared storage.
- tptacek 17y ago
  SharePoint is a huge big deal inside enterprises, and it's not just a crappy web interface; it's also a crappy SDK for building crappy applications that fit into that crappy web interface. So without endorsing SharePoint, I can see how blowing it off is arrogant.
  - snprbob86 17y ago
    It should also be pointed out that SharePoint was Microsoft's fastest business to ever reach $1B annually. You think Google made Wave federated out of the kindness of their hearts? Expect an enterprise version.
akamaka 17y ago
The author cites Spencer Wang's estimate of YouTube's earnings yet again, despite the fact that most HN reader have pointed out that those numbers are useless. It's amazing how crappy information like this keeps getting spread around, and I think it reflects the authors eagerness to prove his point with little regard for the facts.
TweedHeads 17y ago
And gigaom writers climb to new heights of ignorance with that post.
- tptacek 17y ago
  How so? Is that all you have to say?
  - jimfl 17y ago
    It's what I was going to say. I am intrigued by this, and by the fact that the API documentation is available before the service/product is.
    - DTrejo 17y ago
      The API is available so that developers who attended Google IO can start tinkering :)
      - nreece 17y ago
        Tinkering with the API, without the platform available for integration?
        catch23 17y ago
        The platform is available to those who attended Google IO. Also, there's a hackathon event at Google tomorrow for Google Wave.
        nreece 17y ago
        And how many did attend Google IO? How many here on HN? How many in large? So, how many can actually tinker, realistically?
        DTrejo 17y ago
        4000 developers attended. I have no idea how many from HN, but I know Anybots was there. Some percentage of the 4000 will be developing I'd think. Regarding HN attendance, can you start a poll? (I can't)
edmccaffrey 17y ago
The author thinks that wave is a product, but it is a protocol that they demoed with an application. It is like email--they are both communication protocols. Why would he compare a protocol to a product that uses a different protocol? It's like comparing bittorrent to Firefox. The creators rightly dismissed the question of monetization because you don't monetize a protocol, you monetize programs built with it. The demo is just one of many potential products that can be built on it, so they can't answer that question based on it. They rightly dismissed the competition of Sharepoint and Outlook because that was primarily a presentation of the protocol. The demo seemed like something thrown together to show how communication through the protocol looks like, and not the premier application that they will use it for. I have an idea for potentially using the protocol for a distributed issue tracker that would work well with a DVCS; the protocol is not limited to Outlook and Sharepoint competition.
- tptacek 17y ago
  This is a dodge. Even TechCrunch was unable to talk about Wave without drawing a direct comparison to FriendFeed, an actual product. Meanwhile, talking about protocols without talking about applications is cart-before-the-horse handwaving.
  - edmccaffrey 17y ago
    None of the writers at TweetCrunch seem like creative programmers; they specialize in reporting on actual products, and not underlying protocols, so there isn't anything for them to report. It's not a dodge because there isn't anything to compare; you don't compare a protocol to a product that uses a different one. I/O is a developer conference; talking about the protocol without an actual product is just fine--the demo was good enough to show developers what basic features they can use for whatever product they can imagine. That demo just shows what you can do. You can't compare it to any existing product. As terrible as this article is, the author does come to the realization that it will be useful for their actual email and office products, however brushing that question off wasn't arrogant; it was a weak denial--a developer conference isn't the right place to talk about their office products.
jamesk2 17y ago
Add directory services and it becomes the way to communicate at a company replacing Outlook/Exchange, MSN, Twitter, Skype. I plan on using it at my company. The only wish feature is directory services with administrative controls.
- windsurfer 17y ago
  How can you be planning to use it without trying it out?
- qeorge 17y ago
  Use what where? There's no product here. I don't mean to be rude, but are you comfortable making Wave a big part of your organization's process and culture? What will you do if Google stops developing Wave?
  - dave_au 17y ago
    They're releasing the spec and large chunk of the code openly - if it's a good idea and google stop developing it I'm sure someone else will step in.
    - qeorge 17y ago
      That's not how B2B services work though. Dependability trumps everything. If your organization depends on a niche product who's provider exits the business you've got a big problem. Lets say Google releases Wave, it doesn't gain a lot of traction, and they Jaiku it. For someone to pick up where they left off a lot of things would need to happen: - Google would have to enable exporting your data capital into a standard format - The new provider would have to match Google's now defunct service feature-for-feature - The new provider would have to have the infrastructure to handle this demanding XMPP app, which has real-time editing to the nth degree, and store all of the associated rich media assets - The new provider would have to find a business model which would sustain such expenses, succeeding where Google had failed On top of this, the new developers would be expected to iterate the product, provide customer support, and solve whatever problems caused the app to fail under Google's tenure. If you're sure Google will stick with Wave then none of this matters. But that's not a bet I'd take.
ianbishop 17y ago
The author mistook Google being 'arrogant' for Google just doing its thing. Google is truly an idea farm. They push out their ideas in a subtle manner, releasing rapid-prototypes to see what sticks. Is that being arrogant or just smart? Have they ever released a product that was over-hyped, over-marketed and have it flop? Those are the kind of mistakes that kill companies. Apple could certainly lend a story or two. Admittedly, Google definitely goes overboard with some projects but none of those were mentioned in this article.
illumen 17y ago
Google wave will make all sorts of interesting interaction possible. I love how it mixes and matches a bunch of different technologies and use cases together. A really interesting protocol. I wonder if it'll take off like how email did?
tamersalama 17y ago
I'm inclined to think of Google as a platform rather than a product company. It seems like a strong trend with what they are coming up with/acquiring. When talking about monetizing a platform, it exactly what you be, get your initial attempt out (especially if you have the $) and then monetize later.
lssndrdn 17y ago
Maybe Google Wave won't be as revolutionary as some think, but calling Google arrogant for coming up with new stuff seems just ranting for the sake of ranting.
- radu_floricica 17y ago
  Ranting for the sake of readership, more likely. A journalist tends to write what sells after all, especially one who boasts about making money from your work :)
- joe_the_user 17y ago
  Yes, and they're doubly arrogant because they don't seem concerned with making money with it. The callus bastards. It's almost like they're just sitting there enjoying themselves...
  - ajju 17y ago
    callus vs. callous, related but not the same. callus: A callus (or callosity) is an especially toughened area of skin which has become relatively thick and hard as a response to repeated contact callous: emotionally hardened; "a callous indifference to suffering"; "cold-blooded and indurate to public opinion"
calambrac 17y ago
This wasn't a shareholder meeting, it was a developer conference.
Raphael_Amiard 17y ago
"The breathtaking arrogance of blowing off potential competition and touting tech buzzwords rather than at least giving a cursory examination as to how one might make money from a product is the Google way" One must not forget that, even if it was greatly mediatised, it was still a develloper conference, not a consumer/enterprise conference. To be sure of that, you can just search other "non-techy" news sites about it, and you will see it's quite dead. For one good reason. It's not launched yet. On the other hand, even if it's not launched, it's of great interrest to us devs, and there is some rationale behind the fact of unveiling it before a finished product is available, be it only for information purposes, since it's gonna be an open platform. Devs are by nature quite arrogant about their new babies, there is nothing wrong with that. Wave looks quite exciting, and gigaom looks like they're lacking some good material to make themselves interresting ...
ThomPete 17y ago
The whole point about this of course is for google to allow for an even more refined advertising product. ALL their products fundamentally is about that. It makes perfect sense.
mgrouchy 17y ago
I honestly feel like the cool thing to do these days is hate. I mean everyone is hating on something, Dave Winer is hating on twitter(even though he uses it all day every day), Om is hating on wave, just seems like everyone is hating on something. I do understand that google is a huge company and definitely has some financial end game associated with wave, but I don't mind that. What we need is more companies innovating, regardless of whether they are failures yet or not. I think its irresponsible and ignorant to call a company arrogant because they are not worrying about making money(at least initially). Only thing that is evidenced by this article is that the author doesn't understand google or its motivations.
mat3 17y ago
Silicon Valley Google Wave Discussion lunch tomorrow (5/31) Come, Bring a Friend and let's discuss Google Wave over lunch. Please use the following link: http://www.socializr.com/event/976099347 http://www.socializr.com/event/976099347 to RSVP. Feel free to forward to anyone who might be interested.

38 points by webwright 17y ago

I'd hate to be arrogant myself, but I'm pretty sure the author "doesn't get it". I wouldn't talk about sharepoint in the same breath either. Wave is a way of tying communication mechanisms together, not a crappy web interface thrown on top of shared storage.

tptacek 17y ago
SharePoint is a huge big deal inside enterprises, and it's not just a crappy web interface; it's also a crappy SDK for building crappy applications that fit into that crappy web interface. So without endorsing SharePoint, I can see how blowing it off is arrogant.
- snprbob86 17y ago
  It should also be pointed out that SharePoint was Microsoft's fastest business to ever reach $1B annually. You think Google made Wave federated out of the kindness of their hearts? Expect an enterprise version.

akamaka 17y ago

The author cites Spencer Wang's estimate of YouTube's earnings yet again, despite the fact that most HN reader have pointed out that those numbers are useless. It's amazing how crappy information like this keeps getting spread around, and I think it reflects the authors eagerness to prove his point with little regard for the facts.

TweedHeads 17y ago

And gigaom writers climb to new heights of ignorance with that post.

tptacek 17y ago
How so? Is that all you have to say?
- jimfl 17y ago
  It's what I was going to say. I am intrigued by this, and by the fact that the API documentation is available before the service/product is.
  - DTrejo 17y ago
    The API is available so that developers who attended Google IO can start tinkering :)
    - nreece 17y ago
      Tinkering with the API, without the platform available for integration?
      - catch23 17y ago
        The platform is available to those who attended Google IO. Also, there's a hackathon event at Google tomorrow for Google Wave.
        nreece 17y ago
        And how many did attend Google IO? How many here on HN? How many in large? So, how many can actually tinker, realistically?
        DTrejo 17y ago
        4000 developers attended. I have no idea how many from HN, but I know Anybots was there. Some percentage of the 4000 will be developing I'd think. Regarding HN attendance, can you start a poll? (I can't)

edmccaffrey 17y ago

The author thinks that wave is a product, but it is a protocol that they demoed with an application. It is like email--they are both communication protocols. Why would he compare a protocol to a product that uses a different protocol? It's like comparing bittorrent to Firefox. The creators rightly dismissed the question of monetization because you don't monetize a protocol, you monetize programs built with it. The demo is just one of many potential products that can be built on it, so they can't answer that question based on it. They rightly dismissed the competition of Sharepoint and Outlook because that was primarily a presentation of the protocol. The demo seemed like something thrown together to show how communication through the protocol looks like, and not the premier application that they will use it for. I have an idea for potentially using the protocol for a distributed issue tracker that would work well with a DVCS; the protocol is not limited to Outlook and Sharepoint competition.

tptacek 17y ago
This is a dodge. Even TechCrunch was unable to talk about Wave without drawing a direct comparison to FriendFeed, an actual product. Meanwhile, talking about protocols without talking about applications is cart-before-the-horse handwaving.
- edmccaffrey 17y ago
  None of the writers at TweetCrunch seem like creative programmers; they specialize in reporting on actual products, and not underlying protocols, so there isn't anything for them to report. It's not a dodge because there isn't anything to compare; you don't compare a protocol to a product that uses a different one. I/O is a developer conference; talking about the protocol without an actual product is just fine--the demo was good enough to show developers what basic features they can use for whatever product they can imagine. That demo just shows what you can do. You can't compare it to any existing product. As terrible as this article is, the author does come to the realization that it will be useful for their actual email and office products, however brushing that question off wasn't arrogant; it was a weak denial--a developer conference isn't the right place to talk about their office products.

jamesk2 17y ago

Add directory services and it becomes the way to communicate at a company replacing Outlook/Exchange, MSN, Twitter, Skype. I plan on using it at my company. The only wish feature is directory services with administrative controls.

windsurfer 17y ago
How can you be planning to use it without trying it out?
qeorge 17y ago
Use what where? There's no product here. I don't mean to be rude, but are you comfortable making Wave a big part of your organization's process and culture? What will you do if Google stops developing Wave?
- dave_au 17y ago
  They're releasing the spec and large chunk of the code openly - if it's a good idea and google stop developing it I'm sure someone else will step in.
  - qeorge 17y ago
    That's not how B2B services work though. Dependability trumps everything. If your organization depends on a niche product who's provider exits the business you've got a big problem. Lets say Google releases Wave, it doesn't gain a lot of traction, and they Jaiku it. For someone to pick up where they left off a lot of things would need to happen: - Google would have to enable exporting your data capital into a standard format - The new provider would have to match Google's now defunct service feature-for-feature - The new provider would have to have the infrastructure to handle this demanding XMPP app, which has real-time editing to the nth degree, and store all of the associated rich media assets - The new provider would have to find a business model which would sustain such expenses, succeeding where Google had failed On top of this, the new developers would be expected to iterate the product, provide customer support, and solve whatever problems caused the app to fail under Google's tenure. If you're sure Google will stick with Wave then none of this matters. But that's not a bet I'd take.

ianbishop 17y ago

The author mistook Google being 'arrogant' for Google just doing its thing. Google is truly an idea farm. They push out their ideas in a subtle manner, releasing rapid-prototypes to see what sticks. Is that being arrogant or just smart? Have they ever released a product that was over-hyped, over-marketed and have it flop? Those are the kind of mistakes that kill companies. Apple could certainly lend a story or two. Admittedly, Google definitely goes overboard with some projects but none of those were mentioned in this article.

illumen 17y ago

Google wave will make all sorts of interesting interaction possible. I love how it mixes and matches a bunch of different technologies and use cases together. A really interesting protocol. I wonder if it'll take off like how email did?

tamersalama 17y ago

I'm inclined to think of Google as a platform rather than a product company. It seems like a strong trend with what they are coming up with/acquiring. When talking about monetizing a platform, it exactly what you be, get your initial attempt out (especially if you have the $) and then monetize later.

lssndrdn 17y ago

Maybe Google Wave won't be as revolutionary as some think, but calling Google arrogant for coming up with new stuff seems just ranting for the sake of ranting.

radu_floricica 17y ago
Ranting for the sake of readership, more likely. A journalist tends to write what sells after all, especially one who boasts about making money from your work :)
joe_the_user 17y ago
Yes, and they're doubly arrogant because they don't seem concerned with making money with it. The callus bastards. It's almost like they're just sitting there enjoying themselves...
- ajju 17y ago
  callus vs. callous, related but not the same. callus: A callus (or callosity) is an especially toughened area of skin which has become relatively thick and hard as a response to repeated contact callous: emotionally hardened; "a callous indifference to suffering"; "cold-blooded and indurate to public opinion"

calambrac 17y ago

This wasn't a shareholder meeting, it was a developer conference.

Raphael_Amiard 17y ago

"The breathtaking arrogance of blowing off potential competition and touting tech buzzwords rather than at least giving a cursory examination as to how one might make money from a product is the Google way" One must not forget that, even if it was greatly mediatised, it was still a develloper conference, not a consumer/enterprise conference. To be sure of that, you can just search other "non-techy" news sites about it, and you will see it's quite dead. For one good reason. It's not launched yet. On the other hand, even if it's not launched, it's of great interrest to us devs, and there is some rationale behind the fact of unveiling it before a finished product is available, be it only for information purposes, since it's gonna be an open platform. Devs are by nature quite arrogant about their new babies, there is nothing wrong with that. Wave looks quite exciting, and gigaom looks like they're lacking some good material to make themselves interresting ...

ThomPete 17y ago

The whole point about this of course is for google to allow for an even more refined advertising product. ALL their products fundamentally is about that. It makes perfect sense.

mgrouchy 17y ago

I honestly feel like the cool thing to do these days is hate. I mean everyone is hating on something, Dave Winer is hating on twitter(even though he uses it all day every day), Om is hating on wave, just seems like everyone is hating on something. I do understand that google is a huge company and definitely has some financial end game associated with wave, but I don't mind that. What we need is more companies innovating, regardless of whether they are failures yet or not. I think its irresponsible and ignorant to call a company arrogant because they are not worrying about making money(at least initially). Only thing that is evidenced by this article is that the author doesn't understand google or its motivations.

mat3 17y ago

Silicon Valley Google Wave Discussion lunch tomorrow (5/31) Come, Bring a Friend and let's discuss Google Wave over lunch. Please use the following link: http://www.socializr.com/event/976099347 http://www.socializr.com/event/976099347 to RSVP. Feel free to forward to anyone who might be interested.