Leo Robert Klein | 5 Aug 16:11 2010

Re: Google Wave bye-bye

It bit the dust yesterday:
http://searchengineland.com/google-wave-crashes-48086

Wicked Thought of the Day: Do a search on 'Google Wave' and 'disruptive' 
and count the chickens.

That said, I actually think the analyses of why it went bust may be more 
interesting and useful than the original product itself.

LEO

-- -------------------
www.leoklein.com (site)
www.ChicagoLibrarian.com (blog)

aim/msn/yhoo/goog: 'leorobertklein'
-- -------------------------------

On 8/5/2010 8:44 AM, Thomas Bennett wrote:
> I haven't really kept up with Wave but it has been available on our Google
> Apps site for sometime now.  But I haven't heard anything about it being a,
> for lack of a better word, dropped project.  Did I miss something?
Michael Schofield | 5 Aug 17:03 2010

Re: Google Wave bye-bye

That is really a shame - but I think we'll see other incarnations of the 
same pop-up as the virtual office gains traction. For a semester long 
project, my team and I organized into a mock web development firm with 
digital library friendly services, and we kicked clunky Elluminate to the 
curb--and because Citrix GoToMeeting wasn't an option due to cost--used 
Google Wave for all of our business planning. After we established some 
ground rules about tagging waves, surfing through the dozens and dozens of 
documents we produced (and collaborated on in real time) was a breeze. Once 
they integrated video chat into the mix and Google Voice, we didn't even 
need to use the Elluminate room our professor set aside for us.

The Geek in Me: It was also ideal for text-based RPGs for those of us who 
grew-up on MUDs and MUSHs - you could even do dice rolls.

What a bummer.

Michael  <at>  BCPL 
-----Original Message-----
From: Leo Robert Klein <leo@...>
To: web4lib@...
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 09:11:05 -0500
Subject: Re: [Web4lib] Google Wave bye-bye

It bit the dust yesterday:
http://searchengineland.com/google-wave-crashes-48086

Wicked Thought of the Day: Do a search on 'Google Wave' and 'disruptive' 
and count the chickens.

That said, I actually think the analyses of why it went bust may be more 
(Continue reading)

Walter McGinnis | 6 Aug 01:21 2010
Picon

Re: Google Wave bye-bye

It's pretty simple why it failed. It never had a compelling story to explain what it was.

The reason it never had a compelling story? They chose a vague name that didn't give any real insight into its
nature over an enlightening unifying metaphor.  Personally, I thought it was closest to a chat room model,
but where there were products of the conversations.

People are pretty familiar with the virtual "room" concept for conversing.  The idea is to tie in output of
the conversations, maybe something that riffed off "the writers' room".

Cheers,
Walter

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Walter McGinnis
Kete Project Lead (http://kete.net.nz)
Katipo Communications, Ltd. (http://katipo.co.nz)
http://twitter.com/wtem
walter@...
+64211241794

On Aug 6, 2010, at 3:03 AM, Michael Schofield wrote:

> That is really a shame - but I think we'll see other incarnations of the 
> same pop-up as the virtual office gains traction. For a semester long 
> project, my team and I organized into a mock web development firm with 
> digital library friendly services, and we kicked clunky Elluminate to the 
> curb--and because Citrix GoToMeeting wasn't an option due to cost--used 
> Google Wave for all of our business planning. After we established some 
> ground rules about tagging waves, surfing through the dozens and dozens of 
> documents we produced (and collaborated on in real time) was a breeze. Once 
(Continue reading)

Alan Cockerill | 6 Aug 01:30 2010
Picon
Picon

Re: Google Wave bye-bye

I don't buy it Walter, the name has nothing to do with it (otherwise who
would ever have used Google).  I think, and their blog says as much, that it
was tool that was useful to too small a section of the web audience to
justify it's continued development in that form.

Yet another example of Google's (simultaneously frustrating and admirable)
ability to drop web applications regardless of what investment has been made
in them if the payoff isn't deemed high enough.

Cheers, Alan.

Alan Cockerill
Library Technologies Coordinator
James Cook University 

PO Box 6811
CAIRNS QLD 4870
Phone:+61 7 4042 1737
Fax: +61 7 4042 1516
Email: Alan.Cockerill@...
Skype: alan.cockerill.jcu
Web: http://cms.jcu.edu.au/libcomp/assist/contacts/JCUPRD_017401
Blog: http://jculibrarytechnology.blogspot.com/
Tweet: http://twitter.com/cockerilla

CRICOS Provider Code: 00117J (QLD)

-----Original Message-----
From: web4lib-bounces@...
[mailto:web4lib-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Walter McGinnis
(Continue reading)

Robert Balliot | 6 Aug 02:16 2010
Picon

Re: Google Wave bye-bye

I agree with this assessment.  Of course, the design and process was created
by brilliant minds. And, I think that it could do everything they
envisioned. The problem is collaborative tools need to work with minds not
as brilliant in computer systems as they are in marketing, in fund raising,
in personnel, in manufacturing and every other specialization.

I have friends who are brilliant, dynamic marketers - in person - face to
face they can close a deal.  And, they can close deals for technology
products. But, if I try to use a tool set such as Wave to enable
collaboration between them and their counterparts in the process, it is a
failure.  Collaboration, first and foremost, starts with the lowest common
denominator of the group with which you are trying to facilitate.  I spent a
few hours trying to work through Wave and was impressed by what it could
deliver.  But, I was never sure how I could make it work with a diverse
group and have the productivity needed without a huge buy-in and time
commitment from other participants.

R. Balliot
http://oceanstatelibrarian.com

On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Alan Cockerill <alan.cockerill@...>wrote:

> I don't buy it Walter, the name has nothing to do with it (otherwise who
> would ever have used Google).  I think, and their blog says as much, that
> it
> was tool that was useful to too small a section of the web audience to
> justify it's continued development in that form.
>
> Yet another example of Google's (simultaneously frustrating and admirable)
> ability to drop web applications regardless of what investment has been
(Continue reading)

Wilfred Drew | 6 Aug 15:41 2010

Re: Google Wave bye-bye

It always left me scratching my head as to what it could be used for. Most of the waves were discussions asking
how it could be used. There were no practical examples of its use in the real world.  It always seemed lacking
in some areas and over done in others. It was also very confusing.  I can usually figure out most interfaces
given a bit of time.  Wave was one that frustrated me so much that I gave up on it.  

-----------------------------------------
Wilfred (Bill) Drew, M.S., B.S., A.S.
Assistant Professor
Librarian, Systems and Tech Services
Strengths: Ideation, Input, Learner, Command, Analytical 
E-mail: dreww <at> tc3.edu 
Follow the library: http://twitter.com/TC3Library

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail or document.

-----Original Message-----
From: web4lib-bounces <at> webjunction.org [mailto:web4lib-bounces <at> webjunction.org] On Behalf Of
Robert Balliot
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 8:16 PM
To: Alan Cockerill
Cc: web4lib <at> webjunction.org
Subject: Re: [Web4lib] Google Wave bye-bye

I agree with this assessment.  Of course, the design and process was created
by brilliant minds. And, I think that it could do everything they
envisioned. The problem is collaborative tools need to work with minds not
as brilliant in computer systems as they are in marketing, in fund raising,
in personnel, in manufacturing and every other specialization.

I have friends who are brilliant, dynamic marketers - in person - face to
face they can close a deal.  And, they can close deals for technology
(Continue reading)

Walter McGinnis | 6 Aug 02:32 2010
Picon

Re: Google Wave bye-bye

I think there is a difference between naming something that already exists as a familiar concept, e.g.
branding a  new search engine "Google",  and naming of a new application type that people don't already grok.

If someone asked me when Google was new what it was, I could have answered, "it's a new search engine with
better results and really bare-bones design that gets out of the way of looking at the results."

When asked about Google Wave, I rambled on about it being a combination of a number of things (email, chat
rooms, document sharing) in a collaborative real-time conversation. I have yet to have a response to that
"story" where the person went "ah, cool, I get it, that sounds awesome."  Nor have I heard anyone else be able
to describe the service succinctly and in a way that inspires people to give it a try.

A unifying metaphor can help tell a compelling story to explain your application and inspire interest. 
Obviously it isn't the only way to do it.

Cheers,
Walter

On Aug 6, 2010, at 11:30 AM, Alan Cockerill wrote:

> I don't buy it Walter, the name has nothing to do with it (otherwise who
> would ever have used Google).  I think, and their blog says as much, that it
> was tool that was useful to too small a section of the web audience to
> justify it's continued development in that form.
> 
> Yet another example of Google's (simultaneously frustrating and admirable)
> ability to drop web applications regardless of what investment has been made
> in them if the payoff isn't deemed high enough.
> 
> Cheers, Alan.
> 
(Continue reading)


Gmane