I think it illustrates a better issue, where if you ask four people "Why didn't wave succeed?" they'll have four (or more!) different answers. e.g. in that document, the first few people list: speed, live typing, no xmpp/email integration, no killer app, not better than existing tools, ....
so the takeaway is to pick one of these things, and fix it - if you try to fix them all, you'll have a hard time. It looks like this group is concentrating on improving the protocols (server-server and client-server) to make it a platform, and letting Kune / Rizzoma etc folks and random contributors do the app part, which seems a good way to go. On 4 February 2014 12:53, Yuri Z <vega...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yep, Wave is not just a client, but a very rich platform for near real time > apps that also includes a rich text client editor. And it was destined to > be federated, very much like smtp/xmpp. > On Feb 4, 2014 1:32 PM, "Thomas Wrobel" <darkfl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I think the "meta problem" was because Google focused on Wave too much > as a > > single app, rather then a protocol. > > The failings of the single client thus brought the whole thing down. > > > > Well, that and over expectations, buggy early release, confusing > naming.... > > > > ~~~ > > Thomas & Bertines online review show: > > http://randomreviewshow.com/index.html > > Try it! You might even feel ambivalent about it :) > > > > > > On 4 February 2014 08:57, Basavaraj <raj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hello All > > > > > > found this interesting review about google wave and its cons > > > > > > > > > http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/08/google-wave-why-we-didnt-use-it/ > > > > > > > > > wanted to share and check are there any effort to fix any one those > from > > > this article > > > > > > may be fixing them may make google wave gain what it deserves > > > > > > ~Basavaraj > > > > > >
