The main reason is people didn't know how to make head of tails of it. The closest thing they could relate it to was chat, email, etc. Of course it was underwhelming because they didn't really get the significance of what they were seeing, because it just wasn't a ready replacement for their existing communication.
I also reject that it didn't get enough exposure. Many will kill for the amount of expose that Google Wave got. It is a classic example, of techs being unable to get out of the tech mindset. Programmers designing for other programmers. I count myself as one who is guilty of this. The obvious thing to do is to slowly integrate technology into existing communication endpoints/clients. Not even mention its significance to ordinary folk. Simply allow them to use it, and see the benefits for themselves. I think it is better off as an Apache project than as Google product. That gives opportunity for it to evolve as a technology rather than a 'product'. Lets face it, the big money is in private enterprise SaaS and PaaS, with is tightly controlled, at least for the foreseeable future, e.g. Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc. So in a way it didn't really make a lot of sense for Google to carry a federated system at this stage. On Tuesday, 4 February 2014, 14:17, Patrick Coleman <patcole...@google.com> wrote: 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 > > > > > >
