Problem with wave was just it was judged too soon. It was primarily a protocol...yet only one interface for it was judged, and only after a few months of being public with nearly no advertising. I think expectations were simply too high to get lots of users too soon.
And the name didnt help....Wave is a great name. But calling your web client, the protocol itself, and threads within it all "Wave" is confusing. On Sep 9, 12:54 pm, t <[email protected]> wrote: > I think it mainly failed because of missing integration into "oldschool" > technologies. > > These integration needs to be done in certain levels of depth. > From adding views of a wave in blogs, cms and wiki software which is > widely spread and has lots of different user scenarios. > To replacing the background infrastructure with wave. > think of wordpress or mediawiki with the same appearance on the front > end but a wave-storage in the back end. > also a mail and chat integration which gives users the possibility to > view and edit waves in their "normal" clients would be helpful. > > Yan Minagawa -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wave Protocol" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en.
