Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Wave? Good-bye!

<< < (4/8) > >>

IainB:
I too played around with Wave and genuinely gave it a good "suck-it-and-see".
But though it was an interesting "thing", it never did seem to add up - at least not as far as I could see. So my BS alarm went off and I tended to be highly skeptical of the whole idea when I saw/heard the talks and fanfares (read "hype and BS") about it.
Its use would have been apparent - if it had been of any use to anyone - and then it would not have needed all that nonsense.

EDIT 2011-11-28: Though its use might have been difficult to perceive at first, having been open-minded and interested enough to give the thing a good "suck-it-and-see", its use would probably have become apparent to the user - if it had been of any use to anyone - and then it might not have needed all that nonsense.

No surprises when it was bumped off - showed good business sense.
If Google decided to keep all of its lame duck ß products going indefinitely, then that could be a disastrous business decision.

It seemed as though it was an interesting solution to an undefined/nonexistant problem.

I think the kiss of death to many of the Google ß products/services is when they are launched with the accompanying words:
"We're excited to announce..." (OWTTE)
--- End quote ---

Since it is generally true that it is difficult to be in an excited and a rational state of mind at one and the same time, I usually run a mile in the opposite direction when I hear that phrase.

Spare a thought for all those poor Wave developers/marketers who put their best and earnest endeavours into trying to create some Emperor's new clothes - and some even ranted on enthusiastically about it on YouTube broadcasts. Uncomfortable/embarrassing to watch those vids now though.
I sometimes wonder whether that could have an adverse effect if they mentioned it in their CVs.

Deozaan:
Its use would have been apparent - if it had been of any use to anyone[...]-IainB (November 27, 2011, 02:40 AM)
--- End quote ---

I disagree. I see this quite often with new innovations. For example, Nintendo lately has been introducing new ideas/technologies to the field of video games. With the Nintendo DS, they introduced a portable device with two screens, one of which had touch screen controls. With the Nintendo Wii, they introduced motion-based gameplay and pointer capabilities.

Game developers didn't really know what to do with these technologies. So what we got (and are still getting, to some degree) was a load of unimaginative crapware with shallow, gimmicky uses of these new technologies. It took time for people and developers to have that paradigm shift in which they realized legitimately fun and neat uses for these technologies.

You see this same period of bewilderment with the introduction of many innovative technologies. You summed it up pretty well right here:

It seemed as though it was an interesting solution to an undefined/nonexistant problem.-IainB (November 27, 2011, 02:40 AM)
--- End quote ---

I am reminded of the invention of the laser. When the laser was invented, it was really cool but nobody really knew what to use it for. It was the solution to an undefined, unknown, and seemingly non-existant problem. Yet today the laser has all sorts of applications and new uses are still being discovered/invented regularly. I probably have about 10 lasers in my house alone including all my devices that are capable of reading CDs/DVDs/Blu-Rays.

In my opinion, Wave was a great idea that was poorly executed. It was perhaps a bit before its time, though. Imagine if it was made with HTML5 and these new, fast JavaScript engines!

40hz:
In my opinion, Wave was a great idea that was poorly executed. It was perhaps a bit before its time, though. Imagine if it was made with HTML5 and these new, fast JavaScript engines!
-Deozaan (November 27, 2011, 12:19 PM)
--- End quote ---

I'm Not trying to argue. just better understand.

Exactly what was Wave's big idea? I have never been able to determine (to my satisfaction at least) exactly what the idea, paradigm, or unique concept was that lay under Wave.

And while the laser story has bearing on innovation in general, it's still an engineering technology. So yes, it was a solution out 'in search of a problem' for a number of years.  But at least it was unique and had measurable capabilities. And it could be understood. And defined.

Wave, on the other hand, started fuzzy and just got fuzzier the more you thought about it, until you finally felt you were standing in a hall of mirrors.  To me, it was a case of there being "no 'there' there" as Virginia Wolfe so nicely put it. So if I'm missing something, somebody please please please enlighten me.

Because it still continues to bug me today that I'm not seeing it.  :huh:

wraith808:
Exactly what was Wave's big idea? I have never been able to determine (to my satisfaction at least) exactly what the idea, paradigm, or unique concept was that lay under Wave.
-40hz (November 27, 2011, 01:25 PM)
--- End quote ---

Wave's big idea was to an extent G+, without the inherent social aspects, but in real time.  The ability to meet with people and share arbitrary information collaboratively with someone was what wave was supposed to be.  It was just poorly implemented, especially because they were still having technical difficulties.

40hz:
@Wraith - thanks! That's the most coherent description I've had anybody give me so far as to what Wave was supposed to be about. Much appreciated.

How was that different than chat or (even better) MS Outlook running on an fully configured Exchange server? ;D

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page