Google Climbs to New Heights of Arrogance with Wave(gigaom.com)
gigaom.com
Google Climbs to New Heights of Arrogance with Wave
http://gigaom.com/2009/05/28/google-climbs-to-new-heights-of-arrogance-with-wave/
14 comments
This is a dodge. Even TechCrunch was unable to talk about Wave without drawing a direct comparison to FriendFeed, an actual product. Meanwhile, talking about protocols without talking about applications is cart-before-the-horse handwaving.
None of the writers at TweetCrunch seem like creative programmers; they specialize in reporting on actual products, and not underlying protocols, so there isn't anything for them to report. It's not a dodge because there isn't anything to compare; you don't compare a protocol to a product that uses a different one.
I/O is a developer conference; talking about the protocol without an actual product is just fine--the demo was good enough to show developers what basic features they can use for whatever product they can imagine.
That demo just shows what you can do. You can't compare it to any existing product. As terrible as this article is, the author does come to the realization that it will be useful for their actual email and office products, however brushing that question off wasn't arrogant; it was a weak denial--a developer conference isn't the right place to talk about their office products.
I/O is a developer conference; talking about the protocol without an actual product is just fine--the demo was good enough to show developers what basic features they can use for whatever product they can imagine.
That demo just shows what you can do. You can't compare it to any existing product. As terrible as this article is, the author does come to the realization that it will be useful for their actual email and office products, however brushing that question off wasn't arrogant; it was a weak denial--a developer conference isn't the right place to talk about their office products.
The GigaOm article isn't about what you want it to be about, but that doesn't make it a bad article. They write on their terms, not yours. Those terms are: where does Wave fit in with the Google ecosystem? What's likely to happen to it? Is it worth an investment of time an interest?
The thesis of the article is that the Wave pitch is arrogant. The evidence mustered is that Google has a poor track record of weaponizing innovation, and has little to say right now about what they'd actually do with Wave, but is prepared to say that Wave is more important than SharePoint, and maybe SMTP.
I don't have to agree with this thesis to see that it's worth considering.
The thesis of the article is that the Wave pitch is arrogant. The evidence mustered is that Google has a poor track record of weaponizing innovation, and has little to say right now about what they'd actually do with Wave, but is prepared to say that Wave is more important than SharePoint, and maybe SMTP.
I don't have to agree with this thesis to see that it's worth considering.
"The GigaOm article isn't about what you want it to be about. . .Those terms are: where does Wave fit in with the Google ecosystem? What's likely to happen to it? Is it worth an investment of time an interest?"
That's actually exactly what I thought it was about. Your comment, applied to this article, is the perfect explanation of why it is terrible: The presentation isn't about what they want it to be about, but that doesn't make it an arrogant presentation. Google was not doing a product presentation and GigaOm didn't understand it, and got upset when Google dismissed questions irrelevant to what they were presenting.
That's actually exactly what I thought it was about. Your comment, applied to this article, is the perfect explanation of why it is terrible: The presentation isn't about what they want it to be about, but that doesn't make it an arrogant presentation. Google was not doing a product presentation and GigaOm didn't understand it, and got upset when Google dismissed questions irrelevant to what they were presenting.
The GigaOm article is a long whine that they got to see a tech presentation instead of a business presentation. At a developer conference. I'll try to remember this the next time I want to whine about how I got a business presentation instead of a tech presentation at a business conference.
I don't understand how "not about business" equates to "arrogant".
As for SharePoint — is there anything less important than SharePoint? Maybe one of my socks or something. Or one of my less important GitHub projects.
I don't understand how "not about business" equates to "arrogant".
As for SharePoint — is there anything less important than SharePoint? Maybe one of my socks or something. Or one of my less important GitHub projects.
[deleted]
Maybe Google Wave won't be as revolutionary as some think, but calling Google arrogant for coming up with new stuff seems just ranting for the sake of ranting.
Ranting for the sake of readership, more likely. A journalist tends to write what sells after all, especially one who boasts about making money from your work :)
Yes, and they're doubly arrogant because they don't seem concerned with making money with it. The callus bastards. It's almost like they're just sitting there enjoying themselves...
callus vs. callous, related but not the same.
callus: A callus (or callosity) is an especially toughened area of skin which has become relatively thick and hard as a response to repeated contact
callous: emotionally hardened; "a callous indifference to suffering"; "cold-blooded and indurate to public opinion"
callus: A callus (or callosity) is an especially toughened area of skin which has become relatively thick and hard as a response to repeated contact
callous: emotionally hardened; "a callous indifference to suffering"; "cold-blooded and indurate to public opinion"
The author cites Spencer Wang's estimate of YouTube's earnings yet again, despite the fact that most HN reader have pointed out that those numbers are useless.
It's amazing how crappy information like this keeps getting spread around, and I think it reflects the authors eagerness to prove his point with little regard for the facts.
It's amazing how crappy information like this keeps getting spread around, and I think it reflects the authors eagerness to prove his point with little regard for the facts.
"The breathtaking arrogance of blowing off potential competition and touting tech buzzwords rather than at least giving a cursory examination as to how one might make money from a product is the Google way"
One must not forget that, even if it was greatly mediatised, it was still a develloper conference, not a consumer/enterprise conference. To be sure of that, you can just search other "non-techy" news sites about it, and you will see it's quite dead. For one good reason. It's not launched yet.
On the other hand, even if it's not launched, it's of great interrest to us devs, and there is some rationale behind the fact of unveiling it before a finished product is available, be it only for information purposes, since it's gonna be an open platform.
Devs are by nature quite arrogant about their new babies, there is nothing wrong with that. Wave looks quite exciting, and gigaom looks like they're lacking some good material to make themselves interresting ...
One must not forget that, even if it was greatly mediatised, it was still a develloper conference, not a consumer/enterprise conference. To be sure of that, you can just search other "non-techy" news sites about it, and you will see it's quite dead. For one good reason. It's not launched yet.
On the other hand, even if it's not launched, it's of great interrest to us devs, and there is some rationale behind the fact of unveiling it before a finished product is available, be it only for information purposes, since it's gonna be an open platform.
Devs are by nature quite arrogant about their new babies, there is nothing wrong with that. Wave looks quite exciting, and gigaom looks like they're lacking some good material to make themselves interresting ...
The author mistook Google being 'arrogant' for Google just doing its thing.
Google is truly an idea farm. They push out their ideas in a subtle manner, releasing rapid-prototypes to see what sticks.
Is that being arrogant or just smart? Have they ever released a product that was over-hyped, over-marketed and have it flop?
Those are the kind of mistakes that kill companies. Apple could certainly lend a story or two.
Admittedly, Google definitely goes overboard with some projects but none of those were mentioned in this article.
Google is truly an idea farm. They push out their ideas in a subtle manner, releasing rapid-prototypes to see what sticks.
Is that being arrogant or just smart? Have they ever released a product that was over-hyped, over-marketed and have it flop?
Those are the kind of mistakes that kill companies. Apple could certainly lend a story or two.
Admittedly, Google definitely goes overboard with some projects but none of those were mentioned in this article.
I'd hate to be arrogant myself, but I'm pretty sure the author "doesn't get it". I wouldn't talk about sharepoint in the same breath either. Wave is a way of tying communication mechanisms together, not a crappy web interface thrown on top of shared storage.
SharePoint is a huge big deal inside enterprises, and it's not just a crappy web interface; it's also a crappy SDK for building crappy applications that fit into that crappy web interface. So without endorsing SharePoint, I can see how blowing it off is arrogant.
It should also be pointed out that SharePoint was Microsoft's fastest business to ever reach $1B annually.
You think Google made Wave federated out of the kindness of their hearts? Expect an enterprise version.
You think Google made Wave federated out of the kindness of their hearts? Expect an enterprise version.
This wasn't a shareholder meeting, it was a developer conference.
Add directory services and it becomes the way to communicate at a company replacing Outlook/Exchange, MSN, Twitter, Skype.
I plan on using it at my company.
The only wish feature is directory services with administrative controls.
I plan on using it at my company.
The only wish feature is directory services with administrative controls.
How can you be planning to use it without trying it out?
Use what where? There's no product here.
I don't mean to be rude, but are you comfortable making Wave a big part of your organization's process and culture? What will you do if Google stops developing Wave?
I don't mean to be rude, but are you comfortable making Wave a big part of your organization's process and culture? What will you do if Google stops developing Wave?
They're releasing the spec and large chunk of the code openly - if it's a good idea and google stop developing it I'm sure someone else will step in.
That's not how B2B services work though. Dependability trumps everything. If your organization depends on a niche product who's provider exits the business you've got a big problem.
Lets say Google releases Wave, it doesn't gain a lot of traction, and they Jaiku it. For someone to pick up where they left off a lot of things would need to happen:
- Google would have to enable exporting your data capital into a standard format
- The new provider would have to match Google's now defunct service feature-for-feature
- The new provider would have to have the infrastructure to handle this demanding XMPP app, which has real-time editing to the nth degree, and store all of the associated rich media assets
- The new provider would have to find a business model which would sustain such expenses, succeeding where Google had failed
On top of this, the new developers would be expected to iterate the product, provide customer support, and solve whatever problems caused the app to fail under Google's tenure.
If you're sure Google will stick with Wave then none of this matters. But that's not a bet I'd take.
Lets say Google releases Wave, it doesn't gain a lot of traction, and they Jaiku it. For someone to pick up where they left off a lot of things would need to happen:
- Google would have to enable exporting your data capital into a standard format
- The new provider would have to match Google's now defunct service feature-for-feature
- The new provider would have to have the infrastructure to handle this demanding XMPP app, which has real-time editing to the nth degree, and store all of the associated rich media assets
- The new provider would have to find a business model which would sustain such expenses, succeeding where Google had failed
On top of this, the new developers would be expected to iterate the product, provide customer support, and solve whatever problems caused the app to fail under Google's tenure.
If you're sure Google will stick with Wave then none of this matters. But that's not a bet I'd take.
I honestly feel like the cool thing to do these days is hate. I mean everyone is hating on something, Dave Winer is hating on twitter(even though he uses it all day every day), Om is hating on wave, just seems like everyone is hating on something.
I do understand that google is a huge company and definitely has some financial end game associated with wave, but I don't mind that. What we need is more companies innovating, regardless of whether they are failures yet or not.
I think its irresponsible and ignorant to call a company arrogant because they are not worrying about making money(at least initially). Only thing that is evidenced by this article is that the author doesn't understand google or its motivations.
I do understand that google is a huge company and definitely has some financial end game associated with wave, but I don't mind that. What we need is more companies innovating, regardless of whether they are failures yet or not.
I think its irresponsible and ignorant to call a company arrogant because they are not worrying about making money(at least initially). Only thing that is evidenced by this article is that the author doesn't understand google or its motivations.
Silicon Valley Google Wave Discussion lunch tomorrow (5/31)
Come, Bring a Friend and let's discuss Google Wave over lunch.
Please use the following link: http://www.socializr.com/event/976099347 to RSVP.
Feel free to forward to anyone who might be interested.
Come, Bring a Friend and let's discuss Google Wave over lunch.
Please use the following link: http://www.socializr.com/event/976099347 to RSVP.
Feel free to forward to anyone who might be interested.
I'm inclined to think of Google as a platform rather than a product company. It seems like a strong trend with what they are coming up with/acquiring. When talking about monetizing a platform, it exactly what you be, get your initial attempt out (especially if you have the $) and then monetize later.
The whole point about this of course is for google to allow for an even more refined advertising product.
ALL their products fundamentally is about that.
It makes perfect sense.
ALL their products fundamentally is about that.
It makes perfect sense.
Google wave will make all sorts of interesting interaction possible.
I love how it mixes and matches a bunch of different technologies and use cases together.
A really interesting protocol. I wonder if it'll take off like how email did?
I love how it mixes and matches a bunch of different technologies and use cases together.
A really interesting protocol. I wonder if it'll take off like how email did?
And gigaom writers climb to new heights of ignorance with that post.
I disagree. This post really resonated with me, although perhaps the title is too much.
The half-assed launch of Wave today struck me as little more than an attempt to steal a few news cycles from Bing. When Google actually develops and releases a mature product based on the Wave concept I'll listen. Until then I'll take Wave about as seriously as I take OpenSocial.
The half-assed launch of Wave today struck me as little more than an attempt to steal a few news cycles from Bing. When Google actually develops and releases a mature product based on the Wave concept I'll listen. Until then I'll take Wave about as seriously as I take OpenSocial.
Until then I'll take Wave about as seriously as I take OpenSocial.
I'll see your OpenSocial and raise you a Knol.
I'll see your OpenSocial and raise you a Knol.
How so? Is that all you have to say?
It's what I was going to say.
I am intrigued by this, and by the fact that the API documentation is available before the service/product is.
I am intrigued by this, and by the fact that the API documentation is available before the service/product is.
The API is available so that developers who attended Google IO can start tinkering :)
Tinkering with the API, without the platform available for integration?
The platform is available to those who attended Google IO. Also, there's a hackathon event at Google tomorrow for Google Wave.
And how many did attend Google IO? How many here on HN? How many in large? So, how many can actually tinker, realistically?
4000 developers attended. I have no idea how many from HN, but I know Anybots was there.
Some percentage of the 4000 will be developing I'd think.
Regarding HN attendance, can you start a poll? (I can't)
Some percentage of the 4000 will be developing I'd think.
Regarding HN attendance, can you start a poll? (I can't)
Agreed. Golson does a faceplant on the definition of the word "arrogance." Usually I can piece together what word they were trying to use . Not this time.
It is like email--they are both communication protocols. Why would he compare a protocol to a product that uses a different protocol? It's like comparing bittorrent to Firefox.
The creators rightly dismissed the question of monetization because you don't monetize a protocol, you monetize programs built with it. The demo is just one of many potential products that can be built on it, so they can't answer that question based on it.
They rightly dismissed the competition of Sharepoint and Outlook because that was primarily a presentation of the protocol. The demo seemed like something thrown together to show how communication through the protocol looks like, and not the premier application that they will use it for.
I have an idea for potentially using the protocol for a distributed issue tracker that would work well with a DVCS; the protocol is not limited to Outlook and Sharepoint competition.