Skip to main content

Riding the Google Wave

Recently Google announced a new potential product called Wave that has had the e-experts all of a flutter. It's trumpted as the next generation of email. But is this just hype?

Email goes back a long way - before the internet, for example. As soon as people were using computers in real time, rather than punching cards and waiting for a result, it became obvious that this would be a great way to flip little messages between each other. It has become more sophisticated, but the model is very much traditional mail. (The name's a bit of a clue.)

If Wave has a model, it's more a conversation with friends than the post. Instead of a mail item being something fixed, it grows over time as responses are added. It's a living thing. You can add to and edit your original mail. As you get replies these build up, real time as a visible conversation. You can insert your reply part way through someone else's mail, to respond to particular points... and if you get confused by a complex conversation you can replay it so it builds, entry by entry. You can also do instant messaging within the mail if you are simultaneously online. And you can drop photos into the 'wave', producing a kind of active photo album.

One of the really exciting features is you can embed one of these 'waves' in a blog - and the whole thing is still interactive, so blog readers can interact with it too.

It looks remarkable. My only concern is its closed nature. The thing that makes email ubiquitous is that it is so basic. You can use it on anything. It all ties together. You can use it offline and just fire off your messages when you get a connection. Wave is different - it is inherently locked into Google's servers. You can't see your mail unless you are connected to the internet. Of course, in principle, you could have an offline copy, but this loses the whole interactive aspect. And there is no integration with history. I make a lot of use of my old emails, going back years - Wave is totally separate, it's inherently web based.

Will it catch on? I don't know. You will still have to use conventional email for communication with everyone who isn't using Wave - I guess a Wave user could have interface into his Wave client, but then you would be confused as to who you could and couldn't use the Wave features with.

As is so often with great new ideas, the biggest problem is not the benefits the idea delivers, it's how we get from here to there.

Here's a video demo of Wave - you might want to skip over the first bit. Or read more at wave.google.com

Comments

  1. Thank you for being my electronic scout on all things new; have you ever wondered what all these other waves (electromagnetic) are doing to us?

    ReplyDelete
  2. it is inherently locked into Google's servers.
    It isn't - you will be allowed to set up your own Wave server. I also can't see why you won't be able to work with your waves off-line: you'll obviously be able to download them, so the only problem is integration of edits when you return online.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Okay, not literally locked into Google's servers, but will ISPs provide Wave servers as well as POP servers, or in reality will all normal users be locked into Google?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brian, as I understand it that's exactly the idea. Google understand that if ISPs etc don't provide Wave servers as a basic then this won't go anywhere. A big question hanging over things at the moment however is whether the server itself will be open sourced. The protocol is open (although there have been some rumblings on that as well) but if people have to build servers, and probably more importantly, clients, from scratch I don't think it will take off.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope