135 Comments

Summary:

Has Google, with its latest project, Google Wave, actually come up with the Next Big Thing in online communication, or is it yet another Googler vanity exercise? Wave is a combination of email, instant messaging and a real-time wiki — plus open architecture and APIs. Or […]

wave_logoHas Google, with its latest project, Google Wave, actually come up with the Next Big Thing in online communication, or is it yet another Googler vanity exercise? Wave is a combination of email, instant messaging and a real-time wiki — plus open architecture and APIs. Or as creators Lars and Jens Rasmussen and Stephanie Hannon put it, “what email would be if it were invented today.”

For now, Google is rolling out Wave as a developer preview and will launch to the public later. The company is looking for 3,000 adventurous, early adopter developers to “tinker” with the system and figure out “what else can we do with this?” And that’s where I stumble.

Google has a long history of launching or buying projects, only to get bored and abandon them months or years later. With Wave, as with so many Google projects, the company seems to be flinging things against the wall to see what sticks. No real thought has been given to its future beyond, “Wouldn’t it be cool if…?” When asked about marketing Wave during the launch Q&A, the Google reps said “We really haven’t thought about that too much.” What about advertising? “We haven’t thought about that yet.” What about competition? “It’s not something we really thought a lot about.” So what have the Googlers thought about?

Google, as a company, has failed at monetizing everything except search (and, though it’s based on the same tech, partner web sites through AdSense). Advertising on YouTube has been a failure, and is costing the company hundreds of millions of dollars a year in server costs. The culture at the company is to build first and ask questions later, typical for a company run almost top to bottom by engineers. Lucky for the Wave team, then, that search ads have been so phenomenally successful — absent such success, they would be forced to ask those hard questions about monetization and competition.

Wave could be a competitor to Outlook and Office if Google were to roll Docs/Gmail/Cal under the Wave umbrella. And as Om pointed out in a tweet, it could be a strong competitor to Microsoft SharePoint. When he asked about Sharepoint at the Q&A, however, the Googlers brushed it off, saying Wave has “far greater breadth,” and is superior because of its openness and federation model.

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. Technology is all well and good, but at some point one must go from “Look at this cool thing we’ve designed!” to “Look at all the money we’re making from this cool thing!”

Maybe it will work. Maybe Wave will take over the world. But, with the notable exceptions of Gmail and search ads, Google has a poor track record with product launches. It is really, really good at vanity exercises, though.

  1. Wholeheartedly agree with your post. Google seems to be a single great idea company… granted it was a HUGE idea… but they’ve yet to do anything else very well from a biz perspective. Will there ever be a significant secondary revenue stream for this company?

    Share
    1. Can you not say the same thing about Microsoft, and many others? If only many other companies were hampered by the single revenue streams of Google and MS

      Share
      1. Microsoft has numerous revenues streams. Office, Windows, Server, Xbox, etc. Not to mention its Internet properties.

        Share
      2. brandonwatson Thursday, May 28, 2009

        Pop quiz…how many billion (with a B) dollar revenue businesses does MSFT have? The answer is >10. That surprised me too…and everyone else I ask.

        Share
    2. kc said “significant” revenue streams. Beyond their Windows/Office franchise, MS has never highly achieved, either.

      Share
      1. It sort of depends on what you mean by “significant”.

        There are entire countries that would be happy with some of the “insignificant” revenue streams that Microsoft has.

        Exchange, SharePoint, SQL Server, CRM/Dynamics, Windows Server, Visual Studio, — these are all >billion dollar a year businesses. Even the Online business, XBox, the keyboard/mouse business, Windows Mobile all make hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

        Share
    3. I think this is somewhat disingenuous. Whilst advertising is the way that they monetize (or the most significant way that they monetize) their various activities, they have a number of strong supporting products that drive revenue into that business.

      I think it’s also important to recognize that this is still a very young company, and it feels like you could have challenged Microsoft at the same stage with

      “When you are you going to make money from something other than software?”

      Share
  2. Did someone wake up on the wrong side of the bed today?

    Wave looks great, you should be clapping at attempts of companies like Google to innovate. I mean what did Microsoft talk about today? They are admitting they are YEARS behind in Search (and not likely to catch up) and YEARS behind in portable music / video players (and not likely to catch up).

    Bravo to Google for being forward thinking and offering so many great services, even if they fail from time to time.

    Go back to bed dude, and make some stronger coffee when you get up…

    Share
    1. Agreed. Wave looks interesting. Not sure if it will work, but I like the idea of informal and flexible collaborative documents.

      Speaking of Microsoft and collaboration, it is unbelievable how awkward Sharepoint is, how long MS waited to promote hosted Exchange for small businesses, and the markets they gave up with both.

      Share
      1. I also whole heartily agree. This is incredible innovation and of course risk comes along with that. I applaud Google for taking the risk and putting something out there of value. Perhaps we can’t see or understand that value yet but imagine the ideas that this type of product can spawn. Go Google!

        Share
    2. worldwidefuture Friday, May 29, 2009

      Bravo! Hard to believe someone would bash Google for not being innovative enough. Google Maps, Earth, Docs, Gmail, etc. whether developed or acquired have all blown away any meager attempts of Microsoft to catch up. Its a new age, and its Googled. Microsoft is so yesterday, unfortunately.

      Share
      1. Google Maps? I’m sure MapQuest was before them.
        Google Earth? Terraserver was before them (hosted by Microsoft even).
        Docs? Really?
        Gmail? What, webmail?

        Heck, Google search itself was of course after Altavista and all the other search engines of the time.

        Should Apple quit their OS business because they’ve never caught up to Windows in terms of market share?

        Share
      2. m-s:
        Mapquest *was* long before google maps. And it was great at the time. But just 5 years later, who the hell do you know that still uses it?!? There are reasons.

        Google earth. Free, works great, incredible product.

        Docs.. wonderful! You may not be innovative enough to find uses for these, but I guarantee there are *plenty*! Especially with cloud computing/netbooks/etc taking bigger hold. My boss’ many kids do their homework on it. He can see what’s being done and make suggestions from anywhere, anytime, even if they’re at their mom’s house. My wedding planning Master Doc and Guest List spreadsheet are on there – my fiance and I can work on stuff from anywhere, at any time, together! “Hey hun, let’s both go through and add in the addresses for our families”… “Oh hey, I just put a picture of venue-x under the possible locations bullet, see what you think, there’s a link to the website too”.. awesome! Can’t do that with anything else, especially not in real time working on the same document from any computer with no software to install. Wave takes these great features, and integrates in better communications (so we don’t even have to be on the phone working on things together), plus gives the playback (which really could be useful a *lot*.. “how *did* we arrive at these conclusions”)

        Gmail.. I’ll kick your ass if you’re comparing Gmail to everyday webmail.

        Share
    3. Well Said,

      The Google culture is what sets it apart from the other high-tech companies and is actually an asset for the company.

      It’s there way of avoiding the big company paralysis which affects almost every other big tech company, where in order to keep up your reputation you have to come up with elaborate business plans before a revolutionary project can be undertaken.

      Small startups, where the real innovation happens don’t have this problem because they are not answerable to anybody, Google by having the revenue stream from ad-sense and search as an umbrella to protect such projects from being questioned about monetization, tries to have similar environments for new projects.

      Now the real question is whether we want to put all our money in Google’s hands to be the forerunner of technological revolutions or not? If you ask me it’s a big yes with Google’s engineers being the best in the world and the companies love for Computer Science as a field. Mr. Eric Schmidt mentioned during the IO keynote that he feels computer science is the center of the universe, what could be a better testimonial to their dedication to the cause.

      Share
  3. Good article. People will have to take protecting their privacy into their own hands. A great tool I found for Internet Privacy is Covert Surfer. It is designed to encrypt your Internet connection and prevent cookies from collecting information about you. Can operate completely from a flash drive so you can use it on multiple computers. Check it out at http://www.covertsurfer.com

    Share
    1. Like anyone in their right mind would use security software from a company that spams comments. You have got to be kidding.

      Share
      1. give “Jim Smith” a break — if you knew the grip that Google and other big tech companies have on tech “journalism” and media outlets, and the very real pay-to-play coverage that tech media thrives on, then you’d sympathize with a startup that might have great product but is finding it hard to get the word out using traditional (aka Paying Google for ads) means.

        in fact, what more relevant place to mention alternatives to the incessantly blogged-about big brother technologies than in those very same blog postings?

        comment “spam” is not cluttering your inbox, didn’t cost you anything to download, cannot contain viruses, and often times is the effort of a real person trying to inform a message thread full of readers about other options.

        on the other hand, covertsurfer.com sounds like nothing you can’t get using InPrivate browsing through IE8 or any number of Firefox plugins, so I wonder if it has much chance.

        Share
      2. I’m already happy with Google Chrome :)

        Share
  4. Hmmm. Lots of passion there. How do you know that they are not making money in anything besides search? They don’t break out their revenue by product. However it breaks down, you have to admire the sheer volume of their numbers.

    I’m no G-Fanboy, but they have do have a unique ability to change the technical landscape (Chrome? HTML5?), and potentially do even more (Voice?). Should they ever get deadly serious about hiring the “execution” types that you advocate, then they will be even more dangerous.

    Share
    1. Exactly. It’s the advertising that’s making money, not search. And the ads have worked well, and are easily integrated into other services they provide (see Adsense, Google Maps, Gmail, etc.). They want as many people as possible to be using Google services because they can earn revenue from advertising on any one of them, so why is a new product so confusing?

      All of their services are free (or at least have a free option) and many of those services have failed, but that hasn’t stopped things like Google Maps and Gmail from gaining market share so I don’t get the basis for the position this article is touting so loudly. The “throw things at a wall and see what sticks” mentality is what got them where they are today so the tone of this article seems misplaced or based on a misunderstanding of how Google operates and makes money.

      Share
      1. It’s also worth pointing out that Google Maps has surpassed MapQuest as the number one mapping site. MapQuest has been around forever. Yahoo Maps had also been around for a while before Google Maps. Microsoft has had maps for a really long time as well. So, why did Google Maps become so popular? Because Google was willing to building something more than just a “me too”. They did something with maps that no other larger player before them had done… and with things like Street View, they are continuing this trend. Sure, they didn’t invent the Street View technology… but they had the foresight to use it and feature it in a much larger way than their competitors. Google succeeds when their competitors rest on their laurels. Even if Google fails at a project, they at least succeed in getting others to keep up with the new pace of innovation.

        Share
    2. Deadly serious execution and danger! Google isn’t a secret ninja assassin organization, dude. Jason Bourne, CTO! Do you have an actual business vocabulary to draw from, or are you one of those guys who’s never going to return The Art of War to the library?

      Share
      1. It’s a first edition signed copy, would you return it? But just for you, I’ll rephrase:

        Google makes a boatload of money, and will probably make even more – regardless of what you, I, or Jordan think of them.

        Share
    3. It is always good to see they are trying. Humble people with arrogant ideas make all the difference.

      Share
  5. 1. Build and Ask questions later is exactly how many successful products are built. If it solves some problems for users or is otherwise useful you can probably find a way to make money from that. Google itself was made this way. So is microsoft foolish in going after google with bling ? Are you suggesting that every idea should have monetization plan right from the start ? Will firefox/mozilla have been built with this “ask questions” first strategy ? Do they not make money from their product now ?

    2. The bandwidth costs for youtube is pure speculation. The analysts do not have any idea about the peering arrangements google have with large ISPs. Even if you discount that, Google’s cost as a percentage of revenue has either been flat or falling http://investor.google.com/fin_data.html .

    3. “It has failed at monetizing everything except search”. That is again speculation. Search is clearly their leading profit generator but google maps and gmail are successful products and since google does not break out revenues product wise, we have no idea how much each of these services contribute to the bottomline.

    Share
  6. I think they have thought about monetization–every thing they do to improve the web increases web usage, and drives use of Google search.
    Also, I like how they threw this out there without thinking too much first. In fact, I wish they would have thrown it out even more prematurely. When your goal is to improve the web, and not to sell software, as Google is trying to do with Wave, you open source the thing from the start and tell people about it when you first start thinking about it. That way, you build up a big developer community and get people talking about it. For example, they should have revealed Android when they first started it, not after a couple of years. If they had, Android would be THE mobile linux and competing a lot better with the iPhone.

    Share
  7. One more thing I forgot to mention: if you reveal your thinking early, you get to find out if it makes sense or not before you waste a lot of money on it. Also, good job stirring up the Google fanboys.

    Share
  8. 18 Android phones are launching this year. Id say thats a success.

    Also: why does the author & any poster care about monetization as a measurement of success? Id much prefer their “build cool things that I can choose to use or not use, for free” mentality. No skin off my nose if it makes a lot or nothing. I dont get the animosity against that.

    Share
    1. Because, for some reason, since around 2003-2004, tech media has been obsessed with stock price and tech editors and authors have all become armchair stock brokers. There’s barely anything technical about technical media anymore.

      Share
      1. I was wondering this myself, and came to the same conclusion – unless you have a load of stock in Google, what do you care how much money they are making out of anything? Surely they have brought the world some breathtaking products.

        Share
  9. Looks like a combined Google Apps + GMail -> aimed at FaceBook ? Not really going to challenge Microsoft SharePoint for a corporate/business user.

    I guess the “success” of Google Chrome tells a lot – aka FAIL.

    Share
  10. Personally, the concept makes a hell of a lot of sense, especially as an open platform play.

    My simple net out is that this is a model that deals elegantly with both messages and payloads, where the payloads could be pics, videos, posts, songs, maps, people/product/business listings, etc.

    As such, there is a lot of value in how the handling layer processes these messages/payloads, enabling them to be aggregated and/or filtered into logical constructs, like NOW, LOCAL, TYPE, POPULAR, VIRAL, ENGAGING, etc.

    I blogged about an application model that is very complimentary to this (and for which I have modeled out six very specific use cases) in a post called:

    “Right Here Now” services: weaving a real-time web around status
    http://bit.ly/i40h

    Check it out if interested.

    p.s., if you want to fault the company for planting a lot of seeds not knowing which ones will sprout, so be it, but personally I salute the approach. So long as they build on the culture of learning to starve the losers and feed the winners, that model can scale into a lot of great products. Food for thought.

    Mark

    Share
  11. IP transit is selling for $2000/mth for GigE (see he.net). Google has its own backbone with peering at the biggest exchanges (like Ashburn & Linx) down to the small exchanges (like TorIX). The $360 million estimate in bandwidth costs for Youtube seems inflated. For $20K/mth Google can get a 10G port at NYIIX & Linx as well as a 10G wave across the pond. So their bandwidth costs are likely closer to $36 million/yr than $360 million.

    Share
  12. I don’t understand the author’s reasoning. If you are evaluating Google as a potential investment then, by all means, get as critical as you want.

    But, I don’t believe you are evaluating Google’s stock value. So, what’s with all the hate.

    I LOVE the fact that Google comes up with many useful products and lets people use them for free. They have many great products and seem to be a very good corporate citizen.

    Seriously, think of a world without Google Earth, Google Maps, Gmail, Google Calendar, Google Docs, Google Voice, Android, Chrome, YouTube, Blogger, Picasa, Sketchup, Goog-411, etc. It’s too painful to imagine ;-0

    The idea that Google hires a bunch of wicked smart folks and has them make stuff that find interesting and might make some money is awesome.

    Share
  13. Wow. I wish there was a way I could unsubscribe from anything Mr. Golson writes, but still stay subscribed to Gigaom …
    Calling these engineers arrogant is, in and of itself, arrogant. The title is sensationalistic and utter nonsense.

    Share
    1. Apolodoro Fiegenbaum Thursday, June 4, 2009

      I entirely agree! Is Google such an evil company that Golson cannot see the breakthrough in Wave???? I am a professional translator and this Wave would do wonders in my working team and in my communications with customers, which today require approximately 150 emails a day, i.e. a minimum of 10-15 per individual translation job, even the smallest task!!

      I spend about 2 hours a day just forwarding emails and replying with “OK!”, “Good!”, “Yes!”… It’s complete nonsense. Wave would easily help me save most of that wasted time.

      Share
  14. Like VRML in the mid-1990s, wave looks to me to solve a problem that really doesn’t much exist.

    Share
    1. Apolodoro Fiegenbaum Thursday, June 4, 2009

      OK, but how many emails do you get and write every day? If you sent 150 emails a day like in my case, you’d be screaming for Wave!! And if you already send 150 emails a day and don’t see the advantages in Wave for your everyday life… you probably don’t like Wave because it comes from Google. Would you be thrilled about Wave if it was invented by some developer working in a garage?

      Share
  15. I somewhat agree – but – we’re not talking about a product here. Google is building a platform (web OS?) And monetizing a platform is not easy especially at the early days.

    Share
  16. To the author:

    Good job not seeing the potential of a great product. I can see this product replacing a lot of use-cases which currently reside with email and chat, plus give us some great additional functionality. Even if the first version of Wave from Google doesn’t work that well, I can imagine using something like this as my primary online communication tool in 5 years – either Google’s product or somebody else’s.

    Your own founder Om Malik has lamented many a time about how the email inbox and address book is the real core of a social network and how nobody has come up with an application to fully utilize its potential. You are staring in the face at an application that does exactly that, and you are not able to recognize it.

    The only arrogance I am seeing here is in the tone of this article.

    LL

    Share
  17. [...] my friend Jordan Golson, I don’t see Wave as a sign of breathtaking Google arrogance–at least not if the company comes up with a reasonable game plan to roll it out to the [...]

    Share
  18. [...] hoy sino en una plataforma centralizada de comunicación y colaboración, y por eso con el que más coincido es con Om Malik en cuanto a que va a hacer falta sentarse a ver que pasa cuando pase el hum… porque este producto abre tantos frentes y podés pensarlo de tantas maneras que van a necesitar [...]

    Share
  19. Very much agree, Jordan. Good balance to all the Wave hype out there.

    Share
  20. Jean-Gabriel Morard Friday, May 29, 2009

    All I know is that I want to use Wave…

    But there’s been other application frameworks that have been successful lately. I mean financially successful. So…. I’m not too worried for them.

    Share
  21. All I know is that I want to use Wave…

    But there’s been other application frameworks that have been successful lately. I mean financially successful. So…. I’m not too worried for them.
    Oops…forgot to say great post! Looking forward to your next one.

    Share
  22. I don’t agree with this analysis. There are plenty of google projects which haven’t been abandoned and it’s this spirit of invention which marks google out from its peers. As for the sales and marketing stuff – so what? plus the web has done a pretty good job of marketing google products without any involvement from google itslef – google search did no marketing at all for the first 3 year or so

    Share
  23. Would GOOG be better of keeping these developments efforts in a lab (thin Xerox and the PC, GUI etc…) or getting out and seeing what can be done with it?

    Is this R&D effort, and if so are people thinking GOOG is spending too much on R&D relative to HP, IBM et al?

    Share
  24. I think google is following right strategy ………………make a product /protocol ……open source it to reduce cost and Forster innovation and they can build great products without spending billions…this how they have created eco system for GWT , Chrome and now wave etc …they are doing it with ………….wave is great concept …..if they can create community/ecosystem around it ………it will sure win…………monetization is not an issue if they have user base

    Share
  25. Google=search, products that people will use = platform from which search queries are made. If you’re using Chrome you’re using Google Search. If you’re using Gmail you’re using Google Search. If you stop using Hotmail or twikis, or whatever collaboration+communication tool you’re using to use Wave you’re using Google search = more money for Google.

    Share
  26. you are so wrong about what Google has or hasn’t achieved with its numerus projects… I won’t even try to start explaining you, as you – as an author in a tech blog – should know better, but…

    The first step for you is to understand that Google does not necessarily need / want to monetize anything it creates… It only wants us to use it more and more and more… so that we stay logged on even longer… this is how they fuel their add-machine… and in the process they make our lifes so much easier…

    but you just CAN’T grasp this, can you?

    Share
  27. I think the real value will come out of what 3rd party developers build from it as a platform. Especially for the enterprise market for team/group collaboration, information sharing and project organisation.

    If Yammer can make a business out of a Twitter clone, then something like this *could* do very, very well indeed.

    Share
  28. Thinking about how to monetize something in the first place, kills innovation.

    The internet would not have been invented if they had been thinking only about monetization.

    Share
    1. Absolutely – good things aren’t created by sales and marketing people. Those uncreative morons can’t add value to the world. Lets face it, the monetisation crowd have always been like ambulance chasers, or vultures, looking for fresh meat.

      Share
  29. [...] derartig weitreichende Auswirkungen haben könnte oder ob sich letztlich nicht doch nur um eine weitere Google-Spielerei handelt, die nach einigen Monaten wieder in der Versenkung verschwindet. Die gezeigten Funktionen [...]

    Share
  30. [...] quote from Jordan Golson’s post, Google Climbs to New Heights of Arrogance With Wave Google has a long history of launching or buying projects, only to get bored and abandon them [...]

    Share
  31. [...] nuovo progetto, ma si fanno spazio anche le prime critiche. C’è chi definisce Wave un ennesimo esercizio di vanità e di arroganza di Google, sottolineando come alcuni progetti in passato siano stati lanciati come [...]

    Share
  32. “…at some point one must go from ‘Look at this cool thing we’ve designed!’ to ‘Look at all the money we’re making from this cool thing!’ ”

    Thank god you’re not running Google!

    Share
  33. Something that seems totally lost in all the Wave hype is that it seems to be an incredibly complex product – a major departure from all earlier Google efforts.

    Share
  34. [...] Wave Google Wave is a little confusing at first glance, but Jordan Golson at GigaOm sums it up well as a combination of email, instant messaging, and a real-time wiki. MarketingShift calls it [...]

    Share
  35. This will fail… only because of the lazy people will not want to learn something new.

    Go windows xp!

    Share
  36. startupsidedown Friday, May 29, 2009

    Let me get this straight. Your problem is that is not clear that Google will make money off of it? I can think of a lot better things to worry about that whether or not Google is making enough money.

    Share
  37. Yes, great article. Pure research and development should never be done unless there is a business plan and the bankers agree with it. Like Twitter does not have a revenue strwam yet It should never of even been thought of until they knew how to profit off of it. Same with the original google. I mean, the way they never let anyone search or access it until they had the complete ad sense thing worked out.

    What an idiot.

    Share
  38. Meh. I think this article is bullshit. But that’s just m e.

    Share
  39. [...] been through a few versions and is shoehorning stuff in. Update – actually, GigaOm has also been a bit grumpy Posted by Alan Patrick in Web Services / Cloud Computing at 21:06 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks [...]

    Share
  40. [...] short sighted people are calling it arrogant because there is no business model or marketing [...]

    Share
  41. [...] point.  Is Google being arrogant and how will they monetize? I think Wave is a platform shifter to the Web.  Google wins across the board if people move from [...]

    Share
  42. [...] about what the execs had to say. More importantly, I needed time to think about it. In the interim, Jordan did a good job of summing up the pros and cons of Google Wave. We collaborated closely on his post, and I’m glad we’re being cautious. For it’s [...]

    Share
  43. [...] The GigaOm site scorched them with this Google Climbs to New Heights of Arrogance with Wave. [...]

    Share
  44. Not sure if I agree with u. The potential to embed content and context is huge. Working on collaborative documents is painful and wave addresses that. There is so much more too

    Share
  45. So, as an independent developer, I couldn’t care less whether Google makes money from Wave. What I care about is how I can make money from Wave. I’m pretty sure I can make money building software on MSFT’s platform, can the same be said about a Google “platform”?

    Share
  46. I don’t think you know the definition of the word “arrogance.”

    Share
  47. Who is going to write these plug-in’s and make $$ outside of Google? Doesn’t seem to be an incentive unless you like to work for free.

    I’m sure Wave will be rolled into a corporate service and sold per seat to compete against Microsoft and IBM as the ultimate collaborative tool. Given the the concept of compound documents and linking has long existed prior Google has done a nice job of expanding the concept with real time collaboration features. This will never displace existing corporate collaborative tools easily unless they can put “Wave on an appliance” like google search.

    Share
  48. I think Wave will have a tremendous impact because a “wave” is metaphorically closer to a real-world thread of communication between people. The narrative of a wave encapsulate many others in a simple and elegant form.

    Share
  49. [...] short sighted people are calling it arrogant because there is no business model or marketing [...]

    Share
  50. I also think that Google has not been successful in any venture apart from Search. All other successful businesses of Google were not invented at Google but were bought over by them. It was the passion of Larry & Sergey that made them successful in their venture against established companies like Microsoft, Yahoo, etc. For me Google has been part of my virtual identity since I started flirting with internet. However, now when I look around and see the growth of completely unknown companies in this space, I feel that Google may not be able to keep pace with them on passion, nimbleness and more importantly consumer understanding. Read my entire article at http://www.telecomcircle.com/2009/02/google-has-the-growth-hit-the-ceiling/

    Do let me know if you agree with the issues I have raised in my post

    Share
  51. [...] Wave Google Wave is a little confusing at first glance, but Jordan Golson at GigaOm sums it up well as a combination of email, instant messaging, and a real-time wiki. MarketingShift calls it [...]

    Share
  52. It is easy to moan and say, “That will never work! Pfft, how will they make money from that?”

    All I can say is, who cares if they it doesn’t make money directly. If their advertising business can support a cool technology like Waves then great. Also, something doesn’t have to provide revenue directly to be useful to a company. It can drive revenue in an indirect and supportive fashion.

    Also, it is about removing oxygen from the room. Microsoft (and the other big software vendors) have NOTHING like this. Not even close. If Google can make something like this popular and self sufficient and remain ahead of the other big boys it will be able to keep driving revenue from supporting services to other parts of their business.

    Also, I see a lucrative business in selling Waves as a collaborative platform to businesses, large and small.

    I’m forced to use Microsoft products in a corporate environment every day and none of them are as useful to me as stuff I use on the web outside of work.

    When I return to running my own small business, I plan on using primarily online SaaS style apps for practically everything.

    Share
  53. [...] facing Google’s new ideas: Will Wave, for example, attract a critical mass of users, and can it make money? But if Google hasn’t created a game-changer with its HTML 5 experiments in general and with Wave [...]

    Share
  54. Did anybody miss that it is open source? One of the demonstrations on the presentation was a ‘company’ that chose to ‘build it themselves’ unless I mis-understood, the open source code will be available to all. I am not a programmer, I use Blender3d as an artist (sort of!) that is open source and now challenges high end 3d apps. So the wave code wont go away, open social will revolutionise the way things are done.

    Share
  55. [...] Microsoft.  The excitement around Google announcements is generally huge and positive (although some don’t think it’s the cat’s meow) contrasted with Microsoft releasing something and everyone usually being a skeptic.  Sridhar [...]

    Share
  56. [...] Se Techcrunch e Technologizer si limitano a stuzzicare l’attenzione dei più scettici, GigaOm, invece, affonda il colpo arrivando a parlare addirittura di arroganza: When asked about marketing [...]

    Share
  57. [...] Wave Google Wave is a little confusing at first glance, but Jordan Golson at GigaOm sums it up well as a combination of email, instant messaging, and a real-time wiki. MarketingShift calls it [...]

    Share
  58. I thought it was funny when people where cheering during the presentation that characters went back and forth as they typed. What, no-one ever chatted on BBS back in the “pre-Internet” era (i.e. when BBSes were more used than Internet)? We had chat like that back then with 2400 baud modems. Sure, Wave is much more, but that’s hardly something to cheer about.

    Share
    1. Tickled me too that one :)

      Share
  59. Habib Ullah Khan Sunday, May 31, 2009

    I am hardly a Google fan. But purely from a business perspective if someone has massive cash flow from one operation and uses that to mercilessly search for the next big thing while failing at most of them…. Well I call that accelerated innovation. This is why the next big thing doesnt happen so often. The road to it is littered wiuth failures and not many can afford to fail as many times as Google.

    Since when is failure a bad thing (Esp if you can afford it!). Isnt Silicon Valley one of the few places on Earth that genuinely respects and counts failure as a a cultural pillar?

    Nothing wrong with trying to change the world. One man’s arrogance is the potential saving grace of many hundreds of millions. As long as Google makes my life easier I do not mind it trying to take over the world. Hostory has shown that every generation has a new Google. We’ll all be okay in the long run.

    Share
    1. I am totally with you (except that I am a Google fan!) The creativity and freedom that Google allows its engineers, the “do now, ask questions later” approach, the “let’s see if we can do this cool thing and worry about how/if to make money off it later” is exactly what makes Google one of the most vital, flexible, fit-for-the-future companies. To try things and then drop them because they’re not working out or out of lack of interest or because something more compelling is emerging elsewhere is exactly what people and companies are best allowing themselves to do. It’s part of dynamic creativity to not cling to something and work it into the ground just because it seemed like a good idea at first. (Sticktoativity is about sticking to inspiration, not to a project that’s lost life and meaning, just because Dad said you’ve got to stick to things!)

      But this wisdom in action is what makes people like this Golson just shrivel and churn with toxic envy, fall back on some limiting, crippling bs about monetizing.

      Please Golson! Get out of the way and let the people with real inspiration, flexibility and vitality lead us into the future!!

      Share
  60. Jordan – I heard somewhere that people can be seriously hurt by these new inventions called “Wheels” and “Fire”, I think we should move to stop all development on these products at once…

    Share
  61. I am wondering what Google really means by open source. I suspect it means that they will own and control the code and allow the programming universe to contribute towards it.
    I dont think it means you can go and get the wave source code and deploy it in any fashion you might wish. I think Google will control deployment and outside developers will be limited to contributing towards its success and using the API library.
    Did anyone ask what they mean exactly by “open source”?

    Share
    1. The protocol is what matters, and it’s built on top of XMPP. The draft specification (still very incomplete) is written in the style of other Internet standards from the IETF, and I presume they intend to try to publish it as an RFC. So it really seems like Google is serious about making this an open platform. Who cares if Google’s own implementation is open source if anyone can write an interoperating product?

      BTW, can you imagine writing the server software which can update its state and revision history, and notify the other participating servers for a given wave, for every single keypress the user makes? With a thousand million potential users, that’s a tall task.

      Share
  62. [...] att det fr a handlar om att förändra e-mailen. GigaOm är, precis som en hel del andra, rätt skeptiska. Min känsla är att det är få som insett att Google inte byggt en ny app utan bygger [...]

    Share
  63. [...] Google Climbs to New Heights of Arrogance With Wave – The culture at the company is to build first and ask questions later, typical for a company run almost top to bottom by engineers. Lucky for the Wave team, then, that search ads have been so phenomenally successful — absent such success, they would be forced to ask those hard questions about monetization and competition [...]

    Share
  64. [...] nuovo progetto, ma si fanno spazio anche le prime critiche. C’è chi definisce Wave un ennesimo esercizio di vanità e di arroganza di Google, sottolineando come alcuni progetti in passato siano stati lanciati come [...]

    Share
  65. [...] Google Climbs to New Heights of Arrogance With Wave (gigaom.com) [...]

    Share
  66. [...] Google Climbs to New Heights of Arrogance With WaveCheck out the fanboys in the comments. [...]

    Share
  67. You’ve got it all wrong. Wave is not a product, it’s a service, an API and a new communication paradigm. Did you think that the guy who invented email was thinking how to monetize it?

    Share
  68. [...] 3-http://gigaom.com/2009/05/28/google-climbs-to-new-heights-of-arrogance-with-wave [...]

    Share
  69. Thinking of Wave in terms of “replacing” such as GMAIL (or even email, itself) is just silly. Not every Internet communication needs to be (or even should be) as would be in Wave. Traditional email, at the very least, should (and likely will) never go away. Of this, I think there should be little fear or doubt.

    Now, that doesn’t mean there won’t be a place — and a potent one, indeed — in our lives for such as Wave and its ineluctable variants. It, too, will be useful, under the right circumstances. In fact, from my admittedly only-cursory analysis of it to date, I’m thinking that what actually MAY be “replaced” by Wave, as a practical matter, is traditional “chat,” as we now know it (though traditional chat, mark my words, will continue to be around for years and years, too, no matter how good Wave ultimately gets).

    Regardless, one thing about which we should all be clear in our minds is that we’re not talking about the mere replacing of anything, here. Wave, for better or worse, seems very nearly of the nature of paradigm shift… and far be it from me to suggest that that’s, necessarily, a bad thing, here.

    It does, however, come with pitfalls about which we should all be watchful, if not actually downright concerned. For example, though it’s now coming out in articles (and/or rebuttals to such as I am posting here) that it’s likely to be user-configurable, initial writings about Wave touted the ability (and represented it as essential to Wave’s very way of operating) of all persons in a “wave” (or a thread) to be able to see, in real time, all others’ keystrokes, as they type.

    Let me repeat the salient words of that, here: AS. THEY. TYPE.

    Think about that, please, for just a moment. It’s a far larger problem than, perhaps, it initially seems. Like how sausage is made (or, as some joke, like how laws are passed), some things in life may better be left something of a mystery to those who ultimately consume (or are regulated by) them; and, most importantly, solely at the creator’s option.

    The ultimate impact and meaning to the reader of anything written would be inordinately influenced by said reader’s having been a witness to its creation. If one is a thoughtful writer who doesn’t just blurt out every wayward thing which flits through one’s brain, then one is going to pause to think while one types, and back-up and delete and re-type, and whatever else behind-the-scenes activity goes into what ends-up being the finished written product. If the reader were able to witness what the writer merely paused before writing; or actually did write, but then thought better of and either removed or changed to something else, then the bell of what the reader saw along the way cannot be un-rung; and the reader’s ultimate interpretation and understanding of the final written result will be indelibly affected in ways (even if not immediately obvious) more likely than not to be inherently bad for all concerned.

    Now, if it’s true, as some who challenge such as my assertions, here, are now saying, that the ability of others to view one’s keystrokes as one makes them is (or at least will be) user-configurable in the version of Wave which is finally released to the end-user wild, then my concern, at least on this particular privacy-related point, is happily ameliorated.

    However, of larger philosophical concern to me is that the creators of Wave apparently believed, even if only briefly, that something as basic as this issue would not be important. What, then (if anything), does that mean we should also be wary of in the realm of personal privacy protections, just generally, for users of this new and groundbreaking product? For what else should we be watching which may, ultimately, negatively impact us because of fundamental, and at least initially seemingly harmless, privacy encroachments…

    …encroachments which may not even be recognizable as encroachments to Wave’s creators because, perhaps, of their nationality and upbringing (nothing negative, mind you, intended by that wording, I assure).

    One potentially troubling impact (at least from the standpoint of Americans, in my opinion) of globalization (which, incidentaly, I’m not fundamentally against, despite how what I’m about to write may make it seem) is how the sensibilities of those non-Americans who create things which all others on the planet end-up using can unintentionally contravene that which Americans hold perhaps nearer and dearer to their hearts than do non-American others. Those who grew up and still live in countries where such things as privacy and freedom of speech are not as absolute and paramount as in the US may or may not necessarily value such rights to the same degree as do Americans; and it sometimes shows in their work.

    It has not escaped my notice that the two brothers — brilliant though they are — who created and continue to develop Wave were neither born and raised in, nor now live in, the US… and so I fear (and I may be completely wrong about this, I realize… but absent, at this point, any reason not to, I am nevertheless fearing that they) may not place as much of a premium on the notion of absolute privacy (if desired by the end-user of Wave) as do Americans.

    Or, who knows, maybe they do. I don’t know them, and it’s unfair of me to presume, I suppose (or even to suppose, I presume). One way or the other, though, it should be at least a concern to all that the default behavior of Wave seems so inherently and joltingly privacy-denuding.

    So, then, again, begged is the question: Of what else (if anything), in Wave, should we who hold inviolate our privacy be wary?

    To appeal to (at least thinking) Americans, the makers of Wave need to take steps to ensure that if the end-user wants to protect his/her absolute privacy while using this admittedly exciting and paradigm-shifting new product, it can, via easy configuration settings, be satisfactorily and incontrovertibly achieved at all possible levels, and in all possible ways. Moreover, as it is developed, the makers of Wave might need to realize that they may, because of their nationality and upbringing, not necessarily even recognize what all of those levels and ways might be; and the Americans (or even the non-Americans who at least fully grasp the American viewpoint regarding all this) who work on the development of Wave should ensure that no privacy holes such as I’m discussing here remain anywhere in it when it’s finally and fully released into the end-user wild.

    Or so it is my opinion… my two cents worth, as it were…

    …which my ex-wife, for example, among others, has been known to quickly attest tends to be about all it’s usually worth.

    __________________________
    Gregg L. DesElms
    Napa, California
    gregg[at]greggdeselms.com

    Share
    1. Gregg wrote:
      >To appeal to (at least thinking) Americans, the makers of Wave need to take steps to ensure that if the end-user wants to protect his/her absolute privacy

      You didn’t watch the presentation, did you?

      They gave a demonstration of a conversation between users on three different Wave servers, each running a client written by a different vendor. When user B sends a private message to user C then not only does user A not see it, the message is never sent to their server.

      If you (or someone you trust) both writes the software and runs the server, they can verify that this is the case and your privacy is assured.

      There’s also an option to turn off character-by-character sending, as there should be since I think a lot of people will find it annoying.

      Share
  70. [...] Wave Google Wave is a little confusing at first glance, but Jordan Golson at GigaOm sums it up well as a combination of email, instant messaging, and a real-time wiki. MarketingShift calls it [...]

    Share
  71. [...] nuovo progetto, ma si fanno spazio anche le prime critiche. C’è chi definisce Wave un ennesimo esercizio di vanità e di arroganza di Google, sottolineando come alcuni progetti in passato siano stati lanciati come [...]

    Share
  72. I disagree with most of the sentiment of this post. A little consideration of the phrase “equal parts document and IM” hints that, rather than being one of Google Labs’ less-money-centric ideas, this is actually unifying at least 4 of these smaller diverse areas – maps, mail, gtalk, docs – into one snazzy product. Further consideration of the common protocol, as shown in the I.O video, says quite plainly that you’ll be able to run your own server and interoperate by common protocol, which is just how the Internet *should* be run. And yet more consideration of the nature of extensions shows further great potential for this being the unifying interface between currently quite disparate technologies (bloggy, etc).

    What it needs is community acceptance like gmail still receives, and it will fly for the good of all, not money-minded articles such as this pissing on it before it’s got off the ground.

    Share
  73. no wonder you’re just a writer!

    google wave is truly revolutionary. are you blind?

    Share
  74. [...] GIGAOM: Google Climbs to New Heights of Arrogance With Wave [...]

    Share
  75. [...] On the other hand, not everyone is confident that Google will be able to follow through: Google Climbs to New Heights of Arrogance With Wave. [...]

    Share
  76. it *is* about search…

    Share
  77. The thing I think most people are overlooking with Wave is the fact that the biggest deal about Wave isn’t Google. It’s the fact that it is a new protocol. The fact of the matter is, when Instant Messaging first starting becoming popular (outside of BBS systems,) everyone build their own protocols. Closed systems that could not communicate with each other. AOL had theirs. Yahoo had theirs. ICQ had theirs. Microsoft had theirs. This walled garden approach pretty much sucks. It makes it difficult for people to truly communicate. It’s not like phones where I can have AT&T for service and you can have MCI for service (are they even still around?) and we can talk to each other without caring which service provider we are using. Once instant messaging came about, this was a different story. If I was on ICQ, I needed to only communicate with you using ICQ… etc…

    To solve this problem, people started writing apps to communicate with multiple services. Digsby, Pidgin, and Trillian are some that come to mind. This is an uphill battle, though… each chat service continues to change their design, add new features, and making it generally difficult for makers of these applications to keep pace. Jabber, an open protocol, is a great solution, but it would require all other players to follow suit. They didn’t. Google did with Google Talk, but it still wasn’t enough. Then, Google tried convincing everyone to federate their systems. Nobody bought it.

    The next era of communications is going to be collaborative documents hosted in the cloud. It is already happening but is still in its infancy in terms of widespread adoption. So, THIS is the time to create the open standard that hopefully all others will adopt instead of resorting to their own closed proprietary standards.

    THIS is what Wave is. It isn’t just “an application”… it isn’t just “a Google product.” They have created a new protocol to which any and all developers can build applications for. Anyone can build and run their own Wave server. They needn’t be tied to Google. I suspect, at some point, Microsoft will even profit from Microsoft Wave (or something similar)… the same way they “borrowed SQL” then built SQL Server, convincing everyone to pronounce it “sequel” and not “S-Q-L”.

    If Wave succeeds (nevermind Google)… we all win. We will be able to mashup Microsoft cloud services with Yahoo cloud services with AOL cloud services with Amazon cloud services with Google cloud services. If Wave fails, then it will just end up being the API people can use to tie into Google’s collaborative services and applications.

    In all likelihood they are not going to DIRECTLY profit from Wave, even if it succeeds. They will, however, INDIRECTLY profit from it. Wave makes the Internet a whole lot more useful. The more useful the Internet is, the more people who will use it and use it more often. When more people use the Internet and use it more often, they see and interact with more ads. Most of those ads are through Google, so they reap the majority of the rewards.

    Share
    1. Not only that, but Google is likely to be the primary Wave provider for the time being.

      Share
      1. I’m sure that’s what they’re banking on in terms of trying to monetize this. By creating an open standard, then being the first to release it, they will be the only option for a little while. It may draw more people to Google Apps… which leads to a certain amount of sign-up for the paid version, which is money in their pockets. Then, when others come out with their own Wave servers, there will be some competition for Google, but not much… not until a big player jumps on the bandwagon, like Microsoft, Amazon, Yahoo, AOL, etc… This would simultaneously compete with Google AND legitimatize the protocol.

        I’m really hoping it takes off only because, as a developer, I see a huge potential for this. Sure, I could have created the protocol myself… and created a service myself… but protocols like this ONLY succeed if MANY players jump into the foray. If I had built this, nobody would have cared. The fact that a big player is behind this, it has a chance. Of course, it could also be a double-edged sword. Since it IS Google, and many big corporations are scared of their growing size, rather than adopting the protocol, we might see emerging and competing protocols, which will put us right back into the same boat we’ve been in with instant messaging clients.

        Share
  78. [...] of managing communication. And of course, Google may be edging into this space with its forthcoming Wave [...]

    Share
  79. [...] the kitchen sink” approach to tempting users with its charms, while others already see it as the height of Google’s arrogance, despite the fact that it hasn’t even been released [...]

    Share
  80. Jordan – After walking through the jungle over and over, I’ve learned that it makes a clearing, which I call a “path.” It makes it really easy to get through the jungle! I’m not really sure what else could come of this idea, but I’ve shared it with my tribe and taught others how to do this even though not all are early adopters. I feel this could bring great benefit to me, but I haven’t really thought of how yet.

    The above is what Google has done. And continues to do in Wave, for that matter ;) Having everything laid out beforehand can not only make a project fail miserably due to no adoption from users, but can severely limit the vision of possibilities. What if the jungle guy above told his tribe about these “paths” he’d made, but demanded that if they use them they pay? It would have never ever caught on. But today I am very thankful for some toll roads. What if Jungle-man had only made paths to the berry-patches and had kept the secret of path-creation to himself? The berry patches would have been consumed very quickly, and trade routes would never have been established with other tribes. It’s a very good thing that ideas like “path” get shared, and others come up with more way to improve or use them. That’s all google has done here.

    Your contempt for innovation that doesn’t bow immediately to the bottom line is pretty much a summary of everything that’s gone wrong in america that hopefully won’t infect the globalizing world. I believe in capitalism (at least generally, over other models), but not at the expense of moving forward.

    Share
  81. [...] any idea what it will look like, when it will arrive, or what users will be able to do with it. Much like Google Wave, the company hopes it can tout the Chrome OS with words, rather than by having to actually show [...]

    Share
  82. I’ve been using Google Apps since Google offered it, FREE! The applications work flawlessly. I just burned a Feed with Feedburner, in about 30 seconds, FREE! I can burn a Google Feedburner feed, faster than IE can open.

    It takes me 5 seconds to open Google earth and take a look around the world, FREE! Your way off track with this post. When Wave is available, I’ll be dragging and dropping my photos into a Wave, while you’re clicking on the upload button in Yahoo, watching that little thing spin around.

    You gotta wake up to what’s going on man. Next year you won’t have a blog, you’ll be on a Google Wave, along with everyone else in the universe. Most likely Google wave will be, FREE! Google rocks and you know it.

    I haven’t paid for a thing with Google, but I know they have paid versions of their free stuff. The paid versions must be awesome, because that free stuff… works perfectly.

    If you want to bad mouth a company, write about IE, any version.

    Share
  83. [...] there were a lot of posts going around the web characterizing it as earth-changing news, although some questioned the effort. Wave combines email, instant messaging, wiki features and more, conjuring up images of a [...]

    Share
  84. My problem with Google Wave is that I don’t know what it’s use will be.

    IMO, it’s only framework, probably useless on its own.

    Another problem I have with it is that the protocol was designed without any community consultation.

    Share
  85. The first step for you is to understand that Google does not necessarily need / want to monetize anything it creates… It only wants us to use it more and more and more… so that we stay logged on even longer… this is how they fuel their add-machine… and in the process they make our lifes so much easier…

    Share
  86. This walled garden approach pretty much sucks. It makes it difficult for people to truly communicate. It’s not like phones where I can have AT&T for service and you can have MCI for service (are they even still around?) and we can talk to each other without caring which service provider we are using.

    Share
    1. Exactly, and this is what makes Wave so promising. The reason different people can have different phone services and still talk to each other without caring which provider the other is using is because a single design for telephone communications was implemented and everyone agreed to use that design for their own services. It just works.

      Likewise, Wave is completely free, completely open, etc… so as long as everyone agrees to use it, it can be the standard that every provider rides on, providing different service but complete interoperability.

      The problem is, the typical corporate world response to Wave will be for large corporations like Microsoft and Amazon to avoid Wave and, instead, build their own protocols and try to force those on other people (through licensing deals, rather than letting it be free and open)… and then we’ll have the walled garden approach all over again.

      Share
  87. [...] has served up some interesting examples of how Wave might be used, and although I choose to reserve some skepticism about it, it is without a doubt attracting [...]

    Share
  88. [...] in action. Google has served up some interesting examples of how Wave might be used, and although there is room to reserve some skepticism about it, given the erratic history of “unified communications” applications,  it’s a [...]

    Share
  89. - The tech is extremely interesting not only as a standalone solution, but also for embedding into other solutions.
    - Google is letting developers in very early to get to a flying start.
    - And much of it will be open-sourced, so even if Google drops it, the tech may live on.

    Sounds like a winner to me. I’m integrating it with my solution.

    Share
    1. If you’re looking for integrating collaboration into your own solution, check out Team Work Interactive Platform (TWIP).
      We are building a collaborative platform, where applications shouldn’t depend on the content being shared. Our aproach is a little bit different than Google’s (although I do enjoy Wave, can’t think of a better conversation tool), in the way that we intend to offer collaboration as a feature for existing applications (without beeing so related to conversations).

      We will be ready soon with a demo.

      Share
  90. Well, We wouldnt have google today if Google adopted a strict monetization plan. Without google, we wouldnt have a search engine that gives us relevant results. We wouldnt have free email, round about the time when gmail was launched was when i remember email was just starting to go paid. And now when they are launching this product which is sure to change the way we communicate on the net, I am sure that as usual, google’s competitors will be wondering what just hit them when Google swipes another chunk load of the internet’s users. Not everything needs to be done with the “tried and tested” modes of business. Open your mind, Your growth should also help the growth of your end users.

    Share
  91. I think it’s hard to see what Google Wave will become at this point due to it’s open source nature and how we use it over the next 3 years will probably completely change. I don’t see it ever becoming a real threat to Microsoft Office not because it’s no good, far from it actually, but more because Microsoft Office is too embraced within Offices, Governments and particularly Schools where new starters to computers start off with Microsoft Office. I’ll probably be proved wrong but I don’t see teachers getting a Wave account over night to mark an assignment written using something else to Microsoft Word such as Google Docs. Also, just whilst on this topic, some schools may not provide internet connections within their lessons. This sounds crazy to me but this might be the case..

    Share
  92. “Microsoft Office is too embraced within Offices, Governments and particularly Schools where new starters to computers start off with Microsoft Office. I’ll probably be proved wrong but I don’t see teachers getting a Wave account over night to mark an assignment written using something else to Microsoft Word such as Google Docs.”

    Ummm, it’s already happening. And, Google Wave has nothing to do with this. Google Docs already allows real-time collaboration on documents. Google Wave is just Google’s attempt to take this otherwise proprietary collaboration system… make it better… then open it up for all other collaboration systems to utilize… ultimately allowing cross-collaboration between competing products.

    Many offices are already using Microsoft Office side-by-side with Google Docs. As those offices find themselves relying on Microsoft Office less and less, they have a new way to cut down on expenses rather than just laying off employees. This is most important in these difficult financial times.

    Governments are already making the switch to Google Docs. Look at the LA City Council for an example.

    Finally, many schools are moving in huge numbers away from Microsoft Office products to Google Docs. In the long run, it’s cheaper… and it offers more choices and less lock-in.

    None of this has anything to do with Google Wave. Google Wave is still in its infancy. Google Wave is something which can eventually enhance existing Google Docs services… but those services already do just fine on their own without Wave.

    Share
  93. I’m about two thirds through reading these comments on the train… I agree with a lot of comments from both sides of the story that Google is still very much holding onto search as their main bread winner which is far from ideal after the 7 or so years they’ve been around…

    But I think whether or not Google Wave, Maps/ Street View etc.. are ‘financial successes’ is besides the point… After all, whether or not they become nice little earners for Google is not the underlying reason for their existence I think. Admittedly, if Google Wave and the other products take off (financially) they’ll won’t complain but they achieve what matters most, and that is to keep the Google brand (primarily Search) in the public eye, whether directly or indirectly. With this in mind, the more products people use by Google, whether in addition to Google search or not just gives them more chance to pull people into their main bread winner at a later date which is all that matters.

    StareClips.com: thanks for your response, now I’m thinking how people see them co-existing together in the future? That is Wave/ Google Docs and the Microsoft Office suite.

    Thanks,

    Share
  94. [...] a bit too much hype around Wave. Much smarter guys than me don’t seem too impressed so far. Gigaom weighs in, saying that “Google climbs to new heights of arrogance with Wave”, and Scoble writes [...]

    Share
  95. Collaboration and communication through a shared document? Zzzzzzz. For internal use we have hacked together such an application months ago (call it a collaborative web OS desktop).
    Who needs Google to read along our conversations and plaster everything with ads then?

    Share
    1. It’s too bad that yours is limited to internal use only. It might actually be more helpful if other people can use it. So, for people who only want to collaborate with a finite group of people internally, I am sure your solution works just great. For those who want to be able to collaborate with anyone and everyone, in an ubiquitous manner like e-mail, then Wave it is.

      Share
      1. You’ve got a point there.

        I just wanted to express that Google isn’t reinventing the wheel here. The true genius is that of the guys who pushed XMPP etc., the tech everyone is using to do such things as dropio, ours, squad, the list goes on. I’m just tired of Google claiming to have invented something, as with search… (please note the bitter cockiness)

        Share
  96. [...] Google Climbs to New Heights of Arrogance With Wave – GigaOM VN:F [1.1.7_509]please wait…Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes [...]

    Share
  97. [...] By Harry McCracken  |  Posted at 9:00 am on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 At 2009′s Google I|O developer conference, the big news was the debut of the company’s uberambitious Wave workgroup service. And it was big news: I got all giddy and called it the new epicenter of the Google-Microsoft wars; my friend Jordan Golson, on the other hand, thought it was breathtakingly arrogant. [...]

    Share
  98. What The Blank Sunday, July 18, 2010

    All the various “inventions” are eventual flops and are generally driven by bored, rich managers and developers sitting around with nothing to do. Regardless of what “product” you’re talking about, I’ve never seen a company so opposed to user interface OPTIONS and consistency. They should spend time making existing products flexible and conform to pre-existing practically-known-standards.

    Share
  99. [...] continue work in it. But the product which once seemed like Google’s most audacious (even arrogant) attempt to change the way the world shares information isn’t going to change the [...]

    Share
  100. Google has now abandoned Wave:

    http://twitter.com/timacheson/status/20386969587

    Google’s latest flop is especially embarrassing when the launch was so over-hyped, and so recent.

    Google, like Apple, is trendy and overrated. Google led the way in search, and used the money to buy a few good companies. All the rest is hype and corporate propagadna.

    What’s next? “Buzz” the “Twitter killer” [not]?

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post