Google's "Wave" Blurs Chat, Email, Collaboration Software 170
superglaze writes "Google has unveiled a distributed, P2P-based collaboration and conversation platform called Wave. Developers are being invited to join an open source project that has been formed to create a Google Wave Federation Protocol, which will underlie the system. Anyone will be able to create a 'wave,' which is a type of hosted conversation, Google has said. Waves will essentially incorporate real-time dialogue, photos, videos, maps, documents and other information forms within a single, shared communications space. Developers can also work on embedding waves into websites, or creating multimedia robots and gadgets that can be incorporated within the Google Wave client." Jamie points out this more informative link.
Muddying the waters... (Score:5, Interesting)
Uhhh. SIP Anyone? Anyone? (Score:4, Interesting)
So, they use SIP to chat and handle voice. There's a protocol for presentation that's rolled into some SIP servers. You guys have no idea how powerful the SIP standard is. There isn't a client that handles it all yet.
Besides the very un-special nature of the application, I'd be interested to see if the Telcos will litigate Google on their gigantic pool of obvious patents. Either that or Google's paying them a 'vig' already.
Patent License? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's this [waveprotocol.org] I find most interesting:
Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Google and its affiliates hereby grant to you a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this License) patent license for patents necessarily infringed by implementation of this specification. If you institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the implementation of the specification constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses for the specification granted to you under this License shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
Messyboard anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
This reminds me of a PhD thesis I read about a few years back. Adam Fass' Messyboard [messyboard.org]
MessyBoard is a networked bulletin board that allows people to share notes, pictures, files and other content. Everyone who looks at a MessyBoard sees exactly the same thing, and all users see changes in real time. It runs as a Java applet inside your web browser, so no software installation is necessary. Text and images from other applications can easily be posted on MessyBoard using drag-and-drop and cut-and-paste. Each board has a URL that is easy to remember, so you can access it from any computer on the Internet.
MessyBoard stores a complete history of all activity, allowing users to go back in time and recover old content simply by clicking on a slider bar.
Coincidentally, Fass now works for Google in WA state.
Sounds good for playing RPGs online (Score:3, Interesting)
This could be a cool tool for playing RPGs (of the pen and paper variant) online.
Use the chat or Skype for talking, and the Wave functions for posting maps and stuff, and clients for rolling dice and such.
PFS and deniable encryption (Score:3, Interesting)
TLS sounds about right.
The protocol also provides a verification protocol (see http://waveprotocol.org/ [waveprotocol.org]), so actions performed by any participant in a hosted conversation can always be verified by other participants in that hosted conversation, regardless of their provider.
What this means for you: encryption (TLS), and your contributions can't be tampered with.
What about PFS and deniable encryption so things can't be used against you in the future?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_forward_secrecy
Re:quite needed... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Perfect... (Score:3, Interesting)
Pride 'N Prejudice RPGs?
A Pride and Prejudice and Zombies [wikipedia.org] RPG would be pretty sweet.
Re:Ugh (Score:3, Interesting)
But I can't set up my own private facebook or twitter server,
Twitter -- I see no reason why this couldn't be just Jabber to some sort of broadcast channel.
Facebook -- XFN, OpenID, and friends.
even if I do, there's not support for my server to let people befriend and network with people on the real Facebook and Twitter.
That's the real problem.
There's a whole set of open standards that pretty much covers all of what social networks do for the user. But for some reason, most users are still in the gated community of Facebook, so even though the open communities could theoretically be bigger, better, and freer, right now they're smaller, because they're not Facebook.
But what makes you think this will be different, other than the Google branding?
Here's hoping they actually take a clue from existing systems designed for this, and at least support them. That way, at least they might start to do for other systems what they've done for Jabber... Of course, I have maybe three or four contacts who use Gtalk (and they use it only from Gmail), whereas I have more like 50 who use Yahoo, MSN, or AIM. So the same problem applies.
Re:Ugh (Score:4, Interesting)
By setting up your own you're destroying the networking aspect.
A private site for friends will never have the pull of a world-wide LOOK AT MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE site.
Accurate, insightful.
If that's what you want, great, go for it. But I seriously doubt that's what Google has in mind. They want all of your data, and this is just another tool for them to get at it.
Controversial point. Trying to spread fear, whether or not it's justified. The following couple of paragraphs present some interesting speculation.
Regardless of function or intention, my comment still stands (despite being modded troll by Googs) - the layout shown is hideous and provides nothing but total information overload.
If there's anything in your post to warrant a troll mod, this is it.
You post here a lot, and you don't trouble yourself to be terribly civil. Not that that's uncommon, but I think it's a shame. Your ideas seem generally worthwhile, but your attitude probably limits their discussion. Geeks and engineers are probably more likely than most to pay attention to the factual accuracy of any statement instead of the emotional context; the opposite is the rule in other circles. If I may offer some advice: if you're going to be callous, be right, and even if you are right, don't bitch about the troll mods.
Respectfully yours,
-T
Re:Ugh (Score:3, Interesting)
I can set up my own Jabber server and talk to people on Google's GoogleTalk or Gmail chat. In fact, that's what I do except I'm using jabber.org's server. Of course, Google still gets your conversations with those people, but not if you use OTR.
This sounds like the potential that Jabber/XMPP has always had, but no one seems interested to implement.
Re:Groove ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Groove ? (Score:5, Interesting)
People are not at their best when they have to be creative, inventive, or thoughtful in real-time with an audience.
I'd be interested for you to elaborate on why you believe this. There's plenty of counter-evidence to this point in that the following practices are time-tested ways of creative thinking:
- comedy writers bouncing ideas off each other to start penning a script or sketch
- group brainstorming for new names of products and advertising ideas
- new product ideation amongst engineers
I'm sure everyone is different, and some prefer quiet solitude to be creative, but it seems the exception rather than the rule in most organizations. I personally find that people tend to be much more cautious and defensive when they have time to craft a well thought out idea, as opposed to blurting out a potentially stupid/creative idea.
Re:Groove ? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's strange that you think that - real (actual physical) whiteboards are great for engineers and scientists. There is still a division between people who are happy thrashing ideas out on a board, and those who feel that they need to nurture something in private. I have to ask whether your comments about the environment being poor for research and insight are limited to virtual whiteboards or if they extend to their real-life counterparts?
So where do you think virtual whiteboards break down? Is it the lack of associated physical cues, or just the terrible interfaces that they ship with?