BuzzMachine

It has potential because it’s a protocol, not a tool. Twitter is a tool that is afraid to establish itself as a protocol. I think Wave might have potential because of this, although I haven’t watched the video of the announcement yet. Unfortunately, from the images I’ve seen, it looks like the first tool Google built on the protocol is Outlook on crack. There’s a distinction that needs to be made.

A solid line of thought Jeff. We are no longer in the information age, but the interactive communication age. The age of Twitter, Facebook and now Google Wave.

Cell phone voice plans less will follow the home “Land line” as these services become primary modes of communication. The hardware is almost there, the services are already there and getting better day after day.

Almost two years ago before Twitter was on anyone’s radar I noticed that they had really scored. Twitter was the evolution of the IIRC client of the internet. I knew then it would lead to a host of new interactive forms of communication.

They say when we learned to talk, humans went through a transition of compounded progress that made the subsequent generations so much smarter. The ability to write and record took this progression speed much further.

The post office made the worlds collective intelligence much more cohesive. We were now only weeks away from knowing fact which were occuring from all corners of the earth. This made the world smaller more than anything else before it.

Then we had AT&T, we were not a rate of progression so fast that it made our industrial roots explode with innovation.

With the information age we were still learning how to organize all of this info in this grand age of electronic wizardry.

You get the point. We are finding better ways to learn, collect, organize, present, and communicate bits of information. Each time these bits become more relevant. The loop gets shorter and faster with each revolution. Now we are genre relevant, socially relevant & even Geo-relevant in real time.

Who will be the first to connect their brainwaves to the mother brain?

Hi Jeff,
I was at Google I/O and have asked to Sergey Brin what he thing about the newsroom in the cloud and the potential of the Wave for journalists.

I have asked the same question to Stephanie Hannon, wich is de PM of Wave.

And I made the same conclusion as you .. http://bit.ly/4ps6C

Hi Jeff,

Wave link is to your post WWGD? and not http://wave.google.com/.

g

I haven’t watched the video yet but this is great. I’m personally on a watch for Web 3.0 — semantic web infrastructure and search. I think RSS feeds are partly semantic because they separate content from location. It looks like the Wave is also semantic because it combines content, data, conversation and people from multiple locations around one place. That’s even more semantic than we originally thought because it involves groupings of people. Does that mean we’re at Web 2.5 or 2.75?

i’m excited by this innovation and feel it will be a game changer in ever sense, BUT:

is there a final product that comes out of Wave?

an article?

a radio feature?

for certain news items, a simple wave without an “author” may make a lot of sense — time and again, i’ve watched journalist colleagues struggle to make “art” out of facts when that’s not necessarily needed.

but, i also wonder about the artistry that might be lost when there’s no longer room for an auteur’s sense of detail — and that’s both selfishly from the journalist’s side and as a reader/listener/viewer, who has delighted in idiosyncrasies included in coverage of such otherwise banal events as city council meetings.

i don’t see magazine articles being supplanted by Waves, but i also hope there’s still room for a sense of authorship in quotidian daily news. otherwise, talented journalists may not bother to pursue the craft.

Winston in 1984 would find Wave a great way to do his job of constantly editing history — actually, all his comrades could reach in and keep editing what he wrote endlessly, no need for the burn hole anymore.

A jumble of notes, outdated articles, updates, photos, comments, links is not a well-thought out news article in which some discipline of thought and research have been applied. It’s just a jumble. Externalizing the jumble doesn’t improve thinking, it dumbs it down.

All our conversations will be collectivized in the Wave, where there is no robot.txt and where Google can scrape it all for its own commercial gain, at our expense.

You know, Jeff, what’s so wrong with your thinking is that if this kind of monopolizing mega blanketing behavior were done by “Microsoft” or “America” or “telecoms” you’d be sputtering and screaming about how unfair and walled-garden and evil it all was. But when Google does it, it is sprinkled with holy water.

Why?

I think I am heading in the opposite direction: turning these innumerable streams into a topic beam: http://tinyurl.com/thefreq

Jeff-

In reading this post, and listening to your latest interview on TWiT, a thought occurred to me: one thing Google didn’t demo was the ability to merge waves.

If a reporter starts a wave, it will be critical for them to be able to merge in waves started by witnesses at the scene. This is more than just ‘forwarding’ a wave or adding someone new to the conversation, you need to be able to actually merge content.

P.s. I’ve got a post published roughly the same time as this one on the subject. :)
http://byjoeybaker.com/2009/05/31/for-the-record-google-wave-is-amazing/

The biggest problem it solves is that you no longer have to write “See comments inline”

http://sachendra.wordpress.com/2009/07/26/email-2-0-google-wave-solves-the-see-comments-inline-problem/

Check out mashables’s complete Wave guide: http://mashable.com/2009/05/28/google-wave-guide/