I find myself in the odd position of defending a tool I basically dismissed as all but useless when it came out two years ago.
One
article I read today was all about how Google wasn't hiring the right sort of people, which I agree with. They said that google wave failed because it was pointlessly complicated. I must wholeheartedly disagree.
In my opinion, google wave did not fail because it was too complicated, but because nobody really understood what it was good for. Possibly not even Google themselves, if the total lack of competent marketing of the service is any indication. But while google's marketing/services is one of their two major failings, that is not my topic here, and which will likely have to be a separate entry. Because this isn't wave, as I'll explain below.
So, nobody understood what Wave was, and so the complicated nature of how a wave flows was seen as being needless, a detractor. In my opinion, it is that complicated flow which is the Strength, not the weakness of the system. Yeah, they could have done some more UI testing, but the concept was sound, and decently implemented.
The reason that the complicated nature of the format was a boon is that it allows people to follow another remarkably complicated system: the flow of human thought. How many times have you started a conversation on one topic, and have that topic make you think about another topic you wanted to mention which, but would completely change the direction of the conversation? What are your options at that point? In a voice conversation, or a chat, or other form of interactive conversation, you traditionally had to choose one or the other. In broadcast media, such as an oration, article, or missive, you can kind of arrange your message into multiple groups, touching on several points, but following more than one point in depth results in a loss of cohesion, and a loss of your audience. Plus, broadcast media don't really allow for ease of response or cooperation. If anyone has ever tried carrying on a long, intense conversation via email, they'll know how certain topics have to be cut, and the threads are Still hard to follow, and previous parts of the conversation can't be traced readily...
Wave solves those problems handily. It is the best of the interactive and broadcast media types. It allows not only the person who Starts a conversation to section the topics into salient groupings, but it allows Anyone to respond Directly to the point they wish to branch off from, and then anyone who is a party to that wave can continue that thread, without taking away from the other threads.
In a time bound conversation, such as chat or voice, you cannot follow both branches. Either the current branch continues, and when (if) it reaches its end, you can try to trace back to what else you wanted to mention (more easily done with text than voice), or you follow the new path, hoping to return to the previous one later on. This is a false dichotomy with Wave. Indeed, multiple threads can be followed Concurrently. Person A could be expanding on the original thread, while person B is starting a tangent, at the same time that person C is responding to a different tangent which came up a while back. Then when each is done with their response, they can see what the others are up to, and respond to them while they do the same.
What I always loved about instant messaging clients is that they allowed me to carry on multiple distinctly different conversations with multiple different people concurrently. My ADD addled brain loved it, because it was getting all the stimulation it wanted without ever having to worry about getting bored with any of them, because I was constantly changing, moving "a mile a minute in every direction." What wave does is that it allows those half dozen or more conversations to be carried out concurrently with the same conversation partner(s).
You want to have an honest debate with someone, where you get to the root of an idea? Try a wave. Red herrings cease to be dialectic foul play, because they can be followed Without preventing the original line of thought being ended.
Want to really understand how a friend is thinking, feeling, where they are mentally? A wave will help you with that. You can explore asides with them, asking questions, presenting new ideas, all without forcing them away from what they want to talk about, because they can follow both the new thoughts and the old at the same time.
Want to discuss a particular event with a group of friends? Wave allows you to interact meaningfully without having to be there at that time. Somebody said something two weeks ago that you realized is key, based on something you just heard or figured out? No real way to properly build on that in email or a message board. A wave, however? Hop right in, directly following the point in question.
In short, the problem with Wave is that it is a type of dialog that in some ways never before existed. It is the natural venue of exploring. While Aristotle has his perfect vehicle in broadcast media, tv, radio, and print, and the Sophists have theirs in voice and IM, where the direction of conversation can be manipulated, Wave is, finally, the vehicle for Socratic thought, where the thought itself can be allowed to grow as it naturally would, improving constantly as it does.
And since it was both new, and required people actually think about multiple things to get full use out of it, it ended up falling by the wayside, on Google's chopping block of products nobody really wanted, and will be removed as soon as they can offload it without major outcry from those of us who appreciate it.
And I can tell you, as soon as "Wave in a Box" is viable, you can be damn sure I'll be running my own (private) server, because it has allowed me to communicate better than I ever had before.
pensive