This is why Wave failed. Nobody knew quite what it was. They still don't know.
Moreover: nobody cares. People do not care how the tools work. They care about their problems. Having an online conversation in the right mode - not too high-latency, yet not too synchronous, and not too disorganized - is a problem. Users understand that IRC and Wave and Convore are all billed as attempts to solve that problem. Therefore, they are all kind of alike.
If people actually use these tools for a while even non-engineers will eventually come to understand the substantial differences between them, but another way that Wave and Convore and IRC are all alike is that right now most customers have never heard of them, let alone tried them, let alone figured them out.
It's a shame, really. Even in my job nobody seemed to "get it" when i tried to explain benefits and the "real" nature of wave (that it's a protocol). And i'm working in a heavily messaging (mail, etc.) oriented company.
I got everyone beta accounts and yet nobody got it. It was all about the sandbox/webclient. I think Google did a lot wrong with the promotion of wave.
Anyway, i'm eagerly waiting for the completion of the incubator process on apache[1] and will take another look at the state of wave afterwards. I still think the project is one of the most underrated projects of the last years.
I very much hope that the project won't just die.
First of all, i'd say designing a _good_ protocol is pretty much the hardest and smartest work to do. Of course everyone can design a protocol to send a messange from A to B. But you really think it is something _that_ easy to design a complete protocol for messaging between a wide variety of clients and servers? Take as much as possible usecases and edge cases into account and make it really good? If it would that easy SMTP wouldn't have a big pile of extension RFCs.
Everyone can write a website that let's people chat in groups, right? I mean.. really... THAT is easy. ;)
I am right there with you. I now exactly what you are talking about. Every time I hear someone dismiss it, they dismiss out of ignorance. I've never heard otherwise, even from some otherwise smart people.
Yep. Marketing. People thought they had built a chat client. In reality, they were providing a protocol, and to show off this protocol, they built a UI to demo it. People assumed the UI was Wave, and stopped there. =( Such potential.
As for people not caring: that's a result of not understanding the real product and the real potential. Assuming Wave is just about real time communication is really doing it a great disservice.
I don't disagree. Which is why I feel the problem lies with the marketing of Wave. They marketed the UI. Oh, I think technical people should have known better. But even then, so much emphasis was put on the UI, I can see it being a problem.
Basically, I just feel Google didn't do Wave justice by only providing that one client.
I should point out that they did tell people this. They were fairly clear how this was going to be open, that anyone could have a wave server, and how this could be employed.
A good example would be hosting a wave server like people host email servers. So, my domain could have it's own wave server. This would mean my comment here could easily be included on my blog. This would let me blog all my comments. Keep in mind, HN would have to support wave, but then commenting would still work the same way. Anyways, my comment would appear on my blog, and I could see your reply. I wouldn't have to remember to visit HN.
The interface to wave was essentially anything you already used. There are a lot of other really cool things you could do with this. And they told people you could do all this with it.
Unfortunately, they pushed the Wave UI as well, closing it up in a beta with special invites and suddenly people treated it like Gmail++.
So when you see people commenting how they really hope wave survives and eventually takes off, it's because what if does take off, things will get really interesting really fast.
Yes, so you didn't get it, too.
Wave isn't the sandbox you've seen on the web.
If i remember correctly, the webclient didn't even use the "real protocol" but some hacked-together protocol buffers for demonstration purposes. Not sure about today, but when the beta started there wasn't even an official client/server protocol. It was still under discussion[1].
Sadly, the world never saw the "real" Wave, with server-to-server communication, different clients, etc.
The front-end? The technical demo? The least existing part of Google Wave? If that's all, it's nothing like Google Wave.
Edit: I should point out that if you don't understand what buster or I am talking about, don't worry. A lot of people don't. It's Google's failed marketing of Wave that did this.
Basically, people thought Google Wave was MS Outlook, or Gmail. It wasn't. Wave was essentially email, comments, chat, communication, etc. Once you start understanding everything it could do, and understand that everyone already knew how to use Wave, you really started to appreciate what they were trying to do.
"In chats, Convore ... automatically embeds images"
This seems risky. There's a lot of public IRC rooms I'd avoid if they allowed anyone to show me anything they wanted. IRC solves this by not embedding images, Wave solves this by being oriented towards small groups rather than public discussions, forums solve this by making it difficult enough to register that a ban matters. How is Convore going to solve this?
I don't consider centralized services "thing x if it was invented today", if thing x can be distributed. The UI looks nice, and they did a great job. But anyone can host IRC servers, only convore can host convore.
Personal experience here: Convore rocks. Take it from a long-time IRC junkie. Dump Skype/IM for all your project-related chats and try using them and you quickly will see why Convore works and works well.
I remember Chatterous trying a similar play but can't recall what happened to them. Maybe the GUI wasn't so slick or maybe they pivoted into something we're unaware of...
Chatterous's Google Talk integration was so stellar (it's broken most the time now) that our teams used it exclusively for cross-team chat for the past few years. I was one of their biggest fans but now I know they're not giving it much attention anymore.
Given that, I really want to see convore integration with jabber/gtalk somehow, but I'm not sure how it would work for rooms+topics versus just rooms.
I'm interested in using Convore to host some work discussions we currently use IRC for because of the "history" aspect and the fact I can grab the messages through an API and import into my task management interface.
The only problem with it I have is the name! Maybe it's because I'm Australian. We say it like "Con-vaw". Is that right? I can't imagine telling someone in person "hey I was on CON-VAW the other night and this guy said such and such". Really weird name but a nicely executed product.
It does seem a bit difficult to pronounce with an Aussie accent. Since toilets are dunnys, chickens are chooks, Brits are Poms and Americans are Seppos why not just make a typical Australian linguistic move and make up some ridiculous word to use instead? I'd suggest Convizza but maybe that's too obvious.
IM for groups. Cool. Now I need to have this integrated with my other IMs. I just can't have so many windows open at the same time (or can I?). Maybe Google Chrome Destop Notification? Maybe http://imo.im ? just guessing.
One of the things we really wanted to have before we launched was an initial version of an API ready so that people could experiment with building things like you describe. We've been happy so far that people have started to do just that, including someone going so far as to start working on an Android client! https://github.com/Pewpewarrows/Convoid
We happily encourage efforts to integrate with other services, although it can be tricky due to our added layer of structure (topics) that both sets us apart, but also makes it match up less cleanly with existing clients and services.
I will get a look at your API. The one feature I will look for is the ability to get the list of the members of a group (so that I can dynamically create a wiki for them).
Hrmm.. the image upload is not as cool as I'd hope. Yes it includes it, but you still need to upload and host it somewhere yourself.
This could be really killer if it allowed uploads of arbitrary attachments and images. Could see it as an interesting way of keeping a log with a client.
We've definitely heard this feedback from others, especially those coming from other web-based chat products that tend to include this feature.
Right now we haven't offered this as a feature because we're a free app, and hosting more than a few files and images would be cost prohibitive. We're definitely open to building it in the future if it can be subsidized somehow, or if we directly charge for it.
Is this true? I have a similar issue. So far I too consider that hosting files costs a lot, whereas bandwidth (for text) is reasonably cheap. Am I missing something?
The one thing I'm really sad that Convore doesn't have is auto-formatting of pasted code. Other than that it is basically like Campfire but with a lot of public groups as well (you can make private groups too).
Flowdock is intended to fill quite a different niche. It's supposed to facilitate teamwork, not spontaneous group communication. But if that's what you're looking for, Flowdock does do the job. I participated in the beta and found it quite nice.
I need to say one thing though, how is this going to beat against Facebook groups?
The "new" facebook groups can group chat (with online members of a group) and also semi-message (via a news feed) and could potentially message a bunch of guys in the group via facebook messages.
Of course they haven't done it to the point of having short topic threads of any kind, which is what I like with concore. (in fact, every topic in a group in convore is like a channel of its own.)
I really liked being able to see what the other person was typing in wave, made having a conversation quicker as I could beging typing a response while they were still typing, like a real conversation.
If convore is making collaboration cooler.. then I think what Asana has is superior as it currently stands.
I see convore as a great alternative to the Twitter hashtag. A richer, more real-time, better indexed alternative. It can still use Twitter for Outreach but the action is in convore.
I don't see where it can be compared to wave. They seem to compare it to IRC, but also IRC is a protocol, convore is just a service.
I still hope wave sees some progress as apache project. :(