While I do agree with just about everything you said in your video, the video breaks a cardinal internet sin IMO: "don't feed the trolls". I fear that this video will only stimulate the trolls even more.
Keep up the good work Jason. I've been following your blog for a long time and always look forward to a new post.
jasonkolb
· 2 months ago
Yep, point taken. I decided to take it down.
And thanks for following my blog!
jgodse
· 2 months ago
Great post Jason. You answered my qvestions and qvestioned my answers.
The Internet revolution was preceded by a standardization of the transport protocol to TCP/IP. One thing it did was to decouple connection management from the data transport, and it spawned incredible innovation in services because the services and networks were not controlled only by the incumbent carriers such as Bell Canada, Bell South, etc.
The web revolution was preceded by the standardization of HTTP as a transport protocol and HTML as a hypertext language. That decoupled the content from the servers on which they were stored and accessed. Now content providers could provide content and services independently from the servers that hosted them. Any who owns a web site or web application were the content/service providers, while ISPs and Google became the server providers.
If I read your postings correctly, it looks like the "Wave" revolution will be preceded by standardizing on XMPP/Wave as the conversation protocol, and that will enable storage to be decoupled from the servers that serve the protocol.
That leaves the whole question of presence and proxies. If I send a XMPP message to you@jasonkolb.com, and you are not present, you will need a proxy that detects your presence or absence and then stands in to participate in the conversation, if only to tell me that the real "you@jasonkolb.com" is not there or functioning in a limited capacity. Also, since there is a limited number of IPv4 addresses clients will ultimately all depend on getting non-fixed IPv4 addresses from a DNS. This means that DNS providers become the natural candidates to take on full or partial administration of "presence" services, and proxy services as well.
Where does that leave Google & Amazon? Google already does storage through GData and Amazon does this through its S3 access protocol. For computing without storage, Amazon has EC2, and Google has Google App Engine (which is composed of a loosely coupled computing and storage interfaced using GData). Where does that leave Facebook? I believe that Facebook could easily hive off the storage side of its business and run it separately. I believe this because Facebook gives access to some its storage (with user consent) to Facebook applications. How about Yahoo & Microsoft? I think that these guys may be in trouble because their data is more strongly coupled to their applications, but I'm not sure...
Either way, much upheaval will ensue, as will much disruptive innovation.
jowens
· 2 months ago
I was on my way to posting that the video may do more harm than good but it looks like Bart has already covered the point.
That aside, thanks for another great post. I can't wait to begin working with Wave, it looks to open up a world of possibilities.
jasonkolb
· 2 months ago
Good call guys, after sleeping on it I decided to take the video out. I tried to stay constructive with it but obviously I didn't do a very good job of it ;)
misko
· 2 months ago
So why do we have to wait for Wave? Is it possible that a grass roots effort can start which starts using XMPP or the Wave protocol and start prototyping and brainstorming? As someone commented, or Jason said, people are hungry for some innovation and this may be it. I feel Jason posting these thoughts will get others thinking of possibilities. How can we keep collaborating together on this? Certainly not on Jason's blog, that would seem fair.
Jason, while Network World may have taken it out of context, it got me to read your initial post, and now I've added you to my read list. So pretty much any publicity is good.
jasonkolb
· 2 months ago
I suppose you're right, can't complain about adding people to the conversation I guess!
DE
· 2 months ago
Interesting piece about Wave in The Economist. Sounds like it wasn't really made in the Google tradition. It might even make some money for them.
jasonkolb
· 2 months ago
Heh that would be a brilliant strategic move, like you said not in the Google tradition!
Thomas Wrobel
· 2 months ago
Excellent write-up on the advantages and power of the XMPP/Wave system. Ive been promoting wave's potential use as a AR platform for awhile, and often come accross people thinking it holds no advantage beyond collaborative text-based stuff.
Wave also scares me slightly, as I can see its shear power, and yet, Ive just finished developing a universal review website as a ""tradiational"" ajaxy webapp. I'm outdated before I've even launched the new version ;)
Charles
· 1 month ago
As I've been reading, watching and listening your - and others' - interpretations of what the Wave service/protocol really potentially means to clients/users, I keep having slightly disturbing thoughts. Your thoughts on Wave are the only expansive thoughts that don't get extreme; to the extent of "It's going to replace [service]." My thoughts run along the lines of "That's great! What if I want to make a conversation publicly accessible and searchable?" Google answers by stating that a wave(let) can be placed inside other internet objects like blog posts, emails, web sites, etc. Will this be the only means of making these conversations public? And how, exactly? And what will it mean for search and credibility of the original content author if public wave(let)s can be readily edited by others?
I certainly see the potential in this. I can readily think of dozens of use-cases where I am interested in using it. I'd love to read your thoughts on how this will change the internet with regard to search and content which has no need to be interactive.
Morgan Daly
· 2 days ago
Your articles on this topic have already started making me imagine the internet of the future. Thank You.
One idea I had tonight was that would it be great if you could be having an IM chat via something like GoogleTalk and be able to hit a 'transfer to a new wave' button and start a wave with the content of the discussion.
I was having a discussion with a friend while using GoogleTalk and it fast turned into a brainstorming session on an idea. We took it to the wave but a button like I have described would have been perfect.
Just a thought. Look forward to more of your thoughts on Google Wave. Thanks
jasonkolb
· 2 days ago
Thank you!
I love your idea for turning IM's into waves, would work great for tweets as well I think.
All Comments
Keep up the good work Jason. I've been following your blog for a long time and always look forward to a new post.
And thanks for following my blog!
The Internet revolution was preceded by a standardization of the transport protocol to TCP/IP. One thing it did was to decouple connection management from the data transport, and it spawned incredible innovation in services because the services and networks were not controlled only by the incumbent carriers such as Bell Canada, Bell South, etc.
The web revolution was preceded by the standardization of HTTP as a transport protocol and HTML as a hypertext language. That decoupled the content from the servers on which they were stored and accessed. Now content providers could provide content and services independently from the servers that hosted them. Any who owns a web site or web application were the content/service providers, while ISPs and Google became the server providers.
If I read your postings correctly, it looks like the "Wave" revolution will be preceded by standardizing on XMPP/Wave as the conversation protocol, and that will enable storage to be decoupled from the servers that serve the protocol.
That leaves the whole question of presence and proxies. If I send a XMPP message to you@jasonkolb.com, and you are not present, you will need a proxy that detects your presence or absence and then stands in to participate in the conversation, if only to tell me that the real "you@jasonkolb.com" is not there or functioning in a limited capacity. Also, since there is a limited number of IPv4 addresses clients will ultimately all depend on getting non-fixed IPv4 addresses from a DNS. This means that DNS providers become the natural candidates to take on full or partial administration of "presence" services, and proxy services as well.
Where does that leave Google & Amazon? Google already does storage through GData and Amazon does this through its S3 access protocol. For computing without storage, Amazon has EC2, and Google has Google App Engine (which is composed of a loosely coupled computing and storage interfaced using GData). Where does that leave Facebook? I believe that Facebook could easily hive off the storage side of its business and run it separately. I believe this because Facebook gives access to some its storage (with user consent) to Facebook applications. How about Yahoo & Microsoft? I think that these guys may be in trouble because their data is more strongly coupled to their applications, but I'm not sure...
Either way, much upheaval will ensue, as will much disruptive innovation.
That aside, thanks for another great post. I can't wait to begin working with Wave, it looks to open up a world of possibilities.
Jason, while Network World may have taken it out of context, it got me to read your initial post, and now I've added you to my read list. So pretty much any publicity is good.
Ive been promoting wave's potential use as a AR platform for awhile, and often come accross people thinking it holds no advantage beyond collaborative text-based stuff.
Wave also scares me slightly, as I can see its shear power, and yet, Ive just finished developing a universal review website as a ""tradiational"" ajaxy webapp. I'm outdated before I've even launched the new version ;)
I certainly see the potential in this. I can readily think of dozens of use-cases where I am interested in using it. I'd love to read your thoughts on how this will change the internet with regard to search and content which has no need to be interactive.
One idea I had tonight was that would it be great if you could be having an IM chat via something like GoogleTalk and be able to hit a 'transfer to a new wave' button and start a wave with the content of the discussion.
I was having a discussion with a friend while using GoogleTalk and it fast turned into a brainstorming session on an idea. We took it to the wave but a button like I have described would have been perfect.
Just a thought. Look forward to more of your thoughts on Google Wave. Thanks
I love your idea for turning IM's into waves, would work great for
tweets as well I think.