<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: <![CDATA[♥ What&#8217;s Google Wave? It&#8217;s this;]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://noscope.com/journal/2009/10/whats-google-wave-its-this/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://noscope.com/journal/2009/10/whats-google-wave-its-this</link>
	<description>Snacksized Portions of Pointless Stuff</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 22:01:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Oldster</title>
		<link>http://noscope.com/journal/2009/10/whats-google-wave-its-this/comment-page-1#comment-101239</link>
		<dc:creator>Oldster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:01:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://noscope.com/?p=5213#comment-101239</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not sure of the advantages yet but thanks for the explanation, even a old user can understand.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not sure of the advantages yet but thanks for the explanation, even a old user can understand.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joen</title>
		<link>http://noscope.com/journal/2009/10/whats-google-wave-its-this/comment-page-1#comment-100612</link>
		<dc:creator>Joen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:57:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://noscope.com/?p=5213#comment-100612</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;
&lt;blockquote cite=&quot;comment-100610&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-100610&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Michael Heilemann&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;: I think it’s a project collaboration tool more than anything. Google’s pitching it as an e-mail replacement, but I just don’t see that happening.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Well it certainly doesn&#039;t help Google Wave that you have to have a Google Wave account to both send and receive waves... so I&#039;m also skeptic for now. But if I do think about Google Wave as stemming from someone who wanted to reinvent email, a lot of things, mentally, fall in place.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;And yes, I think it will work as a project collaboration tool. Instead of creating a new Google Doc and sharing it with people as I&#039;ve done so far, I&#039;ll be creating waves in the future. Sure.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;blockquote cite=&quot;comment-100610&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-100610&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Michael Heilemann&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;: Not only for legacy and inertial reasons, but because it’s too ‘muddy’ in its treatment of replies and threads and what not.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
In my mind, that&#039;s not a problem with the wave &quot;skeleton&quot; if you will, but rather the surface layer, which is incidentally the most easy one to tweak. In other words, a few rounds of usability testing, some design tweaks and in a few years, Google will have unmuddied it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;blockquote cite=&quot;comment-100610&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-100610&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Michael Heilemann&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;: E-mail may be old, but it works exactly _because_ it’s so simple.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
But I don&#039;t think email is that simple, to be honest, and i&#039;m not laying all the blame on spam here.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Let&#039;s jump right past the whole issue of POP3, IMAP and Webmail, which certainly complexifies email tech in its own right.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Email is based on the file metaphor. You send a file. You receive a file. You store a file. (That file being the email, not attachments, bear with me).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Things are moving towards the &quot;i don&#039;t care where files are stored&quot; cloud metaphor; we&#039;ve already seen that with iTunes, iPhoto and Google Docs -- Docs being the best example. You don&#039;t store 50 copies of the same file, you only store it once, and _access_ it from several places.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Google Wave, as seen though the &quot;email reinvention&quot; googles fixes this problem. It&#039;s imap on steroids. You don&#039;t &lt;em&gt;send&lt;/em&gt; something, you give people &lt;em&gt;access&lt;/em&gt; to something. This is a paradigm away from the file-based email, and in my mind, &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt; is simple. Email is not. &quot;Sent mail&quot;, &quot;All mail&quot;, &quot;inbox&quot;, &quot;outbox&quot;. SHOO! Sent, archived, received, not sent -- those are &lt;em&gt;attributes&lt;/em&gt; of a single email. Rid me of it!&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote cite="comment-100610"><p><strong><a href="#comment-100610" rel="nofollow">Michael Heilemann</a></strong>: I think it’s a project collaboration tool more than anything. Google’s pitching it as an e-mail replacement, but I just don’t see that happening.</p></blockquote>
<p>Well it certainly doesn&#8217;t help Google Wave that you have to have a Google Wave account to both send and receive waves&#8230; so I&#8217;m also skeptic for now. But if I do think about Google Wave as stemming from someone who wanted to reinvent email, a lot of things, mentally, fall in place.</p>
<p>And yes, I think it will work as a project collaboration tool. Instead of creating a new Google Doc and sharing it with people as I&#8217;ve done so far, I&#8217;ll be creating waves in the future. Sure.</p>
<blockquote cite="comment-100610"><p><strong><a href="#comment-100610" rel="nofollow">Michael Heilemann</a></strong>: Not only for legacy and inertial reasons, but because it’s too ‘muddy’ in its treatment of replies and threads and what not.</p></blockquote>
<p>In my mind, that&#8217;s not a problem with the wave &#8220;skeleton&#8221; if you will, but rather the surface layer, which is incidentally the most easy one to tweak. In other words, a few rounds of usability testing, some design tweaks and in a few years, Google will have unmuddied it.</p>
<blockquote cite="comment-100610"><p><strong><a href="#comment-100610" rel="nofollow">Michael Heilemann</a></strong>: E-mail may be old, but it works exactly _because_ it’s so simple.</p></blockquote>
<p>But I don&#8217;t think email is that simple, to be honest, and i&#8217;m not laying all the blame on spam here.</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s jump right past the whole issue of POP3, IMAP and Webmail, which certainly complexifies email tech in its own right.</p>
<p>Email is based on the file metaphor. You send a file. You receive a file. You store a file. (That file being the email, not attachments, bear with me).</p>
<p>Things are moving towards the &#8220;i don&#8217;t care where files are stored&#8221; cloud metaphor; we&#8217;ve already seen that with iTunes, iPhoto and Google Docs &#8212; Docs being the best example. You don&#8217;t store 50 copies of the same file, you only store it once, and _access_ it from several places.</p>
<p>Google Wave, as seen though the &#8220;email reinvention&#8221; googles fixes this problem. It&#8217;s imap on steroids. You don&#8217;t <em>send</em> something, you give people <em>access</em> to something. This is a paradigm away from the file-based email, and in my mind, <em>that</em> is simple. Email is not. &#8220;Sent mail&#8221;, &#8220;All mail&#8221;, &#8220;inbox&#8221;, &#8220;outbox&#8221;. SHOO! Sent, archived, received, not sent &#8212; those are <em>attributes</em> of a single email. Rid me of it!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Heilemann</title>
		<link>http://noscope.com/journal/2009/10/whats-google-wave-its-this/comment-page-1#comment-100610</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Heilemann</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:21:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://noscope.com/?p=5213#comment-100610</guid>
		<description>See, that&#039;s not what I think it is.
I think it&#039;s a project collaboration tool more than anything. Google&#039;s pitching it as an e-mail replacement, but I just don&#039;t see that happening. Not only for legacy and inertial reasons, but because it&#039;s too &#039;muddy&#039; in its treatment of replies and threads and what not.
E-mail may be old, but it works exactly _because_ it&#039;s so simple.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>See, that&#8217;s not what I think it is.<br />
I think it&#8217;s a project collaboration tool more than anything. Google&#8217;s pitching it as an e-mail replacement, but I just don&#8217;t see that happening. Not only for legacy and inertial reasons, but because it&#8217;s too &#8216;muddy&#8217; in its treatment of replies and threads and what not.<br />
E-mail may be old, but it works exactly _because_ it&#8217;s so simple.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
