Talk:Apache Wave

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Google (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Internet (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Better description ?[edit]

At the moment it's just a collection of buzzword and it deosn't make a lot of sense for those who don't already know what it is about. Someone should try and describe it in one/two non-techy sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I came here to find out what it's all about, having seen it on the TV news, and I'm no wiser than before. Is it because no-one quite knows what it is yet? Peter Harriman (talk) 11:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's more that it's difficult to describe than that people don't know what it's about yet. It took an 80 minute presentation for google themselves to properly explain it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's also written too much like a marketing statement and not enough like a neutral article. "Google Wave is designed as the next generation of Internet communication?" Come on, now. --DuckFerret (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I can describe it as a merge of the electronic mail and instant messaging services with enhanced features. -- (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Also needs to be an indication that 'operational transformation' is used to reconcile concurrent edits. Right now the term is thrown in to the 'open source' section with no explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely it should be mentioned stronger that Wave is designed to work seamlessly with other wave severs, just like IRC or email severs do today? It also seems odd that neither here nor in the protocol wiki page are other wave-severs mentioned. (I only know of myself, but I was looking for more). - Thomas Wrobel —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to conclude that nobody knows what it does ... consider it a challenge to write an introduction that is actually understandable. John —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


Is the name a reference to Serenity/Firefly? -Johnm4 (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but I saw several Firefly references in the video. Lars referred to something as "Shiny", and Jens had a snippet of prepared c&p text: "Curse your sudden, but inevitable betrayal." They made a connection that I can see, but I'm not a reliable source. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 06:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Scroll down to "wave" in: (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you think this article I found is reliable enough? The writer just confirmed that the 50 developers working on this project are Firefly fans.,opinion-googles-wave-drowns-the-bling-in-microsofts-bing.aspx -- Valistar (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

And this will be the end of all privacy. They plan to use it to eventually eliminate normal emailing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a someone who watches I have not idea what firefly is....why would they choose these references to a tv program...when so many people don't watch tv?? I don't get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

While this is generally not the course of this discussion, I'd like to comment on this. Few of us have actually watched Firefly on television, but Firefly gained a serious following its demise on FOX (of course its article will tell you that). But even regardless, these are the creators of this software, they can name it after what the hell they want.
And there are lot more people watching television than you think. --Svippong 18:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

French translating and typo[edit]

I removed the note about spellchecker "ignoring" a french typo, because that is not correct. The translator translated "lus" as a tense of "read."

What may be interesting to note, is that the spellchecker did not fix that typo in the way it had fixed "been" and "bean" typos earlier. Sp3ctre18 (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

As it was a demo, it's not yet possible to comment on any inconsistencies of the spellchecker between languages. Such inconsistencies can simply be the result the difficulty of simultaneously developing support for several languages evenly. -- EDG161 (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Protocol Section Merge proposal[edit]

The protocol section is much to long. There is already a separate article on the Protocol. Imho most of the section should be merged/integrated to this separate article and the section should only contain 1-2 short summarizing paragraphs. With a link to the main Protocol article: {{main|Google Wave Federation Protocol}} at the start.

-- (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The Google Wave client and the Wave Protocol are two separate things, each with their own articles. -- EDG161 (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


The article says that it is an open standard licence, but that is not really specific, while it will be open source, it is not a very specific for a licence, the only place I can find Google mentioning a licence is their draft specifications for the their Protocol: --Svippong 18:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes; Open Source is a broad term and there are numerous licenses that can archive that goal. However, that's all we can really say at this point. Google gave us a sneak peek, not their whole business plan. We'll just have to wait and see.
In my personal opinion, what they've done with things like the Android OS represent a precedent. That would be the minimum of what they would likely need to do, in terms of openness, if they truly want Waves to replace e-mail. EDG161 (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Opinion on User Federation?[edit]

Today, the Wiki says: "It should be noted that user-data is not federated (i.e. not shared with other wave providers). Aside from the obvious privacy reasons, there is simply no reason to do so." (emphasis mine)

Seems like the section author went out on a limb here. (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"Aside from the obvious privacy reasons, there is simply no reason to do so.""

Its an opinion, not a statement and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Selfish query[edit]

All I want to know is whether it will allow me to collaboratively edit a Word document with someone else on live on the net. The document share thing they have currently refreshes about every 20 seconds: that sucks, although it's better than nothing. Anyone know? Tony (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Wave updates character-by-character, and you can see the other person typing live. --taestell (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep in mind that waves are not saved in the Word .doc format, but I'm certain that eventually a software developer, perhaps Microsoft itself, will release a plugin to export waves to .doc files. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft Word had an integrated wave client in 5-10 years. Mazer (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I would expect it to be faster than that. Being an open protocol, I would imagine it fairly easy to add the Word and Excel functionalities to a wave. Once the protocol and engine are made public, I would expect a Microsoft response within only a couple of years. The addition of a "wiki" in Sharepoint did come years after Wikipedia started becoming so vastly popular, but it has been met with a lot of user satisfaction (despite it's limitations) and I can imagine Microsoft jumping all over a collaboration engine that allows concurrent editing (something that Sharepoint sort of implements, but not really).Tigey (talk) 05:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont see my MS would bother with Google wave. Office 10 is online for free, and wouldnt be more in MS's intrest to build their own wave platform and incorporate Office into it "out of the box" so to speak?

Up to date info needed[edit]

The web is buzzing about wave right now, and the article is not reflecting the current status of invites or providing info that many news articles and blogs are. Wikipedia is always the first place I go for up to date information... Antonycarthy (talk) 09:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there still isn't much to say. It's still a work in progress. New features aren't really being added; it's simply being refined/debugger. Most new features are market based extensions and that's a little hard to keep track of. =/
If someone here like to manage an up-to-date list of extensions, be my guest. lol
-EDG161 (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

More old future ideas[edit]

Since years I had defined a global project with important similarities with Wave at the start, with a wider set of principles (while of course Wave is much more sophisticated for what it does) but that has not been implemented yet because I'm not a programmer and it was not "notable".

The wikipedia article about it had even been deleted for lack of notability. Now that a subset of the idea has finally gained tremendous notability, I hope someone will will be interested to think and discuss the initial wider concept I had. I tried to contact the Wave team by many ways in recent weeks but did not get any reply. Or any other proposal of discussion towards possible open-source implementation would be welcome. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spoirier (talkcontribs) 23:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

As soon as I heard Wave described, it reminded me of the concept that several graduate students and I proposed and prototyped years ago (2001): Share@IU. But we did not have resources to carry this further. We presented this at an international conference. Thank goodness Google is putting the resources into the idea. A good idea is a good idea. For those who want to read this, and there are some features we proposed that are not currently implemented in Wave (at least what I have tried in the beta version), you can read the paper:

Also available in ERIC:

Tedfrick (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Ted Frick

open beta?[edit]

so is there any news about open beta? or any plan?

I heard it suppose to go public by the end of the year or early next year or some sort?07:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)07:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArielGenesis (talkcontribs)

Dosent google release everything in beta instead of a "final version"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Jens Rasmussen?[edit]

Perhaps this name should be mentioned in the article? Surprisingly, there isn't even an article about the person himself (just other people with the same name). --WayneMokane (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

20-30 or one million?[edit]

which is it? did the developers get 20-30 invites so it was 2-3 million people trying it? or did they get 9 so it was 1 million trying it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


It seems like there should be a "reception" section to discuss how the product has been received. Initial complaints and reviews tend to be negative:

  • If the explanation video is 80 minutes, it is too confusing
  • Voted as one of 2009's big losses
  • was launched
  • Quotes like "Google Wave just isn'ta new collaborative tool, but a new way of collaborating—so much so that it is initially confusing to many users" all over the place.

I'm not trying to bias the article (I'm sure there is some positive feedback, especially from developers) but the reception to this product seems like an important topic for the article. Timneu22 (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I added this; it is a quite important topic. Feel free to edit... Timneu22 (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Other Compatible Servers[edit]

I added a section to first list and later compare other Google Wave compatible servers. It repeats to some extent the contents in the Adoption_outside_of_Google section. Should I merge these 2? I tried to create a page Google Wave Servers for this purpose but it was deleted. Jpvosloo (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Why doesn't Google wave work on Wikipedia?[edit]

For a long time, I used Google Wave to edit my contributions to Wikipedia, but about six months ago, it stopped working, both at home and at my office, presenting the lines of text on top of one another, so as to be unreadable. Does anyone know how to fix this? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

How do you edit Wikipedia through Google Wave? — Timneu22 · talk 13:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I misunderstand what software does what, but here is the problem I'm trying to solve. I have a google toolbar with an ABC Check button. After I write a post to Wikipedia (such as this one), I highlight the post and click ABC Check in the toolbar. It checks the spelling, but puts the text one line superimposed on the other, so it is unreadable, (though I can tell if some words are in red). This happens both on my home computer and my office computer. On every web page other than Wikipedia ABC Check works fine. Help? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Talk pages are here to discuss the content of the page. This is not a help forum. — Timneu22 · talk 13:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, Wikinazi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Is Google Wave really dead?[edit]

They're still accepting new signups. Why would they do that if they're shutting down? (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC).

yes, it is dead173.58.53.212 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC).
Deader than a doornail. (talk)

Apache Wave[edit]

Just an update, Apache Software Foundation has agreed to continue development of the Wave platform. [ source ] (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Moved article yesterday.-- CMOTalk, you must 02:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the renaming of the Google Wave page into Apache Wave was a bad move: this page should have stayed the Google Wave page since Google Wave is a unique and still existing service, and a new Apache Wave Wikipedia entry should instead be created from scratch since it's a different product, with different goals and getting a fresh start (and Apache Wave developers are willing to contribute to a dedicated Wikipedia page). Also, Google Wave is not fully open-sourced and a lot of it (like its whole UI) is, and will remain, Google's property. Apache Wave (Wave-in-a-Box) demo servers are already different enough from Google Wave and right now it doesn't make much sense to have a page named Apache Wave, but where 99% percent of the information is about, and only relevant to, Google Wave. Supercopter (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Google Wave definitely deserves an entry of its own. The same about Apache Wave and its main sub project Wave in a Box (WIAB). Those are different projects, with different goals. Moreover, they differ even in the UI. Vega113 —Preceding undated comment added 19:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC).
Yes please remove! I was very confused as I read this article, thinking all the time: "This is no article about the Apache project, it is one about google Wave, and I already know what that is"... -- (talk) 12:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC) (German Wikip. user: Morl99)
I would agree that the article on Goggle wave should stay and that a new one detailing the development of Apache wave should be created. The new product won't host data it's software so crucially different.--Natet/c 17:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Extreme negative bias?[edit]

This paragraph paragraph seemed rather absurd to me. It seems as though there was a deliberate effort to pick out the most negative quotes that could still be sourced:

During the initial launch of Google Wave, invitations were widely sought by users, and were sold on auction sites.[1] However, people were confused as to how to use it.[2] Google Wave was called an "overhyped disappointment for the first generation of users"[3] with "dismal usability"[4] that "humans may not be able to comprehend."[5]

I don't know to what degree this falls within Wikipedia's policies, but it seems neither informative nor an accurate depiction to me. I know I'm not the best authority to weigh the scope of its negativity, as I have my own positive bias. I've used Wave literally daily since gaining access to it in '09. But the sources are what added enough to my skepticism to motivate me to act. In general, the quotes here seem far more negative than the overall content of the articles. The first negative article is well summarized in its headline, "So you've got Google Wave. Now what?", which sounds unreasonable. Does a person install a chat program or set up an email account then idle on the thought of "Now what?" I don't think any person does that. The author seemingly lacked anyone to use it with, which reduces the meaningfulness of his experiences with a communication tool. I don't see the source after that even mentioning Wave. The third negative source is complaining that it was an unpolished product, when Wave never claimed to be a finished product and emphasized the opposite. And the last source, Engadget I know has a tendency to say things that are supposed to be taken in a humorous light, which seems to me to be the nature of the quoted portion, again failing to reflect the overall nature of the article. I'm unsure of proper etiquette, so I've only commented out the text in question rather than delete it entirely. -- (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Without analyzing it, I'd say you shouldn't censor anything but you are welcome to locate, insert, and source opinions that are counter to the claims with which you disagree (subject to WP:RS). — UncleBubba T @ C ) 16:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Apache Wave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Google Wave Invite Selling for $70 on eBay
  2. ^ Christian Science Monitor: So you've got google wave, now what?
  3. ^ Linux Mag 2009 Review
  4. ^ Google Wave Failure on Milwaukee SEO
  5. ^ Google Wave to get its own App Store (Engadget)