it feels so closed off. Silo'd. Makes me shudder.
back
1 comments
That's one of the first things I noticed, too. I imagine something this full-featured will be hard to open-source/make open protocols for/federate like they tried with Wave and Buzz, but I hope they aren't abandoning those ideas after the disastrous way those turned out.
> to open-source/make open protocols for/federate like they tried with Wave and Buzz
What's funny is that everyone (Google included) got preoccupied with the tech demo UI for Wave, but the really interesting stuff was happening under the hood. If you look at what Wave was trying to do with sending arbitrary data between federated servers, all tied into contact management and privacy controls, it basically would have been the perfect foundation for a social network. In fact if you look at projects like OneSocialWeb[1] or Diaspora, they're similarly built on top of XMPP with an approach not entirely dissimilar to what Wave was doing.
I really, really think Google missed the mark marketing wise with Wave, and I wonder how much, if any, code has carried over to Google+.
I don't know about Google+ but a lot of the internals of Wave were carried over into Google Docs.
If the choice is between "closed and successful" or "open and failed", what would you choose?
"open and failed" at this point can provide a powerful proof-of-concept, whereas "closed and successful" doesn't necessary teach us anything new.