Google Wave

Adding onto what Tranquilty said...

If it weren't for Gmail, you'd still be on Hotmail or something with a max of 100MB of storage space. Gmail is the catalyst that moved all the other Mail providers forward with more free storage for all.

Also, Google intends for Wave to be the successor of E-Mail, which is almost 40 years old. Do you want to stay on where we are forever? Google certainly does not. Looking at the things wave offer, if this isn't an attempt to move us forward, I don't what is.

M$ is the one slowing everyone down with their pathetic browser that doesn't even support HTML5 properly. Google's Chrome Frame directly addresses this problem. Yet another demonstration why Google moves us forward.

Say what again! Say what again, I dare you, I double dare you mother fucker.


Also to add to Imperial's post. IE has no support for HTML5, and CSS3, however Firefox, and Opera also do not have full support, currently the only browser to my knowledge that fully supports the two, is Google Chrome.

That's why I use it as a developer, that and the fact it's javascript engine is faster.

Point is IE is always the last to tag along with support, it took them ages to get full CSS support, and even still there are a few minor issues.

However I don't think anyone here is arguing that Chrome isn't a million times better than IE, is chrome the best browser? No I wouldn't say so. Does chrome do some things better? HELL YES.

Anyway before I get way off topic, the main thing we're trying to say is, Google has done a LOT of innovative things, whether it be new ideas, or improving upon old ideas.

I don't think their corporate agenda is to monopolize any individual area of the internet, if that were the case they would be charging for their applications, and packaging them together in bundles, forcing you to use theirs over something else.

I mean look at Chrome itself, it doesn't even force the use of Google, it lets you pick between all search engines as your default search, just a single example of them promoting the use of what YOU want.

And finally, everything Google has ever done has only been a push towards tomorrow, they've only made the things they touch better. They've done absolutely nothing to hint that they want to monopolize the internet.

If you have any retort to that, please do share.

lol, they actually covered all the major features of Wave in 3 minutes! Very impressive.



Absolutely. Just look at Wave. The whole thing is an open protocol, like E-Mail. Soon we'll have Windows Live Wave and Yahoo! Wave. Google doesn't intend for the future to be a monopoly. They just want to push the Internet ahead by coming up with better technologies for all to use.

And the Chromium project too. Google welcomes everyone to use their incredible V8 Javascript engine.

... you do realize you two sound like Google spokesmen right? I'm just very skeptical of Google. I really don't trust them. No, I don't have any basis for that, but all they have to do is merge with Microsoft and its Game Over for everyone else. I don't like the idea of Microsoft dominating the PC market, and I especially don't like Google dominating the search engine market, and attempting to do more.

Why in the hell, old anti-trust laws magically don't apply to Microsoft is something I've never figured out, and it will never apply to Google either.

I don't like Microsoft either, but Google has never done a thing in the same direction as Microsoft, you yourself said you have no basis for it...

So I really don't understand why you don't trust a company that innovates, improves upon products, promotes open development, and provides everything free of charge.

We may sound like Google Spokesman for being pro-google, but you sound like a conspiracy theorist for talking nonsense about Google, with absolutely no basis for it o.O

Also, From what I know, Google would never merge with Microsoft, they have two entirely different sets of business ideals and methods, they would never blend well.

Fine, whatever. It isn't like we are going to change each others' minds anyway. Hope you're right about the merger thing; and if not, don't get mad at me if I go around yelling I told you so to the world. XD

Haha, well I'm not trying pick a fight or anything, I just can't seem to grasp your perspective, and I have my own opinions as well, so..

No, yeah I know. Like I said already I don't have my reasons, but sometimes you just don't care enough to need them. I don't have to back up what I feel, so it doesn't really matter anyway. After all, it isn't like I hate Google. It is my primary search engine, and I use GMail, but I don't really care about anything else.

Hmm ... I never thought about it like that. I always thought of it as a sort of Twitter+IRC combination. Enlightening.


I can agree with you on the search engine, e-mail, and maybe on AdSense, but I really don't think the other stuff qualifies as "Internet changing".


I don't know about you but I would rather at least have the illusion of choice rather than no choice at all. And if any business could make it so that the consumer CAN'T choose, they would. That doesn't mean it would be good for the consumer though. For example, if Microsoft had it's way, all of us would be using IE. I'm sure you can appreciate those monopoly laws now.

Oh yes, I know, my point there was not that a monopoly should exist. It's just, I don't like the idea of punishing a company for doing well.

You know when Bill Gates got sued for bundling IE in with Windows among other things that came with it, They demanded he include Netscape in with Windows, and Bill Gates said, "That would be like including 1 coke in a 12 pack of Pepsi", which I don't personally like the guy, but what he said made complete sense. Why should he be punished for being successful? It's silly. Now when people do reach the point of a monopoly, I of course don't like the idea of them running wild, either. I just feel the monopoly laws need to be reformed in some way..

Also Microsoft never stopped us from using another browser, they merely did not show us we had a choice, so I really don't think they should have been sued for that, I think that was silly.

"Illusion of choice" has a companion. This companion is called "Illusion of no choice". A Coke doesn't need to be put in a Pespi pack because they both tend to exist on the same shelf and they are both common. The choice is right there, visible, for all to see. So there's no need to hold it against Pepsi no matter how much they dominate as long as they allow competitors to exist. On the other hand, only having IE on a computer gives the "illusion of no choice" or IE with some even more inferior browser gives the "illusion of choice". Firefox, Opera, Chrome, etc., etc. are never "placed on the same shelf" so the opportunity isn't equal.

I would also like to add that the only reason Microsoft would fear having FF, Opera, Chrome pre-packaged on a Windows system is if either they felt IE was inferior and so the consumer would pick something else, or that the other browsers had severe security issues (which they could waiver simply by saying they were not part of their development; use at your own discretion). It's not like the existence of the other browsers prevent the consumer from choosing IE. Basically, Microsoft used the laziness and ignorance of the masses to dominate and it is near impossible for any other company to have enough promotion/exposure to compete with them, if only by the fact that a consumer would need to use IE to find the other browsers.

I feel like I lost my point while writing this, but if it is at least informative, then I'm pleased.

Edit:
So I guess you could say that a monopoly isn't so much forcing others out of business so much as taking away all the "Shelf space" for themselves.

But Microsoft has every right to bundle IE, and IE alone with Windows, despite how inferior it is compared to other browsers. It is as Bill said, bundling another browser that isn't made by Microsoft on Windows just doesn't make sense.

*whew* I was afraid Tranquility was the one who responded. I seem to be in the mood to write a lot today (and I'd prefer not to if it can be avoided). In any case, you're right Microsoft does have the right to package only IE with Windows. But then MS needs to compromise with the monopoly laws, which Tranquility stated a dislike for. So I guess I was stating what MS would have to do to avoid those laws entirely, at least with regards to browsers (though I'm still not sure if my original point was lost or not).

Yea, I dislike monopoly laws for what they do, not what they are. I agree they need to be in place, I just personally feel it is a flawed system.

I'm on Google Wave! Thanks Jake for the invite! :D