http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_UyVmITiYQ
Gentlemen, this product is simply pure awesomeness. It's open source, going to merge instant messaging, email, blogs, forums, wiki, etc, can be embed anywhere, has programmable extensions and "robots" that can be really powerful tools, finally it can break effectively the language barriers. Every linked parts are synchronized and can be monitored by users in real time as we type, everyone can edit what he/she wishes, the whole process history tree can be followed or accessed any time.
Google sure knows how to make a hype.
This type of simultanious typing was in BBS for amiga in the old days.
But I see a lots of security issues and the overall goal for Google for taking over the world.
Yeah, I see some flaws too.
Like you invite someone to a conversation, that person invites a few friends to that conversation, and those friends start to rage havoc by deleting/changing the conversation drasticly.
Ofcource, it probably can be reverted, but especially if you consider using it as a replacement for discussions, it should have a protection to set certain text so it cannot be altered, or even better, assign a user as visitor instead of participient, so that user can view, but not edit. Ofcource, once a user has been added as a visitor, that user cannot add another user or if he adds another user, that user automatically becomes a visitor too.
I also would like to see the ability to have a function to add a person to a conversation and let it interact using email.
So I edit the conversation, and the system sends the entire conversation to a user by email. The user then replies to that email, and the system detects it and adds the notes on the right place in the conversation.
This would bridge the gap of switching to a completelly new system without fearing that others aren't using it.
In Soviet Russia Google use you!
Honestly, it will spy on you and and inform Pentagon how much you eat/sleep/shit/etc
As long as software is released as free software, Google will not take over the world.
I am watching the presentation right now and to be honest I am loving this. It really looks great. I think that the concept is very nice. And it is to some extent - logical. This is how it should be - the next step )
Yes it's free, but the information has to go trough a server(google's)
If you create your custom wave thing, you can direct it through your server - although it may be possible that by API they mean you should build it on top of their servers.
What's important here is the concept. Any corporation is temporary - the ideas are not temporary. They may be lost if the civilization ceases to exist, but until it does exist, the ideas will stay. A more freedom oriented group of individuals may choose to create a system with the same functionality, with the same basic ideas, but totally free.
So my point is that it is a logical step as to what communication and Internet are about and should be.
I was sceptical to this, mainly because to the fact that google is taking over the world, and I still am. But wouldn't it be cool if two people could collaborate on making music together on the same host, sitting on each place on the world.
Any modplug tracker wave?
I've got a beta invitation to wave. Although I dunno how I can send out invites, I can use wave.
with:public modplug
Started one wave now
I don't like robots checking what I'm typing.
And I don't like my stuff on another server instead of my own HD.
And Google is getting as megalomaniac as M$.
1. True, but you can read what other have written.
2. It will be possible to host it your own server, when the beta is finished.
3. True, but I don't mind innovation.
QuoteAnd Google is getting as megalomaniac as M$.
Wrong, they're already much more megalomaniac.
any use of the internet has to be with some degree of caution.
obviously you don't want to put sensitive information out there - no matter what the platform is.
At least in America it is now routine to look for information on job candidates on the internet. I myself am circumspect in what I say and do as a result. And I do see searches on my name in my web statistics - being unemployed right now and having a gazillion resumes out there I assume these searches are not for music.
So in that context - google wave sounds interesting. But then again I tried Twitter and found it to be a total waste of effort and time. Why not just use email and instant messaging? was my final thought on twitter.
Quote from: "uncloned"Why not just use email and instant messaging? was my final thought on twitter.
Google wave is IM and email in one. And for twitter I agree with you.
I used indenti.ca and at first was also delighted to be able to write small messages, but now I am thinking of getting rid of it.
I have some invites left, for those who want.
I may as well try the damn thing, it's about time they did something close to right, their document sharing capabilities currently are very sad. My friend had to send me invites for each chapter of her book, the one had 70ish chapters! They just recently added folder access so it's way easier, but it took forever. I can now finally help edit things!
Send away rakib! residentgrey at that gmail thingy or that yahoo thingy are more reliable lately.
residentgrey got one, have two more left.
If you don't have gmail, you must make one.
goranjohansson on the gmail would want one too :)
EDIT: Thanks!
now we need to talk JoJo into a open mpt widget for module collaboration on wave.
My son talked me into trying it. It might be useful for the developers doing NOM.
how about using Impulse Tracker and its network driver? :P
also, i don't know where people get that from, but that second "j" in my nick is clearly lower-case. :P
I bet no one has told you that you are a type A personality :)
IT is blown away by OMPT - no?
The fact that SchismTracker exists shows that it is not "blown away by OpenMPT" or something, I think. Although ST lacks the network driver, of course.
Tried Google Wave yesterday. Interesting experience, though there are some awkward stuff.
Google Wave finally released, for free. I've played with it, its a very powerful tool. I can do a lot of stuffs that i've wanted with forum and messaging programs, but i still feel kinda lost, not as easy to handle as i've expected.
https://wave.google.com/wave/?nouacheck
Google bought VP8 video technology from O2 for 120 mill. $, and released it for free, open source. VP8 is a h264 killer (h264 was arguably the best video format on the world till now, but it is an Apple proprietary stuff, so lotlsa additional copyright troubles were involved).
http://www.on2.com/index.php?599
Together with ogg Vorbis, WebM (VP8 + ogg) is released for open source html5 video format ^_^
http://www.webmproject.org/
and you can play pacman for free on
http://www.google.com/
xDD
3 respect points for Google, from me. :D
Here is my points.
Google wave, it's a good tool but still in a very beta stage, it's quite heavy on cpu and in a big thread it can get very laggy.
Probrably it's cheaper for google to open vp8 rather than have to pay royalties to the owners of h.264, and how better way to get people to use vp8 than making it free? Google is good to get users.
Remember that google is a software company that earns money by selling ads, not selling software, so everything they are doing is to get users to use their software so they can show ads.
Clip from Google I/O conference, where they are showing different ways to build in ads in android. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNoLVzpBqqk
O2 is not the same as On2, so google did not buy the codec from O2. And no, VP8 is not a h.264 killer as some people want it to be, at least not in quality terms. especially the x264 implementation is unquestionably still the best solution when it comes to high quality video. Google can do something about that, but since they just released the VP8 code "as-is", I have my doubts that they will do a lot.
Quote from: "Rakib"Probrably it's cheaper for google to open vp8 rather than have to pay royalties to the owners of h.264, and how better way to get people to use vp8 than making it free? Google is good to get users.
google is supporting and paying for h264 royalties as well (Chrome is supporting both h264 and WebM), so they aren't worrying about money in this sense, they arent that cheap, but gave the VP8 for people and developers to have a free open source solution, so firefox and opera wont be troubled by the html5 video "codec wars". Microsoft is also supporting h264 and VP8 as well.
Quote from: "Jojo"O2 is not the same as On2, so google did not buy the codec from O2
ahh sorry, it was an obvious typo. Its On2, as my given link said too.
Quote from: "Jojo"And no, VP8 is not a h.264 killer as some people want it to be, at least not in quality terms. especially the x264 implementation is unquestionably still the best solution when it comes to high quality video. Google can do something about that, but since they just released the VP8 code "as-is", I have my doubts that they will do a lot.
we're talking about the web here Jojo, you wont stream 20gigs of super high blu ray quality over nowdays crappy adsl lines, but the usual video sharing pages will have the advantage with the VP8, and it can be developer further any time. And anyone who are using h264 should pay royalty to Apple, x264 is a "free" but kinda illegal implementation of h264, you actually need a license to use it. It's the same as with random mp3 encoders. They wont chase insignificant individuals, but Mozilla and Opera cannot really use illegal implementations. So the illegal bluray rips will maybe still be in x264, but free legal web streams can safely use VP8, and it's visibly better in these lower bitrates, than x264.
Google is paying because it has to do it. It doesn't want to pay license but since to many is using h.264 as the video codec for html5, they must support it.
Opera will support h.264 trough gstreamer, which is a free open source framework.
http://www.gstreamer.net/
MS has several patents concerning h.264, so yes they support h.264. About webml support, they won't support it natively, but it will appear as a missing plugin that can be installed, I'm sure you have seen that missing plugin window before.
Quote from: "Rakib"About webml support, they won't support it natively, but it will appear as a missing plugin that can be installed
well kinda wrong.
WebM just came out, IE8 did a couple of months before, so using logic, its naturally it's not shipped with webm by default, but can download now as a plugin. But IE9 will have native support out from the box, that's what i was trying to say.
Actually windows media player will support it too, flash player will support it too, free browsers will support is too, and video cards will support it too (hardware accelerated video)... so pretty much everybody except Apple.
QuoteI'm sure you have seen that missing plugin window before.
nah, im staying far as much as i can, from that horrible complex of program, called IE :D.
(aside from racist jokes, i really haven't used IE for anything more than a few compatibility checks, when making some web pages. Using 100% ff builds like minefield or palemoon, but have all of the other competitors, and their cool features on my radar)
QuoteGoogle is paying because it has to do it. It doesn't want to pay license but since to many is using h.264 as the video codec for html5, they must support it.
Bingo Rakib, they aren't paying for h264 because don't have anything better to spend their cash for, but because h264 is widely popular and Google tries to support the popular trendy stuffs (as will Chrome have native support for Adobe Flash too). As most of the companies, Google wants to have the biggest share too, and he can afford to invest, but free/ opensource fags like firefox does not want anything proprietary on their codes. They couldn't let let people build their own stuffs from the source freely afterwards, and that would go against everything they built before.
QuoteOpera will support h.264 trough gstreamer, which is a free open source framework.
and you can use many "workarounds" with the other browsers too, and will still be illegal. They didnt payed royalties, you didn't payed royalties, and we have the fact that h264 is still proprietary. :D
well, to be accurate, gstreamer itself is not illegal, but the usage of proprietary codec, like h264 (through any wrapper), without paying royalties still is.
Quote from: "psishock"we're talking about the web here Jojo
...where semi-HQ video is already available today as "live streaming" material, and in the near future, real HQ video will dominate the web. Don't tell me you can't foresee this.
Also, VP8 is not as efficient as x264, meaning that
even with low quality video, x264 will produce better output at a lower bitrate. Please don't be a google fanboy and just accept the truth.
Quotebut the usual video sharing pages will have the advantage with the VP8, and it can be developer further any time.
Once the codec specifications are published, they can not be altered anymore, unless you release a "new" revision of the codec, meaning that everyone has to update their decoding sources. Improving existing encoders is a different thing than rewriting specifications.
Quotex264 is a "free" but kinda illegal implementation of h264, you actually need a license to use it.
O_o It's not illegal. You have to pay license fees for using an encoder, yes, but that does not mean that a free encoder is illegal in any sense.
QuoteBut IE9 will have native support out from the box, that's what i was trying to say.
Wrong. You will need the codec plugin to be installed in order to use VP8. That's what M$ say themselves about their VP8 plans.
Sorry, but somehow you're just trying to make the world look a lot nicer than it actually is. But it really isn't that bright. VP8 is not the perfect video codec, it's just a good try at being one.
Quote...where semi-HQ video is already available today as "live streaming" material, and in the near future, real HQ video will dominate the web. Don't tell me you can't foresee this.
yep, in the near future will surely, but i could not describe when will that exactly be, 4, 6, 8 years? We will surely have even more powerful codecs on that time, for instance h265 can be expected around 2012. But right now, i will definitely stick with semi HQ video for a couple of years, adsl speeds wont grow that rapidly.
QuoteAlso, VP8 is not as efficient as x264, meaning that even with low quality video, x264 will produce better output at a lower bitrate. Please don't be a google fanboy and just accept the truth.
while i am a google fanboy, i can surely accept any sane facts, and you know that (i'm a tech savy person also). Well for now, i was only using x264 and was very happy with the compression and the quality (on any high or low bitrates) also. What i know about VP8 didn't came from my own experience, but on their claims. They can lie of course, in this case the whole argument is invalid and will continue to use x264 in future, time will tell anyway. I was just happy because (in theory) a free/open source codec was able to top the h264, so we will not work in the grey area anymore.
QuoteOnce the codec specifications are published, they can not be altered anymore, unless you release a "new" revision of the codec, meaning that everyone has to update their decoding sources. Improving existing encoders is a different thing than rewriting specifications.
i see, good point.
QuoteWrong. You will need the codec plugin to be installed in order to use VP8. That's what M$ say themselves about their VP8 plans.
i've heard that version. And also i've heard the news that they are reconsidering that decision. So if everything goes right, they will ship it VP8 bundled.
QuoteO_o It's not illegal. You have to pay license fees for using an encoder, yes, but that does not mean that a free encoder is illegal in any sense.
oO' well x264 is an h.264 encoder, its totally based on that specification, which is patented and proprietary, and while nobody payed royalties to Apple to use that patented technology, it makes x264 illegal also. But it's kinda a gray area nowdays, similar to mp3, because its very popular already and nobody will chase down individuals, but it was a huge trouble for bigger companies like opera and firefox. With your logic, they could just use embed x264 and "avoid" paying royalties, but the issue isn't near that simple.
mp3 is not a gray area and I think it's the same with h264: you are allowed to write as many encoders as you want, but you have to pay for using them. Regarding mp3s, individuals producing non-commercial mp3s are not required to pay any license fees. So for example it's OK to use LAME to encode your MP3s, as long as you don't make any money from it. Another reason to not use MP3... :)
Well, I remember the uprise when I start using OGG for expected reasons like this with mp3...
http://mp3licensing.com/royalty/emd.html
is the expected result of that mp3 license
we're good, if we keep it under $100.000 yearly :D
Aaahh.. what a relief !
Ohm Force is using the ideas from google wave to incorporate it in their own music studio, called ohm studio. From the presentation video it looks promising.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4eRu7iHR_I&feature=player_embedded#!