Google Wave - Developer Preview Video

Rakib · November 24, 2009, 14:21:36

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.

Louigi Verona · November 24, 2009, 17:19:26

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.

Rakib · November 26, 2009, 16:43:13

I have some invites left, for those who want.

residentgrey · November 26, 2009, 16:53:17

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.

Rakib · November 26, 2009, 18:06:52

residentgrey got one, have two more left.

If you don't have gmail, you must make one.

g · November 26, 2009, 19:57:15

goranjohansson on the gmail would want one too

EDIT: Thanks!

uncloned · December 01, 2009, 22:26:33

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.

Saga Musix · December 01, 2009, 22:36:19

how about using Impulse Tracker and its network driver?

also, i don't know where people get that from, but that second "j" in my nick is clearly lower-case.

uncloned · December 01, 2009, 22:54:48

I bet no one has told you that you are a type A personality

IT is blown away by OMPT - no?

Saga Musix · December 02, 2009, 06:31:34

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.

Louigi Verona · December 02, 2009, 11:21:04

Tried Google Wave yesterday. Interesting experience, though there are some awkward stuff.

psishock · May 21, 2010, 20:16:51

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.

Rakib · May 21, 2010, 21:45:55

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

Saga Musix · May 21, 2010, 21:58:04

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.

psishock · May 21, 2010, 22:57:14

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.