IMHO .....because it was,
the real problem was that people didnt see its value, scalable online collaborative editing where some of the editors are programmable bots, i dont think people really realised its potential sadly.....
I'm not sure why people are anti wave. I still use it for the purpose of multiple collaboration and it serves that purpose well. I honestly do not think it is "ultimately useless".
Just because you aren't a fan of a particular technology doesn't mean that you are actively "anti". I actually went back and watched the original Wave demo on Youtube just so I could reconstruct my original reactions, where were basically:
- That looks really cool
- I wonder how they do that (the synchronized live edits)
- I can't really think of any scenario where I would want to interact like that
Now I can see how some people might like it, but I really didn't - and I still find it a struggle to see it being used.
Perhaps the gulf between email and instant messaging isn't just a technological one, but actually corresponds the way most people are happy interacting?
didnt know that people can collaborate in IRC on one document and see real time changes going into a shared piece. The wave bots had also had the ability to collaborate, See http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/telstar/2010/01/14/irm10-help-me... of a wave bot helping in a realtime environment to facilitate refrerences for research projects...... I think people that think wave was just a replacement for email, irc twitter are kinda missing the point, and google are largely to blame because that is the way wave was "marketed"[sic]
One can think of the entire IRC history as a kind of collaborative information resource. (A limited append-only doc.) And yes, there are programming groups who use the history in exactly this way. Some of them post to HN.
