As we discussed a while back, Google is thought to be preparing its own social network, called “Google Me” by some. Smarterware recently published a slideshow from a senior researcher at Google, that might give us a glimpse at what to expect from Google Me.
The slideshow discusses how Facebook lumps all of your friends together, even though we really we have different types of friends. You might have family members, college friends, and work colleagues in your social network, but you might want your social network experience with each of them to be different. For example, those wild college photos might be great to share with your college friends, but not so great to share with your family or some of your coworkers.
Facebook does offer lists, but they’re meaningless when it comes time to post updates. You can choose only between publicizing updates to everyone, friends, friends of friends, or specific people.
Would a service that gives you finite control over different types of friends compel you to try it out? Or do you envision something like that being much too complicated?
This is the second in a series of articles evaluating potential alternatives to Google Wave, which Google is discontinuing. Check out Part I (Shareflow) and Part III (Socialwok).
For those of you who have never used Google Wave, sorry, you’ve missed your chance. As you may have heard, Google announced recently that it won't be developing Wave any further as a standalone product, although Google will keep it open at least through the end of the year. This is pretty unfortunate, because Wave filled a unique niche by providing a great platform for real-time team collaboration and discussion.
So, here at 40Tech we’ve begun a search for a replacement for Wave. Last week we reviewed Zenbe Shareflow as a possible replacement for those of you who used and came to love Google Wave. Today we offer a second suggestion. This suggestion isn’t a collaboration site so much as a system to replace Wave.
The system to replace Wave is based on using the full-range of Google’s other products. One of the main advantages that Wave shares with the other products in our "Wave Replacement" series, is that it brings all communications and documents into one platform. While using several web products is undeniably a bit more complicated and messy than a single website, it also offers some advantages as well. For example, it provides you with several layers of flexibility, and new features to allow you to adapt the system to how you and your group prefer to work.
The idea of using Google’s full suite of products to replace Wave started with the realization that we likely will see new features rolled out to Google products, based on features that got their start in Wave (real-time email communications perhaps?). Google said as much in their blog post announcing the end of Wave. We then realized that many of the best aspects of Wave are already available across Google’s other offerings, if you use those applications to their full potential.
First, we'll look at why you should consider using Google’s other services to coordinate efforts and communications in real-time with a group. Second, we’ll look at what specific services you should use, and the aspects of the communications for which they're best used. And finally we’ll look at how you can manage all of those services.
Why use Google’s suite of products to replace Google Wave?
Anyone who has used the internet to do anything (i.e., everyone) has probably at some point become concerned about the amount of information that Google possesses about them. Add to this concern Google’s recent stance on net neutrality, and there is a valid question as to why someone would rely on Google even more. Put simply, tens of millions of people continue using Google’s products every day because they are just so good.
When I see a website with that light blue and white color scheme that is simple and powerful, I know that I’m using a Google product. Almost every product that Google offers is available across all platforms, with many of those products available offline. Almost all of them have very simple ways to archive, import and export your information, and they are so widely used that there are tons of add-ons, plug-ins, gadgets and tie-ins to complement what are already great products.
Google has had problems with some server availability, but my experience has been that those problems are exceedingly rare and are very quickly fixed. Many of Google's products have automatic save functions to eliminate the dread of losing something you just spent hours working on, like what I experience every time Microsoft Word crashes on my work computer. There are tons of keystroke shortcuts to speed up your work, and of course the search functions within Google's products can’t be beat. Google offers HTTPS access to many of its services for secure access, and all of its products are available free of charge.
There are of course other services that offer a full-range of products that are similar to Google’s products; Yahoo, Zoho and Microsoft come to mind, but all in all I have found that Google gives you the most powerful and flexible set of tools to coordinate your full range of communications. Perhaps most importantly, I already use at least one Google product every day. As a result, the learning curve is much shallower for me to get up to speed on a Google product’s capabilities.
For this post, I’ll assume that you have a Google account, and a working knowledge of the Google tools. If you don’t have an account, then you may want to sign up. It only takes a second, and if you need more background knowledge you can go to the main page of each service (links are provided below). To pull all of these services together I’ll be using iGoogle and One Number, an extension developed for Chrome by Dan Bugglin. However, if you would like a desktop-based application that is a much richer experience, then check out Google Desktop and add gadgets for the services I’ll discuss. Desktop has enough capabilities that at some point I’ll probably write a post just on it.
On to the system!
If you click through Google’s main page to its full listing of services, it can be overwhelming. Google offers 24 different services under search alone! However, you don’t need every service. You can more than compensate for the loss of Wave through the use of Gmail and Chat for communications, Docs for editing emails and real-time collaboration, GCal for calendaring functions, Tasks for the obvious tracking of tasks, and iGoogle or One Number to pull it all together and display the other services in one place. I’ll give a brief description of the high points of each, but if you’d like to hear more about how I’ve used these services to replace Wave feel, free to contact me or ask your questions in the comments, below.
One of the most important aspects of coordinating any team is coordinating communications. Because of Gmail’s use of collapsible email chains (tied to the subject of the email), it is easily the best way to communicate with a group. It provides a permanent record of communications that is easy to follow and get out of the way when you have finished reading it.
For more real-time communications right inside of Gmail you have the option of using Chat. If your account is set-up for it, Google will even archive your chats and make them searchable from within Gmail, again to maintain a record of communications. Using a combination of Gmail and Chat will usually suffice for discussion purposes, but it offers some additional advantages over Wave, including ease of use (even my grandmom knows how to use email), a permanent record of conversations that can’t be altered, and the ability to turn an email into an event or or task by exporting them to Calendar and Tasks (both of which I’ll discuss below).
Wave has a major advantage over email and chat in that it provides a platform for a group to develop ideas because, as you surely know, you can’t go back and edit an email to develop an idea further. However, Google has provided this ability through a combination of email and Docs
Docs is probably one of Google’s least used offerings, besides the obvious exception of Wave, which is presumably why they are shutting Wave down. Docs allows for real-time collaboration on documents, presentations, spreadsheets, and even drawings. It has hundreds of searchable templates and the ability to create your own templates for later use if you choose to do so.
You can create shareable folders which will automatically modify the permissions of any document that is placed into that folder to match those of the folder. As an example of why this is useful, I created a folder that gives Evan and Bobby full permissions. As a result, I can dump any document regarding 40Tech into that folder, and Evan and Booby will be able to review, edit and comment on it. At the same time, they won’t be able to access the folder that I have set-up for my wife and I to coordinate our vacation plans.
Another useful feature of Docs is the ability to import Gmail messages into Docs. Once a Gmail message is imported into Docs, the text can be edited or added to for additional collaboration.
Also, for any document that has been made public, you can subscribe to the document's RSS feed to track changes as they occur. As far as I can tell, this option is currently only available for public documents. This is unfortunate, because it would be very convenient to be able to subscribe to those documents that I’ve set as private but am working on with others.
Another disappointing shortcoming of Docs is that although it bolds a document title if someone has worked on it since your last log-in, it does not identify what changes have been made. Wave did a great job of this, and even had a function to scroll through time to replay changes as they happened. I am hoping these features will be brought to Docs shortly. What Wave lacked, though, was any kind of ability to schedule meetings or create and track tasks, which Google thankfully offers in GCal and Tasks.
In much the same way that Gmail is the gold standard of email offerings, GCal is the gold standard in calendaring choices. GCal’s main selling point is simplicity. In Gcal you can quickly create an event, add notes and attachments, create a reminder, and add guests. There are probably thousands of public calendars, so I don’t even need to do the work to add the U.S. holidays to my calendar, for example (or, more importantly, the Penn State football schedule). It has a clean display that makes keeping track of your schedule a breeze. Critical for group collaboration, though, it is just as easy to share your calendar with others and add their calendars to yours. In doing so, GCal even converts events to your time zone. One of my favorite aspects of GCal, though, is the ability to display tasks that are coming due on your calendar.
As mentioned above, using several services to replace Wave offers the advantage of being able to personalize the system to your liking. Using Tasks is such a tweak that I have made for my personal system. Tasks is a very Spartan tasks tracking system, especially when compared to Remember the Milk and others of that level, but it gets the job done. You can create tasks and subtasks quickly, either in Tasks or by moving an email to it. You can have the task displayed in your calendar, set due dates, and even get reminders when you want them. What more do you want? If there is anything else that you may want, then Tasks probably isn’t for you because there really isn’t much more than that.
To pull all of this together and be able to view everything on one page, Google offers iGoogle. You can add gadgets for each service mentioned here and look at them all side by side. You can of course add tons of other gadgets (Dilbert anyone?), but I have one tab set aside just for these services as kind of my command center.
If your browser of choice is Google’s Chrome, one of the best extensions available is One Number. The extension checks your Google services at intervals that you designate, and notifies you of updates through a non-invasive tool bar icon. It is currently limited to Gmail, Google Reader, Google Voice and Wave, but in speaking with the developer he has said that the next release will have more services, including Docs. At this point it is a nice convenience to be notified of new communications, but as it adds new services it could completely replace iGoogle for me in this system, thus eliminating the need for me to leave the page open and further streamlining my group communications.
I know this sounds like a lot of work to replace one service, especially since our series looks at other single services to replace Wave. Once it’s set up, though, I really have found it to be a comprehensive and, just as importantly, simple way to maintain open lines of communication with members of a group. Further, it allows me to schedule appointments and keep track of the tasks that result from those communications and appointments in services that I already use. To top it all off, it’s all pulled together in one simple interface through iGoogle. I think if you give it a try you will find that it is worth the effort.
What do you think? If you use Wave, are you going to use other Google services as a replacement?
We don’t normally like to traffic in the rumor business here at 40Tech, but our previous concerns over Facebook’s privacy problems make this one particularly interesting. If this is true, can Google mount a credible challenge to Facebook’s dominance?
Google doesn’t necessarily have a good track record with social networks, or web apps with a social component. Google already runs Orkut, Buzz, and Wave, and all three have been underwhelming. But were any of them really attempts to challenge Facebook? Buzz and Wave weren’t full-blown social networks, and Orkut is an unknown to most people. In fact, it is now operated and managed in Brazil.
If we give Google a "redo," what will it take to mount a credible challenge to Facebook? Here’s our take on what Google needs to cook up in order to have a chance.
Appeal to the Masses with An UnGoogle-Like User Interface
Buzz and Wave, along with many other Google properties, do demonstrate one hurdle Google will need to overcome. Specifically, Google will need to get a clue when it comes to designing an attractive, compelling user interface. Google has a knack for designing web apps that apply to geeks, but leave many users cringing. As a geek, I like Gmail’s spartan interface, but I’m probably in the minority. Google will need to design a system that is both pretty, and easy to use.
Appeal to the Geeks By Respecting Privacy, and Using Open Standards
Tech-savvy users are often early adopters of new technologies and new services, with the rest of the world following their lead. If Google can’t win over those users, then it stands zero chance with the general public.
To win over the tech crowd, Google will need to convince tech-savvy users that privacy matters in its new service. The recent howls of outrage over Facebook’s apparent disregard for user privacy seemed to resonant with the tech crowd, but not with anybody else. And Google has had some recent privacy fiascos of its own, including with Buzz, and with Google Street View.
My take? I trust Google with my information more than I trust Facebook. This isn’t because I attribute altruistic motives to Google. To the contrary, it is because of Google’s business plan. Google’s plan, in its simplest terms, is to get people using the Internet more and more. The more that people use the Internet, and the faster they use it, the more money Google makes.
This contrasts with Facebook’s apparent business model. Facebook’s business plan seems to be about capitalizing on user data. The more you restrict your data on Facebook, the less useful you are to Facebook.
Many tech geeks are also fans of open standards. There is some hope that Google Me will use OpenID, which would be a stark contrast to Facebook’s closed ecosystem. Taking such a step might help to draw in the tech crowd.
Dazzle Everyone With Something Groundbreaking
If Google Me turns out to be Facebook in another wrapper, it will be dead on arrival. Just like Facebook was a big step up from MySpace, Google Me will need to try something new. What that "something" will be is anybody’s guess, but it will need to be compelling, and an attention grabber. If it isn’t, then the status quo (i.e. Facebook) will prevail.
Don’t Be a Wasteland
It’s a catch-22, but people will go where their friends and other people are. All of the above points will need to combine to build some sort of momentum, and draw at least a seed of users to Google Me.
If a new user takes a look at Google Me, and none of his or her friends are there, that user won’t stick around. That is what happened to me with Google Buzz. I liked it, but with one or two exceptions the only people there were the "big players." None of my real life friends were there, with one exception.
Google has its work cut out for it, but the task isn’t impossible. Users have left social networks in the past for greener pastures (remember MySpace?), so it could happen again. And ironically, the presence of Facebook would make it easier for a new social network to spread virally. Would you check out a new service that all of your Facebook friends were praising? But Google won’t make it happen just on name alone.
What Would It Take to Get YOU to Use Google Me?
I know we’ve stated the obvious a bit here, but that’s to get you thinking about what it would take to get YOU to use Google Me, if the service sees the light of day. Let us know in the comments.
One of the great features of Google’s Gmail is the ability it gives you to customize your Gmail experience using Google Labs. Labs features can be accessed by clicking on the green beaker symbol at the top right of the Gmail screen. Some Google Labs features fall into the "cute" category, but several of them are useful, and can make you more efficient. Here are the top 5 Labs features that can make you life easier.
“Open” is the new buzzword du jour, with a few of the major tech companies claiming to support open standards. Two of those companies are Google and Apple. How open are they?
First of all, what is “open?” As Wikipedia notes, there is no single definition of an “open standard,” and interpretations vary with usage. Even the companies themselves seem to have differing definitions of open, depending on the setting. Let’s take a quick look at Apple and Google, and at how “open” they are.
Apple
Open doesn’t necessarily mean Open Source. Even the iPhone, which is notoriously closed, does sport some Open Source Apps. The platform itself is about as closed as they come, though. You can debate the merits of Apple’s ecosystem and the benefits to users, but there is no debating the iPhone’s closed nature. If you are a developer, your app won’t see the light of day unless Apple says that it can.
Apple went one step further in closing the iPhone ecosystem recently, changing its iPhone Developer Program License Agreement so that developers must use Apple’s proprietary software if they want to get their apps approved for the iPad and iPhone.
So Apple is closed – end of story? It’s not that simple. As Steve Jobs pointed out in his somewhat disingenuous dissertation on Adobe’s Flash, Apple at least supports open web standards. And Apple’s website describes its support for the Open Source community, and its use of Open Source tools and programs. So in some areas, at least, Apple is open.
Google
Google has a reputation for being “open.” Android, for example, is open to the extent that anyone can develop for it, and release an app. And with Wave, Google has announced plans to release most of the source code as open source software, and has already made an open-source release of some Wave components.
At the same time, Google isn’t all about being open, either. While many of its products are open to some degree, its core product, search, is not. As any SEO guru will tell you, Google’s search algorithms are shrouded in mystery (albeit with parts that are known to be important, such as a page’s title). Why is Google so open in some respects, but not in others?
The Rub
Google seems to be more open, but the one area where it is most closed, search, reveals the the answer to openness for both Apple and Google. In short, both are large corporations, and both must make money for shareholders. As a result, both are open when it makes financial sense, and closed when it helps the bottom line.
For Apple, part of the financial success of the iPhone is due to its ease of use and reliability. That reliability would be difficult to achieve on an open platform. For Google, its search business is the core of its existence, which is why we’ll likely never see Google disclose exactly how it works. Google has said before that the more that people use the internet, the more money Google makes. If opening products, like Wave, leads to more people using the internet, then we can’t necessarily ascribe altruistic motives to Google’s open ways.
If you are a fan of either company, keep that in mind. Apple is more closed than Google, but at the end of the day, both Apple and Google are just trying to make a buck.
As we discussed a while back, Google is thought to be preparing its own social network, called “Google Me” by some. Smarterware recently published a slideshow from a senior researcher at Google, that might give us a glimpse at what to expect from Google Me.
One of the most important aspects of coordinating any team is coordinating communications. Because of 
In much the same way that Gmail is the gold standard of email offerings, 
As mentioned above, using several services to replace Wave offers the advantage of being able to personalize the system to your liking. Using 
To pull all of this together and be able to view everything on one page, Google offers 
Google vs. Apple: Who is More Open?
“Open” is the new buzzword du jour, with a few of the major tech companies claiming to support open standards. Two of those companies are Google and Apple. How open are they?
First of all, what is “open?” As Wikipedia notes, there is no single definition of an “open standard,” and interpretations vary with usage. Even the companies themselves seem to have differing definitions of open, depending on the setting. Let’s take a quick look at Apple and Google, and at how “open” they are.
Apple
Apple went one step further in closing the iPhone ecosystem recently, changing its iPhone Developer Program License Agreement so that developers must use Apple’s proprietary software if they want to get their apps approved for the iPad and iPhone.
So Apple is closed – end of story? It’s not that simple. As Steve Jobs pointed out in his somewhat disingenuous dissertation on Adobe’s Flash, Apple at least supports open web standards. And Apple’s website describes its support for the Open Source community, and its use of Open Source tools and programs. So in some areas, at least, Apple is open.
Google
Google has a reputation for being “open.” Android, for example, is open to the extent that anyone can develop for it, and release an app. And with Wave, Google has announced plans to release most of the source code as open source software, and has already made an open-source release of some Wave components.
At the same time, Google isn’t all about being open, either. While many of its products are open to some degree, its core product, search, is not. As any SEO guru will tell you, Google’s search algorithms are shrouded in mystery (albeit with parts that are known to be important, such as a page’s title). Why is Google so open in some respects, but not in others?
The Rub
Google seems to be more open, but the one area where it is most closed, search, reveals the the answer to openness for both Apple and Google. In short, both are large corporations, and both must make money for shareholders. As a result, both are open when it makes financial sense, and closed when it helps the bottom line.
For Apple, part of the financial success of the iPhone is due to its ease of use and reliability. That reliability would be difficult to achieve on an open platform. For Google, its search business is the core of its existence, which is why we’ll likely never see Google disclose exactly how it works. Google has said before that the more that people use the internet, the more money Google makes. If opening products, like Wave, leads to more people using the internet, then we can’t necessarily ascribe altruistic motives to Google’s open ways.
If you are a fan of either company, keep that in mind. Apple is more closed than Google, but at the end of the day, both Apple and Google are just trying to make a buck.