The key in any web2.0 application or any social network application platform is to remember what kind of users are you interacting with. Usually, they are not Computer Science wiz’s you are dealing with. 400 million users on Facebook . Guess what about 95% or perhaps more are just casual internet users who have basic operational knowledge of computers and web. Most of them doesn’t have knowledge of securing there privacy settings (Thats good for facebook, as they have made it complicated enough and people on top of that have no knowledge so thats even better, helps them make money)..They are not MS office Users. So Wave was a good application but perhaps for Professionals. It was for a community that is using MS office and WebEx a lot to get there stuff done – Only these kind of people can see a value in it. Now everyone who is a Professional not necessarily need these tools unless people are working on projects. So a good question to ask, out of all internet community that exist out there – how many people use collaborative application such as WebEx, SharePoint or lets say Google Waves for their daily project or work accomplishment. The answer is ‘very little’ or perhaps a number that is insignificant with respect to entire Internet Users Sample Space. The application doesnt have a lot of demand in Internet Users sample space and thats it – there is no further reasoning needed to be endorsed. Enterprises and Organization can be a good sale point but then its difficult for organizations to adopt such a big change within themselves – it will be learning curve for them and also may bring in other interoperability issues (such as a customer might not be able to interface with Waves the easily as he does with WebEx) so the adoption phase may have some challenges. Google can’t sell into those stuff unless they invest in time and money to market it out to consumers. I can learn something about Google’s line of sight after hearing the phase out of Waves as a platform. And that is the following:
1) These guys are in haste
2) They want to make another big Impact but doesn’t have patience that may be required
3) There marketing doesn’t have a vision clear on all of their products or Perhaps they dont want to work on any project that just focuses or impacts a small group of users
4) Trial and Error is the strategy they use more often and there product planning is not bringing results.
With all these being said, this product was not inline with Google’s expectation just because they didn’t saw it from the view point of user space that exist on internet today. Another similar failure of Google Product is Nexsus as its not going to be produced any more. The concentration now that exist is on Android which shows they want to definitely take up this Mobile Market and snatch some of Apple’s Iphone revenue. Google TV ‘s strategy of media room -Extending concept of online TV and collobrating Video Contents that exist today to a high resolution TV platform. It will require a SetTop box device which will stream live content to TV and will provide an interface to search and customize content based on users interest. Its interesting and for that purpose they have got DishNetwork, BestBuy, Adobe(as its rich flash application’s framework) and Logitech (Google TV SetTOP Box manufacture) as partners to get this product out in market in 2011. The price of one box is expected to be around 200-300 dollars range. Per Google, there are 70 Billion dollar worth of revenue in the TV domain which they are going after. Youtube content will the prime feed into this product. One of the key differential and contributor that brought strength in Google TV Product is incorporation of Flash into HTML5 and Acquisition of On2 Technologies – On2 technologies has something called VP8 Codec which would reduce the playback complexity by 40% compared to H.264 implementation . So this would definitely uplift the content quality and gives room for scalability. VP8 is in use nearly all Youtube content and is helping to reduce complexity into playback of Higher Resolution Content.