[HN Gopher] Microsoft Loop brings back Google Wave?
___________________________________________________________________
Microsoft Loop brings back Google Wave?
Author : borisjabes
Score : 87 points
Date : 2021-11-02 15:29 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (techcrunch.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (techcrunch.com)
| [deleted]
| hu3 wrote:
| Looks like the evolution of Microsoft OneNote which I like and
| use daily.
| pgtruesdell wrote:
| A new era of productivity tools by Microsoft is needed. All of
| their current tentpole products are just web versions of their
| old apps, and most of them are very annoying or slow or just
| weird. I'm intrigued to see where this leads as they double down
| on their web-first strategy.
|
| As for the Wave comparisons, it's more of a technical comparison
| of the Fluid framework and Wave's real-time collaboration data
| model/editor, right?
| hbn wrote:
| > and most of them are very annoying or slow or just weird
|
| It's kinda mindblowing that in $CURRENT_YEAR we're able to do
| run beautiful-looking ray-traced video games on a home console
| that costs a few hundred dollars, but when I launch Microsoft
| Word on a several-thousand-dollar MacBook Pro it takes over 8
| seconds from a cold start (just timed it right now).
|
| We've all just accepted that 8 seconds is an acceptable time to
| wait to type some words into a computer.
| sergiomattei wrote:
| That product doesn't look like Wave.
|
| It's a shockingly shameless clone of Notion.
| hellomyguys wrote:
| And Notion is a better clone of Quip.
| azinman2 wrote:
| Which is a clone of Confluence, which is a clone of any wiki
| software.
| e12e wrote:
| Isn't SharePoint a clone of lotus notes (without any of the
| cool parts)?
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| can you really clone a broad category? Wouldn't we just
| call that an alternative implementation?
| rzzzt wrote:
| Would parent's statement be more accurate if they said
| MediaWiki?
| nerbert wrote:
| Wouldnt be so funny, would it?
| anaisbetts wrote:
| And both are a shameless clone of Microsoft Sharepoint - it
| all comes full circle
| tims33 wrote:
| Which was built to combat Lotus Notes
| 2pointsomone wrote:
| Can we stop putting any of these product ideas on pedestals, as
| if they were acts of technological genius? They are all
| incremental interesting improvements, often thought of around
| the same years with unique insights, but not some revolutionary
| inventions no one has tried to build before. They are what they
| are because of their execution.
| sergiomattei wrote:
| I'm referring to design.
| chrisfrantz wrote:
| Relevant https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29083014
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Shouts to all in here that think they were the only ones who
| liked Wave. I tire of the forgetful historians in here or just
| rehashing the old news/its place in the history of the time.
|
| Sure this is wave. Sure this is notion.(which isn't the grandiose
| lightbulk product fans of it seem to think it is, not to mention
| its significance way overblown... you think Microsoft cares what
| hipster-designer/dev doc collab party you're in?)
|
| The collaboration on any kind of docs/work is just natural and
| expected progression now. Anyone else just find this not that
| exciting?
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| furthermore, all these kinds of productivity tool
| 'advancements' and evolutions come down to people. Wave didn't
| fly because people didn't get it or wouldn't adapt. Sure, there
| were some really great parts of it and so they were extracted
| and moved into other apps where people could warm up to them
| and see some advantages.
|
| But it's people. And it's tools. And it takes time for them to
| adapt and grow and old habits die hard.
|
| Microsoft has taken _10 years_ to get to the point where its
| userbase _may_ be ready for realtime collab apps that bring
| together multiple types of docs. We 're talking about a
| userbase, and an age, where there is still tons of doc emailing
| and filename-ver-2-Copy.doc going on. Yes, lots of us have
| moved on from that thanks to perhaps more niche openness to new
| editing and sharing methods, Notion-heads, Figma jams, etc. But
| MS is just getting there now and who knows if customers will
| even end up using it since they've got other ways to collab in
| and out of the ecosystem on different scales.
|
| But again, meh -- not that exciting. Just tools.
| rvz wrote:
| So this is same thing Microsoft did to Slack with Teams but with
| Loop directly towards Notion?
|
| The fact that it is completely free and open source, tells you
| that it is a straight 'extinguish' which was rare but now they
| have gone and done just that (Again).
|
| This is what 'extinguish' looks like with the new Microsoft.
| AlanYx wrote:
| The interface looks much more similar to Notion than Google Wave;
| I don't see the similarity to Wave.
| jpalomaki wrote:
| Microsoft is trying to bring the OLE (or whatever it was
| called) to the web. The technology that allowed you to drop for
| example Visio picture inside Word document and edit it there.
|
| Their vision is that developers are creating these "smart
| objects" which you can then put in various places. You can have
| them in Teams discussion, Loop, Outlook email client etc. The
| contents is synced between users in real-time. Instead of
| passing links to various applications where the work is
| performed, you bring the work to (for example) Teams.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| Sounds like the start of another hive of security
| vulnerabilities.
| gigel82 wrote:
| Which looks like Quip, which looks like OneNote, which looks
| like a million other note-taking apps before it.
|
| I think the more interesting aspect is the extreme coauthoring;
| it looks like the underlying tech is open source as well which
| is pretty interesting for a lot of applications:
| https://github.com/microsoft/FluidFramework
| AlanYx wrote:
| The similarity seems more than skin deep though; the "Loop
| components" data model as it's described in the linked
| article sounds similar to the underlying data model in
| Notion.
|
| Notion doesn't have the multi-cursor live coauthoring feature
| though; that's new.
|
| Do you know if the Fluid Framework is built on top of CRDTs?
| gigel82 wrote:
| Didn't do a deep dive, but it looks like they have
| distributed data structures (DDSes) on that layer, which
| appear different to CRDTs (merging on the client, not on
| the server).
|
| I can imagine someone could build a multiplayer game on
| this thing (though I doubt that's what MS designed for).
| WorldMaker wrote:
| From what I recall of a BUILD talk once on the deep dive
| fundamentals, Fluid _is_ based on CRDTs under the hood
| (or possibly the CRDT predecessor OT like Wave was), but
| Fluid believes writing CRDTs is hard (it is), especially
| writing them that obey the math laws CRDTs are supposed
| to, and then getting that to perform well (including and
| especially things like catch-up /replay) is also hard, so
| yes the actual programming interface Fluid presents is
| high level "distributed data structures" though the wire
| format is closer to CRDTs with some cheats from assumed
| knowledge of the data structures (things like sending the
| latest contents of a list for catch-up rather than
| replaying the entire CRDT chain for that list).
| jbverschoor wrote:
| I'm stunned that techcrunch doesn't mention Notion instead of
| wave.
| arendtio wrote:
| Wasn't Wave the cloud service that promised to be a federated
| application, but delivered the open source server very late (like
| after the failure/shutdown was announced)?
|
| Comparing anything that is not federated with Wave sounds odd to
| me.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| Wave was federated? First i've heard of this. Where can i find
| this OSS server?
|
| Also, federated seems like the least important wave feature
| that people talk about.
| AlanYx wrote:
| The underlying architecture was federated; basically an XMPP
| extension. When Wave shut down, they handed the federated
| server code to the Apache Foundation, who briefly developed
| it under the name "Apache Wave". Apache Wave was shut down in
| 2018, but you can still download the code.
| arendtio wrote:
| http://incubator.apache.org/projects/wave.html
| arendtio wrote:
| At the time federation was not that special. E-Mail was
| federated and Jabber/XMPP was federated too. So it was
| expected, that the successor (as which Wave was marketed) of
| e-mail was federated too.
|
| The real time aspects, on the other hand, were pretty amazing
| at the time. From todays perspective the reverse might be
| true ;-)
| Lorin wrote:
| OneNote-ish...
| LenP wrote:
| This should be called OneNotion
| kwertyoowiyop wrote:
| ...for Business!
| depaya wrote:
| I was a heavy user of Wave for the brief period of time it
| existed. Although I struggle to think of how I will integrate
| this into my workflow today, I am excited to give it a try.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| Wave was perfect for summer specific processes, like
| development of a tech specifications or making a complex
| contracts. Collapsing branches were much more usable than
| comments in Google Docs: you can't have a lengthy discussion in
| Docs, but in Wave it was natural.
|
| Still, the team has to be disciplined, or else Wave quickly
| became chaotic.
| askonomm wrote:
| Seems like a pretty direct rip-off of Notion. It's almost as if
| it was deliberate.
| indiantinker wrote:
| I don't see the notion in using Notion's UI here albeit with
| Miro/Figma flying cursors and pointers
| sylens wrote:
| This looks like a potential competitor to Notion more than Wave
| (as others have pointed out).
|
| It's worth pointing out that Microsoft has let its OneNote
| product wither on the vine in recent years, ceding use cases and
| market share to competitors like Evernote, Bear, Craft, and even
| Obsidian. People have been asking for Markdown support and the
| ability to insert code blocks in OneNote for years; maybe Loop
| will end up being the de facto replacement and contain those
| features.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| I'd be happy with Find&Replace in OneNote, but that's not on
| the table. They even have a handy help page [0] that needs to
| be seen to be believed: explaining how to copy the text you
| want to replace, Ctrl+F, input your search, and just repeat
| Ctrl+F, Ctrl+V!
|
| Someone actually took the time to write that doc page instead
| of implementing a basic editor feature...
|
| [0] https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/find-and-
| replace-...
| frankfrankfrank wrote:
| It's a bit of a shallow perspective to say that Google shut down
| Wave. Sure, they shut down the branding and distinct feature that
| was called wave, but it was essentially just the experimentation
| environment for synchronous editing that was then deeply
| integrated into the rest of the GSuite. It didn't die, it just
| went through metamorphosis.
| thrashh wrote:
| But collaborative editing predates Google Wave. The innovation
| that Google Wave presented was using a unstructured shared
| document for all communication. That idea is pretty dead right
| now, and given that that is Wave's main innovation, I'd
| consider Wave dead.
|
| GSuite might have some code from Wave, but collaborative
| editing came from existing implementations.
| dafoex wrote:
| I would agree here. Much of Wave was put into Google Docs,
| Drive, etc., as well as various other Google office
| collaboration products. Yes, Wave itself died, but it didn't
| fail.
|
| Google does this with a lot of their stuff, it seems, too.
| Google Glass, for example, spread into so much of Android and
| further: Ok Google for the Assistant came from Ok Glass; the
| timeline made its way into Google Now and eventually into
| Assistant again; heck, you can see the beginnings of Material
| Design in the Glass UI. Google makes a ton of experimental
| products only to axe them swiftly and put their remains into
| new products.
| noja wrote:
| Google Wave was sold to us as a better replacement for e-mail.
| That was its main feature! It definitely died.
|
| Sure they took some of the pieces and reused them in other
| products, but Wave definitely died.
| blowski wrote:
| 10 years ago, I collaborated on Word docs by making changes
| and emailing it back. We'd look at revision histories to keep
| track.
|
| Now the only email is the one that gives the link to the
| online document.
| snewman wrote:
| Do you have a source for this? I don't think it played out that
| way. Google Docs and Sheets both had synchronous editing before
| Wave launched. At some point Docs was rewritten to use the
| underlying mechanism from Sheets. I'm not aware of any cross-
| pollination from Wave. The Docs and Sheets teams were fairly
| closely connected; Wave was developed in an entirely separate
| part of the organization, I believe the team was mostly in
| Australia, and there was never much communication AFAIK.
|
| (Source: I was co-author of the original Google Docs
| implementation aka Writely; had some visibility into later
| iterations. I left Google in 2010 but have some idea of what
| went on subsequently.)
| Laremere wrote:
| From what I've heard: Google docs had multi-user editing, but
| it wasn't real time. Periodically the document would upload,
| be synchronized with other copies, and then update on the
| clients. Wave's real time cursor, synchronization, and
| conflict resolution algorithms were integrated into docs.
| QuercusMax wrote:
| Additionally, I believe the commenting and suggestion
| features were added to Docs after Wave was turned down; my
| recollection is that _that_ bit is one of the main things
| that changed about Docs after Wave.
| snewman wrote:
| You're correct regarding the original Docs implementation.
| I had thought that the rewrite (launched around 2010 or
| possibly 2011) was primarily based on the architecture of
| Sheets. But it's possible there was some Wave heritage I'm
| unaware of.
| thrashh wrote:
| Does no one remember Etherpad? It had collaborative editing
| and Google snatched them up.
|
| A year later they released Google Wave and Google Docs also
| got collaborative editing at some point.
|
| Even then, Etherpad was not the first collaborative editor.
| It was just the first (to my knowledge) online one but I
| believe desktop ones existed for years.
|
| And of course, the principle used behind collaborative
| editing (operational transform) is from at least 1989.
|
| CRDT is the newer game in town now and it may replace OT
| entirely.
|
| As a third party observer, I take it they both Google Wave
| and the collaborative editing in GSuite derive from Etherpad,
| and Etherpad itself is built upon the academic papers that
| predate it. If that is the case, while I'm sure some code may
| have migrated over, Google Wave "died" but Etherpad lives on.
| waych wrote:
| Wave launched internally at Google to much fanfare at TGIF,
| and the whole company was somewhat amazed at the time by
| its realtime collaborative editing. Wave was built as a
| secret project in Australia, so when it did launch,
| internally there was understandably some rife / confusion
| as to what the strategy was.
|
| The tech for appjet was primarily Javascript server-side,
| and I believe it used GWT for Java->Javascript client-side.
| This was seen as very odd to many inside Google, as
| javascript on the server was a new concept back then, and a
| far cry from the "officially supported" languages for
| development at Google.
|
| While the initial launch of Wave went ~okay, the product
| itself had massive scalability issues. The Appjet/Etherpad
| team was then aqui-hired and quickly relocated to
| Australia. While one would think they were acquired for the
| similarities between Wave and Etherpad, they were instead
| tasked with "fixing" the javascript server-side performance
| situation. This made sense to management as appjet had been
| pioneering the concept since before Node was a thing.
|
| In the end this wasn't a great outcome for the acquired
| team, but is typical of the aqui-hiring Google does.
|
| Doc and sheets later added comments and realtime
| collaborative editing, but it was all reimplemented and
| never directly lifted from Wave's implementation.
| mixedmath wrote:
| I was one of the (evidently very few) users of Wave. While it had
| many features, the one I remember now very fondly was proper
| message threading. It wasn't until years later that I used my
| first email program (mutt, of all things) with simple, correct
| threading.
|
| I'm still somewhat annoyed that major email providers don't
| support proper threading. I wonder why. Is it because email is
| supposed to be "easy" and threads are cognitively "hard"?
| ed wrote:
| Define proper threading?
| Jtsummers wrote:
| It wasn't flattened like in many consumer and business
| targeted email readers these days. Which was a sharp contrast
| with Google's other main communication product, Gmail, which
| flattened threads into conversations.
| animal_spirits wrote:
| Microsoft can't make a quality clone of slack so I can't believe
| this will be a quality clone of Notion
| vineyardmike wrote:
| Hopefully it doesnt slow down as much though
| paxys wrote:
| While Google Wave obviously wasn't able to catch on from a
| product perspective, its tech DNA is in every real-time
| collaborative work/productivity app released in the last decade -
| Google Docs, Quip, OneNote, Slack, Figma, Notion. Loop is just
| next in line, and from what I can see doesn't bring anything
| crazy new to the table.
| adamnemecek wrote:
| Etherpad predates google wave by like a year. I'm sure there
| were others.
| agumonkey wrote:
| There will be something massive one day, because fun and
| productive human collaboration, so far, is a massive source of
| friction and waste. A lot of offices spend tons of times
| synchronizing, organizing shared work.. even if it's all for a
| one page document. One day this will be as fun as launching a
| Tetris game.
| [deleted]
| helixc wrote:
| Has anyone tried to develop anything with MSFT's Fluid Framework
| [1], which is used to build Loop? I have not got a chance to
| check details. But it seems quite nice. Any general remarks are
| welcome.
|
| Particularly, I'm interested in understanding customizability of
| Fluid components, integration with React, and any concerns about
| Azure service lock-in.
|
| [1] "The Fluid Framework is a library for building distributed,
| real-time collaborative web applications using JavaScript or
| TypeScript." https://github.com/microsoft/FluidFramework
| arendtio wrote:
| I just took a look at the FAQ:
|
| https://fluidframework.com/docs/faq/#can-the-fluid-framework...
|
| I think you have to consider your use case. If you want to
| build pure online collaboration tool it is fine. But if you
| want to build something that supports offline collaboration it
| seems not to be ready yet:
|
| > Clients do have to be connected to the Fluid service. Fluid
| can tolerate brief network outages and continue operating but
| eventually the promise of being able to merge local changes
| weakens. We are investigating ways to improve this using other
| merging techniques designed to reason over large deltas but no
| final solution is in place today.
|
| However, what I do like about their approach that they support
| multiple modern front-end frameworks from React to Vue to Web
| Components.
| btown wrote:
| I haven't used it, only read through documentation, but IMO
| Fluid's problem is not so much lock-in as an embrace of old-
| school columnar storage and handle-based object manipulation.
| An experienced Windows developer or game dev might feel
| entirely at home with the tradeoffs/footguns implied by
| https://fluidframework.com/docs/build/dds/#picking-the-right...
| ... but show that to a junior React developer and they're
| likely to be fundamentally confused, or worse assume that the
| only code example shown is a valid code example. (People
| writing documentation: _please do not make one of the most
| prominent code examples in your Getting Started an example of
| what not to do!_ ). And on the handle front,
| https://fluidframework.com/docs/build/data-modeling/#using-h...
| is similarly counterintuitive, to say the least.
|
| Comparatively, I'm much more excited about Automerge
| https://github.com/automerge/automerge, which promises much
| friendlier developer ergonomics as simple as:
| doc1 = Automerge.change(doc1, 'Mark card as done', doc => {
| doc.cards[0].done = true })
|
| Contributor Martin Kleppman (of Designing Data-Intensive
| Applications fame) has great overview slides here:
| https://martin.kleppmann.com/2021/06/04/craft-conf.html . If
| anything, Automerge suffers from a "there's multiple ways to
| have a server backend, including P2P and centralized, and no
| one right way" anti-lockin problem, which is refreshing and
| also frustrating for people who just want to try something out.
| This is a solvable problem though!
| bragh wrote:
| Usually projects like this are meant to be used together with
| Office 365 or for extending Microsoft ecosystem.
|
| Straight from the README, but maybe there are other
| limitations:
|
| "This project may contain Microsoft trademarks or logos for
| Microsoft projects, products, or services. Use of these
| trademarks or logos must follow Microsoft's Trademark & Brand
| Guidelines. Use of Microsoft trademarks or logos in modified
| versions of this project must not cause confusion or imply
| Microsoft sponsorship."
| crandycodes wrote:
| (Disclosure: Work at Microsoft, but I work in Azure and some
| open source stuff, not on or directly with Fluid/Office/etc.)
|
| That's just a trademark clause for Microsoft logos and
| brands. The Fluid Framework itself is MIT licensed [0] and
| doesn't require exposing any of those logos/brands when you
| use it, so the framework itself is fairly open for usage.
|
| I think the main thing that would slow down adoption for
| Fluid is that the only "production" backend is an Azure
| service, which isn't part of the open source Fluid Framework.
| Other open source backends[1] aren't recommended for
| productions. Until there are some open source ones, I'd
| assume adoption will be limited to folks in the Azure
| ecosystem.
|
| [0]: https://github.com/microsoft/FluidFramework/blob/main/LI
| CENS...
|
| [1]: https://fluidframework.com/docs/deployment/service-
| options/
| vanattab wrote:
| I don't get your point? Doesn't that just mean if you fork
| the project you can't imply that it is sponsored by
| Microsoft? I have seen similar clauses in most open-source
| projects. This seems even more generous in that they don't
| demand you remove all the trademarks and logos just that you
| can't use the logo in a way that implies endorsement.
| bragh wrote:
| I am not saying whether you should or should not use this
| product. My point is that before using such products, you
| need to read really carefully where and how you can use it
| this product because of the included resources or intended
| purpose for using this. It is not sufficient to only read
| the README file and decide based on that.
|
| The key part here is the second sentence "Use of these
| trademarks or logos must follow Microsoft's Trademark &
| Brand Guidelines.". But there can be other such limitations
| also, just hidden somewhere else.
| tims33 wrote:
| Collaboration technology startups are a ton of fun, but the
| problem is that eventually Microsoft always shows up to rain on
| your parade.
|
| Notion, Airtable, and Coda always knew they'd have to deal with
| this at some point.
| kentf wrote:
| So... Notion?
| kentf wrote:
| For the record, Notion lives up to the hype.
| friedman23 wrote:
| Where can i try this?
| hiidrew wrote:
| This looks promising compared with collaborating in word
| tata71 wrote:
| On what, if you don't mind the question?
| screye wrote:
| It is a HUGE improvement.
|
| I used the publicly available fluid preview for a while and it
| is miles better using word for any kind of collaboration. I
| have since gone back to using Word for collaboration and I
| despise it. I feel like pulling hairs off my scalp.
|
| I would say it is a competent new tool that gives you
| everything that notion did, while leveraging the kind of
| integration microsoft already goes well. The improvement is
| particularly noticeable not just because the product is good,
| but because what it replaces (word online) was so incredibly
| bad.
|
| Disclosure - I would put a disclosure about my employer here,
| but don't want to be seen publicly bad mouthing another
| actively maintained product by my company.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Serious question, has anyone ever used a collab product in the
| way described (3 cursors and several people typing)?
| judge2020 wrote:
| Often in Google Docs and Notion, however usually it's in
| separate sections of a document. I've never seen three people
| writing different points on the same bullet list - sounds like
| it would result in an inconsistent writing style or conflicting
| information.
| flakiness wrote:
| We use it for meeting agenda / notes.
|
| The note taker takes the note, while other people queue up the
| topics to talk about next.
|
| I'm not suggesting this is the best way to take the meeting
| note and I'm happy to hear about the alternatives, but it is
| reasonably usable.
|
| It doesn't look gorgeous either. People wouldn't like to
| distract the meeting through the doc, which is projected to the
| large screen in front of everyone.
| barnabee wrote:
| We use Miro realtime with live cursors etc. in online
| workshops. It's ok.
| e12e wrote:
| We have a brief weekly status meeting where we have a word
| document that's used as a reference - where one person owns
| each section. Rather than share screen, everyone just opens
| that file, and see the live changes.
|
| It works OK.
| sharkjacobs wrote:
| I did that kind of thing often enough when i was in school,
| usually while in a room together with the other people editing
| the document.
| indiantinker wrote:
| I think I experienced it with Google Docs once. So much context
| switching happens until you cannot switch contexts anymore.
| Then you are just numb.
| threatofrain wrote:
| Only for vacation planning where people are researching and
| inputting suggestions on a spreadsheet, or where people are
| brainstorming on a docs sheet.
| topkai22 wrote:
| No, but as others have said I've seen it with multiple people
| in different parts of the same document. Demoing 3 cursors on
| screen at the same time expresses the capability of the product
| in a couple seconds, explaining how you should actual use it
| would have taken longer and killed flow.
| elwell wrote:
| NCIS has been doing this for years:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8qgehH3kEQ
| binbag wrote:
| Yes, in my company some of the fastest proposal writing has
| been done during lockdown as 3-4 people co-author the same
| document online via Word. It works very well.
| com2kid wrote:
| > Microsoft is bringing back Google Wave, the doomed real-time
| messaging and collaboration platform Google launched in 2009 and
| prematurely shuttered in 2010.
|
| IIRC wasn't it only "doomed" because it was such a resource hog
| people could barely use it? From what I remember the people who
| could get it working loved it.
|
| > Loop components, "atomic units of productivity"
|
| OLE! But for the web! Seriously anyone else remember when OLE was
| a thing and you could drop a print shop pro banner in Word, click
| it, and print shop pro toolbars would appear? (I think it was
| print shop pro, if not some similar bit of software, its been 25
| years so my memory isn't perfect on this exact point!)
|
| > Google Wave was clearly ahead of its time.
|
| So were the million other attempts to do this over the years, but
| hopefully the experience will get incrementally better with each
| go at it our industry tries.
|
| This is how progress happens, one step at a time. Learn from the
| past and make brand new mistakes that the next team gets to learn
| from.
| jsilence wrote:
| Yes, I do remember OLE. My colleague and I were looking forward
| to CORBA which was promising to do similar things in a
| standardized way cross platform AFAIR. Did not gain traction.
| spicybright wrote:
| It was also doomed because of Google's terrible invite system.
|
| The few of my friends that got in early couldn't do anything
| because there were so few others, and everyone else just forgot
| about it months later after the hype died down.
|
| No idea why they keep doing this.
| com2kid wrote:
| It worked for Gmail, but Gmail was so far ahead of everything
| else at the time that people _really_ wanted in.
|
| Limited invites can create buzz, Facebook did it well by
| inviting entire universities at once, that got around the
| problem of "no one else you know is on it."
|
| Inviting purely random people to a collaborative system? Eh,
| not such a good idea!
| aseerdbnarng wrote:
| This seems like a carbon copy of Notion which seems to have a lot
| of users so may be a better comparison
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-02 23:02 UTC)