Skip to main content compared to Google Wave , how are they different?

In a post from several months back I mentioned the Google "Wave" server technology that had been announced by many of the IT media shops. Google provided many tech. videos on the service on youtube and after watching a few of them I got the gist of the service as being basically an open source collaboration server for a more real time collaboration experience between users on the server. Shortly afterward I was asked by Juliette Powell what the main differences were between the service and google wave were. I explained some of the architectural differences based on what I knew of them at the time in this post which had some great input in the comments for that post but on the business end, collaboration provides a solution for small businesses that makes it more efficient than going with any server based system for several important reasons as indicated in the list below:

  1. No need to host the collaboration server and services yourself. This is a huge win for small to medium sized businesses that are not capable or interested in hosting their own collaboration solutions on site. The additional management headache exceeds the monthly cost of just licensing the service from these businesses will not see any advantage to going with google wave as they would have to host the server on site to keep their business processes and content secure from prying eyes, making a subscription service ideal for their particular needs.
  2. No need to hire a manager for the server. Google Wave servers have to be managed, though Google touts the ease of use of management the fact that they need to be managed means that some one has to be paid to do it or delegated to do it for any stand alone servers. The service enables easy delegation of functions most critical to the business to enable collaboration, creating users, creating categories and workflows can be delegated to users very easily, the core complexities of the service are managed by Apriority LLC and thus there is no need for the business to hire experts to mediate these aspects of the server they can simply delegate them up to Apriority LLC.
  3. No need to pay for the costs associated with maintaining or upgrading the server. Any hosting of a server will require costs of a machine to host the service, possible need to ensure redundancy should that machine go down, need to license operating systems to run the server (s) and then hire individuals to manage the service. All these actions can incur costs that many small to medium sized businesses are not interested in dealing with, subscriptions eliminate these hassles by hiding the service away in a secure data center, where service is distributed across a cluster of AgilEntity servers and management is distributed between the physical machines of the hosting provider and the management team of Apriority LLC reducing the over all costs for the subscription service.

So in addition to the architectural changes mentioned in the previous post, these front end considerations highlight the advantage of having a subscription collaboration server service with branding and security have over installing your own Google Wave server and dealing with the required managements hassles that might entail particularly when you are a small to medium sized business trying to run the business as efficiently as possible in tough economic times. I am excited about Google Wave's attempt to address the need for a collaboration server and service that I saw several years ago, it makes me confident that my solution is primed to allow businesses and individuals to conduct their business or social collaboration activities in the hyper efficient ways that will be a hallmark of the years to come.


Popular posts from this blog

Highly targeted Cpg vaccine immunotherapy for a range of cancer


This will surely go down as a seminal advance in cancer therapy. It reads like magic:

So this new approach looks for the specific proteins that are associated with a given tumors resistance to attack by the body's T cells, it then adjusts those T cells to be hyper sensitive to the specific oncogenic proteins targeted. These cells become essentially The Terminator​ T cells in the specific tumor AND have the multiplied effect of traveling along the immune pathway of spreading that the cancer many have metastasized. This is huge squared because it means you can essentially use targeting one tumor to identify and eliminate distal tumors that you many not even realize exist.

This allows the therapy for treating cancer to, for the first time; end the "wack a mole" problem that has frustrated traditional shot gun methods of treatment involving radiation and chemotherapy ...which by their nature unfortunately damage parts of the body that are not cancer laden but …

Engineers versus Programmers

I have found as more non formally trained people enter the coding space, the quality of code that results varies in an interesting way.

The formalities of learning to code in a structured course at University involve often strong focus on "correctness" and efficiency in the form of big O representations for the algorithms created.

Much less focus tends to be placed on what I'll call practical programming, which is the type of code that engineers (note I didn't use "programmers" on purpose) must learn to write.

Programmers are what Universities create, students that can take a defined development environment and within in write an algorithm for computing some sequence or traversing a tree or encoding and decoding a string. Efficiency and invariant rules are guiding development missions. Execution time for creating the solution is often a week or more depending on the professor and their style of teaching code and giving out problems. This type of coding is devo…

AgilEntity Architecture: Action Oriented Workflow

Permissions, fine grained versus management headache
The usual method for determining which users can perform a given function on a given object in a managed system, employs providing those Users with specific access rights via the use of permissions. Often these permissions are also able to be granted to collections called Groups, to which Users are added. The combination of Permissions and Groups provides the ability to provide as atomic a dissemination of rights across the User space as possible. However, this granularity comes at the price of reduced efficiency for managing the created permissions and more importantly the Groups that collect Users designated to perform sets of actions. Essentially the Groups serve as access control lists in many systems, which for the variable and often changing environment of business applications means a need to constantly update the ACL’s (groups) in order to add or remove individuals based on their ability to perform certain actions. Also, the…