Now that Google has opened the Wave to 100,000 interested people, I have seen a lot more reviews of the nascent project on blogs and Twitter.  Some people like it, others shrug their shoulders. This got me thinking:

Should we evaluate new technology based on what it is - or what it could be?

What it is Today

Google Wave, today, is a very impressive party trick - but not a whole lot of there, there.  Yes, it can support 100,000 users, it makes a browser look like a full-blown desktop application, it helps you create both real-time and persistent communications at the same time and it can be federated all over the the world without any single company controlling the platform (just like email).  But there’s not much else…..  Of course, if you ask me, that’s pretty impressive in its own right, but it is true that - today - there is not much else.

In addition, the interface also has some quirks - impressive as it is.  Not everything makes sense in the Wave world and Google hasn’t deployed a solution to handle removing users from a wave or how to turn off the real-time typing.

What it Could Do

Wave is not just a sophisticated IM client, however.  Here are a list of distinguishing features that exist in the platform:

• You can link between waves, making it possible to share knowledge in a very web-like way
• Wave enables you to to publish individual waves to external web pages, making the Wave embeddable - a powerful force in the popularity of online video
• Developers can extend the Wave through automation via automated participants (called Robots) and by expanding the graphical interface/feature-set (called Gadgets)

Google Wave also hold the promise of being able to integrate with third party platforms, such as document management systems and CRMs.  Just look at what NetDocuments has done.

Is Wave Underwhelming?

If you look only at what Wave is today, then I suppose it is a bit underwhelming from an end-user perspective.  But if you look at what it can (and most likely will) become, it could could change the way we communicate on the web.

As reviewers, do we have a responsibility to only convey what we see today, or should we use our imaginations and give people perspective of what a new technology may become?