Catching up on some RSS feeds (it’s been a busy week!), I came across this Tech Crunch attack on the ‘Team Cyprus Video’ – and I’m so annoyed.

If you haven’t seen it yet, the video (below) was created in Cyprus by some techies on vacation.  Those involved work for some of the biggest names in the industry – Google, Facebook, Blip.tv, etc – and that’s the problem that Techcrunch has with it,

“The video was released just as Silicon Valley really began falling apart and the UnParty began in earnest – eBay’s 10% layoffs, Google’s stock nosedive, Yahoo’s self destruction, VC’s bunkering down, etc. And more than a few people thought the ostentatious partying was a little, ahem, tasteless in light of the meltdown back home.”

Ok, so here’s the video:

I’m not quite sure why Michael Arrington thinks it’s so ‘tasteless’ (he may have said, “more than a few people thought it was tasteless”, but let’s be honest, he’s projecting his own feeling here) – All I’m seeing is a bunch of young people having a good time on vacation. In fact I wish I had been there myself. They’re not bathing in champagne or lighting cigars with $100 bills. Just singing, drinking beer and having fun.

Sure the markets are in meltdown, but are we all supposed to be donning the hairshirts and sitting around watching the talking heads on CNBC tell us how the world is going to end any minute? I’ve already posted this week about optimism, but I think this article goes even beyond that. This isn’t simply being pessimistic, it’s an attack on fun, and includes this ridiculous hyperbole:

“fair or not the video video will always be associated with the end of Web 2.0″

What does that even mean?! If Web 2.0 means the social web, how does a funny Youtube video which has spread virally through blogs prove the end of that?

I’m not sticking my head in the sand over the current financial crisis – I got my daughter’s Future Scholar statement this morning, I know how things are – but can’t we allow a little room for having a good time?

I think if you have to say something about this video, it should be to praise the production values – I mean, really, it’s a single cam tracking shot right up there with the club scene in Goodfellas, the pool party in Boogie Nights or this from Soy Cuba:

Who’d have thought that, from a bunch of tech geeks?

OK, this maybe something of a cheat, but I have a good excuse. I had fully intended to download Google’s new browser Chrome yesterday, test it out and write up my thoughts, but with that hurricane looking like it was heading directly for my house, I had more pressing matters.

Now Chrome has been available for almost a complete day, the Twitterverse, the Blogosphere and maybe even some people in the real world, have had a chance to chime in with their thoughts. Which leaves me wondering what I can really add to the conversation with just a brief test time.

So, not wishing to seem redundant, I thought a round-up of reactions might actually prove more useful.

History

Wired pretty much has the definitive article about how Chrome came in to being, Inside Chrome: The Secret Project to Crush IE and Remake the Web. Highly-respected tech journalist Steven Levy gives a birds-eye view of the whole project, from its beginning to the actual release. Includes some interesting stuff – would you believe that Google actually, um, ‘fibbed’ about building their own browser?

“After a 2004 New York Times article quoted “a person who has detailed knowledge of the company’s business” saying a browser was in the works, Schmidt had to publicly deny it.”

Hmm…

How it is Different

The most current versions of browsers have been improvements upon older versions, but those older versions were for the original www – not today’s web of applications, JavaScript and ‘constant connectedness’. Google wanted to rip it up and start again:

“All of us at Google spend much of our time working inside a browser. We search, chat, email and collaborate in a browser. And in our spare time, we shop, bank, read news and keep in touch with friends — all using a browser. Because we spend so much time online, we began seriously thinking about what kind of browser could exist if we started from scratch and built on the best elements out there”

I Feel the Need – the Need for Speed!

You bank online. You check your email on line. You work, live and play online. So speed is a bigger and bigger issue. Chrome is certainly a step up, at least according to Jof Arnold:

Many others are saying the same thing. Techcrunch found that,

“After just ten minutes of jumping from site to site, I was amazed by how quickly I was able to get around. And unlike some browsers (I won’t mention any names), opening a slew of tabs doesn’t matter — it’s just as fast with or without tabs.”

Hicks Design call it “fast and nimble. In a Camino way”, Eamon Costello says it’s “seriously fast” and, at the time of writing, there are about 5 tweets a minute with the search string, “Chrome is fast”!

So, let’s assume it’s new and it’s fast – what does this mean?

It’s Google vs Microsoft

Chrome is obviously another shot at Microsoft. Which is why Google waited until they were dominant enough to really challenge in the browser wars. Clinton Skakun is rooting for an IE-Killer:

“Hopefully this browser reaches the eyes of enough IE6 and 7 users. If it kills IE it was all worth it!:D When it’s all said and done, we might just have a Internet Explorer Killer on our hands:) If it doesn’t kill IE, maybe it will cause a slight shrink their user base.”

But Hank Williams isn’t so upbeat:

“Microsoft has been fighting the browser wars with spitballs and plastic knives and they are still beating Firefox handily. So Chrome, from a business perspective, for the foreseeable future, is totally irrelevant.”

Some, however, think that the real challenge is not to Internet Explorer, but to Microsoft Office. Google has been rolling out it’s own Ajax applications, Google Docs, Spreadsheets, etc – a browser which can handle Javascript better, making these faster and more stable, will take yet more users away from desktop applications.  Preston Galla’s take is that,

“Google’s Chrome browser…takes dead aim at Windows 7 and Microsoft Office, and attempts to make both irrelevant. Google’s long-term goal is clear: Dominate the enterprise and small business market in the same way it now dominates Internet search.”

Actually, it’s Google vs Mozilla

There is already one great open source browser available, and it claims around 20% of the market share. Mozilla has also just renewed its deal with Google – so why would Google want another competitor in the mix?  Joe Wilcox has a suggestion:

“Google wants to keep that money it gives Mozilla and other browser developers…Chrome will compete with Firefox and other Google search-supported browsers. Oh, yeah, if that’s you, Google is doing evil. If you’re Mozilla and dependent on Google paid search revenue, your browser’s future is perilous. How ironic if Google does to Firefox what Microsoft couldn’t: Kill the browser.”

What Do I Think?

I’ve been playing around with it for the last day or so (I’m writing this post using Chrome right now), and it’s, sort of, well, underwhelming. Considering it has 3% of the market share in under 24 hours I expected something more. Although I’m not sure what.

Maybe I need to get used to it a little more. It took me a while to feel fully comfortable with GMail when I first began using that, and now it’s all I use. It’s certainly fast, no doubt, and it has the Google-feel to it that Docs and so on have too, but switching browsers is a pain, and I’d need a strong incentive to do that. I don’t currently think Chrome is it.

I also have a few concerns about monopoly and privacy. Do we really want Google to dominate in another field like it does in search? They have made the software Open Source, so perhaps developers can port some of the better parts over to the Mozilla project, which would be good for everyone. Right now, however, I’m not going to be switching from Firefox.

Have you tried it out yet? What do you think?

***Update***

Looks like I was right to have some fears about privacy – Jacob Morgan has the goods…

I know that we’re all supposed to be more attuned to avoiding hype these days, but I think the folks at Facebook are setting the bar a little too high…

Why Cuil is not a Google-killer.

It’s fair to say that most search engine news is outside of the mainstream. CNN doesn’t usually cover every algorithm update. So when we have 3 clients contact us within hours of a new search engine launch, we can be pretty sure that it must be generating some buzz.

That is certainly the case with Cuil.

It’s founded by a “trio of former Googlers”. The search index is more than 120 billion pages, “three times the size of Google’s index”. It promises to be “more comprehensive and more relevant (than Google)”. And so on, and so on.

It seems that everyone is so invested in finding a challenger to the virtual monopoly that Google has on search that they aren’t looking at the bigger picture. People use Google not because they have to, but because Google works. Google has been the clear leader since it launched, and everyone else is still playing catch-up. If Microsoft and Yahoo, with all their billions of dollars sloshing around can’t compete (and they can’t) then a new upstart like Cuil has no chance, however many column inches of news they grab.

120 billion pages index might make for good attention grabbing copy, but it’s virtually meaningless. People use a search engine to find things, it’s as simple as that. Cuil fails on that very simple measurement. It may have the largest index, but the results are in many cases, useless. Even in the areas where the results are relevant, they are not *more* relevant than Google’s. So why switch?

I tried some side by side comparisons:

I can’t see, as it currently stands, any reason why people would switch from Google to Cuil. Maybe I’ll be proved wrong, and I’ll happily admit it if so, but for right now, Cuil is anything but.

Much as I appreciate Lyn’s excitement for another Google offering, I’m not completely sold on the concept of Knol yet, for a few reasons:

Knol

I know there are issues with Wikipedia and their collaborative approach, but I think that over time it tends to balance out fairly evenly, so that Wikipedia’s error rate is about the same as that of the Encyclopedia Britannica (see here).
I don’t see how Knol improves upon the Wikipedia in that regard, in fact it seems to me that you will end up with hundreds of conflicting articles on subjects each claiming to be the truth.

Secondly, allowing people to run AdSense ads on there will encourage a lot of spamming. The editorial process, and nature of Wikipedia, means that articles tend to be written by people who are simply very interested in a subject, rather than those who are looking to make some easy AdSense money. I predict a wave of ‘informational’ pages from places like India on the usual topics of spammers – casinos, and the like. Early evidence is backing this up – there are currently more results for ‘viagra’ on Knol than for ‘New York city’!
(also check the comments on most articles – a lot of spambot activity! “interesting article! Visit my blog www.something.com”)

Finally, the fact that it is a Google product doesn’t guarantee success. I doubt that they would, but if Google allowed Knol pages to rank higher simply because they are part of Knol, it would clutter the natural search results with junk. Then people will simply turn to Yahoo, MSN, or some new start-up that has better search results (Cuil.com perhaps?). There is nothing intrinsically unique about Google’s search that could prevent it from going the way of HotBot, AltaVista, Excite and many others if they don’t deliver what people are looking for.
And, yes, having the backing of the world’s #1 brand gives Knol a head-start that it wouldn’t otherwise have, but so did (does?) Friendster, and how many people do you know use that?

Maybe I’m completely wrong about this, I’m sure there must be a few people at Google smarter than me who have already thought of these points, but I’m going to reserve judgment before declaring Wikipedia dead and buried.