WolframAlpha and destructive hype

If you have been plugged into the search engine or technology news feeds over recent months you may have encountered the excitement surrounding WolframAlpha. WolframAlpha is a Web search tool to be launched in May which – apart from having a good name – is anticipated to be the next Google exterminator. Although being touted as a destroyer of Google, the technology commentators indicate that WolframAlpha will inhabit an entirely different intellectual space on the Web.

WolframAlpha is described by its creators as a "computational knowledge engine" which, instead of retrieving resources using conventional automatic indexing methods, dynamically computes the answers to a wide variety of questions. The way in which it does this remains a mystery, but we do know that it models particular areas of knowledge. It then combines this with a vast repository of curated data harvested from disparate data sources and some ingenious natural language processing algorithms to represent knowledge. These knowledge representations can then be queried to answer real questions. Stills sounds like an enigma; but it must work on some level given the hype around it. Mustn't it?!

The brainchild of Dr. Stephen Wolfram (purveyor of computer algebra), WolframAlpha has had information and computer scientists and technology commentators salivating for months. The trouble is that while the incessant hype continues, an increasing number of people (me, but some commentators) are growing increasingly cynical of its true capabilities; we want to see a demo, or some kind of prototype. Mindful that cynicism could be spreading, Wolfram unveiled his creation yesterday for the first time at the Harvard University Berkman Center for Internet & Society (via a sold-out Web cast - clip from YouTube below). This demonstration appears to have further stimulated the hype (judging by some headlines), but has simultaneously added to the increasing cynicism. Hype and 'vapourware' exasperates people. And this is where the hype could actually be death of WolframAlpha, rather than Google.

In reality, it certainly sounds like WolframAlpha is not out to compete with Google; but it doesn't matter, this is how it is being described in the media and WolframAlpha hasn't tried to dispel the myth. In his blog, Wolfram describes WolframAlpha as "a new paradigm for using computing and the Web". It immediately provides people with a Google yardstick and false expectations; most new users will not understand that WolframAlpha is an entirely different beast. But more importantly, it's setting WolframAlpha up for an almighty fall.

Remember Cuil? People also thought Cuil was going to change the face of searching but it failed. It was hotly anticipated and was hyped, arguably more, than WolframAlpha. This hype did it no favours when it crashed on its launch day. It's only been 9 months since Cuil was officially launched, yet we never hear about it, nor do any of us use it. In part, this is because its indexes are so poor. My LJMU profile page was updated on 08 November 2008, almost 6 months ago; yet, Cuil still returns this page as it was on 07 November 2008 as a result. This is extremely feeble when you consider that Microsoft Live Search refreshes its indexes every 20 days.

Along with the hype, this was Cuil's 'blind spot'. A blind spot is normally tolerated in the early days of an innovative Web tool, but inflated expectations breeds intolerance. WolframAlpha is bound to have its own blind spot; what will it be and will users be tolerant until it's fixed? Probably not. They therefore have to get it right on launch day.

The moral of this tale is simple. Hyperbole must end. It's destructive and in the long run it does nobody any favours.

Web 2.0? Show me the money!

Just a quick post... Today the Guardian blog reports on the financial woes of YouTube. I don't suppose we should be particularly surprised to learn that according to some news sources YouTube is due to drop $470 million this year. When this figure is compared to the $1.65 billion pricetag Google paid a couple of years ago we can appreciate the magnitude of their YouTube predicament. The majority of this loss is attributable to the failure of advertising to bring home the bacon; a recurring issue on this blog. But huge running costs, copyright and royalty issues have played their part too. Google is reportedly interested in purchasing Twitter, but surely their failure to monetise YouTube - a service arguably more monetiseable (?) than Twitter - should have the alarm bells ringing at Google HQ?

I find the current crossroads for many of these services utterly fascinating. I don't have any solutions for any of these ventures, other than to make sure you have a business model before starting any business. Would RBS give me a business loan without a business plan and a robust revenue model? Probably not. But then they are not giving loans out these days anyway...