I was a bit surprised to read all the hype (or anti-hype, if there is such a thing) on cuil – the new search engine that debuted just a few days ago. I read an article in the paper this morning on it, pronouncing it to be failure. Then this in Time, also declaring it not to live up to Google:
“Anybody who thought [Cuil] was this Google killer can really see now that no, that’s not going to happen today — and the likelihood is that’s not going to happen a year from now,” says Danny Sullivan, internet search guru and editor-in-chief of SearchEngineLand.
Yes, I do understand that things happen faster on all things internet, but c’mon, pronouncing them DOA in less than a week after their launch? Seriously?
Let’s do a bit of a reality check. Sure, the folks behind cuil have some great credentials – previously engineers at Google, developers of AltaVista, etc. etc. But you’re comparing a startup with a few million in VC money with the 800 lb gorilla of the internet. An 800 lb gorilla that has been around for many, many years. And which has been able to grow its revenue into the billions. And which has been able to invest huge chunks of that revenue into its technology and infrastructure.
So when people say cuil, less than a week out of the gate is no Google killer, it seems to be that the appropriate response is “Duh. Of course not.” Where was Google a week after it launched?
Anyway, perhaps it’s more of a knee-jerk reaction to what people have described as the “hype” surrounding the startup – that commentators want to be seen as not buying into it. But making such broad pronouncements so early? A little premature if you ask me.
If it were just people declaring they were no google killer that’d be one thing.
But we’re (media, bloggers, people in general) not the ones who initially made the comparisons to Google – it was the founders who were at the head of the pack declaring it a “Google killer” to anyone who would listen.
They set the bar so high for themselves they couldn’t possibly ever hit it.
They’ve clearly never heard of the term “soft launch” – and for that I think they’ve created a DOA service. Regardless of how good they can make it eventually they’ve pretty much burned their early adopter market with a half-baked product.
Interesting. I had no idea. I wasn’t able to find anything from them that indicated either the company or the founders were making such declarations. All the press I saw that made such comparisons seemed to originate from bloggers or reporters (Fortune, CNN, Searchengineland, etc.), with no references to the company or its founders making such statements.
But alas, silly lawyer that I am, I certainly don’t pretend to understand the mysteries of the PR world. If what you say is correct, that would indeed be foolish, though I would have thought that in that case, they would have received an even more severe beating/mocking in the press – you know, a la Aleksey Vayner.
Cuil has failed for several reasons:
1. The navigation bar wasn’t working when I used it on Monday.
2. The SERPs for certain key words and phrases were outdated.
3. Some of the photos were clearly mismatched.
As Ryan mentioned, the company eschewed the soft launch, deciding to hit the ground running from the gate. They stumbled, thus the criticism.
Matt – I don’t disagree that cuil wasn’t all that and a bag of chips – I wasn’t particularly impressed when I tried it. And I certainly don’t think its unreasonable to criticize. My only point was that the criticism seemed to be a bit disproportionate – kind of like saying that a new startup software company’s first product doesn’t measure up to, say, Windows Vista. OK maybe that’s not the best example. What I meant was that I would have thought it would be fair to look at cuil from the perspective of being a new startup with one, relatively small round of VC money under their belt, rather than comparing them to the 800 lb gorilla of search.
Sure, at the end of the day they will need to have Google in their sights. But to say that they’re DOA because they don’t measure up today I think is a bit too critical.
Thanks for your comment.