Cuil's sin was failing at a solved problem, and most plainly, trying to be a "Google killer" (I believe they lectured Google on the size of their search database before they even launched).
NLP answer engines aren't a solved problem, and WA was a pretty decent 1.0. Sure it failed techcrunch's vanity test, but for what Wolfram promised in those videos, it performs.
I think what you're saying is true, but it's orthogonal to my point. Both of them generated more hype than they delivered on in their launches and people were underwhelmed. That WA has more promise is a separate matter.
It is interesting to parallel Wolfram with Thinking Machines founders.
It is a rather little known fact that, trained through TM catastrophe, its founders went on to form a stealth company, called Ab Initio, which is wildly successful despite having no marketing. Indeed they're actively avoiding it through NDA contracts to the point that general public doesn't exactly know what exactly their products do.
I am not ridiculing Wolfram, just wanted to point that above is as an interesting anecdote.
Cuil's sin was failing at a solved problem, and most plainly, trying to be a "Google killer" (I believe they lectured Google on the size of their search database before they even launched).
NLP answer engines aren't a solved problem, and WA was a pretty decent 1.0. Sure it failed techcrunch's vanity test, but for what Wolfram promised in those videos, it performs.