There's lots of buzz about Google Desktop Search, and why not? Windows should have had a better metadata-based file search 5 years ago. Google is filling a niche *right now* but they'll be pushed out by Longhorn's integrated search if it's at least 75% as good, just like Internet Explorer did to Netscape.

Every time a searching tool makes big news, like this from Google or Apple's announcement that searching will be a big part of the next OS X (10.4, Tiger), I think about how it affects the core ideas of the AudioMan projects.

The bottom line is that searching depends on information. If the information cannot be read, then it cannot be searched. File formats have to be not only understood by the searching tool, but the information must also be filled out so that it can be searched.

This is why I wanted to shift AudioMan's focus away from being a collection browser to a collection organizer, where incomplete metadata stands out and can be filled in by a user, or queried from an Internet database. Not all of this can or should be automated, but the tool just needs to concentrate on making it as easy as possible. File browsers don't show incomplete data because it gets in the way of regular every day use. This tool wouldn't be an every day tool, so it's free of those constraints.

AudioMan also needs to bring incomplete data to the forefront, rather than hide it. Windows Explorer, WinAmp, iTunes and even Spotlight and Google Desktop search already don't care if you have incomplete metadata. Some people will need a tool that does.

More: also interesting is the fact that Desktop Search seems to be supporting file formats, which to me says plug-in style architecture. Though the search results pages seem to be customized for each type of file they support.

Maybe Google will open up the API so that third parties can write support for the multitude of file formats out there. An obvious issue is quality; you don't want some third party app messing up file formats it doesn't understand. Maybe some companies can digitally sign their metadata plugins for their own formats.

Even more: Already people are complaining that Desktop Search doesn't support the file formats they use, even in the midst of their own enthusiasm. But that's not the point. The point is that Google shipped something, Microsoft and Apple have not, and it's only the beginning.

If Google manages this one right (ie. supports a community effort since support for all file formats is beyond their means), they could start a landslide of supported file formats with very little work required by Google. Yes, I realise that Dave is maybe just trying to spur this on by criticising. I admit that sometimes that strategy works pretty well.

One thing that Google has to be careful of is standards. If they make a metadata description API to read data from files, it could become the de facto because they were first and companies aren't going to want to specify their file format more than once. Good thing Google has a history of treading lightly. They just have to keep up the mantra "Don't be evil".