Article 1
"Google proves mobile web can be SPDY"
May 2, 2012
http://www.zdnet.com.au/google-proves-mobile-web-can-be-spdy-339337050.htm
Article 2
"Google badmouths HTTP behind its back, proposes SPDY as a speedy successor"
May 2, 2012
http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/02/google-proposes-spdy-replacement/
Article 3
"Google SPDY Accelerates Mobile Web"
May 2, 2012
http://www.informationweek.com/news/development/mobility/232901348
Notes
- The engadget article is the odd one out as it doesn't mention that SPDY is meant to be used on mobile networks. It is also the only one of the three that has the actual graph showing HTTP vs. SPDY performance.
- The ZDNet article is the only one that details exactly how SPDY works and how the tests were carried out to verify the claims of speed that were touted by Google.
- InformationWeek's article detailed a less-detailed heavy version of how SPDY works, but focused more on the history of the need for SPDY. InformationWeek also has a huge ad taking up most of the right hand side real estate and draws a lot of attention to it, even more so than the article.
- The engadget article is the only one that has comments on the article, and a lot to that. One of the comments I found very interesting "Why are there no labels on the X-axis of this graph?!?" That brings up issues of information possibly being concealed.
- The ZDNet and engadget article both use most of the space around the article to highlight other articles, while the InformationWeek article uses that area to host advertisements.