BoomTown is now right next to a canal–no falling cows in sight!–in Amsterdam, here for an unusual digital conference called PICNIC, which starts Wednesday and runs through Friday.

With sessions like “We Think: The Power of Mass Creativity,” “The Emerging Real-Time Social Web” and “The Future of Business Creation,” it seems to be a place for big, messy Web ideas.

Speakers from the U.S. include former Microsoftie Linda Stone, Amazon CTO Werner Vogels and Internet thinker and author Clay Shirky.

For PICNIC’s conference onstage, I will be interviewing Liberty Global CEO Mike Fries on the future of television, and the CEO of Vodaphone Netherlands, Guy Laurence, on the future of mobile.

But I am a little worried, after seeing this promo video for the conference, that it is a little too brainy for me (Warning to those who don’t like seeing heads exploding in a bloody mess!):

Finally, Google Co-Founder Larry Page takes the microphone and thanks the Chrome browser team and compliments them for their efforts.

This is–as anyone on the receiving end of Page’s sometimes pointed manner knows (and BoomTown has been)–a big deal.

Page also starts to talk about how browser choice and innovation could make the planet a better place.

Of course! World peace through better browsing!

Then he moves on to questions from the media, bringing some of the Chrome team up to the stage.

There’s a sequence of very serious questions on how to move tabs, privacy, mobile issues, WebKit, bug testing, Incognito, distribution plans and ongoing support for Mozilla’s Firefox (yes, it will continue–plus, Mozilla HQ is across the street! Hmmm…).

Ooops–the other Google (GOOG) Co-Founder, Sergey Brin, suddenly arrives late. He slips into the lineup of “Inside the Actors Studio”-type chairs, looking like he just woke up, in what is a classic move by Microsoft’s Bill Gates that I like to call the “bed-head maneuver.” (I like the spanking red Crocs though!)

It’s a sleepy ruse, as it turns out, as Brin deftly deflects a question about whether Chrome is an operating system for the Web, given that Internet navigation software has become so integral to consumer behavior.

As in, a Windows killer!

Nope, says Brin (full video answer to come), totally ignoring my dubious look.

The distribution question is key, of course, since Google will want to get Chrome out there. So what’s the secret sauce? Because it is a “great product,” says Page.

As to why Google was doing this, VP Sundar Pichal said the search giant wanted to “start from scratch” in the browser game. Like baking a really good cake, one would assume.

When no reporter would get up and ask the obvious what-about-tweaking-Microsoft question, I finally did and also asked about the business plan for Chrome–as in, how will it help Google make more money?

Both Brin and Page answer again that it’s all about providing choice and also keeping the Web open, which will spur usage, which will rain more magical moolah down on the Googleplex.

Also (and video to come on this too), Brin later adds, Google never thinks of Microsoft (MSFT).

Well, at least on that issue it seems we’re back to Pinocchio–the long-nosed version–again.

Soon to come: BoomTown’s Chrome Launch video and one of just the sleepy-as-a-fox Brin on Chrome!

Until then, here’s the exclusive review in his Personal Technology column of the new Google Chrome browser by AllThingsD.com’s Walt Mossberg, which was published at the same time as the news of its product launch was announced by the search behemoth this morning.

Walt’s reaction is mixed:

“My verdict: Chrome is a smart, innovative browser that, in many common scenarios, will make using the Web faster, easier and less frustrating. But this first version–which is just a beta, or test, release–is rough around the edges and lacks some common browser features Google plans to add later.”

Anyone can now download Chrome, but Walt has been testing it for a week. He also reviews Microsoft’s newest version of its powerful Internet Explorer, called IE8, which he likes better than Chrome.

Money quote: “The second beta version of IE8 is the best edition of Internet Explorer in years. It is packed with new features of its own, some of which are similar to those in Chrome, and some of which, in my view, top Chrome’s features.”

A little tarnish on the Chrome, it seems.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

(Also, while there is only a 54 percent chance of being lectured to by the Big Brains of Google, there is a 100 percent chance of both free comic books and tasty organic snacks!)

And Chrome, the shiny code name of the project, which has stuck as the brand name, will also be going out to the world at large–100 countries, that is–right after that.

BoomTown is bringing the trusty Flip video camera to make some Silicon Valley memories, and will render a full report about what’s what.

But until then, I have decided to forgo writing the expected long, long, long, long what-the-new-Google-browser-represents-for-geekkind thumbsucker.

Instead, here is my three-part short version about Google’s new piece of open-source software to navigate the Internet, using my favored cultural references:

1.) Google=Red cape and and way too many picador lances. Microsoft=Really angry bull (not at all flower-sniffing Ferdinand-like).

2.) Remember “War Games” and the then-cute Matthew Broderick as teen nerd David Lightman, playing Global Thermonuclear War with the supercomputer called Joshua, and then being told the consequences of that by head government techie John McKittrick (Dabney Coleman)?

If not, here’s some dialog from the movie that is now apt, if you imagine Google (GOOG) as David and Microsoft (MSFT) as Joshua:

McKittrick: See that sign up here–up here. “Defcon.” That indicates our current defense condition. It should read “Defcon 5,” which means peace. It’s still on 4 because of that little stunt you pulled. Actually, if we hadn’t caught it in time, it might have gone to Defcon 1. You know what that means, David?
David Lightman: No. What does that mean?
McKittrick: World War Three.

3.) And, last, if Google’s Chrome browser does not take off on all the hot-air hype, isn’t outstanding as a product and does not make a substantial dent in Microsoft’s overwhelming market share in the browser market, I’d point to one of the best opening lines from “Sunset Boulevard”–the one with Joe Gillis (William Holden) narrating about himself post-mortem as a floating corpse:

“The poor dope–he always wanted a pool. Well, in the end, he got himself a pool.”

Well, Google has got itself an Olympic-sized pool now!

We kid! Google’s in no danger of foundering, given that its search business still dominates, and quite profitably, of course.

But for all the halo of that, Google has never had any other similar true home run with any of the other products it has released so far.

And to portray Chrome as a Windows killer–which some are quite incorrectly doing–is not the kind of image Google should encourage.

Nonetheless, with this move, the search giant has certainly stepped into the spotlight more than it ever has (and this is a company that–let’s be honest–never misses a chance to frolic and show off in that spotlight).

So, with these loftier ambitions, I think it is fair to say that this time Google had better be ready to actually perform better than Michael Phelps.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

As was reported earlier this morning by BoomTown, Google has confirmed on its blog that it will launch its new Chrome browser tomorrow.

Google (GOOG) said it would be launching Chrome in 100 countries, but it will only be in beta in Windows (Google said Mac and Linux versions were coming soon).

The move by the search giant, although the blog does not say so, is clearly a direct shot over the bow of Microsoft (MSFT), which dominates the browser market with 74 percent share.

Here is the blog post in full:

A fresh take on the browser

Posted by Sundar Pichai, VP Product Management, and Linus Upson, Engineering Director

Also, here is the entire comic book Google is using to explain the technical aspects of Chrome, and here is Digital Daily’s John Paczkowski with a CliffNotes version of the comic (believe me, you’ll need it).

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

When I was in Manhattan recently, I made a lovely visit to the world HQ of Andy Plesser’s Beet.TV, where we discussed where online video is going.

As some know, this is a big topic for BoomTown this year because the Web is clearly becoming a video-heavy medium.

And the ever-affable Plesser does a solid job covering it. This past week, for example, he looked into everything from the Web sites of the Presidential candidates to Reuters’s (TRI) video reporting of the escalating fighting in the South Ossetian town of Megvrekisi to a Canadian video-sharing site.

Of course, he does a lot of video about it all.

Here is my video interview with him and below it is a video he did with me in New York about the AllThingsD and D empire, right when I was doing the video of him (logrolling in our time!):

BoomTown was all busy trying to think of execs to replace Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang, as pressure mounts on him to right the troubled Internet company.

But now, Yang’s position feels safer than ever and it’s his nemesis–Microsoft– that needs a new leader for its long-stumbling online services business.

Microsoft (MSFT) was already cracking, according to sources, and had a wish list of internal and external candidates that CEO Steve Ballmer is now considering.

Ballmer noted in his memo to company employees yesterday the departure of Platforms and Services President Kevin Johnson and the reorganization of that massive division, that he would “create a new senior lead position and will conduct a search that will span internal and external candidates.”

Many think, given the turbulence, that Ballmer will pick a trusted internal Microsoft veteran, especially since he probably should move quickly.

Sources said Brian McAndrews (pictured here), who came to Microsoft via the $6 billion aQuantive acquisition last year, is the leading insider for the job.

SVP Satya Nadella, who will run search, MSN and ad platform engineering efforts in a new reorg, is less likely.

But Strategic Partnerships Senior Vice President Yusuf Mehdi, a longtime exec who has previously led online businesses at Microsoft, is also in the mix, the possible dark horse due to his past experience. As strategy “wingman” to Johnson, he might want a more operational job again now that Johnson is gone. Mehdi is also well liked in Silicon Valley and in media circles.

More interesting perhaps is one of the top outside candidates on the list, former AOL head Jon Miller (pictured here), who is poised to be added to the–wait for it–Yahoo (YHOO) board, as part of its recent proxy fight settlement activist investor Carl Icahn.

Miller, who was bounced out of AOL unfairly several years ago, is now running an investment firm with former Fox Interactive Media head Ross Levinsohn.

(And, adding to the hijinks, Levinsohn was on Microsoft’s alternate board in its own abandoned proxy fight against Yahoo.)

Other execs on the list are also more experienced in the Web space, such as former CNET head Shelby Bonnie, who is currently working on a start up called PolticialBase.

Microsoft sources said someone like former Yahoo COO Dan Rosensweig–now in private equity at the Quadrangle Group–is also the type of exec the company is looking for. Of course, he is deeply loyal to Yahoo (and his name has also been bandied about as a possible future Yahoo CEO too).

Of course, the company’s fondest desire is probably to get an even bigger Web or media exec like News Corp.’s (NWS) Peter Chernin or former eBay (EBAY) head Meg Whitman. (News Corp. is the owner of Dow Jones and of this Web site.)

Having been around when Microsoft first dipped its toe in Internet waters back in the mid-1990s, I’m sorry to say that whoever the software giant picks has small shoes to fill.

After years and years of losses, while Google (GOOG) and Yahoo made bank and grabbed share, Microsoft has not.

In its recent quarterly report, for example, while revenues for the online business rose 24 percent to $838 million, losses from Platforms and Services doubled to $488 million.

Ouch! That’s gotta hurt.

Because of the continued inertia, Johnson’s large unit–which includes the powerful Windows division, as well as the online services business–will be reorganized into two parts.

The Windows and Windows Live online service will be one part and other will be made up of online advertising, search and MSN.

That division needs to bulk up the software giant’s efforts in the Web space, especially in the online advertising arena where Google now rules.

In an attempt to make an end run around the search behemoth, Microsoft tried to buy Yahoo, the No. 2 player in the search and search-advertising space, and then tried to grab only its search business–efforts that have so far yielded nothing.

In any case, this reorg of a previous reorg (Ballmer united the Windows and online services business three years ago) is a clear signal of the unrest and even a bit of chaos at Microsoft resulting from the Yahoo battle.

There is definitely a lot of ire aimed directly at Johnson (pictured here) as the key executive in charge of the effort besides Ballmer, because of his failure to make a deal.

Worse, the bid forced Yahoo into the arms of Microsoft archrival Google, via a controversial search-ad outsourcing deal.

Microsoft must obviously do something.

Its market share in the search market, for example, has persistently stayed under 10 percent, despite a range of efforts to differentiate itself.

Re-energizing Microsoft’s Web efforts is most definitely a thankless job.

And whether replacing Johnson and bringing in a new leader who can push the reset button will work this time is unclear, as are many things having to do with Microsoft’s Internet strategy right now.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

Called “The Comeback Id” (oh, how pun-ny!), the article has gotten a lot of attention for pointing out the rampant speculation that Clinton’s well-known penchant for marital infidelity had returned.

And the reason for that disturbing development, besides Clinton himself? The piece actually placed a good bit of the blame on Clinton’s close friend, grocery magnate and billionaire Ron Burkle (pictured here), who also has been one of the key directors at Yahoo (YHOO) in its takeover fight with Microsoft (MSFT).

It’s a wonder Burkle can focus on the turmoil at Yahoo, given how busy he appears to be in the article corrupting Clinton both personally and–worse–professionally, via some questionable investments the pair had made through Burkle’s Yucaipa Companies.

Writer Todd Purdum paints a decidedly unattractive picture of Burkle, noting even the tasteless nickname of Burkle’s plane these days, in a portrayal so rough that Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang’s tough treatment by the press recently looks like a walk in the park.

Well, almost.

In what amounts to a rant by Carl Icahn (pictured here), The Wall Street Journal gives the billionaire investor lots of room to kvetch about what he thinks of Yang, including asserting that he will oust the Yahoo founder if he wins his proxy fight against the company.

“I am amazed at the lengths that Jerry Yang and the board went to entrench themselves in this situation,” said Icahn.

Apparently, Icahn was the only one who didn’t get the memo that Yahoo has been consistently obstreperous about Microsoft’s many overtures, since–well, let’s do the exact calculations–forever. And a day.

Still, Icahn perseveres and hangs this old entrenched management chestnut on a lawsuit that was recently filed by shareholders that points to the massive and costly severance plan Yahoo sneakily put into place as a ploy to fend off Microsoft.

“It’s no longer a mystery to me why Microsoft’s offer isn’t around,” Icahn said. “How can Yahoo keep saying they’re willing to negotiate and sell the company on the one hand, while at the same time they’re completely sabotaging the process without telling anyone.”

How? By Yang opening his mouth, that’s how, and then doing nothing much.

As a student of this lugubrious style of Olympic dithering, I would point Icahn to Yang’s 100-day Sacred Cow VisionQuest, well before this soap opera got started.

You need to catch up pronto, Carl!

And speaking of people irked by Yang of late, investor Gordon Crawford (pictured here) also made some news yesterday with his investment in Veoh Networks, part of a $30 million round that included Intel Capital and Adobe Systems (ADBE).

Existing investors in the not-YouTube video service–Shelter Capital, Spark Capital, Goldman Sachs (GS), Michael Eisner’s Tornante Company, Time Warner Investments (TWX) and Jonathan Dolgen–also ponied up more money.

Crawford, the SVP of Capital Research Global Investors, manages a massive portfolio, and it is one of Yahoo’s biggest shareholders.

And, unlike Veoh, Yahoo is an investment Crawford has not been happy with recently.

“I am extremely angry at Jerry Yang and at the so-called independent board,” he said in an interview a month ago. “I’m hoping that there is such an outpouring of outrage that the board is embarrassed into revisiting this thing, but I’m not optimistic about that.”

And by independent board, by the way, he meant directors like–you guessed it–Ron Burkle!

At least Burkle’s not to blame for the so-so, lots-and-lots-missing–Google? What Google? (GOOG)–piece in the same Vanity Fair issue, an oral history of the Internet.

Called “How the Web Was Won,” it makes the founding of the world’s most important medium seem awfully dull.

I’d recommend instead–as any sentient being would–the cover story on Angelina Jolie, with this sharp quote from her: “In my father’s generation, the product was 80% of what you were putting into the world, and your personal life was 20%. It now seems that 80% of the product I put out is silly, made-up stories and what I’m wearing.”

Or not wearing, in the case of the pictures of Jolie in this article.

The blogosphere immediately jumped all over the inevitable meme that after the Yahoo (YHOO) deal fell apart, Microsoft (MSFT) CEO Steve Ballmer’s job was at risk.

What with the problems with the new Vista operating system and the general feeling that Microsoft’s Internet strategy is in shambles, the argument that Ballmer would be shown the door by an impatient board and replaced by former CEO and Founder Bill Gates was clear.

Actually, not so such much at all, but that has not stopped all the noise.

Maybe Ballmer should go and maybe not, but I would like some proof that’s not in evidence as yet.

Instead, this TechCrunch story was typical, full of assertions as easy to make with certainty, but just as easy to knock down.

First, it noted that Ballmer being the “big driver behind this deal at Microsoft–some would say to the point of obsession” had made him vulnerable to the board, which he was trying to impress with a “transformative” deal and that he was worried about being fired.

Actually, I would be worried if Ballmer was not obsessed, given that more than $40 billion is an awfully big bet.

And has anyone noticed how typically ineffectual most boards are (see Yahoo, see Time Warner [TWX], see them all)?

I doubt there is a major force on the board of threat to Ballmer, except Bill Gates, who has never shown the slightest inkling of turning on his longtime partner.

Also, Gates himself fumbled with regards to the Web, and he even wrote a book about not doing that in 1995, called “The Road Ahead.”

Microsoft has bungled the Internet? It’s out of touch when it comes to the Web? Its troops have too many lifers who cannot innovate? Google (GOOG) has cleaned their clock? What!?

Of course, this has been news to exactly no one for about a decade now.

In any case, the Yahoo purchase was not the worst of ideas, if a bit obvious–although I have written several times that Microsoft should have bought up other Web 2.0 companies instead of Yahoo.

Both sides acted cloddishly, to be sure, and I am sure Microsoft’s board and execs are smarting a bit from misjudging this foray–I myself wonder how they did they not anticipate just how recalcitrant Yahoo would be.

But Microsoft’s withdrawal was clearly a better path than a hostile proxy fight.

So it did not work out (as yet)? So what? And if Microsoft stock rises tomorrow on the news, of course, all will be forgiven.

In addition, TechCrunch uses a source that is not exactly reliable, quoting “one secondhand account that leaked to us yesterday before the deal was called off,” who tells tales of Ballmer’s ranting and raving about how he wouldn’t let the board “crucify” him.

Ballmer can sometimes be a loudmouthed popinjay!? What ho?!?

Also news to exactly three people in the tech sector and they have been in an isolation tank since 1976.

More to the point, I got that exact anonymous email too, and it was credible and from someone with some good information.

But I felt I could not use the Ballmer info without more proof (also, I would need to know who this person is or find other non-anonymous-to-me people to bear its assertions out).

While compelling and sent in very good faith by an obviously smart person, as many of these types of emails are, I figured the lively emailer was probably from someone close to or even one of the many disgruntled employees of Microsoft who did not like the Yahoo deal.

There were lots of them, as BoomTown reported here, but I determined the emails were just wishful thinking.

But you be the judge!

Here’s two sections from the emails I got in their entirety related to Ballmer (with some minor edits to protect the sender) that TechCrunch clearly used verbatim, so you can see the whole thing rather than the pulled quotes:

Ballmer really does think his job is on the line if he doesn’t close the Yahoo deal, and soon. He’s worried after the fiasco that was the Windows Vista launch, then this, the Board will ask Gates to stay on while they find someone to replace him. Apparently this has caused Ballmer to be more of a tyrant than ususal, yelling and screaming at employees for almost no reason. Some Microsofties are secretly wishing the deal falls through so that Ballmer will get the axe and Microsoft will get new leadership.”

and

The particular incident… was that an exec made a comment about not having to worry about Ballmer anymore if this Yahoo deal falls through. He didn’t realize Ballmer was within earshot. Ballmer started yelling and screaming that this deal would go through and that the board wouldn’t be able to ‘crucify’ him over this. The scuttlebutt suggests that the board was ready to walk because they fear this deal is proving to be to big of a distraction, but Ballmer is obsessed with making it happen in order to protect his job. The board gave him one more week to get it done….many in Microsoft belive Gates will stay on if asked because even Gates realizes that Ballmer needs to go.”

Like I said: Wishful thinking.

This, of course, does not absolve Ballmer from having to come up with some very smart moves and fast to at least keep competitive with archrival Google and also figure out a way to protect its Windows software franchise in the wake of Google’s cloud computing effort.

But that is a longer and more vicious ground war that will go one for a long time.

Yahoo might be Ballmer’s Vietnam or Iraq, as still other bloggers are writing, but let’s keep in mind that the first went on for decades and the second, unfortunately, is still slogging on.

The music video parody by the San Francisco singing group has wowed the Web.

I posted about the removal here.

Shields defends the use of all material in the very funny video, noting it is a satire and they are not making any money it, pointing to the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s explanation of fair use rules in place:

A Wide Berth for Transformative, Creative Uses: Copyright owners are within their rights to pursue nontransformative verbatim copying of their copyrighted materials online. However, where copyrighted materials are employed for purposes of comment, criticism, reporting, parody, satire, or scholarship, or as the raw material for other kinds of creative and transformative works, the resulting work will likely fall within the bounds of fair use.”

Here’s an interview with Shields that BoomTown did today (and posted on YouTube!):