There was a very good discussion on slashdot (<http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/04/11/1448259/Google-Cuts-Chrome-Page-Load-Times-In-Half-w-SPDY>, see in particular this thread <http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2078504&cid=35782366>, by people who knew what they were talking about, and SPDY did not come off well.
If it is a push protocol, how will it affect my local copy of squid, or indeed any HTTP caching service?
If it is to reserve bandwidth, what takes up the largest amount of bandwidth on an average web page? (perhaps flash adverts?).
How does pushing content affect my ability to control the content I see? because I don't want to have adverts unblockably pushed on me, which I suspect is the point (please note that in my current blocking of the majority of adverts, I actually free up bandwidth for other users, so this is a good thing, no?)
Why doesn't it, as the above slashdot thread asked and failed to get a reply, try to fix HTTP's supposed problems (pipelining was one named by a google tech) rather than work around them?
Failing that, why not use existing technology for multiplexing (which is supposed to one of the core features of SPDY) like BEEP?
Just out of interest, did you contact to the IETF to try and work with them?
Or other browser makers?
In summary what is the business case for SPDY, what is the technical case for SPDY?