Microsoft Fast Pricing Strategy Hint
March 8, 2009
A news release issued in South Africa with the title “3fifteen Gets Inside Track on Microsoft Enterprise Search Expertise” here is a ho hum Certified Partner bag of buzz words except for one statement. The comment in the news release that caught my attention was:
“Given the price tag, and strong focus on the technology sets, Microsoft is clearly investing heavily in information access and representation as the next technology wave that businesses will need to increase business productivity and profitability in many instances.”
The conjunction of “price tag” and “clearly investing” was interpreted by my addled goose brain as “low cost” and “buying market share”.
One of the threats Microsoft poses to established vendors such as Autonomy and Endeca is making Fast search technology an item included with larger Microsoft SharePoint and server buys. With this one action, no money conscious company will turn up their nose at Microsoft’s assurances that Fast ESP (enterprise search platform) is the greatest thing since SharePoint.
A low price deal for Fast ESP would put significant pressure on the more expensive solutions. Most organizations are deeply dissatisfied with their search solutions, so giving a low cost product a spin makes perfect sense.
If the 3fifteen wording is just breezy writing, that’s one thing. If the 3fifteen statement is meaty, I think a price skirmish probe may be likely. Many search and content processing companies are working overtime to hit their revenue targets, a bargain in enterprise search could affect a number of companies in the present financial thunder storm.
Not too much stability in the SharePoint search sector in my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, March 8, 2009
Twitter: SWAT or Sissy
March 8, 2009
Farhad Manjoo’s “What the Heck Is Twitter?” here joins the team suggesting that Twitter is a sissy; that is, Twitter can’t kill Google. Google is a tough customer. Underneath those primary colors, Google has a dark core. Mr. Manjoo points out that some blogeratti see Twitter as a SWAT team able to take out Google. Google has “special” search engines. Real time search is a category of search. Twitter has “a great future” (maybe) but it does have the T shirt that says, “Fail whale.”
You should read the Slate story because the online publication has considerable clout, certainly much more than the feather duster the addled goose brandishes.
I would offer several observations:
First, Twitter has a content stream and search is a relatively recent trendlet for Twitter. Twitter is primarily about inconsequential content that when passed through a user filter–that is, a query–can yield timely information. The point, therefore, is that the content can yield nuggets. These are not necessarily “correct”. Google doesn’t have at this time the content flow. Real time search is a logical jump to information that offers the pre-cognitive insights much loved by some analysts (business and intelligence).
Second, Google has been a company with great potential and game changing technology. Twitter may flop. But it has become for me an example of a segment that Google has not been quick to seize either with its own technology or with its Google bucks. Twitter is not my go to search engine, but it has become a case example of a company that has managed to make clear Google’s inability to decide what to do and then do it with the force of will the company demonstrated between 2003 (pre Yahoo overture settlement) and 2006. Since 2007, Google has been, in my opinion, showing signs of bureaucratic indigestion.
Third, users of Twitter see the utility of the service. My hunch is that if I showed Twitter to my father’s friends at his Independent Village lunch group, no one would know what the heck Twitter is, why anyone would send a message, or what possible value is a Tweet like “I am stuck in traffic.” Show Twitter to a group of sixth graders, and I think the uptake will be different. That’s what’s important. Who cares if someone over 25 understands Twitter. The demographics point to a shift in the notion of timeliness expectations of users. To me, Twitter is making clear an opportunity from micro blog message traffic.
Therefore, I am not a Twitter user. I have an expert on staff who sends Tweets as Ben Kent, so we can see how the system interacts with the Twitter-sphere. I am an addled goose, but I am coherent enough to look at the service and see possibilities. I would opine that unless Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo don’t respond to this opportunity, Twitter may become much more than a wonky service with a “Fail whale” T shirt.
Stephen Arnold, March 8, 2009
Deep Peep
March 7, 2009
A happy quack to the reader who sent me a link to the Deep Peep beta. You can try the beta of the deep Web search engine here. The site said here:
DeepPeep is a search engine specialized in Web forms. The current beta version tracks 13,000 forms across 7 domains. DeepPeep helps you discover the entry points to content in Deep Web (aka Hidden Web) sites, including online databases and Web services. This search engine is designed to cater to the needs of casual Web users in search of online databases (e.g., to search for forms related to used cars), as well as expert users whose goal is to build applications that access hidden-Web information (e.g., to obtain forms in job domain that contain salary, or discover common attribute names in a domain). The development of DeepPeep has been funded by National Science Foundation award #0713637 III-COR: Discovering and Organizing Hidden-Web Sources.
Deep Web is one of those buzz words that waxes and wanes. For many years Bright Planet and Deep Web Technologies have been the systems I associated with indexing content behind passwords and user names. I wrote a report about Google’s programmable search engine in 2007. The PSE contains some “deep Web” functionality, but the GOOG exposes only a fraction of its “deep Web” capabilities to the adoring millions who use the Google search system. An example of a typical “deep Web” data set might be the flight information and prices available at an airline site or the information available to a registered user of an online service. Dealing with “deep Web” issues is a lot of work. Manual fixes to spider scripts are expensive and time consuming. The better “deep Web” systems employ sophisticated methods that eliminate most of the human fiddling required to navigate certain services.
Today quite a few systems have “deep Web” capability but don’t use that phrase to describe their systems. Here’s a screen shot from my test query for “search”. I used the single word “search” because the word pair “enterprise search” returned results that were not useful to me.
Give the new system a spin and share your opinions in the comments section of this Web log.
Stephen Arnold, March 7, 2009
Censoring Search
March 7, 2009
The Japan Today Web site ran “Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft Urged Not to Censor Search” here. The article does a good job of summarizing the hoo hah over various Internet filtering efforts. The most interesting paragraph to me was:
RSF [Reporters without Borders] and Amnesty said that currently, “there are more than two dozen countries restricting Internet access on a regular basis.” They said they “understand the challenges of operating in countries that restrict Internet access; these countries are trying to pressure you to obey local laws that do not comport with international law and standards that protect freedom of expression. “But complying with local demands that violate international law does not justify your actions,” they said.
The point that struck me was the implicit assumption that Web indexes are not now filtered or in some way shaped. The broader filtering is not so much new as it is in the public eye. Consequently write ups that want a free Internet with sites available may want to do a bit more digging into what has been done by Web indexing and directory outfits for a long time.
At The Point (Top 5% of the Internet) in 1993–yep, that’s 25 years ago, folks–we built a business on filtering out porn, hate, and other types of sites we defined as inappropriate in our editorial policy. Since those early days of online directories and indexes, content is either not processed, skipped by the crawler, or blocked in the indexes.
Free and open. Sounds great. Not part of the fabric of most indexing operations. If you can’t figure out why, you qualify as an azure chip consultant, fully equipped to advise government entities, non profit institutions, and commercial entities about search, online access, and content. For me, filtering is the * only * way to approach online content. I filter for behind-the-firewall search with a vengeance. Why? You want the stuff in your laptop’s folders in the organization’s index? I filter with the force of legal guidance for eDiscovery. Why? You want to run afoul of the applicable laws as they apply to eDiscovery and redacting? I filter for libraries. Why? You want the library to create problems for patrons with problematic Web sites or malware? No, I didn’t think so.
Free and open. Silliness. Poke around and find out what the guidelines are for content at some of the high profile Web indexing and content companies. If you find a free and open index other than a dark net, shoot me an email at seaky2000 at yahoo dot com. I will check it out.
Stephen Arnold, March 7, 2009
Clouds Dissipate at HP
March 7, 2009
Hewlett Packard joined Yahoo is bailing out of the cloud storage business. You can read the ComputerWorld story “HP Shuts Down Upline Online Storage Service” here. HP has the distinction of going zero for two in the online game. First, the company muffed the bunny with AltaVista.com. When the wizards escaped the HP Compaq DEC set up, Google and other companies surged forward. Now HP pulls the plug on a service that did not work as well as Amazon’s service. HP beaten by an eCommerce company. The most interesting comment in the write up in my opinion was:
HP’s Upline service had trouble from the start. Three weeks after opening in April last year, it went down for a week. Users at the time reported problems in the client software to upload and synchronize files with the hosted service — calling Upline a good idea that was horribly executed.
HP has some big customers, one of which is alleged to be Microsoft. I thought HP was an ink company.
Stephen Arnold, March 7, 2009
iPhone and Web Use: 65% Share
March 7, 2009
I missed this March 1, 2009, story. I wanted to snag the date and the data. My hunch is that both will become useful at some point in the future. You can read the story “Apple iPhone Controls over 66% of All Mobile Web Use” here.
Net Applications’ February results show the iPhone operating system having managed over nine times the usage of its next smartphone competitor, Windows Mobile, which had just 6.91 percent of the traffic measured across tens of thousands of sites. Other smartphone platforms haven’t fared any better, according to the metrics. Google’s Android and Symbian were both locked in a tie for 6.15 percent. Research in Motion’s email-centric BlackBerry OS was used less often at just 2.24 percent and was even outmatched by PalmOS devices, which represented 2.37 percent of cellular web use last month.
To me, we have an interesting duality in two different sectors. Google in Web search mirrors Apple in mobile. The other duality is Facebook and Twitter in the social space. Will the four become three? What happens to the also rans?
Stephen Arnold, March 7, 2009
Dead Tree Update: Times Roman Edition
March 7, 2009
Robert K. Blechman’s “The Decline and Fall of the Times Roman Empire” seemed at first glance to have little to do with my interests in search, content analysis, and text processing. You will want to read the essay in BlogCritics here. The article begins with the Times’s decision to sell its building. Once this was a great MBA notion. Now it suggests moving from a Long Island mansion to a trailer park in New Jersey. My metaphor, not the cultured Mr. Blechman’s. The Times has a number of businesses that are performing in a sub par way. Mr. Blechman provides useful background information about the information environment. His analysis is sound. For me, the most important point was:
How I see traditional media working to make newspapers, broadcast radio and television, and blockbuster motion pictures money earners in the Twitter Era. Source: http://thusagricola.com/wp-content/uploads/sisyphus.jpg
Having consolidated their smaller competitors out of existence, the declining newspapers can’t use the same trick that they used in the face of broadcast journalism, that is exploiting “local advantages in providing information to readers and connecting advertisers and consumers in a city.” This opportunity has been sucked away by the Internet.
I quite liked the phrase “sucked away by the Internet.”
Good writing. Incorrect view of reality in my opinion.
My view of this situation is distorted by my interest in search and my experience in traditional and electronic publishing. Points of importance to me not referenced in the write up include:
- Electronic aggregators tried to work with established traditional media. The Business Dateline crafted by Ric Manning (Courier Journal & Louisville Times Co.) with some modest inputs from me and others on the team had to work quite hard to [a] explain what online meant as a revenue opportunity and [b] how electronic content different from print media. Believe me. We tried, and we arrived with the seal of approval of an old line monopolistic newspaper company. Didn’t matter. The mental leap was too great for those steeped in print. Sad thing is that even today, the leap is too great. Most traditional print wizards are clueless about the differences in the media.
SurfRay: Direction Becoming Clearer
March 6, 2009
A reader in Denmark asked me, “Have you read that Vaekstfonden has acquired SurfRay?” I had not read that nor had I heard the rumor. I checked the investment firm’s Web page this morning and I did not see any information about this step, which makes sense. I recall seeing Vaekstfonden’s name referenced in the documents I gathered when I started tracking the SurfRay activity. As you may know, SurfRay offers the Mondosoft, Ontolica, and Speed of Mind search and content processing technology. I located a ComputerWorld story here that appears to confirm the sale. My Danish is not too good, but I think the gist is that with the change in ownership, the Vaekstfonden sees the Danish technology as a solid. New management will be installed. The article references other SurfRay products with which I was not familiar; namely, IdleSurf. More information will be finding its way to Harrod’s Creek. If a reader has additional information, please, use the Comments section of this Web log. It’s a help to me if you have a source and can include it. With new information about old companies I need some guidance.
Stephen Arnold, March 6, 2009
Google and Its Personal Touch
March 6, 2009
You will want to navigate here, read “Why I Sued Google (and Won), and then make a copy for reference. I don’t know if the story is 100 percent accurate. My view is that this narrative provides possible insight into working with the world’s largest online ad company. Mr. Greenspan may want to create a T shirt with the statement:
But it’s not fair!–Google
I find the notion of fairness quite interesting. A happy quack to Mr. Greenspan, president of Think Computer here.
Stephen Arnold, March 6, 2009
Twitting Ain’t Search and Google Used to Suck
March 6, 2009
I am an addled goose, an OLD addled goose. I liked some of the points in “Twitter Ain’t Search” but I had some qualms about accepting the assertion that Twitter is not search. You must read the article here. For me the most interesting comment in the write up was:
I kind of view Twitter as dead simple blog platform for the masses (hence the adoption of it by the masses). Blog platforms like the one for this blog (Movable Type) can be complicated – especially for the mainstream folks who don’t know/ want to learn html commands.
My view is that Twitter is indeed micro blogging. But the significance of Twitter is in the information flows and the access thereto. Here’s why:
I have learned that electronic information generates enough paradoxes to give Epimenides a headache. Example: online information gave way to CD ROMs. The commercial online giants said, “CDs suck. Too small.” Yep, CDs then changed some unexpected sectors of the information industry and this was in the 1983 to 1985 time period. Then Lycos came along and people said, “Lycos sucks. No updates.” AltaVista.com came along, figured out the update thing and HP said, “AltaVista.com sucks.” So Google.com came online. Some people said, “Google sucks. It’s not a portal.” On and on.
Twitter is an example of the type of information opportunity that occurs when a sufficient number of users generate information flows. Who cares whether an individual Twitter message is “right” or “wrong”? Who cares if Twitter crashes and burns or whether it is bought by Verizon and turned into a subscriber only service. The US is not where the action is in information flows in case you haven’t heard.
Twitter is important because it represents a model of what one or more companies can use as an example. Google cracked Web search, but the real time SMS flows are new territory, and if you don’t understand that where information flows, money exists. Quick example: you are a law enforcement professional. You are dealing with a person of interest aged 17 in Rio de Janeiro. The person of interest coordinates a group of eight to 10 year olds. The “pack of kids” distracts a tourist, probably a complacent American pundit. Whilst engaged, the kids take the passport, billfold, and camera and scamper off. The whole deal is organized by text messages sent on disposable mobile phones thoughtfully provided by the person of interest. A system that permits searching of these SMS messages or Tweets in Twitter speak * could * be helpful to law enforcement. The messages could be baloney. But a search takes a short amount of time. If useful info0rmation becomes available, that’s a plus. If none becomes available, the law enforcement professional has learned something useful about the person of interest. I am sure one can think of other examples of the benefit of real time information flows generated by the technically hip, the permanently young, and middle school to college people who just see Twitter as another part of the everyday dataspace.
I am coming around to the view that Twitter-type systems are important and are likely to reshape the notion of real time search.
Stephen Arnold, March 6, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
