Evidence Pay for Traffic Works
January 22, 2016
I read “Google Paid Apple $1 Billion to Be the Default Search on iOS.” If this is indeed accurate, there are some interesting notions one can derive from the number.
The write up states:
$1 billion. That’s how much Google paid Apple in 2014 to be the default search app on the iPhone, according to court transcripts obtained by Bloomberg. As you might imagine, neither company is too happy about their business deal being made public, and as the publication notes, the court transcript “vanished without a trace” late yesterday. But whether that was because the court in the ongoing litigation between Google and Oracle eventually bowed to the whims of Cupertino and Mountain View’s requests for redaction isn’t clear.
My thought is that search engine optimization is pretty much a waste of time. If SEO worked, the dear Alphabet Google thing would just use wonky tricks and move on. If a Web or mobile site wants traffic, pay for it. Buy Adwords. Simple.
But no.
The Google is paying for exposure to Apple fans and getting traffic. The traffic leads to goodies like ad revenue and data.
Does anyone care? Nah. Search means Google, and if one can’t find it on Google, the information does not exist as I understand the matter.
Stephen E Arnold, January 21, 2016
IBM and Severance: An Arbitrary Winter Chill
January 22, 2016
I read “IIBM Alters Severance Terms.” The idea is that an IBMer gets a review and learns that s/he is no longer needed. The reason may be incompetence; the reason may be downsizing; or the reason may be part of the IBM’s desire to outsource. Who knows? Saving money makes sense after 15 consecutive quarters of revenue decline and the massive spending to make Watson a household word, pay off Bob Dylan, and visit every possible media outlet with the tidings of gladness and joy about cognitive computing.
The write up points out:
Employees who took the IBM Separation Allowance Plan used to get 6 months pay. Now it’s one month.
That sounds fair. Some money may be better than zero money. The write up quotes the IBM explanation, which I find just thrilling for the employees soon to be affected by the change:
The separation allowance payment available under the Individual Separation Allowance Plan, regardless of the circumstance under which ISAP is offered, is one month of pay. For employees covered by IBM’s Growth Driven Profit-sharing program or on any type of sales or services incentive plan or any special program which is offered in lieu of the IBM Growth Driven Profit-sharing program, the one month of pay made under ISAP is paid in a lump sum, using the employee’s base pay amount (also known as reference salary) (full or part time). Any separation allowance payment under any of IBM’s plans is in lieu of any other form of separation pay to which the employee is, may, or might have become entitled. An individual separation allowance is not an automatic entitlement and will not accrue or be paid for reasons other than those listed above. No separation allowances under any of IBM’s plans will accrue if an employee has outstanding indebtedness to IBM or debts for which IBM may be responsible. However, if an employee makes arrangements satisfactory to IBM to repay any such outstanding debts, a separation allowance may be paid. Indebtedness to IBM could include, but is not limited to, a debit commission balance, an IBM US Mobility Plan equity loan, an unpaid balance on an installment purchase of an IBM product, credit card debt, excess tax loan, an outstanding travel expense account or failure to return IBM-owned property. In the event of rehire by IBM or any of its subsidiaries as a regular employee within 30 days after separation of employment with a payment under the Plan, IBM reserves the right to require repayment of the full ISAP payment.
Did IBM Watson assist in the writing of these statements? The conditionals add a bit of spice. Just what one needs as Joshua makes its way to IBM Federal Systems in Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Stephen E Arnold, January 22, 2016
Alphabet Google Android Revenue
January 22, 2016
I read “Google’s Android Generates $31 Billion Revenue, Oracle Says.” Who knows how accurate this “number” is, but I find it interesting because the “number” allegedly spins off $22 billion in profit.
My math is not too good. But I think it means that the Alphabet Google thing has more profit than costs when it comes to Android. Numbers north of 200 percent strike me as okay.
The write up asserts:
An analysis of the search engine giant’s tightly held financial information was disclosed Jan. 14 by an Oracle attorney in the database maker’s lawsuit accusing Google of using its Java software without paying for it to develop Android. Google said in a court filing that the lawyer based her statement on information derived from its confidential internal financial documents. “Look at the extraordinary magnitude of commerciality here,” the Oracle attorney, Annette Hurst, told a federal magistrate judge as she discussed Android revenue and profit, which have never been publicly disclosed.
I wonder if Oracle perceives that the use of its Java technology has contributed to this revenue.
I think so. The write up states:
The five-year-old showdown between Google and Oracle has returned to U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco after a pit stop at the U.S. Supreme Court, where Google lost a bid to derail the case. The damages Oracle now seeks may exceed $1 billion since it expanded its claims to cover newer Android versions.
There is nothing like a flock of legal eagles circling alleged revenue to signal that spring is not far away. Yandex is grousing a bit about Android. Gee, I wonder why.
Stephen E Arnold, January 22, 2016
Microsoft Cortana Update Draws Users to Bing
January 22, 2016
The article titled Microsoft Updates Windows 10 Cortana With New Search Tools for Better Results on IB Times heralds the first good news for Bing in ages. The updates Microsoft implemented provide tremendous search power to users and focused search through a selection of filters. Previously, Cortana would search in every direction, but the filters enable a more targeted search for, say, applications instead of web results. The article explains,
“It’s a small change, but one that shows Microsoft’s dedication to making the assistant as useful as possible. Cortana is powered by Bing, so any improvements to the Windows 10 assistant will encourage more consumers to use Microsoft’s search engine. Microsoft made a big bet when it chose to deeply integrate Bing into Windows 10, and there is signs that it’s paying off. After the June 2015 Windows 10 launch, Bing attained profitability for the first time in October 2015.”
That positive note for Bing is deeply hedged on the company’s ability to improve mobile search, which has continued to grow as a major search platform while desktop search actually peaked, according to research. Microsoft launched Cortana on Android and iOS, but it is yet to be seen whether this was sufficient action to keep up the Bing momentum.
Chelsea Kerwin, January 22, 2016
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Data Discrimination Is Real
January 22, 2016
One of the best things about data and numbers is that they do not lie…usually. According to Slate’s article, “FTC Report Details How Big Data Can Discriminate Against The Poor,” big data does a huge disservice to people of lower socioeconomic status by reinforcing existing negative patterns. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), academics, and activists have expressed for some time that big data analytics.
“At its worst, big data can reinforce—and perhaps even amplify—existing disparities, partly because predictive technologies tend to recycle existing patterns instead of creating new openings. They can be especially dangerous when they inform decisions about people’s access to healthcare, credit, housing, and more. For instance, some data suggests that those who live close to their workplaces are likely to maintain their employment for longer. If companies decided to take that into account when hiring, it could be accidentally discriminatory because of the radicalized makeup of some neighborhoods.”
The FTC stresses that big data analytics has positive benefits as well. It can yield information that can create more job opportunities, transform health care delivery, give credit through “non-traditional methods, and more.
The way big data can avoid reinforcing these problems and even improve upon them is to include biases from the beginning. Large data sets can make these problems invisible or even harder to recognize. Companies can use prejudiced data to justify the actions they take and even weaken the effectiveness of consumer choice.
Data is supposed to be an objective tool, but the sources behind the data can be questionable. It becomes important for third parties and the companies themselves to investigate the data sources, run multiple tests, and confirm that the data is truly objective. Otherwise we will be dealing with social problems and more reinforced by bad data.
Whitney Grace, January 22, 2016
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Eel Catcher Presages Future of Doctors and Lawyers
January 21, 2016
I read a poignant article called “The Last Eel Catcher: 3,000-Yo UK Tradition Comes to an End.” The write up points out:
Britain’s last traditional eel catcher announced his decision to stop the ancient practice because he “can’t live on empty pockets.”
Yep, McDo’s chicken nuggets or a vegan smoothie are raking in the dough.
I thought of the last eel catcher when I read “Davos: Doctors and Lawyers Could Be Replaced by Robots.” The business and governmental elite are thinking big thoughts about technology. I learned:
Andrew Moore, Dean of the school of computer science at Carnegie Mellon University, said machines were already performing many “boring tasks of white collar work”, with computers able to sift through millions of legal documents to help lawyers prepare for cases. “One by one you are going to see that things we thought would require our own personal ingenuity can be automated,” he told a panel at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
I assume that’s why Goldman Sachs is jumping on the smart software bandwagon.
What will these displaced, highly paid, quite confident individuals do for a living. Eel catching is out. KFC is a possibility. I know that a few will light their entrepreneurial fires or drive an Uber car until autonomous vehicles make it big. The future could become more interesting for the docs and the legal eagles.
Stephen E Arnold, January 21, 2016
A How to Create Jargon Tutorial
January 21, 2016
I read “Controversial Concepts: How to Tackle Defining and Naming Them.” The write up explains how to whip up jargon and get it into circulation. I thought, “Just what I need. I want to make ideas more confusing and more difficult to discuss. Hooray.”
Here’s the method:
- Name controversial concepts with proxy names such as “Greg”, “Mike” or “John” (or whatever name you prefer) to get potentially misleading names and their implicit connotations out of the way of progress.
- Draw a concept diagram showing those concepts as well as important semantic relationships among them.
- Formulate intensional definitions for each concept – still using the proxy names. Ensure that those definitions are consistent with the relationships shown on the concept diagram.
- Identify one or more communities that “baptize” those concepts by giving them better names.
Not as clear as Lotus 1-2-3 because the “intensiional definitions” threw me. After a bit of thinking, I realized that I could create really useful, clear, high impact words and phrases like:
- artificial intelligence
- Big Data
- cognitive computing
- concept search
- data lake
- metadata
- natural language
That is outstanding.
Stephen E Arnold, January 21, 2016
MIT Tries to Rescue IBM Watson
January 21, 2016
“Don’t Blame Watson for IBM’s Slide” is a remarkable example of “real” journalism. I love it when academics (you know the innocent party in the student loan maneuver) defends a really big outfit (IBM).
The write up focuses squarely on the problem IBM has created; for example:
If you’ve seen IBM’s advertisements or have read the proclamations that the company is making a big bet on Watson, its famed “cognitive computing” engine, you might be tempted to think the gamble is failing.
I know that IBM has made a serious miscalculation with the Watson play. First, HP is learning the hard way that search is not something that generates tons of dough without some serious management expertise. How is HP solving its conundrum with regard to the $11 billion bet on mid 1990s technology? HP is just going to fly like the legal eagles. Now legal eagles don’t like a sparrow in the flock. You may be able to guess who the winners will be in the HP solution.
IBM has embraced Lucene. That’s a good move. Palantir has done the same thing. IBM then failed to learn from outfits like Palantir even though IBM owns i2 and could have pursued a similarly focused and clear headed approach.
Nope. IBM made Watson into what I consider Jack Benny Show material. Watson does game shows without realizing that post production wizardry makes a “win” look like the mouse clicks of a film school grad. Watson does cook books. Watson cures cancer. Watson solves insurance woes. Watson does not generate the type of revenue that will make a dent in IBM’s revenue needs.
But IBM has achieved one thing. IBM has made cognitive computing the skateboard on which more nimble outfits are riding. Perhaps IBM should charge these start ups for the psychological assistance the wonky Watson PR campaigns have delivered without a prescription or a juicy hourly fee.
The write up reports in “real” journalistic style:
… Even if Watson had become a big business by now, IBM would still be in huge trouble because of trends that have been afoot for a very long time—notably the rise of cloud computing services that have diminished the need for large organizations to buy IBM servers and mainframes. This was in play long before Ginni Rometty was named CEO in 2011, but her predecessor, Sam Palmisano, was better able to mask the decline and keep Wall Street happy by selling off unprofitable lines of business, buying high-margin software companies, and returning billions of dollars to investors through dividends and share buybacks. Now there are fewer financial levers left to pull. Revenue has been falling for 15 quarters in a row.
Yep, blame Sam. Blame someone.
The reality is that Lucene, acquired technology, and home brew software are not going to do lots of stuff.
Back to Palantir. Whatever the company’s faults (and there are some Doozies), Palantir aced IBM in the intelligence sector. Palantir focused and then used indirect sales methods to move into financial services and health care.
IBM buys ads and does PR. Palantir gets others to push the product. I wonder if anyone at some of the banks know what a “helper” is or how to create and “object” in Palantir land.
Probably not.
But IBM has demonstrated that it lacks focus, has no effective strategy to make search and information access generate big money or in Palantir’s case, big flows of venture capital.
What IBM can do, however, is get the “real” journalists to play along. After 15 consecutive quarters of revenue excitement, IBM needs to find a solution.
Hint: i2 can help. Will IBM listen? Nah, it’s more fund thinking up ways to hire Bob Dylan to explain Watson or visualizing Watson as chemical structures.
Stephen E Arnold, January 21, 2016
The Total Patent Counts for 2015 Are in, and IBM Wins (Again)
January 21, 2016
The article on Reuters titled IBM Granted Most U.S. Patents in 2015, Study Finds confirms the 23rd consecutive win in this area for IBM. Patents are a key indicator of the direction and focus of a given business, and top companies take these numbers very seriously. Interestingly, 2015 was the first year since 2007 that the total count of U.S. patents fell. Following that trend, Microsoft Corp’s patents were also 31% lower than past totals, and as a result the company took only tenth place on the list. The article provides some other details on patent rankings,
“Among the technology giants notable for their intellectual property, Alphabet Inc’s (GOOGL.O) Google stepped up its patent activity, moving to the fifth position from eighth in 2014, while Apple Inc (AAPL.O) stayed at the 11th position. Patents are sometimes the subject of legal battles, and investors, analysts and enthusiasts alike track patents closely to see what companies are looking to develop next. Following IBM, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd (005930.KS) and Canon Inc (7751.T) rounded off the top three spots…”
There are no big surprises here, but one aspect of patents that the article does not cover is whether patents count as revenue? We were under the impression that money did that trick, but the emphasis on patents seems to suggest otherwise.
Chelsea Kerwin, January 21, 2016
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Woman Fights Google and Wins
January 21, 2016
Google is one of those big corporations that if you have a problem with it, you might as well let it go. Google is powerful, respected, and has (we suspect) a very good legal department. There are problems with Google, such as the “right to be forgotten” and Australian citizens have a big bone to pick with the search engine. Australian News reports that “SA Court Orders Google Pay Dr. Janice Duffy $115,000 Damages For Defamatory Search Results.”
Duffy filed a lawsuit against Google for displaying her name along with false and defamatory content within its search results. Google claimed no responsibility for the actual content, as it was not the publisher. The Australian Supreme Court felt differently:
“In October, the court rejected Google’s arguments and found it had defamed Dr Duffy due to the way the company’s patented algorithm operated. Justice Malcolm Blue found the search results either published, republished or directed users toward comments harmful to her reputation. On Wednesday, Justice Blue awarded Dr Duffy damages of $100,000 and a $15,000 lump sum to cover interest.”
Duffy was not the only one who was upset with Google. Other Australians filed their own complaints, including Michael Trkulja with a claim search results linked him to crime and Shane Radbone sued to learn the identities of bloggers who wrote negative comments.
It does not seem that Google should be held accountable, but technically they are not responsible for the content. However, Google’s algorithms are wired to bring up the most popular and in-depth results. Should they develop a filter that measures negative and harmful information or is it too subjective?
Whitney Grace, January 21, 2016
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
