Google Wave Has Modest Amplitude
October 19, 2009
A happy quack to the reader who sent me a link to “Google Wave: Mark Status As Undefined”. The author takes a critical look at Google Wave and makes some pointed observations about how Google Wave stacks up against a former Microsoft employee’s experience and offers some food for thought when that Microsoft executive joined Google. This write up is interesting, but I think it pegs its argument on the wrong wizard. Google Wave is a subset of a larger tech initiative at Google. The person responsible for this initiative is not the former Microsoft executive. Nevertheless, I found the write up a refreshing change from the run-of-the-mill commentary about Wave.
Stephen Arnold, October 19, 2009
No money and not even an invitation from the Google to test Wave. Sniff. Sniff. Goose discrimination.
IBM Has Cloudy Day with Air New Zealand
October 17, 2009
With cloud computing getting attention, the SiliconValley.com story “Air New Zealand Boss Lands Hard on IBM” provides one view of what a customer perceives when service goes out. The quote below is attributed to Air New Zealand CEO Rob Fyfe:
In my 30-year working career, I am struggling to recall a time where I have seen a supplier so slow to react to a catastrophic system failure such as this and so unwilling to accept responsibility and apologize to its client and its client’s customers… We were left high and dry and this is simply unacceptable. My expectations of IBM were far higher than the amateur results that were delivered yesterday, and I have been left with no option but to ask the IT team to review the full range of options available to us to ensure we have an IT supplier whom we have confidence in and one who understands and is fully committed to our business and the needs of our customers.
IBM is expanding its cloud services. Most recently it announced a low-cost alternative for email positioned to compete with such services from Google.
Stephen Arnold, October 17, 2009
Google and Cloud Security
October 17, 2009
Google has a pretty good track record regarding its own security. The system is tough to hack. I know of a handful of events where outsiders have been able to finagle Google’s safeguards to see directory listings. My own tests of Gmail from public terminals revealed some oddities when the service first became available. Since those early days, we have found the Google’s engineers have done a good job. When it comes to Google’s approach to some products and services, security strikes the ArnoldIT.com engineers as a work in progress. The Google Search Appliance has, with each version upgrade, added security features. Some work remains to be done, but the company is moving forward.
I read with interest the story “Google Using ‘Double Talk’ on Cloud Security, Says L.A. Consumer Group.” If this line of inquiry gains momentum, security could become another problem that Google will have to address. In the last six months, Google has found itself in the spotlight on such contentious issues as copyright and Board of Director interlocks with Apple for instance. Although the Apple issue has been resolved, now government regulators are asking questions about some of Google’s telephony-related products and services. More problems Google does not need in my view.
The guts of the Network World article was, in my opinion:
The letter, by Consumer Watchdog advocate John Simpson, faulted Google for “blandly assuring” customers about the security of its cloud-based services while at the same time warning of multiple security risks in federally required 10-Q financial statements. “Google says one thing when trying to sell its products, but something else in federally required filings aimed at shareholders,” Simpson said in the letter.
The issue may not be of security itself. The issue may boil down to the potential for conflicting messages. These can be confusing and act like catnip when legal panthers prowl.
Stephen Arnold, October 17, 2009
Google Probes the Underbelly of AutoCAD
October 15, 2009
Remember those college engineering wizards who wanted to build real things? Auto fenders, toasters, and buildings in Dubai. Changes are the weapon of choice was a software product from Autodesk. Over the years, Autodesk added features and functions to its core product and branched out into other graphic areas. In the end, Autodesk was held captive by the gravitational pull of AutoCAD.
In one of my Google monographs, I wrote about Google’s SketchUp program. I recall several people telling me that SketchUp was unknown to them. These folks, I must point out, were real, live Google experts. SketchUp was a blip on a handful of users’ radar screen. I took another angle of view, and I saw that the Google coveted the engineering wizards when they were in primary school and had a method for keeping these individuals in the Google camp until they designed their last, low-cost fastener for a green skyscraper in Shanghai.
No one really believed that this was possible.
My suggestion is that some effort may be prudently applied to rethinking what the Google is doing with engineering software that makes pictures and performs other interesting Googley tricks. The first step could be reading the Introducing Google Building Maker article on the “official” Google Web log. I would gently suggest that the readers of this Web log buy a copy of the Google trilogy, consisting of my three monographs about Google technology. Either path will give you some food for thought.
For me, the most interesting comment in the Google blog post was:
Some of us here at Google spend almost all of our time thinking about one thing: How do we create a three-dimensional model of every built structure on Earth? How do we make sure it’s accurate, that it stays current and that it’s useful to everyone who might want to use it? One of the best ways to get a big project done — and done well — is to open it up to the world. As such, today we’re announcing the launch of Google Building Maker, a fun and simple (and crazy addictive, it turns out) tool for creating buildings for Google Earth.
The operative phrase is “every built structure on early”. How is that for scale?
What about Autodesk? My view is that the company is going to find itself in the same position that Microsoft and Yahoo now occupy with regard to Google. Catch up is impossible. Leap frogging is the solution. I don’t think the company can make this type of leap. Just my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, October 15, 2009
Another freebie. Not even a lousy Google mouse pad for my efforts.
Google Wave Made Simple
October 15, 2009
Short honk: A happy quack to the reader who sent me a link to “Google Wave – A Complete Guide”. You get screenshots and a run down of the principal components of Google Wave. Wave, like Google Squared, is a subset of a larger Google technology initiative. Most analysts focus on the specific demos and betas, not the big Google technology initiatives. If you want a useful intro to Wave, this document eliminates chasing down Google’s dribs and dabs of information.
If you want info about Wave extensions, you can get a run down here.
Stephen Arnold, October 15, 2009, written for free because we love Google
IBM and Its Deep Understanding of Google
October 5, 2009
In May 2008, I wrote “IBM and Google: Replay of IBM and Microsoft?” When I wrote that article I had learned that IBM had responded to an inquiry about IBM’s knowledge of Google’s next generation database system. IBM’s response was, in effect, “We have these Google guys right where we want them.” My view in May 2008 was then and is today that IBM does not have a very good idea of what Google’s technical thrust is. IBM points to its working with Google to foster better university instruction in programming distributed systems and other buddy buddy activities.
Imagine my delight when I read “IBM Undercuts Google with Discount E-Mail Service.” IBM has been in the email game for years. The company tried its hand at Internet services and ended up dumping the business on the “old” AT&T, which still offers a variant of that IBM service. And, as most professionals, know, IBM offers the wonderful Lotus Notes system, the Domino server, and quite remarkable collaboration features. The fact that dedicated engineers are required to keep the system up and running is a feature of the ancient technology that underpins these systems. Have you tried to recover a Lotus Notes mail store? Pretty exciting and definitely a reason to get pizza and Jolt cola at 3 am on a Sunday morning.
The Associated Press reported that IBM is back. I can’t quote from the AP story. The addled goose is unable to buy stale bread to feed the goslings, let alone compensate a legal eagle to protect the flock. Read the original story. For me the key points boils down to one sequence of word associations:
Discount. Price war. Desperation.
What’s this mean? Simple. Google is a growing force in the enterprise sector. IBM, in my opinion, may want to pay attention to its DB2 business, not Google’s email challenge. When DB2 gets clipped, IBM is going to have to boost its consultants’ billing rates to make up for the revenue loss. Google’s next generation data management system is coming and based on my research, Google will offer better performance and more features with its Googley business model.
Yep, IBM has those guys right where it wants them. Great phrase. I would flip it around. Google has IBM right where Google wants IBM – in the discount email business and ignoring the DB2 killer headed IBM’s way.
Stephen Arnold, October 5, 2009
Yahoo: Clouds or Fog
October 2, 2009
I found Steve Shankland’s “How Yahoo Is Betting Its Cloud Will Pay Off” a useful look at what Yahoo wants to be—someday. Unlike the frou frou in the Hewlett Packard “analysis” of mainframe computers, Mr. Shankland reports what Yahoo wizard Shelton Shugar, Yahoo’s senior vice president of cloud computing, explained in one or more conversations with Mr. Shankland. Several points struck me as interesting:
First, the focus and investment in cloud computing is aimed at some tough Yahoo problems. Here’s the statement that sums up this point:
although rebuilding Yahoo on its own cloud-computing foundation is expected to save some money, the primary motivation is to liberate the company’s programmers from the difficulties and drudgery of coding for gargantuan audience on the Internet.
The wording suggested to me cost control and a step toward reducing the work and rework method that has kept Yahoo from leveraging certain revenue opportunities.
Second, I found the reference to multi-tenancy fascinating. The passage I noted says:
it’s [the Yahoo cloud] got a variety of interfaces that many Yahoo services can use–a concept often called multitenancy–so they don’t have to build them on their own. For another, it’s global, handling thorny issues such as operating at large scale and replicating data for reliability and responsiveness. And it’s got a degree of elasticity built in, so the infrastructure can expand, contract, or otherwise adjust to changing work load demands.
Multi tenancy is the technology that Salesforce.com has worked hard to tame and even harder to drive patent applications on its systems and methods into the ever efficient USPTO. I must admit I never thought of Yahoo operating a multi tenant system. I think that’s because Yahoo kept services separate in silos. Whatever was going on across silos was mostly a mystery to me. Within silos, my research suggested a fruit cake of solutions. Salesforce.com, bless its heart, is more homogeneous even though its dark heart pulses in tune with Oracle reads and writes.
Finally, Yahoo had performance problems and judging from this statement Yahoo still has performance problems. This is the passage I marked:
We need to be able to tweak it [Yahoo’s virtualization implementation] quite a bit for performance, to match it with our hardware,” Shugar said.
When I access Yahoo mail from outside the US, I have to deal with multiple time outs. In my opinion, the latency makes Yahoo unusable from some of the fine places I work. Even more annoying is the hit and miss results from Yahoo’s email search system. Once a week, the system reports I have no matches for my email queries. Not too good since I pay for a premium Yahoo service.
I hope Yahoo moves from “as is” to a platform that works better for me. My thought is that Yahoo is years behind in infrastructure, and if the economy goes south, cash will be tight and the job won’t be completed. If that happens, Yahoo adds to its already significant handicap.
Stephen Arnold, October 2, 2009
Microsoft Live: $560 Million Loss in 12 Months or $64,000 and Hour
September 23, 2009
TechFlash reported an interesting article called “Windows Live Lost $560 Million in FY2009”. With revenues of $520, the loss chewed through $64,000 an hour or $2,663 a minute 24×7 for 365 days. With Microsoft’s revenue in the $58 billion range, a $560 million is not such a big deal. In my opinion, profligate spending might work in the short term, but I wonder if the tactic will work over a longer haul on the information highway.
Stephen Arnold, September 23, 2009
Twitter Trends: A Glimpse of the Future of Content Monitoring
September 23, 2009
A happy quack to the reader who sent me information about “Trendsmap Maps Twitter Trends in Real-Time.” The Cnet write up points out that this Web site uses “trending Twitter topics by geographical location by combining data from Twitter’s API and What The Trend.” Very interesting publicly accessible service. Similar types of monitoring systems are in use in certain government organizations. The importance of this implementation is that the blend of disparate systems provide new ways to look at people, topics, and relationships. With this system another point becomes clear. If you want to drop off the grid, move to a small town where data flows are modest. Little data won’t show up so more traditional monitoring methods have to be used. On the other hand, for those in big metro areas, interesting observations may be made. Fascinating. The site has some interface issues but a few minutes of fiddling will make most of the strengths and weaknesses clear. The free service is at http://www.trendsmap.com/.
Stephen Arnold, September 22, 2009
Google and Newspapers: Misclassifying Google Is Risky
September 22, 2009
I enjoy most of the GigaOM information. I found the write up “Google’s Plan to Become The Media Company” thought provoking but off the mark. My view is that classifying Google as a media company is one of those confident assertions that seem accurate but are only partially correct. In fact, the error is akin to classifying a tiger cub as a house pet. Sure, the young cub might learn some manners, but as Roy and Siegfried learned, the tiger often has a different idea about what it is; namely, a wild animal capable of ruining an act and a life. If you don’t remember, Roy and Siegfried, here is a useful reminder of the consequences of an erroneous classification. (Warning: not for the faint of heart.)
Google is an application platform, a point I made in my 2005 monograph, The Google Legacy. That research study is germane today. I amplified my analysis of Google’s technology in two subsequent studies, pointing out that Google’s technical open source information supported my assertion that Google was a disruptive force in such business sectors as enterprise software, financial services, and commercial publishing, among three or four other business sectors. The importance of this point was mocked openly by telecommunications executives when one of the consulting firms for which I work as an advisor trotted me around to review Google’s telephone inventions in 2006. I wonder how many of those executives are laughing now? Google is not just a disruptive force in the telco space, the company is in a position to give Apple a run for its money in the broader mobile device sector. This idea is probably not too amusing for Apple. In fact, Google teamed up with Sony to get some steroids in its distribution and content arm for the coming dust up.
Wild animal or pet? Source: http://www.wamajama.com/wamajama/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/siegfried_roy_tiger_1_r.jpg
Now back to the GigaOM write up.
Here’s the problem. I agree that Google will have even greater disruptive impacts on the media sector. But media is just one business sector that Google will jostle. The author believes that defining Google as a media company sums up that wild and crazy bunch of physicists, mathematicians, computer scientists, and smart folks. That’s a very big mistake. The reason is that a media company draws a ring around Google and says, “Here be the dragon.” Wrong. The circle identifies one of Google’s dragronettes. Seeing Google as a dragonette leads to the misperception of Google as a dragonette breeder. A person involved in online retail could take the media company definition to heart. That person might then overlook what the Google is doing with its financial back office system. Sure, Checkout is visible, but it’s a weak sister compared to eBay’s PayPal or the Amazon machine. Or, is it? Kevin Kelleher, like those telco executives, would not ask the question, “What is Google?” Heck, Google is a media company, maybe a next generation outfit like Hanna Barbera Studios or the Peoria Journal Star.
Get that classification wrong and you may — no, strike that – will be blindsided as Google uses its platform to probe, disrupt, and exploit a broader range of market sectors. In short, those who misclassify run the risk of seeing the tiger up close and personal as Roy and Siegfried did. The results may not be for the squeamish.
Stephen Arnold, September 22, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
