Page of Google: UMich Commencement Speech
May 3, 2009
Short honk: you can read the text of Larry Page’s commencement address at the University of Michigan here. For me the most intersecting comment in the talk was this passage:
When I was here at Michigan, I had actually been taught how to make dreams real! I know it sounds funny, but that is what I learned in a summer camp converted into a training program called Leadershape. Their slogan is to have a “healthy disregard for the impossible”. That program encouraged me to pursue a crazy idea at the time: I wanted to build a personal rapid transit system on campus to replace the buses. It was a futuristic way of solving our transportation problem. I still think a lot about transportation — you never loose a dream, it just incubates as a hobby. Many things that people labor hard to do now, like cooking, cleaning, and driving will require much less human time in the future. That is, if we “have a healthy disregard for the impossible” and actually build new solutions.
The GOOG has built new solutions. No doubt.
Stephen Arnold, May 4, 2009
Web Site Search: More Confusion
May 1, 2009
Diane Sterling, e-Commerce Times, wrote a story that appeared in my newsreader as a MacNewsWorld.com story called “The Wide Open World of Web Site Search”.
. You can find the article here. The write up profiles briefly several search systems; namely:
- SLI systems here. I think of this company as providing a product that makes it easy to display items from a catalog, find indexed items, and buy a product. The company has added a number of features over the years to deliver facets, related searches, and suggestions. In my mind, the product shares some of the features of EasyAsk, Endeca, and Mercado (now owned by Omniture), among others.
- PicoSearch here is a hosted service, and I think of it as a vendor offering indexing in a way that resembles Blossom.com’s service (used on this Beyond Search Web log) or the “old” hosted service provided by Fast Search & Transfer prior to its acquisition by Microsoft. Google offers this type of search as well. Google’s Site Search makes it easy to plop a Google search box on almost any site, but the system does not handle structured content in the manner of SLI Systems, for example.
- LTU Technologies here. I first encountered LTU when it was demonstrating its image processing technology. The company has moved from its government and investigative focus to e-commerce. The company’s core competency, in my view, is image and video processing. The system can identify visual similarity. A customer looking at a red sweater will be given an opportunity to look at other jacket-type products. No human has to figure out the visual similarity.
Now the article is fine but I was baffled by the use of the phrase “Web site search”. The idea I think is to provide the user with a “finding experience” that goes beyond key word searching. On that count, SLI and LTU are good examples for e-commerce (online shopping). PicoSearch is an outlier because it offers a hosted text centric search solution.
Another issue is that the largest provider of site search is our good pal Googzilla. Google does not rate a mention, and I think that is a mistake. Not only does Google make it possible to search structured data but the company offers its Site Search service. More information about Site Search is here.
These types of round up articles, in my opinion, confuse those looking for search solutions. What’s the fix? I think the write up should have made the focus on e-commerce in the title of the article and probably early in the write up included the words “e-commerce search”. Second, I think the companies profiled should have been ones who deliver e-commerce search functions. None of the profiled companies have a big footprint in the site search world that I track. This does not mean that the companies don’t have beefy revenue or satisfied customers. I think that the selection is off by 15 degrees and a bit of a fruit salad, not a plate of carrots.
Why do I care?
There is considerable confusion about search. There are significant differences between a search system for a text centric site and a search system for a structured information site such as an e-commerce site. One could argue that Endeca is a leader in e-commerce. That’s fine but most people don’t know this side of Endeca. The omission is confusing. The result, in my experience, is that the reader is confused. The procurement team is confused. And competitors are confused. Search is tough enough without having the worlds of image, text, and structured data scrambled unnecessarily.
Stephen Arnold, May 1, 2009
USA.gov Gets Social
April 30, 2009
What a stunning announcement. Navigate to AllFacebook.com here and read the story “Facebook Signs Agreement with GSA”. At first glance, I thought “GSA” meant the Google Search Appliance. Ho hum. I have heard that the GOOG will be interested in the contract now held by other vendors when recompete time rolls around. Old news. But when I scanned the AllFacebook.com item I learned something quite remarkable. The US government has inked a deal with Facebook.com. The party to the deal is the US General Services Administration, one of the US government’s purchasing and administrative arms. These are big arms, too. Think World Wrestling Federation. The site with the Facebook.com deal is http://www.usa.gov (formerly FirstGov.gov).
Facebook.com is one of the social networking sites that boasts a pretty good retention rate. I have heard that about 65 to 70 percent of sign ups use the service. The Twitter critter retains only about 40 percent. Check my figures because I am operating on conference baloney today. Your taste in stats sandwiches may vary.
The story, written by Nick O’Neill, features a logo of USA.gov that say, “Government made easy.” Okay, how does Facebook.com fit in. The story quotes administration officials who said:
“USA.gov is breaking new ground by migrating to new media sites to provide a presence and to open up a dialog with the public. We know that many other agencies want to do the same, and having these agreements is an important first step.” Under the new administration and the leadership of a new CTO and CIO, government agencies will get access to many of the publicly available technologies that would have previously been impossible to include within projects. I know it’s silly but advertising a government job on Facebook would have taken so many hurdles previously that in the end it would not be worth it.
I don’t want to speculate on how the USA.gov site will leverage the Facebook.com service. I must go on record as honking, “The GSA is showing some teen spirit.” I do have some questions flapping around. I will capture one before it wings away: “What security provisions will be put in place to deal with the issues related to personal or sensitive information?”
Facebook.com is reasonably secure unless a careless person becomes careless with friend lists, user name and password, and what’s posted. A happy honk to Facebook.com for the deal. The security folks at the GSA will be popular in the near future I wager.
Stephen Arnold, April 30, 2009
Bandwidth Cost
April 29, 2009
A happy quack to the reader who wrote, asking me to comment on the cost of bandwidth. His point of reference was the New York Times’s article “In Developing Countries, Web Grows Without Profit” here.
“I believe in free, open communications,” Dmitry Shapiro, the company’s chief executive, said. “But these people are so hungry for this content. They sit and they watch and watch and watch. The problem is they are eating up bandwidth, and it’s very difficult to derive revenue from it.”
My views on this issue are well documented in my books and studies. Let me recap three ideas and invite feedback on these.
First, most users and content centric outfits make errors when estimating the costs of online access. Unexpected spikes in telco fees are even today in my experience greeted with surprise and indignation. I hesitate to suggest that bandwidth is assumed to be cheap, readily available, and without much technical interest. As the New York Times’s article points out, bandwidth is an issue, and it can be a deal breaker financially and technically.
Second, in theory bandwidth is unlimited. The “unlimited” comes with two trap doors. One is the money available to apply to the problem. Bandwidth, even today, is not free. Someone has to build the plumbing, pay for infrastructure, hire the technical staff, and work the back office procedures. The second trap door is time. It is possible in Kentucky to make a call and get more bandwidth. But within the last two months, we found that making this call did not result in immediate bandwidth. The vendor said, “We can reprovision you within 72 hours. Take it or leave it.” The reason the vendor made the statement I learned was a result of tightening financial noose around the vendor’s neck. The vendor in turn told me to wait.
Third, user expectations are now being shaped in a direction that makes bandwidth, infrastructure, and technical resources increasingly fragile. Here’s an example. Last night in a restaurant, a young man at a table next to mine watched a YouTube.com video on a mobile device. That young man in Boston and young people throughout the world see the Internet (wireless or wireline) as a broadcast channel. In my experience, this shift to rich media will put financial and technical pressure on infrastructure needed for this use of the Internet.
In short, I think there’s a cost problem looming. Will it arrive before the technical problem? Pick your poison.
Stephen Arnold, April 29, 2009
Google Education
April 29, 2009
In my Google: The Digital Gutenberg here, I comment about Google’s increasing utility in education. The Google Channel, available on YouTube.com, can serve as a basic course in computer science or it can be a resource for a PhD student. The Google services, when carefully filtered by a professor, can provide a full educational resource. With educational publishers under increasing financial pressure, an online alternative will emerge. Will Google emerge as the dominant player? Who knows?
If you are interested in this aspect of Google, you will find Google Apps Education: The Rise of Cloud Computing on Campus” here a useful Educom session to attend. The angle taken in the article reflects from Google Apps. For me the most interesting comment in the write up was the identification of Jeff Keltner as one of the Googlers playing a role in Google’s educational initiative. His title is Google Applications for Education.
Stephen Arnold, April 29, 2009
Alpha Google: When Mathematicians Collide
April 28, 2009
Google has quite a few folks who are good at math. Dr. Stephen Wolfram is good at math, and he wrote a program that some of the Googlers used when they were but wee lads learning Algebraic Combinatorics. On April 28, 2009, Wolfram Alpha was previewed before a crowd of math lovers at Harvard. Almost at the moment the Wolfram Alpha crowd was gasping at a system that provided answers, not results lists, the Google showed that it was not turning into a bunny hiding from the Wolfram.
What did the Google do?
The company rolled out a nifty search, public data, visualization, analyst cookie jar. You can read about Google Public Data in the breathless prose of the Washington Post, whose editors may be thinking about using the system to generate graphs without the graphics department. The Post’s article was “Google Unveils New Tool To Dig for Public Data” here. Google’s own description is typical Google prose – understated and entitlement tinged. You can read that official statement here.
Wolfram Alpha, according to TechCrunch, released a digital salvo after the Google disrupted the Wolfram dog and pony show. You can read about that counter attack here.
What does the addled goose think of these computational confrontations? Three things:
- You can take the kids out of the math club but you can’t get the math club behavior out of the kids. Snark, snark.
- Google made it clear that the Wolfram crowd required more direct action than any other search challenger in recent memory. As an addled goose, my memory is not too good, but I saw the counter offensive as an indication that Google sniffed napalm in the morning.
- Search is complicated. When you wheel out the math guns and they fire at one another, those azure chip consultants who played youth soccer and ate sushi after have a tough time explaining the systems and methods used by both companies to deliver ready to recycle data analysis for free. Yep, search is easy.
Stephen Arnold, April 29, 2009
Google Defines Its View of the Cloud
April 28, 2009
Rajen Sheth, Senior Product Manager, Google Apps, has posted a definition of cloud services for Google. You will want to read the full write up here. The key point stuck into me was the sweep of the Google vision. The cloud to the GOOG embraces innovation, applications, hardware plumbing, Google software and services, and combinations of these components. Some suggest that Amazon has beaten Google to the feed bag. Others suggest that it is early days for cloud computing. My view is that Google has not made many changes in the last year or so. What’s new is that Google has created a public statement and cross linked to it from its other Web logs. Googzilla lurches forward.
Stephen Arnold, April 28, 2009
Mobile Versus Netbooks as Google Goes Slow
April 27, 2009
In my Google tutorial today (April 26, 2009), I ran through some of Google’s innovations in mobile search and services. One person in the session pointed out that Android 1.5 was immature. I agreed. Nevertheless, Google is plodding forward slowly. The slow motion approach of Google is not an indication of technical ineptitude. My research suggests that Google uses slow movement as a tactic. Android 1.5 will be improved, just not quickly or as quickly as some want a giant software company to react.
I ran through my newsreader items when I returned to my hotel room and spotted an article from New Zealand with this title: “Are Kids Becoming Phone Addicts?” here. For me, the important comment in the write up was:
“There are certainly teenagers who we are seeing that have an over-reliance on their mobiles and who become anxious at the prospect of going without their phone. “They worry that they’ll run out of battery or credit and they’ll be forced to go without this way of communicating with their network of friends. It’s a big fear for them and it illustrates just how important they see the phone as being to their lives.”
I was thinking about my observation that Google was not in a particular hurry with some of its mobile initiatives. This article triggered in my mind the idea of Google’s patience. The company is improving Android and other of its mobile services fast enough. The idea is that as young mobile users grow older, Google will improve a ratchet click at a time. When today’s middle school and high school student are ready, Google’s mobile services will be ready as well.
Will the competitors see Google improving? Yes, but the incremental approach makes it difficult to discern what Google is doing on a larger scale. When the pieces click into place, the customers will be ready.
There’s a risk with this strategy of slow but sure improvement, which is different from Microsoft’s set a ship date and start the death march. The GOOG wanders forward. The approach opens the door for some competitors to move into sectors and capture them as Amazon and Twitter have done in the last six to 12 months. On the other hand, Google has the advantage of deciding what differentiators to release and when.
Will Google’s slow time strategy work? Judging from the “addiction” rate among young mobile users, the Google will have a product that will tempt younger cohorts. If Google fails, it still has mobile services to offer to users through third parties. I am not sure how much of this analysis will play out in reality, but the idea of fast cycle versus slow cycle seems ideal for Google to target specific demographics and then let the aging process carry Google into some markets where mobile will be the primary computing platform, not a netbook or other large form factor device.
Stephen Arnold, April 27, 2009
Migrating SharePoint Objects
April 27, 2009
I like the notion of federating; that is, leaving information where it is and then pulling what’s needed without crating a duplicated source store. I was interested in this Web log post “Migrating SharePoint Content between Different Site Templates and Preserving all the Necessary Metadata” because the approach ran counter to my method. Migration is sometimes necessary; for instance, a merger requires that the acquired firm’s information be placed under the control of the purchaser’s information technology department. If you need a method to migrate SharePoint, you will want to navigate to Boris Gomiunik’s article here and download the steps. There are eight steps, and I did not see a quick and easy way to automate this set of procedures. Like much in the SharePoint environment, a human must enter values and make decisions. The approach is great for the billable SharePoint consultant and makes a SharePoint administrator a must-have headcount. But for the senior manager, the costs associated with this somewhat tedious procedures are likely to be an issue. In my experience, the more manual intervention in a method, the greater the chance for mistakes. SharePoint may be a candidate for the cloud because in today’s financial climate eliminating headaches, errors, and expenses may reduce on premises software installations magnetic appeal. There was no reference to what fixes had to be made to get the SharePoint search system to rebuild its index and point to the correct instance of the migrated and potentially duplicate content. I wonder if that requires another multi step process involving lots of human fiddling?
Stephen Arnold, April 26, 2009
Google Base Tip
April 23, 2009
Google Base is not widely known among the suits who prowl up and down Madison Avenue. For those who are familiar with Google Base, the system is a portent of Googzilla’s data management capabilities. You can explore the system here. Ryan Frank’s “Optimizing Your Google Base Feeds” here provides some some useful information for those who have discovered that Google Base is a tool for Google employment ads, real estate, and other types of structured information. Mr. Frank wrote:
It is also important to note that Google Base uses the information from Base listings for more than just Google OneBox results. This data may also be displayed in Google Product Search (previously Froogle), organic search results, Google Maps, Google Image Search and more. That adds up to a variety of exposure your site could potentially receive from a single Google Base listing.
Interesting, right? Read the rest of his post for some useful information about this Google service.
Stephen Arnold, April 23, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
