Cost Common Sense: Why Your Search System Just Keeps Getting More and More Expensive
March 21, 2016
I read “4 Unseen Expenses with In-House IT Departments.” The information in the write up is helpful. Too bad more specialists keep the lid on cost data. In the write up, there are four “unseen expenses” which almost guarantee that enterprise search systems will, like the Entergizer bunny, keep going and going. What are the costs? Here are the four from the write up:
- Staffing costs
- Downtime costs
- Ineffective IT support costs
- Cost of replacement.
I would mention several others, but I don’t want to exhaust my list of the costs associated with an enterprise search system. (Mine are split into planning or pre acquisition costs, procurement costs, initial installation costs, first year costs, and subsequent year costs. Four, as you may conclude, gentle reader, only spot the iceberg of money that looms through the fog of disbelief.
The Energizer bunny of cost overruns, enterprise search.
My additions:
- The costs of operating legacy systems. As I have pointed out in previous books and articles, Fortune 1000 firms have a minimum of five or more enterprise search systems in operation
- The costs of legal fees related to adjudications with the vendor or vendors for services related to the enterprise search system
- The costs of infrastructure surprises; for example, why is this system so slow to add new and changed content? Answer: We need more hardware, bandwidth, storage, memory, etc.
Enterprise search, after 50 years, is a chief financial officer’s bane in many organizations.
Stephen E Arnold, March 21, 2015
For Sale: Your Bank Information
March 21, 2016
One of the common commodities for sale on the Dark Web is bank, credit card, social security numbers, and other personal information. This information can sell for a few bucks to hundreds of dollars depending on the quality and quantity of the information. In order to buy personal information, usually the interested parties must journey to the Dark Web, but the International Business Times tells us that “Confidential Bank Details Available For Sale On Easily Found Web Site” is for sale on the general Web and the information is being sold for as little as a couple pounds (or dollars for the US folks). The Web site had a pretty simple set up, interested parties register, and then they have access to the stolen information for sale.
Keith Vaz, chairman of the home affairs select committee, wants the National Crime Agency (NCA) to use its power and fulfill its purpose to shut the Web site down.
“A statement from the NCA said: “We do not routinely confirm or deny investigations nor comment on individual sites. The NCA, alongside UK and international law enforcement partners and the private sector, are working to identify and as appropriate disrupt websites selling compromised card data. We will work closely with partners of the newly established Home Office Joint Fraud Task Force to strengthen the response.”
Online scams are getting worse and more powerful in stealing people’s information. Overall, British citizens lost a total of 670 million pounds (or $972 million). The government, however, believes the total losses are more in the range of 27 billion pounds (or $39.17 billion).
Scams are getting worse, because the criminals behind them are getting smarter and know how to get around security defenses. Users need to wise up and learn about the Dark Web, take better steps to protect their information, and educate themselves on how to recognize scams.
Whitney Grace, March 21, 2016
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Is a Second Winter Inevitable for Search Vendors Who Need Cash?
March 15, 2016
I read “Valley VCs Sit on Cash, Forcing Startups to Dial Back Ambition.” I am not sure how one turns a knob on ambition. I think in terms of common sense. The write up suggests:
For most firms this is a pause, a reset, not a meltdown.
Very metaphorical. I think this passage in the write up chops the niblets off the cob so we can see the core of the matter:
Once driven by fear of missing out on the next Uber or Airbnb, formerly frenzied venture investors have turned circumspect, waiting to see how far the tech market will fall.
Forget the unicorns. Think in terms of the outfits which get funded at more modest levels. These outfits are similar to Attivio, BA Insight, and Coveo, among others. Generating revenues is expensive and difficult. Paying for bug fixes and enhanced technology are expensive and don’t follow a predictable schedule.
My hunch is that some of the search and content processing vendors will find that instead of spring arriving, another winter is coming.
What are the options? Selling out, closing the doors, and partnering. Let’s not overlook marketing using wild and crazy buzzwords. Anaphora, anyone?
Stephen E Arnold, March 15, 2016
Palantir Gets a Rah Rah from Bloomberg
March 5, 2016
I posted the unicorn flier in “Palantir: A Dying Unicorn or a Mad, Mad Sign?” I read “Palantir Staff Shouldn’t Believe the Unicorn Flyers.” I assume that the alleged fliers did exist in the Shire and were not figments of a Tolkienesque imagination. (I wonder of JRR’s classes were anchored in reality.)
The write up states:
For now, Palantir people can rest easy in the Shire, a.k.a. downtown Palo Alto, Calif. The company, which was named after the “seeing stones” from the Lord of the Rings, is not at risk of an evil wizard with preferred shares coming to vaporize workers’ share value.
The write up contains a hefty dose of jargon; for example:
During the fourth quarter of 2015, 42 percent of deals had such provisions, compared with 15 percent in the previous two quarters. Investors were also given the right to block an initial public offering that didn’t meet their valuation threshold in 33 percent of deals in the fourth quarter, compared with 20 percent in the second quarter, the study said. Palantir had neither provision.
Okay.
The only hitch in the git along is that Morgan Stanley has cut the value of its stake in Palantir.
Worth watching even if one is not an employee hoping that the value of this particular unicorn is going to morph into a Pegasus.
Stephen E Arnold, March 5, 2016
Newspapers and Google Grants
March 4, 2016
I read “Google Continuing Effort to Win Allies Amid Europe Antitrust Tax Probes.” (You may have to pay to view this article and its companion “European newspapers Get Google Grants.” Hey, Mr. Murdoch has bills to pay.)
As you may know, Google has had an on again off again relationship with “real” publishers. Also, Alphabet Google finds itself snared in some income tax matters.
The write up points out:
Alphabet Inc.’s Google … awarded a set of grants to European newspapers and offered to help protect them from cyber attacks, continuing an effort to win allies while it faces both antitrust and tax probes.
I find this interesting. Has Alphabet Google “trumped” some of its early activities. I like that protection against cyber attacks too. Does that mean that Alphabet Google does not protect other folks against cyber attacks?
Stephen E Arnold, March 4, 2016
Google Is Taxing
March 3, 2016
I read “Google Lowered Taxes by $2.4 Billion Using European Subsidiaries.” Interesting stuff now that tax season in the US. My reaction to the headline is that Google is probably conforming to the applicable laws.
The write up points out:
Google saved $2.4 billion in worldwide taxes in 2014 by shifting 10.7 billion euros ($12 billion) in international revenues to a Bermuda shell company, regulatory filings show.
I like Bermuda. The write up referenced the method which I have noted before:
Google’s Dutch subsidiary is the heart of tax structures known as a “Double Irish” and a “Dutch Sandwich” because it involves moving money from one Google subsidiary in Ireland to a Google subsidiary in the Netherlands before moving it out again to a different Irish subsidiary, physically based in Bermuda, where there is no corporate income tax. This movement of cash enables Google parent Alphabet to keep the effective tax rate on its international income in the single digits.
The more coverage the Google sandwiches get, the more regulators will think about the Alphabet Google thing.
I am not sure that publicity with regard to tax methods is particularly helpful.
Stephen E Arnold, March 3, 2016
Why Google Compare Was Terminated with Extreme Prejudice
March 3, 2016
I read “Google Will generate More Revenue from a Fourth Ad Than from Compare.” The answer is in the headline. The Alphabet Google thing is worrying about lawsuits, costs and revenue. Focus is often a good thing for a giant company with Loon balloons, researchers working on solving death, and mechanics building robots unsuitable for use in a pre-school.
The write up reports:
Since Google now shows four ads on “highly commercial queries” instead of three, the search engine clearly believes that the fourth listing will generate more revenue from one of the price comparison websites than it has done from searchers using its own comparison tools. Morling [a Google watcher it seems] told me that “developing a financial comparison service along with continual innovation takes time, resources and expertise”. He added: “Consumers are unlikely to lose out because those sites dedicated to financial comparison are better placed to provide added value such as supporting information and richer functionality.”
My conclusion is that if a Google service is a liability, that service may be given the Orkut treatment.
Stephen E Arnold, March 3, 2016
Stolen Online Account Info Now More Valuable than Stolen Credit Card Details
March 2, 2016
You should be aware that criminals are now less interested in your credit cards and other “personally identifiable information” and more keen on exploiting your online accounts. As security firm Tripwire informs us in their State of Security blog, “Stolen Uber, PayPal Accounts More Coveted than Credit Cards on the Dark Web.” Writer Maritza Santillan explains:
“The price of these stolen identifiers on the underground marketplace, or ‘the Dark Web,’ shows the value of credit cards has declined in the last year, according to security firm Trend Micro. Last week, stolen Uber account information could be found on underground marketplaces for an average of $3.78 per account, while personally identifiable information, such as Social Security Numbers or dates of birth, ranged from $1 to $3.30 on average – down from $4 per record in 2014, reported CNBC. Furthermore, PayPal accounts – with a guaranteed balance of $500 –were found to have an average selling price of $6.43. Facebook logins sold for an average of $3.02, while Netflix credentials sold for about 76 cents. By contrast, U.S.-issued credit card information, which is sold in bundles, was listed for no more than 22 cents each, said CNBC.”
The article goes on to describe a few ways criminals can leverage these accounts, like booking Uber “ghost rides,” or assembling personal details for a very thorough identity theft. Pros say the trend means service providers to pay closer attention to usage patterns, and to beef up their authentication processes. Specifically, says Forrester’s Andras Cser, it is time to move beyond passwords; instead, he proposes, companies should look for changes in biometric data, like phone position and finger pressure, which would be communicated back to them by our mobile devices. So we’re about to be even more closely monitored by the companies we give our money to. All for our own good, of course.
Cynthia Murrell, March 2, 2016
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Alphabet Google Search: Dominance Ending?
February 28, 2016
I read “Will PageRank Expiration Threaten Google’s Dominance.” The main point is that Google’s shift to artificial intelligence “hurt Google Search’s market share and its stock price?”
The write up references the 1997 write up about the search engine’s core algorithms. (There is no reference to the work by Jon Kleinberg and the Clever system, which is understandable I suppose.) Few want to view Google as a me-too outfit, “cleverly” overlooking the firm’s emulation strategy. Think GoTo.com/Overture/Yahoo in the monetization mechanism.
The write up states:
The Google Search today transcends PageRank: Google has a myriad of proprietary technology.
I agree. Google is not an open source centric outfit. When was the last time, Google made it easy to locate its employees’ technical papers, presentations at technical conferences, or details about products and services which just disappear. Orkut, anyone?
The write up shifts its focus to some governance issues; for example, Google’s Loon balloon, solving death, etc. There is a reference to Google’s strategy concerning mobile phones.
Stakeholders may want to worry because Google is dependent on search for the bulk of its revenues. I learned:
From Alphabet’s recent 10-k and Google’s Search revenues from Statista, you will realize that Search has been ~92%, ~90%, ~90% of total revenues in 2013-2015 respectively.
No big news here.
The core challenge for analysts will be to figure out if a shift to artificial intelligence methods for search will have unforeseen consequences. For example, maybe Google has figured out that the cost of indexing the Web is too expensive. AI may be a way to reduce costs of indexing and serving results. Google may realize that the shift from desktop based queries to mobile queries threatens Google’s ability to deliver information with the same perceived relevance that the desktop experience created in users’ perceptions.
Alphabet Google is at a cross road. The desktop model from the late 1990s is less and less relevant in 2016. Like any other company faced with change, Google’s executives find themselves in the same boat as other online vendors. Today’s revenues may not be the revenues of tomorrow.
Will Alphabet Google face the information headwinds which buffeted Autonomy, Convera, Endeca, Fast Search & Transfer, and similar information access vendors? Is Google facing a long walk down the path which America Online and Yahoo followed? Will the one trick revenue pony die when it cannot adapt to the mobile jungle?
Good questions. Answers? Tough to find.
Stephen E Arnold, February 28, 2016
Palantir: A Dying Unicorn or a Mad, Mad Sign?
February 26, 2016
I learned that some wag posted a Mad Magazine-type cartoon with an MBA-ish message. I am not sure if this is a message from the heart of a disgruntled Hobbit or someone angling for a writer’s job on a late night talk show.
Here’s the image I saw:
The point seems to be that the value of Palantir is in doubt. With the roiling of the financial valuations for outfits with billion dollar plus valuations, employees who work for stakes in a zoon zoon outfit may be in a cold, cold night.
I have inserted this alleged real-deal poster in my forthcoming overview of Palantir. If you want to reserve a copy, write benkent2020 [at] yahoo dot com. The 50 page report from ArnoldIT is US$99. The report will be available for sale in April 2016.
The report covers Palantir’s differences from Autonomy’s and i2’s augmented intelligence systems, examples of the “helper” interfaces, and a gathering of open source information about the firm. We have examined Palantir’s publicly accessible technical materials and identified 18 interesting technical innovations. A subset of this larger Palantir analysis will be included in the forthcoming Dark Web Notebook. I will offer some general comments in my forthcoming interview for the Singularity One on One video podcast as well.
Exciting if you follow how search-centric systems are shaped to perform value-added services for government and commercial clients. Open source with lipstick is a business model I find quite interesting to think about.
Stephen E Arnold, February 26, 2016
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
