Loon Balloon Crashes in Kenya. Legal Eagles Take Flight
January 5, 2018
A few days ago I read “Google High Altitude Balloon Crashes in Meru Miraa Farm.” I bopped over to Google Maps and plugged in “Nthambiro, Meru, Kenya.” As you can tell from the screen shot of this “location,” Google Maps provides modest detail and no coordinates for Nthambiro, Meru.
The primary school in the picture is interesting, but I have zero idea where the Loon balloon crashed.
One of my newsfeeds spit out this article today: “Farmer Threatens to Slap Google with Suit over Balloon Crash.”
The lawyers involved in the issue could locate the farm and track down Joseph Nguthari, whose property was trampled by neighbors who wanted to check out the Loon balloons. The write up asserts:
Mr Nguthari says curious residents trampled on his maize, beans and green grams crop while some helped themselves to his Miraa trees causing ‘massive’ damage.
The write up explains that people came in “droves.” Seven acres of crops were “trampled.”
The write up reports that Mr. Nguthari stated:
“The damage was made worse after police officers shot in the air to disperse the crowd that was keen to see the device. People were running in all directions destroying my farm produce. My farmhand also left on that day,” he added. The device was one of 10 balloons deployed for testing in Nakuru, Nanyuki, Nyeri and Marsabit in July last year. It was being navigated remotely to land in a less populated area but strong winds led it to Mr Nguthari’s farm.
I ran the query for the location on Bing Maps. Zip.
From my point of view, legal eagles are able to pinpoint the location of an event which can be converted into a high profile legal attack on Google.
No update is available to us in Harrod’s Creek about the Loon balloons that were to provide Internet access to Puerto Rico.
We’re confident that the alleged “damage” to the crops is no big deal. Google’s legal team can deal with any litigation. However, Google Maps may not be all that helpful.
Stephen E Arnold, January 5, 2018
Give Bing a Chance
January 5, 2018
Google is still the most popular web search engine by far, but should we be giving Bing a closer look? Editor Anmol at the admittedly Microsoft-centric blog MSPowerUser explains, “Why I Prefer Bing Over Google (And You Should Too).” He begins with a little history:
Formerly called as MSN Search, Windows Live Search or Live Search, Bing was unveiled by former CEO of Microsoft, Steve Ballmer on May 28th, 2009 and went live on June 3rd. 2009. Since then, Microsoft is showing its commitment to Bing as an Internet Search Engine rivalling the dominant giant Google. With Windows 8.1, Bing was deeply integrated with the OS with what was called ‘Smart Search’ and this was accessible from the Start Screen. But now a Search Engine is not used ‘just as a search engine.’ Now we use these services to find coffee places around us, book cabs, book movie tickets and more.
True. So why does the author think Bing is best? First, Bing integrates with the very useful Cortana, Microsoft’s digital assistant and, second, it is available across operating systems. Though others might disagree, Anmol feels Bing’s actual search results are as good as Google’s and, besides, it makes some good predictions. Here are the other strengths Anmol cites: a more appealing home page, the Microsoft rewards program, integration with Facebook Messenger, strong local search, package tracking, a capable image-search function, and its advanced math skills. Bing even seems to understand the needs of developers better than Google does. See the write-up for elaboration, including screenshots, on each of these points.
Anmol concludes:
Above are all that I think made me switch to Bing and are keeps me staying. All these features are brought together to life with advanced machine learning algorithms and years of research and hard work. As Microsoft is a productivity-focused Software giant, Bing is something that drives a large part of its revenue by conquering a large amount of market share. Because of their success already I can only see Microsoft offering even tougher competition to its largest rival Google.
Cynthia Murrell, January 5, 2018
Google Images Staring down Some Steep Competition
January 5, 2018
When we are looking for photos online Google Images has become a sort of shorthand for tracking down pics quick. The folks in Mountain View don’t want you to think much about its shortcomings. However, that topic is bubbling up to the surface, as we saw in a recent Free Technology for Teachers story, “5 Good Alternatives to Google Image Search.”
According to the story:
Google Images tends to be the default image search tool of students and adults who haven’t been introduced to better options. Google Images is convenient, but it’s not the best place for students to find images that are in the public domain or images that have been labeled with a Creative Commons license.
One they recommend is:
Unsplash offers a huge library of images that are either in the public domain or have a Creative Common license. If you or your students are using Google Slides, the Unsplash add-on for Google Slides makes it easy to quickly take images from Unsplash and add them to your slides. Watch my video embedded below to see how the Unsplash add-on for Google Slides works.
This should be a wakeup call for Google. The tech giant seems to have a new balloon popped every day. We love competition and we love leaders reinventing themselves to better meet client needs. We consider this to be a win-win no matter how you slice it.
Patrick Roland, January 5, 2018
Linguistic AI Research in China
January 4, 2018
How is linguistics AI fairing in the country with some of the most complex languages in the world? The linguistics blog Language Log examines “Linguistic Science and Technology in China.” Upon attending the International Workshop on Language Resource Construction: Theory, Methodology and Applications (PDF), writer Mark Liberman seems impressed with Chinese researchers’ progress. He writes:
The growing strength of Chinese research in the various areas of linguistic science and technology has been clear for some time, and the presentations and discussions at this workshop made it clear that this work is poised for a further major increase in quantity and quality. That trend is obviously connected to what Will Knight called “China’s AI Awakening” (Technology Review, 10/10/2017).
Liberman shares a passage from Knight’s article that emphasizes the Chinese government’s promotion of AI technology and links to other recent articles on the subject. He continues:
The Chinese government’s plan is well worth reading — and Google Translate does a good job of making it accessible to those who can’t read Chinese. Overall this plan strikes me as serious and well thought out, but there seems to me to be a potential tension between one aspect of the plan and the current reality. One of the plan’s four ‘basic principles’ is ‘Open Source.’ … This is very much like the approach followed in the U.S. over the past half century or so. But it’s increasingly difficult for Chinese researchers to ‘Actively participate in global R & D and management of artificial intelligence and optimize the allocation of innovative resources on a global scale,’ given the increasingly restrictive nature of the ‘Great Firewall.’
Hmm, he has a point there. The write-up compares China’s plan to Japan’s approach to AI in the 1980s but predicts China will succeed where Japan fell short. Liberman embeds links to several related articles within his, so check them out for more information.
Cynthia Murrell, January 4, 2018
Google Just Caught the Amazon Ad Disease
January 3, 2018
The ideas are good. Build up revenue from online sales. Diversity revenue and offset infrastructure costs, the bane of Alphabet Google. Open new channels with consumer hardware. Then look around for a competitor with a back injury or a wobbly knee and run plays at that weak spot.
Football American style?
Nope. Just Amazon’s apparent 2018 game plan.
I read “What It Means That Amazon Is Bringing Ads to Alexa.” (I must admit the working of the title was interesting with the phrase “means that”.)
The point of the write up focuses on the consumer “experience.” Sigh. I learned from the write up:
Amazon is reportedly testing out various ad types, including videos and promoted paid search results (a la Google). CNBC reports that Amazon is preparing for a “serious run at the ad market” that could begin as soon as this year.
I understand the counter argument: Google’s ad revenue is “safe.” See, for example, the analyst think in “Amazon’s Advertising Push Will Not Threaten Google’s Search Business, Analyst Says.”
My view is that Google is dependent upon online advertising. In the company’s two decades of making relevance irrelevant, Google lacks Amazon’s revenue diversity.
I may be a simplistic hick living in rural Kentucky, but it seems to be that the cost to Amazon to probe online ad revenues poses few risks and comparatively cost-free opportunities for the digital behemoth.
Let’s assume that Amazon is only partially successful; that is, the company lands a few big advertisers and confines its efforts to ads in Amazon search results and to Alexa outputs.
Google will have to spend big or cost costs in order to make up for the loss of a handful of big advertisers. The problem is similar to that Westlaw and LexisNexis face when a big law firm dies or merges with another firm. The revenues are expensive, time consuming, and difficult to replace.
Assume that Amazon is quite successful. The erosion of Google revenue may be modest at first and then map into one of those nifty diagrams for the spread of cancer. My recollection is that Sartwell’s Law may be germane. See “Sartwell’s Incubation Period Model Revisited in the Light of Dynamic Modeling.”
Amazon advertising may be a form of cancer. If it gains traction, the cancer will spread. Unpleasant metaphor, but it illustrates how Amazon can undermine Google and either [a] force Alphabet Google to spend more to remain healthy, [b] weaken Google so that it cannot resist other “infectious” incursions like governmental actions related to taxes and allegations of unfair practices, or [c] set Google up for gradual stagnation followed by a phase change (collapse).
In short, whether one is pro or anti Amazon, the testing of Amazon ads warrants watching.
Stephen E Arnold, January 3, 2018
Will China Overtake the US in AI?
January 3, 2018
Is the U.S. investing enough in AI technology? Not according to DefenseTech’s piece, “Google Exec: China to Outpace US in Artificial Intelligence by 2025.” Writer Matt Cox reports that the chairman of the Defense Innovation Board has warned that China is pursuing AI so vigorously that they will have caught up to the U.S. by 2020, will have surpassed us by 2025, and, by 2030, will “dominate” the field. However, Google’s Eric Schmidt, speaking at November’s Artificial Intelligence and Global Security Summit at the Center for New American Security, disagrees. Cox quotes Schmidt:
Just stop for a sec. The government said that. Weren’t we the ones who are in charge of AI dominance in our country? Weren’t we the ones that invented this stuff? Weren’t we the ones who were willing to go and exploit the benefits of all this technology for betterment of American exceptionalism and our own arrogant view?” Schmidt asked. “Trust me. These Chinese people are good,” he continued.
Currently, the United States does not have a national AI strategy, nor does it place a priority on funding basic research in AI and other science and technology endeavors, Schmidt said. “We need to get our act together as a country,” he said. “America is the country that leads in these areas; there is every reason we can continue that leadership.
Schmidt went on to note that today’s immigration restrictions are counterproductive, noting:
Iran produces some of the smartest and top computer scientists in the world. I want them here. It’s crazy not to let these people in. Would you rather have them building AI somewhere else or would you rather have them building it here?
Schmidt asserts the real problem lies within the gears of bureaucracy but suspects interdepartmental cooperation would improve drastically if we happened to be at war with a “major adversary.” I hope we do not have the chance to confirm his suspicion anytime soon.
Cynthia Murrell, January 3, 2018
Neural Net Machine Translation May Increase Acceptance by Human Translators
January 2, 2018
Apparently, not all professional translators are fond of machine translation technology, with many feeling that it just gets in their way. A post from Trusted Translations’ blog examines, “Rage Against the Machine Translation: What’s All the Fuzz About?” Writer Cesarm thinks the big developers of MT tech, like Google and Amazon, have a blind spot—the emotional impact on all the humans involved in the process. From clients to linguists to end users, each has a stake in the results. Especially the linguists, who, after all, could theoretically lose their jobs altogether to the technology. We’re told, however, that (unspecified) studies indicate translators are more comfortable with software that incorporates neural networking/ deep learning technology. I seem such tools produce a better linguistic flow, even if some accuracy is sacrificed. Cesarm writes:
That’s why I mention emotional investment in machine translation as a key element to reinventing the concept for users. Understanding the latest changes that have been implemented in the process can help MT-using linguists get over their fears. It seems the classic, more standardized way of MT, (based solely on statistical comparison rather than artificial intelligence) is much better perceived by heavy users, considering the latter to be more efficient and easier to ‘fix’ whenever a Post-Editing task is being conducted, while Post Editing pre-translated text, with more classical technology has proven to be much more problematic, erratic, and what has probably nurtured the anger against MT in the first place, giving it a bad name. Most users (if not all of them) will take on pre-translated material processed with statistical MT rather that rule based MT any day. It seems Neural MT could be the best tool to bridge the way to an increased degree of acceptance by heavy users.
Perhaps. I suppose we will see whether linguists’ prejudice against MT technology ultimately hinders the process.
Cynthia Murrell, January 2, 2018
The Google Imperative 2018: Do Not Survive. Thrive
January 1, 2018
At a New Year’s celebration, a well-meaning person buttonholed me and asked, “What’s going to happen to Google in 2018?” The person does not search like a high-powered information professional nor like an analyst laboring in the bowels of Shin Bet. I think the fellow wanted a stock tip presented as a query about the GOOG.
I don’t do stock tips.
I shared with the person my opinion that Google is not one company. How many firms have multiple overlapping applications to perform the same function? Want to search for online videos from antsy teens? Use either GoogleVideo.com or YouTube.com? Need to chat online? You have Google Duo and Google Groups and — what? — eight, nine, or more? Need high-speed communications in Puerto Rico? Pick either the Loon balloon or the laser method if you can.
I mentioned to the person who was guzzling bubbly while I sipped my lukewarm bottle of orange flavored Ice Water: “I think Google wants to build bridges, not walls.” I was thinking about the opinions and real news in “Google Looks to Mend Fences after Rocky 2017.” The article suggests or hypothesizes that
the GOOG In 2017, though, the company consistently found itself in damage control mode as it dealt with one controversy after another.
That’s a good thing I suggested.
I mentioned that Google seems to be struggling in relationship with Amazon, the Bezos behemoth which appears to have diversified its revenues, managed to change some business school professors’ thinking about supply chains, and created a gadget business which tells off color jokes much to the delight of 11 year old boys.
Speaking of children, I had in mind this article from Forbes: “Google And Amazon’s Childish Little Fight Is Spilling Into Your Home.” The operative idea is encapsulated in the word “childish.”
What happens when the high school science club gets into a down and out with the high school math club? Well, let me tell you that seating arrangements in the cafeteria change. Friendships are strained. Snide remarks can be heard in hallways.
Net net: Google is operating with a bicameral mind. On one hand, the company wants to do something “big.” On the other, it is scrambling to become pals with China. Recall that Google suggested to China’s leadership that the country should “change.” Now that was about as successful as a Loon balloon in a Category 3 storm I believe. Google’s million dollar lobbying machine is sputtering. Google is embroiled in an expensive battle with the European Union
Three observations:
- The spat with Amazon is an issue, and I am not sure that either company can be completely happy with the other. Let’s hope I am wrong because a teacher whom I know relies on YouTube and Amazon video for entertainment. What’s the adage, “When elephants fight, the grass gets trampled.”
- The problems with governments are going be difficult to wind down. The writing of checks and the promises of being a better corporate citizen have to be sold, then demonstrated. The problem is complicated because some countries see Google like an automated teller machine which spits out money when the lawyers enter the pass code “fines.”
- The diversification of revenue is likely to be a challenge. Google has been trying to come up with additional, high margin, sustainable revenue streams for more than 15 years. Plug those non online ad revenues in Excel. Use the “prediction” function, and what do you get? The result is a curve which does not match what Google has to do to achieve growth nirvana. Reality, unfortunately, is not the same as spreadsheet fever, public relations, and apologizing.
At the party, the person said, “So do I buy or sell Google shares?”
I smiled and said, “Ask Alexa.”
Stephen E Arnold, January 1, 2018
Who Helps Trash Relevance in Search? INC Has the Answer
December 30, 2017
I read a story in Inc. magazine. The write up’s title is “9 SEO Experts To Follow In 2018.” First, Google is not a person. I think the idea is that a person who wants to buy traffic should pay attention to the GOOG. But I am not sure Google is an expert like the other eight names on the list.
Now my view of search engine optimization is a bit different from that of “experts” in search engine optimization. I think SEO is part of a carnival trick to get people to buy Adwords.
I explain some of the mechanisms in The Google Legacy and Google Version 2: The Calculating Predator. (Alas, out of print, but I sell a rough draft in PDF form. Write benkent2020 at yahoo dot com if you are interested.)
The idea is that people fix up their Web pages to meet Google guidelines. Changes which pass muster produce a boost in traffic. Then usually after a month or so, the changes don’t deliver the traffic. Traffic erodes.
Check with the Google. What’s the fix? More SEO? Nah, just buy Adwords.
When the advertiser grouses that leads aren’t as wonderful as they were perceived to be, what’s the fix?
Give up?
Buy Adwords.
The loop is a nifty one. Lots of SEO “experts” bill clients for changes which may or may not have substantive impact. When whatever impact fizzles, Google is able to suggest Adwords.
Nifty.
My take on the pay for traffic game is that it is evidence of the death of relevance.
Therefore, the eight “experts” are accessories to the termination with extreme prejudice the notion of entering a query and getting results which directly relate to that query.
Call me old fashioned but SEO experts are in cahoots with Google type outfits in the pay for traffic game.
Give me Boolean, precision, and recall.
Sounds crazy right? Just ask an SEO expert. Most will agree. Who cares about relevance and stupid precision and recall?
Well, I do.
Stephen E Arnold, December 30, 2017
Google Confuses Forests and Trees According to an Informed Authority
December 29, 2017
I read an article which would have been unthinkable in 2004 when Google was the Hollywood of online companies. The write up appeared in Gizmodo and has a title guaranteed to annoy those in senior management who actually care about the company’s reputation; to wit:
Google’s Whole Hardware Thing Is Confusing the Hell Out of Me.
The link to the original is here.
The main point of the write up strikes me as:
In its second year thoroughly devoted to the hardware game, Google managed to create ear buds so bad that storing them in their charging case requires a video explanation, and a laptop so fantastic I spend a lot of time on forums plotting ways to load a more useful operating system onto it. In the wide chasm between these two gadgets lies everything else Google announced this year, and together, the hardware paints a confusing picture. Google what the hell are you doing?
My answer to the question is, “Google is looking for sustainable revenues in a way that pumps up or at least props up its online advertising schticht.
The Google can get its act together. But in the present economic climate the Google is not kicking Excite and Lycos or even Yahoo to the curb.
The online search giant has to find relevant results for Amazon, Facebook, and, yes, even Microsoft.
No wonder senior management is either changing roles, flying to hearings in Europe, working to be semi pals with China, or trying to solve death. Even the Loon balloon came back to earth as Google used lesser technology to help out Puerto Rico.
Gizmodo, it seems, is catching on to the whole Googzilla thing. Remember that the dinosaurs died.
Could it be happening again? Instead of a meteor, it may be write ups which document the weakness of the feathered predators. But not here in Harrod’s Creek. We love, absolutely love, the Google.
Stephen E Arnold, December 29, 2017
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
