Google versus Microsoft: Whose Marketing Is Wonkier?
April 17, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I want to do what used to be called a comparison. I read Microsoft’s posts on April 12, 2023 (I don’t know for certain because LinkedIn does not provide explicit data and time information because who really cares about indexing anymore.) The first post shown in the screenshot is from the Big Dog himself at Microsoftland. The information is one more announcement about the company’s use of OpenAI’s technology in another Microsoftland product. I want to shout, “Enough already,” but my opinion is not in sync with Microsoft’s full-scale assault on Microsoft users. It is now a combination of effective hyperbole and services designed to “add value.” The post below Mr. Nadella’s is from another Softie. The main point is that Microsoft is doing smart things for providers and payors. My view is that Microsoft is doing this AI thing for money, but again my view is orthogonal to the company which cannot make some of its software print on office printers.
Source: LinkedIn 2023 at shorturl.at/egnpz. Note: The LinkedIn url is a long worm thing. I do not know if the short url will render. If not, give Microsoft’s search function a whirl.
Key takeaways: Microsoft owns a communications channel. Microsoft posts razzmatazz verbiage about smart software. Microsoft controls the message. Want more? Just click the big plus and Microsoft will direct more information directly at you, maybe on your Windows 11 start menu.
Now navigate to “Sundar Pichai’s Response to the Delayed Launch of Bard Is Brilliant and Reminds Us Why Google Is Still Great.” I want to cry for joy because the Google has not lost the marketing battle with Microsoft. I want to shout, “Google is number one.” I want to wave Googley color pom poms and jump up and down. Join me. “Google is number one.”
The write up strikes me as a remarkable example of lip flapping and arm waving; to wit:
Google secures its competitive advantage not necessarily by being the fastest to act, but by staying the course on why it exists and what it stands for. Innovation and product disruption is baked into its existence. From its operating models to its people strategy, everything gets painted with a stroke of ingenuity, curiosity, and creativity. While other companies may have been first to market with new technologies or products, Google’s focus on innovation and improving upon existing solutions has allowed it to surpass competitors and become the market leader in many areas.
The statements in this snippet are remarkable for several reasons:
- Google itself announced Code Red, a crisis. Google itself called Mom and Dad (Messrs. Brin and Page) to return to the Mountain View mothership to help figure out what to do after Microsoft’s Davos AI blizzard. Google itself has asked every employee to work on smart software. Now Google is being cautious. Is that why Googler Jeff Dean has invested in a ChatGPT competitor?
- Google is killing off products. The online magazine with the weird logo published “The Google Graveyard” in 2019. On April 12, 2023, Google killed off something called Currents. Believe it or not, the product was to replaced Google Plus. Yeah, Google really put wood behind the hit for a social media home run.
- The phrase “ingenuity, curiosity, and creativity” does not strike me as the way to sum up how Google operates. I think in terms of “poaching and paying for the GoTo, Overture, Yahoo online advertising inspiration,” perfecting the swinging door so all parties to an ad deal pay Google, and speaking like a wandering holy figure when answering questions before a legal body.
Key takeaways: Google relies on a PR firm or a Ford F 150 Lightning carrying Google mouse pads to get a magazine to write an article which appears to be a reality not reflected by the quite specific statements and actions of the Google.
Bottom-line: Microsoft bought a channel. Google did not. Google may want to consider implementing the “me too” approach and buy an Inc.-type publication. I am now going to be increasingly skeptical of the information presented by Inc. Magazine. I already know to be deeply suspicious of LinkedIn.
Stephen E Arnold, April 17, 2023
The Chivalric Ideal: Social Media Companies as Jousters or Is It Jesters?
April 12, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
As a dinobaby, my grade school education included some biased, incorrect, yet colorful information about the chivalric idea. The basic idea was that knights were governed by the chivalric social codes. And what are these, pray tell, squire? As I recall Miss Soapes, my seventh grade teacher, the guts included honor, honesty, valor, and loyalty. Scraping away the glittering generalities from the disease-riddled, classist, and violent Middle Ages – the knights followed the precepts of the much-beloved Church, opened doors for ladies, and embodied the characters of Sir Gawain, Lancelot, King Arthur, and a heaping dose of Hector of Troy, Alexander the Great (who by the way figured out pretty quickly that what is today Afghanistan would be tough to conquer), and baloney gathered by Ramon Llull were the way to succeed.
Flash forward to 2023, and it appears that the chivalric ideals are back in vogue. “Google, Meta, Other Social Media Platforms Propose Alliance to Combat Misinformation” explains that social media companies have written a five page “proposal.” The recipient is the Indian Ministry of Electronics and IT. (India is a juicy market for social media outfits not owned by Chinese interests… in theory.)
The article explains that a proposed alliance of outfits like Meta and Google:
will act as a “certification body” that will verify who a “trusted” fact-checker is.
Obviously these social media companies will embrace the chivalric ideals to slay the evils of weaponized, inaccurate, false, and impure information. These companies mount their bejeweled hobby horses and gallop across the digital landscape. The actions evidence honor, loyalty, justice, generosity, prowess, and good manners. Thrilling. Cinematic in scope.
The article says:
Social media platforms already rely on a number of fact checkers. For instance, Meta works with fact-checkers certified by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), which was established in 2015 at the US-based Poynter Institute. Members of IFCN review and rate the accuracy of stories through original reporting, which may include interviewing primary sources, consulting public data and conducting analyses of media, including photos and video. Even though a number of Indian outlets are part of the IFCN network, the government, it is learnt, does not want a network based elsewhere in the world to act on content emanating in the country. It instead wants to build a homegrown network of fact-checkers.
Will these white knights defeat the blackguards who would distort information? But what if the companies slaying the inaccurate factoids are implementing a hidden agenda? What if the companies are themselves manipulating information to gain an unfair advantage over any entity not part of the alliance?
Impossible. These are outfits which uphold the chivalric ideals. Truth, honor, etc., etc.
The historical reality is that chivalry was cooked up by nervous “rulers” in order to control the knights. Remember the phrase “knight errant”?
My hunch is that the alliance may manifest some of the less desirable characteristics of the knights of old; namely, weapons, big horses, and a desire to do what was necessary to win.
Knights, mount your steeds. To battle in a far off land redolent with exotic spices and revenue opportunities. Toot toot.
Stephen E Arnold, April 2023
Google and Consistency: Hobgoblin? Nah, Basic High School Management Method
April 11, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid
I read with some amusement the story “Google Backtracks on a Business-Disrupting Limitation to Its Drive Storage Service.” The write up explains:
Google recently decided to impose a new “surprise” limitation to Drive, making business customers unable to create an unlimited number of files on the service.
Was there a warning? An option for customers? Nah. The management methods of the Google do not consider these facets of a decision. Is there a management procedure? That’s a question?
The write up reports:
as as Mountain View [Google management] finally confirmed that the file cap actually was a “safeguard” designed to prevent possible misuse of Drive in a way that could “impact the stability and safety of the system.”
Safeguards are good. Customer focused and feel goody.
The write up then states without any critical comment:
the weekend provided enough feedback from dissatisfied users that Google had to reverse its decision.
Thus, a decision was made, users complained, and someone at Google actually looked at the mess and made a decision to reverse the file limit.
How long did this take? About 48 hours.
Does this signal that Google is customer centric? Nope.
Does this decision illustrate a deliberate management method? Nope.
Is this the Code Red operating environment in action? Yep.
I have to dash. I hear the high school class change bell ringing. No high school science club meeting tomorrow.
Stephen E Arnold, April 11, 2023
The Google: A Big, Fat, and Code Red Addled Target for Squabbling Legal Eagles
April 10, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
Does the idea of a confused Google waving its tiny arms at pesky legal eagles seem possible. The Google is not just an online advertising leader, it is a magnet for attorneys, solicitors, and the aforementioned legal eagle.
“Rival Lawsuits Vie to Represent UK Publishers in Class-action Claim against Google” states:
The dinosaur – legal eagle image is the product of the really smart and intuitive ScribbledDiffusion.com system.
“Rival Lawsuits Vie to Represent UK Publishers in Class-action Claim against Google” states:
The claimants in both those cases argue that Google has engaged in anti-competitive behavior through its control of each part of the market for display advertising. The trillion-dollar company provides technology to both advertisers and publishers (through products such as Google Adsense and Doubleclick for Publishers) and runs AdX, an ad exchange that mediates advertising auctions.
Imagine two different lawsuits with flocks of squabbling lawyers. Poor Google. The company is dealing with the downstream consequences of Microsoft’s brilliant marketing play. The company has called into question the techno-wizardry of the online advertising outfit. Plus, it has rippled through its management processes. The already wonky approach to PR and HR are juicy targets for critics and some aggrieved employees.
How will Google respond? My concern is that Google’s senior management is becoming less capable than it was pre-Microsoft at Davos era. The Google is not going away, but its recent behaviors like changing file size limits, dumping employees, and apparent confusion about what to do now that Messrs. Brin and Page have returned to Starfleet command.
A real Bard said:
So quick bright things come to confusion. (Midsummer Night’s Dream, which should not be read aloud in a sophomore high school English class. Right, Bottom?)
I am not sure what Google’s Bard would say. I am reluctant to use the system since my son asked it, “Which city is better? Memphis, Tennessee, or Barcelona, Spain. Bard pointed out that Memphis was a soccer player who liked Barcelona.”
What the risk of this UK spat between lawyers getting resolved? Maybe 90 percent. What’s the likelihood Google will be hit with another fine? Maybe 95 percent. Being under siege and equipped with arthritic management hands at the controls of an ageing starship are liabilities in my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, April 10, 2023
Google: Traffic in Kings Cross? Not So Hot
April 6, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I saw a picture of a sign held by a Googler (maybe a Xoogler or a Xoogler to be?) with the message:
Google layoffs. Hostile. Unnecessary. Brutal. Unfair.
Another Google PR/HR moment upon which the management team can surf… or drown? (One must consider different outcomes, mustn’t one?)
I did a small bit of online sleuthing and discovered what may be a “real” news story about the traffic hassles in King’s Cross this morning (April 4, 2023). “Unite Google Workers Strike Outside London HQ over Alleged Appalling Treatment” reports:
Google workers have been reduced to tears by fears of being made redundant, a union representative told a London rally… Others clutched placards with messages such as “Being evil is not a strategy” and “R.I.P Google culture 1998 – 2023”.
Google’s wizardly management team allegedly said:
Google said it has been “constructively engaging and listening to employees”.
I want to highlight a quite spectacular statement, which — for all I know — could have been generated by Google’s smart software which has allegedly been infused with some ChatGPT goodness:
It [the union for aspiring Xooglers] also alleges that employees with disabilities are being told to get a doctor’s note if they want a colleague to attend their meetings and “even then, union representation is still prohibited”.
Let me put this in context. Google is dealing with what I call the Stapler Affair. Plus, it continues to struggle against the stream of marketing goodness flowing from Redmond, seat of the new online advertising pretender to Google’s throne. The company continues to flail at assorted legal eagles bringing good tidings of great joy to lawyers billing for the cornucopia of lawsuits aimed at the Google.
My goodness. Now Google has created a bit of ill will for London sidewalk, bus, and roadway users. Does this sound like a desirable outcome? Maybe for Google senior management, not those trying to be happy at King’s Cross.
Stephen E Arnold, April 6, 2023
Google, Does Quantum Supremacy Imply That Former Staff Grouse in Public?
April 5, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I am not sure if this story is spot on. I am writing about “Report: A Google AI Researcher Resigned after Learning Google’s Bard Uses Data from ChatGPT.” I am skeptical because today is All Fools’ Day. Being careful is sometimes a useful policy. An exception might be when a certain online advertising company is losing bigly to the marketing tactics of [a] Microsoft, the AI in Word and Azure Security outfit, [b] OpenAI and its little language model that could, and [c] Midjourney which just rolled out its own camera with a chip called Bionzicle. (Is this perhaps pronounced “bio-cycle” like washing machine cycle or “bion zickle” like bio pickle? I go with the pickle sound; it seems appropriate.
The cited article reports as actual factual real news:
ChatGPT AI is often accused of leveraging “stolen” data from websites and artists to build its AI models, but this is the first time another AI firm has been accused of stealing from ChatGPT. ChatGPT is powering Bing Chat search features, owing to an exclusive contract between Microsoft and OpenAI. It’s something of a major coup, given that Bing leap-frogged long-time search powerhouse Google in adding AI to its setup first, leading to a dip in Google’s share price.
This is im port’ANT as the word is pronounced on a certain podcast.
More interesting to me is that recycled Silicon Valley type real news verifies this remarkable assertion as the knowledge output of a PROM’ inANT researcher, allegedly named Jacob Devlin. Mr. Devil has found his future at – wait for it – OpenAI. Wasn’t OpenAI the company that wanted to do good and save the planet and then discovered Microsoft backing, thirsty trapped AI investors, and the American way of wealth?
Net net: I wish I could say, April’s fool, but I can’t. I have an unsubstantiated hunch that Google’s governance relies on the whims of high school science club members arguing about what pizza topping to order after winning the local math competition. Did the team cheat? My goodness no. The team has an ethical compass modeled on the triangulations of William McCloundy or I.O.U. O’Brian, the fellow who sold the Brooklyn Bridge in the early 20th century.
Stephen E Arnold, April 5, 2023
Google Economics: The Cost of Bard Versus Staplers
April 4, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
Does anyone remember the good old days at the Google. Tony Bennett performing in the cafeteria. What about those car washes? How about the entry security system which was beset with door propped open with credit card receipts from Fred’s Place. Those were the days.
I read “Google to Cut Down on Employee Laptops, Services and Staplers for Multi-Year Savings.” The article explains:
Google said it’s cutting back on fitness classes, staplers, tape and the frequency of laptop replacements for employees. One of the company’s important objectives for 2023 is to “deliver durable savings through improved velocity and efficiency.” Porat said in the email. “All PAs and Functions are working toward this,” she said, referring to product areas. OKR stands for objectives and key results.
Yes, OKR. I wonder if the Sundar and Prabhakar comedy act will incorporate staplers into their next presentation.
And what about the $100 billion the Google “lost” after its quantum supremacy smart software screwed up in Paris? Let’s convert that to staplers, shall we? Today (April 4, 2023), I can purchase one office stapler from Amazon (Google’s fellow traveler in trashing relevance with advertisements) for $10.98. I liked the Bostitch Office Heavy Duty device, which is Amazon’s number one best seller (according to Amazon marketing).
The write up pointed out:
Staplers and tape are no longer being provided to print stations companywide as “part of a cost effectiveness initiative,” according to a separate, internal facilities directive viewed by CNBC.
To recoup that $100 million, Google will have to not purchase 9,107,468.12. I want to retain the 0.12 because one must be attentive to small numbers (unlike some of the fancy math in the Snorkel world). Google, I have heard, has about 100,000 “employees”, but it is never clear which are “real” employees, contractors, interns, or mysterious partners. Thus each of these individuals will be responsible for NOT losing or breaking 91 staplers per year.
I know the idea of rationing staplers is like burning Joan of Arc. It’s not an opportunity to warm a croissant; it is the symbolism of the event.
Google in 2023 knows how to keep me in stitches. Sorry, staples. And the cost of Bard? As the real Bard said:
Poor and content is rich and rich enough,
But riches fineless is as poor as winter
To him that ever fears he shall be poor. (Othello, III.iv)
Stephen E Arnold, April 4, 2023
Ready, Fire, Aim: Google and File Limits
April 4, 2023
Google is quite accomplished when the firm is required to ingest money from its customers. These are individuals and organizations “important” to the company which operates in self-described quantum supremacy mode. In a few other corporate functions, the company is less polished.
One example is described in “Google Drive Does a Surprise Rollout of File Limits, Locking Out Some Users.” The subtitle of the article is:
The new file limit means you can’t actually use the storage you buy from Google.
If the information in the write up is correct, it appears that Google is collecting money and not delivering the service marketed to some of its customers. A corollary is that I pay a yearly fee for a storage unit. When I arrive to park my bicycle for the winter, my unit is locked, and there is no staff to let me open the unit or way to access what’s in the storage unit. I am not sure I would be happy.
The article points out:
The 5 million total file cap isn’t documented anywhere, and remember, it has been two months since this rolled out. It’s not listed on the Google One or Google Workspace plan pages, and we haven’t seen any support documents about it. Google also doesn’t have any tools to see if you’re getting close to this file limit—there’s no count of files anywhere.
If this statement is accurate, then Google is selling and collecting money for one thing and delivering another to some customers. In my view, I think Google has hit upon a brilliant solution to a problem of coping with the increasing burden of its ill-advised promotion of “free” and “low cost” storage cooked up by long-gone Googlers. Yep, those teenagers making cookies without mom supervising do create a mess.
The article includes a superb example of Google speak, a form of language known to please legal professionals adjudicating different issues in which Google finds itself tangled; to wit:
A Google spokesperson confirmed to Ars that the file limit isn’t a bug, calling the 5 million file cap “a safeguard to prevent misuse of our system in a way that might impact the stability and safety of the system.” The company clarified that the limit applies to “how many items one user can create in any Drive,” not a total cap for all files in a drive. For individual users, that’s not a distinction that matters, but it could matter if you share storage with several accounts. Google added, “This limit does not impact the vast majority of our users’ ability to use their Google storage.” and “In practice, the number of impacted users here is vanishingly small.”)
From my vantage point in rural Kentucky, I think the opaque and chaotic approach to file limits is a useful example of what I call “high school science club management methods.” Those folks, as I recall as a high school science club member myself, just know better, don’t check with anyone in administration, and offer non-explanations.
In fact, the “vanishingly small” number of users affected by this teeny bopper professionalism is vanishingly small. Isn’t that the direction in which Google’s image, brand, and trust factor is heading? Toward the vanishingly small? Let’s ask ChatGPT, shall we: “Why does Google engage in Ready, fire, aim antics?”
Stephen E Arnold, April 4, 2023
Has the Google Caught Its Tail in a Digital Shredder?
March 30, 2023
Judge Donato concluded that Google took deliberate steps to make certain chat messages would not be preserved. The intentional campaign suggests that Google’s senior management is careless, forgetful, or possibly mendacious. Here is a statement in a court document issued on March 27, 2023 for Case No. 3:21-md-02981-JD:
Like Mr. Pichai, other key Google employees, including those in leadership roles, routinely opted to move from history-on rooms to history-off Chats to hold sensitive conversations, even though they knew they were subject to legal holds. Indeed, they did so even when discussing topics they knew were covered by the litigation holds in order to avoid leaving a record that could be produced in litigation. As the examples below make clear, Google destroyed innumerable Chats with the intent to deprive Plaintiffs and other litigants of the use of these documents in litigation.
Another court document. presents information which suggests to me a pattern of intentional behavior. This 19 page list of interesting actions is worth the time required to read how the Google presents one face outside the company and another one inside the company. Googzilla appears to have a touch of the Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in its DNA.
I think it would be helpful if I could delete with one action unwanted emails, text messages, and spam calls. Why should Google reserve instant deletion for its estimable professionals?
Net net: After more than two decades of wowing people with mouse pads, massive revenue, and protestations that the company is not misbehaving, I think someone should create a T shirt in bright Googley colors with the legend, “Be evil?”
Sales of the shirt may not create the buzz that OpenAI and ChatGPT has, but it is a start. Googzilla is likely to find its balance compromised due to the loss of its tail. Ouch.
Stephen E Arnold, March 30, 2023
A Xoogler Predicts Solving Death
March 30, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I thought Google was going to solve death. Sigh. Just like saying, We deliver relevant results,” words at the world’s largest online advertising outfit often have special meanings.
I read “Humans Will Achieve Immortality in Eight Years, Says Former Google Engineer Who Has Predicted the Future with 86% Accuracy.” I — obviously — believe everything I read on the Internet. I assume that the “engineer who has predicted the future with 86% accuracy” has cashed in on NFL bets, the Kentucky Derby, and the stock market hundreds of times. I worked for a finance wizard who fired people who were wrong 49 percent of the time. Why didn’t this financial genius hire a Xoogler who hit 86 percent accuracy. Oh, well.
The write up in the estimable Daily Mail asserts:
He said that machines are already making us more intelligent and connecting them to our neocortex will help people think more smartly. Contrary to the fears of some, he believes that implanting computers in our brains will improve us. ‘We’re going to get more neocortex, we’re going to be funnier, we’re going to be better at music. We’re going to be sexier’, he said.
Imagine that. A sexier 78-year-old! A sexier Xoogler! Amazing!
But here’s the topper in the write up:
Now the former Google engineer believes technology is set to become so powerful it will help humans live forever, in what is known as the singularity.
How did this wizard fail his former colleagues by missing the ChatGPT thing?
Well, 86 percent accuracy is not 100 percent, is it? I hope that part about a sexier 78-year-old is on the money though.
Stephen E Arnold, March 30, 2023
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
