Evil, Search, and the Real World
March 27, 2012
I am not into theodicy, and I surmise the author of “Why “Don’t Be Evil” Is Evil, and Why Google Isn’t So Bad” is possibly less fascinated than I. I won’t say “informed” because after my year in the Jesuit strong hold of Duquesne University, I appreciate “evil.” I also am not going into poetry mode and drag in John Milton’s “Paradise Lost” and “Paradise Regained.” The Puritan dude had a Googley amanuensis who knocked out a killer poem with the fantastic peach metaphor. But let’s put John Milton, Andrew Marvell, and epistemology aside.
Let’s consider this passage by a writer more capable, in my opinion, than either Milton or Marvell when it comes to explicating evil’s cone of connotation:
I’m not convinced by Honan’s larger argument that Google’s recent actions should earn it our deep distrust. That’s mainly because nothing that Google has done is really so bad when compared to others in the tech industry. I’ve gone on record as hating Search Plus Your World. But I also hate the iOS App Store’s capricious, unfriendly restrictions, the ridiculous way that Apple went after rival advertising networks, the whole stupid business about in-app purchases, and the fact that I have to jump through hoops to use Google Voice on my iPhone. Similarly, I threw a tantrum when Facebook declared its social network to be a roach motel for your social graph—Mark Zuckerberg will let you import your contacts from Gmail, but don’t bother trying to get your contacts out. (And let’s all forget Beacon, shall we?) Meanwhile, how about the time Amazon deleted 1984 from people’s Kindles? And when I search for an iPad case on Amazon, why does Amazon show me a big ad for its Kindle app—how is that a relevant shopping result?
In other words Honan might be right that Google has violated its own definition of evil, but doesn’t it matter that every one of its rivals also routinely violates Google’s definition of evil? Wouldn’t that suggest that it’s the definition of “evil” that needs updating, rather than Google’s own behavior, which seems perfectly in line with that of its rivals? If you’re going to knock Google for its ethics, you’d have a hard time conducting transactions with any tech entity other than Wikipedia and Craigslist. You’d have an especially hard time explaining people’s crazy love for Apple.
The real problem that Honan has with Google isn’t that it has started to do stuff that bothers its users. It’s that Google has started to do stuff that bothers users in a way we aren’t used to—in a way that Don’t Be Evil falsely suggested it was above doing. By never claiming to be above evil, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon are free to act like normal companies whose efforts to optimize their own self-interest don’t arouse much suspicion. We expect Apple to play rough with others; we’d be surprised if it didn’t. But we don’t expect sharp elbows from Google. And now that it’s acting in new ways, we don’t know what to expect at all.
The Honan reference points to a essay called “The Case against Google.” I have put in bold face the words and phrases which interested me in the response to the chap named Honan. I don’t pretend to have the insight nor the perspective of these two commentators and their respective publications. I almost used my personal shorthand and inserted “poobah, failed Web master, or former “real” journalist, but I did not. Gadget analysts and contributors to a start up root system do not fit into my personal controlled vocabulary. I will have to do something about that some day soon, maybe.
Let me hold forth on the four bold faced items in the quoted segment:
First, the notion of determining evil by comparing one company’s actions to another group of companies is interesting. The technology industry warranted an entire book by Jacques Ellul. Although Ellul had a passing familiarity with evil, he tackled the technology industry from the angle that technologists solve problems with technology. As there is more technology, there are more problems to solve. Technology does not seem to be in remediate mode. Thus, for an approach which a learned observer like Ellul was pushing the pedal to metal in the race to Armageddon, I think Ellul is spot on. As a consequence, evil in the context of creating more and more problems which exacerbate a number of life conditions does not make me rest easy. The comparison does not work for me, but it may work just fine for you, gentle reader. Let’s try that argument when your progeny commit an “evil” act and respond, “But I did not kill anyone on the drive home like Trent did. I had less to drink at Amy’s sweet 16 party and anyone else. Don’t be mad at me. Don’t ground me. That’s not fair.”
Second, yep, I agree. Let’s do the health care thing and update the definition of evil. After all, everyone knows that “meaningful use” means electronic medical records, right? Redefining or the use of invented words to connote one thing yet main, in actual practice, quite another. Yes, that works quite well, and I will leave it to you to reflect on some of the marketing concepts which make figuring out what a technology product or service does quite challenging.
Third, the idea that Wikipedia and Craigslist are different from other technology companies is a method of argument that does not convince me. I recall reading that Wikipedia’s method permitted false entries. Someone in Kentucky actually accomplished this rare feat. I am certain the messages about unsubstantiated information in Wikipedia are little more than advisories on a tiny fraction of the information in the crowd sourced encyclopedia. I think it is admirable that some of my colleagues believe that Wikipedia put the loaded gun in Encyclopedia Britannica’s capable hands. I can imagine the verbal support for killing its untenable print product. Craigslist is fascinating as well. There was an spat with eBay, which was little more than a misunderstanding. Chatter about adult information and squelching of metasearch over listing is just that, chatter. No evil, just examples of prudent technology behavior and, therefore, appropriate for use as a way to measure evil of other outfits. I like that. No, I won’t give an example ask you, gentle reader, to imagine such behavior by one of your children or possibly by one of your parents. Unthinkable.
Finally, we come to the notion of “expecting.” Now the world has taught countries that unexpected events are routine. The companies which I admire fire employees who expected to float toward retirement without a pimple on their smooth, wrinkle free foreheads. In a world with unknown interdependencies, the unexpected is the norm. Whether it is bank failures or clueless students signing up for student loans, the unexpected strikes the uninformed. My hunch is that those with technological savvy know more about protecting themselves. Caveat emptor: The motto, in my book, whether I sign up for an exercise club or a free online service.
To wrap up, epistemology, eschatology, and heuristics are well served by a close analysis of the meaning of Google’s actions, the writings of experts, and a search for relevant information on a free Web search system. Information, like human action, wants to be free. Ethics, honor, integrity—redefine them. Well, let the experts redefine them by word and deed.
Stephen E Arnold, March 27, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Exogenous Complexity 3: Being Clever
February 24, 2012
I just submitted my March 2012 column to Enterprise Technology Management, published in London by IMI Publishing. In that column I explored the impact of Google’s privacy stance on the firm’s enterprise software business. I am not letting any tiny cat out of a big bag when I suggested that the blow back might be a thorn in Googzilla’s extra large foot.
In this essay, I want to consider exogenous complexity in the context of the consumerization of information technology and, by extension, on information access in an organization. The spark for my thinking was the write up “Google, Safari and Our Final Privacy Wake-Up Call.”
Here’s a clever action. MIT students put a red truck on top of the dome. For more see http://radioboston.wbur.org/2011/04/06/mit-hacks.
If you do not have an iPad or an iPhone or an Android device, you will want to stop reading. Consumerization of information technology boils down to employees and contract workers who show up with mobile devices (yes, including laptops) at work. In the brave new world, the nanny instincts of traditional information technology managers are little more than annoying nags from a corporate mom.
The reality is that when consumer devices enter the workplace, three externalality happen in my experience.
First, security is mostly ineffective. Clever folks then exploit vulnerable systems. I think this is why clever people say that the customer is to blame. So clever exploits cluelessness. Clever is exogenous for the non clever. There are some actions an employer can take; for example, confiscating personal devices before the employee enters the work area. This works in certain law enforcement, intelligence, and a handful of other environments; for example, fabrication facilities in electronics or pharmaceuticals. Mobile devices have cameras and can “do” video. “Secret” processes can become un-secret in a nonce. In the free flowing, disorganized craziness of most organizations, personal devices are ignored or overlooked. In short, in a monitored financial trading environment, a professional can send messages outside the firm and the bank’s security and monitoring systems are happily ignorant. The cost of dropping a truly secure box around a work place is expensive and beyond the core competency of most information technology professionals.
Second, employees blur information which is “for work” with information which is “for friends, lovers, or acquaintances.” The exogenous factor is political. To fix the problem, rules are framed. The more rule applied to a flawed system, the greater the likelihood is that clever people will exploit systems which ignore the rules. Clever actions, therefore, increase. In short, this is a variation of the Facebook phenomena when a posting can reach many people quickly or lie dormant until the data load explodes like long forgotten Fourth of July fire cracker. As people chase the fire, clever folks exploit the fire. Information time bombs are not thought about by most senior managers, but they are on the radar of those involved in a legal matter and in the minds of some disgruntled programmers. The half life of information is less well understood by most professionals than the difference between a uranium based reactor and a thorium based reactor. Work and life information are blended, and in my opinion, the compound is a dangerous one.
Third, vendors focusing on consumerizing information technology spur adoption of devices and practices which cannot be easily controlled. The data-Hoovering processes, therefore, can suck up information which is proprietary, of high value, and potentially damaging to the information owner. Information is not “like sand grains.” Some information is valueless; other information commands a high price. In fact, modern content processing and data analytic systems can take fragments of information and “fuse” them. To most people these amalgams are of little interest. But to someone with specialized knowledge, the fused data are not god nuggets, the fused data are a chunky rosy diamond, maybe a Pink Panther. As a result, an exogenous factor increases the flow of high value data through uncontrolled channels.
A happy quack to Gunaxin. You can see how clever, computer situations, and real life blend in this “pranking” poster. I would have described the wrapping of equipment in plastic “clever.” But I am the fume hood guy, Woodruff High School, 1958 to 1962. Image source: http://humor.gunaxin.com/five-funny-prank-fails/48387
Now, let’s think about being clever. When I was in high school, I was one of a group of 25 students who were placed in an “advanced” program. Part of the program included attending universities for additional course work. I ended up at the University of Illinois at age 15. I went back to regular high school, did some other Fancy Dan learning programs, and eventually graduated. My specialty was tricking students in “regular” chemistry into modifying their experiments to produce interesting results. One of these suggestions resulted in a fume hood catching fire. Another dispersed carbon strands through the school’s ventilation system. I thought I was clever, but eventually Mr. Shepherd, the chemistry teach, found out that I was the “clever” one. I sat in the hall for the balance of the semester. I adapted quickly, got an A, and became semi-famous. I was already sitting in the hall for writing essays filled with double entendres. Sigh. Clever has its burdens. Some clever folks just retreat into a private world. The Internet is ideal for providing an environment in which isolated clever people can find a “friend.” Once a couple of clever folks hook up, the result is lots of clever activity. Most of the clever activity is not appreciated by the non clever. There is the social angle and the understanding angle. In order to explain a clever action, one has to be somewhat clever. The non clever have no clue what has been done, why, when, or how. There is a general annoyance factor associated with any clever action. So, clever usually gets masked or shrouded in something along the lines, “Gee, I am sorry” or “Goodness gracious, I did not think you would be annoyed.” Apologies usually work because the non clever believe the person saying “I’m sorry” really means it. Nah. I never meant it. I did not pay for the fume hood or the air filter replacement. Clever, right?
What happens when folks from the type of academic experience I had go to work in big companies. Well, it is sink or swim. I have been fortunate because my “real” work experiences began at Halliburton Nuclear Services and continued at Booz, Allen & Hamilton when it was a solid blue chip firm, not the azure chip outfit it is today. The fact that I was surrounded by nuclear engineers whose idea of socializing was arguing about Monte Carlo code and nuclear fuel degradation at the local exercise club. At Booz, Allen the environment was not as erudite as the nuclear outfit, but there were lots of bright people who were actually able to conduct a normal conversation. Nevertheless, the Type As made life interesting for one another, senior managers, clients, and family. Ooops. At the Booz, Allen I knew, one’s family was one’s colleagues. Most spouses had no idea about the odd ball world of big time consulting. There were exceptions. Some folks married a secretary or colleague. That way the spouse knew what work was like. Others just married the firm, converting “quality time” into two days with the dependents at a posh resort.
So clever usually causes one to seek out other clever people or find a circle of friends who appreciate the heat generated by aluminum powder in an oxygen rich environment. When a company employs clever people, it is possible to generalize:
Clever people do clever things.
What’s this mean in search and information access? You probably already know that clever people often have a healthy sense of self worth. There is also arrogance, a most charming quality among other clever people. The non-clever find the arrogance “thing” less appealing.
Let’s talk about information access.
Let’s assume that a clever person wants to know where a particular group of users navigate via a mobile device or a traditional browser. Clever folks know about persistent cookies, workarounds for default privacy settings, spoofing built in browser functions, or installation of rogue code which resets certain user selected settings on a heartbeat or restart. Now those in my advanced class would get a kick out these types of actions. Clever people appreciate the work of clever people. When the work leaves the “non advanced” in a clueless state, the fun curve does the hockey stick schtick. So clever enthuses those who are clever. The unclever are, by definition, clueless and not impressed. For really nifty clever actions, the unclever get annoyed, maybe mad. I was threatened by one student when the Friday afternoon fume hood event took place. Fortunately my debate coach intervened. Hey, I was winning and a broken nose would have imperiled my chances at the tournament on Saturday.
Now more exogenous complexity. Those who are clever often ignore unintended consequences. I could have been expelled, but I figured my getting into big trouble would have created problems with far reaching implications. I won a State Championship in the year of the fume hood. I won some silly scholarship. I published a story in the St Louis Post Dispatch called “Burger Boat Drive In.” I had a poem in a national anthology. So, I concluded that a little sport in regular chemistry class would not have any significant impact. I was correct.
However, when clever people do clever things in a larger arena, then the assumptions have to be recalibrated. Clever people may not look beyond their cube or outside their computer’s display. That’s when the exogenous complexity thing kicks in.
So Google’s clever folks allegedly did some work arounds. But the work around allowed Microsoft to launch an attack on Google. Then the media picked up on the work around and the Microsoft push back. The event allowed me to raise the question, “So workers bring their own consumerized device to work. What’s being tracked? Do you know? Answer: Nope.” What’s Google do? Apologize. Hey, this worked for me with the fume hood event, but on a global stage when organizations are pretty much lost in space when it comes to control of information, effective security, and managing crazed 20 somethings—wow.
In short, the datasphere encourages and rewards exogenous behavior by clever people. Those who are unclever take actions which sets off a flood of actions which benefit the clever.
Clever. Good sometimes. Other times. Not so good. But it is better to be clever than unclever. Exogenous factors reward the clever and brutalize the unclever.
Stephen E Arnold, February 24, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Advice Inspired by Google
February 22, 2012
Gogaom has some advice for startups in “What I Learned from Teaming up with Google.” Writer Igor Faletski developed some pointers during his time at Google’s Mobilizing Mobile initiative. They are pretty basic yet good to keep in mind– worthy of checking out. The article summarizes the suggestions:
While it’s hard to imagine that your startup has much in common with a giant like Google, these four strategies should resonate with any sized-business. Think big and paint the picture before anyone else can see it. Have the resolve to focus where attention is needed. And most importantly, never lose sight of what makes you meaningful to your customers.
Faletski seems enamored with Google’s GoMo program, designed to help businesses with their mobile presence. It’s worth examining, but being Google’s pal may not be the best place to concentrate a young company’s hopes. Some of their initiatives haven’t worked out for the best, to say the least.
Cynthia Murrell, February 22, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
About.com: Digital Fail?
February 22, 2012
At a time when most things digital are booming, one company trying to build a digital strategy is failing magnificently.
The New York Times announced that About.com has suffered a 67% drop in profits and that revenues are falling as well. The New York Times acquired the site in 2005 when About.com was one of the hottest sites on the Internet and has recently been trying to create a digital strategy based on high-quality content. However, according to a recent article, “The New York Time’s About.com: From All-Star to Albatross,” the change is quite visible. We learn:
… it’s unclear if About is still viable as a brand. While the company launched a marketing campaign in 2010 to differentiate it from other ‘how-to’ sites, there’s little evidence the message resonated with users. While readers may seek out individual About “guides,” the 80% search traffic figure reflects how About remains a detour not a destination for the vast majority of visitors.
The company attributes the change to Google’s decision to downgrade the company’s pages in its search results. Plausible, but I also feel the need to note that nothing digital seems to work at this outfit. Fascinating. Perhaps the company should look internally for the issue.
Andrea Hayden, February 22, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Google and India: Pragmatism 2012
February 14, 2012
India is a juicy market. Google knows this, and my hunch is that Google is aware that it dropped a Super Bowl pass when it informed China that it had to do Googley things. Well, how did that turn out? In my opinion, not so well, but Google will undoubtedly find a way to glom onto the world’s largest market. While that kiss-and-make-up activity is underway, Google is demonstrating some pragmatic thinking about the world’s second largest market—India.
Navigate to “Google Bows to Censors in India”, a story in Google’s home town newspaper. The San Jose Mercury News gently asserts:
A Google representative, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Monday that while the company recently declined a request by a government minister to pre-screen content considered politically or religiously offensive, Google now faced a court order and had no choice but to follow it. Google would not release details about what content it had taken down or explain how it planned to respond to the government’s demand for a self-policing action plan.
I think this means that Google is doing what India wants. Good move. Now I must ask, “Is the article accurate?” I will monitor Overflight to see if Google does the Shanghai shuffle and tells the government of India what it should do. With costs creeping up and the competitors getting frisky, Google may find that being Googley is okay in certain situations and not so useful in others. Management maturity or an act of revenue enhancement? Worth monitoring the censorship thing, however.
Stephen E Arnold, February 14, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
MapMaking Used to Prevent Public Health Threats
February 10, 2012
Science Blogs recently reported on a new tool that blows Google Maps out of the water in the article, “New Mapping Tools Bring Public Health Surveillance to the Masses.”
According to the article, HealthMap is a team of researchers, epidemiologists and software developers at Children’s Hospital Boston who use online sources to track disease outbreaks and deliver real-time surveillance on emerging public health threats. They also utilize the help of local residents to help with research.
Blogger, Kim Krisberg writes:
“HealthMap, which debuted in 2006, scours the Internet for relevant information, aggregating data from online news services, eyewitness reports, professional discussion rooms and official sources. The result? The possibility to map disease trends in places where no public health or health care infrastructures even exist, Brownstein told me. And because HealthMap works non-stop, continually monitoring, sorting and visualizing online information, the system can also serve as an early warning system for disease outbreaks.”
Mapmaking and public health are hardly strangers. Public health practitioners use maps to guide interventions. Despite the complexity of most disease outbreaks, maps can still help health professionals raise public awareness about prevention and target interventions in ways that make the most of limited resources.
Jasmine Ashton, February 10, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Data Management for Search Wizards
February 8, 2012
Over the last couple of years data management has become a hot button issue for many corporate enterprises.Tech News World recently reported on data management best practices in the article “The 5 Pillars of Master Data Management.”
According to the article, there are five principles that should be adhered to in order to achieve master data management success. These principles will help one understand how to quantify success, track ROI and communicate the business impact.
In order to succeed the article advises that companies: define their business problem, plan beyond phase one, have a strong governance program in place, recognize that the most important word in MDM is management, and partner with a vendor who has significant MDM and information governance experience.
The article states:
A single trusted view of information provides the clear insight and transparency that organizations need to have effective business processes and interactions with customers and partners. Particularly at a time when social media and new information platforms are becoming pervasive, organizations now have access to new resources offering rich customer insights. However, businesses and governments must recognize that governance has to be part of this information gold rush.
While this write-up has some helpful tips on why it is important to prioritize master data management, we found it to have some painful generalizations. Just the ticket for the search wizards to keep projects running into sandbars and sometimes sinking.
Jasmine Ashton, February 8, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Inteltrax: Top Stories, January 23 to January 27
January 30, 2012
Inteltrax, the data fusion and business intelligence information service, captured three key stories germane to search this week, specifically, how certain industries are gaining a foothold via big data analytics.
One story, “Marketing Analytics Makes for a Wide Open Field,” showcases how smart marketers are getting a better understanding of potential customers with BI.
“Human Resources is Not Helpless With Big Data” acts as a rebuttal of sorts to a spate of news saying HR offices aren’t properly utilizing big data. We think they are and can do even more with a little help.
However, not all the news is positive. “Avoiding Obsolete Analytics” deals with SPOTS, an acronym for obsolete analytics, of which some say are more prevalent than we think. We, though, disagree, and showcase some finely evolving tools.
Big data is storming the castle of industry, changing the way nearly everyone does business. From the cutting edge HR work to stepping around potentially obsolete tools, there is an entire world of news waiting for you. We’re going to give you all you need to stay current in the big data world.
Follow the Inteltrax news stream by visiting www.inteltrax.com
Patrick Roland, Editor, Inteltrax.
January 30, 2012
Enterprise Search: Cruising on the Concordia
January 19, 2012
I keep my eyes peeled for useful management examples. Whilst recovering from a minor hitch in the goose liver, I watched the drama of the Concordia cruise ship unfold. The horrific event reminded me of several enterprise search deployments I had analyzed. I was not the “captain” of these enterprise search voyages. I was able to do some post-crash analysis.
To get the basics of the event, you will want to familiarize yourself with the write up in the UK’s Daily Telegraph, “Concordia Disaster: Should a Captain Go Down with His Ship?” In my opinion, the key passage in the Daily Telegraph’s story was:
…leadership entails an obligation to be courageous – morally, physically or both. It is the price of leadership; it is why leaders are more highly regarded and rewarded than the rest of us. But even subordinates in certain professions have the duty to be brave, as the rest of us do not. A soldier is expected unquestioningly to put himself in the way of bullets as a civilian is not.
(But my favorite news item was Cruise Captain Says He ‘Tripped’ Into Lifeboat, Couldn’t Get Out.”
Not Taking Responsibility
The alleged behavior of the captain shares one similarity with enterprise search implementations that sink. The person running the operation shirks responsibility for the disaster. My view is that ego plays a part. The more important factor may be the person’s character. I have reviewed a failed search implementation and had a difficult time determining who was responsible. The procurement team has the thick linen of committee think under which to hide. The information technology manager often keeps well away from search, a behavior conditioned by knowledge that making information findable is often impossible. The chief financial officer just counts the dissipated dollars. Accountants are not implementers. The person charged with the failure is often a young engineer whom those ultimately responsible deem expendable.
The first similarity is that in big disasters those who are responsible do whatever is needed to avoid responsibility. In enterprise search, there is a ship captain. Pretending that a captain does not exist is one interesting characteristic of today’s organizational life. Think Jerry Yang at Yahoo. Recall Leo Apotheker. You get the idea. What about the search system at your company? The National Archives? Amazon’s online store? There are captains responsible. Unfortunately these captains do not get global news coverage for their behavior.
Show Boating
The crash and sinking was a consequence of show boating. The idea is that doing something fancy is appropriate and within the perimeter of the job description is allowed. In enterprise search, the show boating becomes visible when one or more people make suggestions along these lines:
- We need to deliver answer to users, not laundry lists
- Natural language processing is essential to the success of our search system
- We need a taxonomy and semantic technology to make information accessible
- Our system has to work just like Google.
Each of these is similar to the Concordia’s buzz close to shore. Few of those involved in an enterprise search implementation realize how downright expensive, complicated, and resource intensive these “suggestions” become. Vendors go along to keep the contract. The deployment team is thinking about making search headlines and maybe getting a raise and a promotion. Great idea but when the effort sinks the search project, the result is a disaster.
The second similarity between the Concordia and the ill fated enterprise search system deployment is that getting cute can wreck havoc. Now you may say, “Hey, semantic methods will only help our search system.” Maybe, maybe not. My view is that show boating is one characteristic of doomed enterprise search system. The fix? Just do the basics well, then add some special sauce.
Amazon: Will DynamoDB Electrocute the Big Boys?
January 18, 2012
I want to capture a few business related observations about Amazon’s now public DynamoDB. The blog post by Amazon’s chief technical officer provides a good overview of the home grown NoSQL data management service. Navigate to “Amazon DynamoDB–A Fast and Scalable NoSQL Database Service Designed for Internet Scale Applications.” For a run down of some of the features, point your browser at “Notes About Amazon DynamoDB.” The basic idea is that Amazon has created its own NoSQL database, matched it to the Amazon cloud environment, and packaged it with taxi meter pricing.
Why didn’t Amazon use Hadoop or some other NoSQL, open source, Codd free systems? My hunch is that Amazon sees big money in a ready-to-role, automatic sharding, solid state disc base data management solution. Rolling its own solution gives Amazon control. In fact, Amazon is cranking up the dial on its Controlometer.
The issue that interests me is the business angle of the DynamoDB. Here are several preliminary thoughts.
First, Amazon is getting frisky but slowly. My sources report that work on the DynamoDB system began several years ago. Microsoft picked up wind of the project and was unable to respond. Right now, Amazon’s an engineering magnet, attracting talent from outfits once considered the best in the soggy city. With higher quality engineering horsepower, the dowdy retailer is shifting from a horse and wagon to a far more capable vehicle.
Second, MarkLogic had the idea that it could impinge on Oracle. Well, we know how that turned out with AtomicPR (the content fallout kids), management change, and wild and crazy marketing. Now Amazon is on the path to make life tough for Oracle. Amazon had Oracle as a steady date, but senior year is coming. Amazon may be marrying the DynamoDB, leaving Oracle without a homecoming date. If Amazon pulls off this new hitch up, Amazon may be ready to go for the enterprise gold. I think this is better than a 50-50 deal but I may change my mind.
Third, Amazon has demonstrated the value of a “Google Legacy.” Google plunged forward, diffused its resources, and ended up with its lovely self snared in legal and social thorns. Amazon, on the other hand, has avoided some of the traps into which Google threw itself. In the process itself, Amazon used Android to move its branded hardware forward. There is nothing like a friend who plans on evicting you from your home. Amazon is, once again, going beyond Google.
I have a number of other thoughts, but the goose’s liver needs a rest. Oh, oh, here comes a scowling nurse. Will she rescue the electrocuted big boys of database? I doubt it.
Stephen E Arnold, January 18, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
