Google OS: Nightmare in Redmond
March 16, 2009
ComputerWorld’s Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols reported here “Google OS Will Be on Netbooks by Year’s End”. Google has insisted that it does not have a Google operating system. I believed what I was told and used the phrase “Google operating environment.” Now it seems that I was dead wrong, if Mr. Vaughan-Nichols’ report is accurate. He wrote:
I predict that by December [2009], we’ll see not only Asus selling Android-based netbooks, but at least a half-dozen other vendors doing so as well. In bad times, businesses have to be smart, and Android on netbooks is a smart move indeed.
Google, of course, remains inscrutable. The company provides the Lego blocks. Google lets others in the playroom build whatever they want. A Google OS would add to Microsoft’s revenue concerns. If this ComputerWorld report is on the money, a nightmare in Redmond may await–low cost, search, contextualized ads, and good enough software with the cloud as a big fluffy cushion.
Stephen Arnold, March 15, 2009
A Look Inside a Search System
March 16, 2009
A happy quack to the reader who sent me three links to posts by Vic Cherubini. Much of the detail will not be of interest to non tech readers, but I think a quick look at these three articles will provide a useful window into the complexities of search. Keep in mind that there are some trophy generation consultants running around saying, “Search is easy. Search is stable.” Baloney. Baloney. Baloney. Don’t believe me. Navigate to these posts and scan them:
- On Building an Efficient, Indexed Search Engine With a Word Proximity Algorithm here
- On Building an Efficient Search Indexer here
- Update: On Building an Efficient Search Indexer here.
These write ups make clear the effort required to avoid bottlenecks in essential components of a search system. Keep in mind that more complex systems require intricate ballets of numerical recipes, memory, and storage devices. Still think search is simple? The minor error Mr. Cherubini handles in a professional way is probably one that only a small number of Beyond Search readers would recognize and know how to remediate. Simple, right? Beware consultants manufacturing baloney from ignorance, please.
Stephen Arnold, March 15, 2009
Microsoft and Pirated Windows
March 15, 2009
I saw a link to Dan Hong’s “Microsoft Pardons Users of Pirated Windows: Defrauded Customers May Be Eligible for Free Windows XP Pro, but with Some Strings Attached” and wondered, “Is this a kinder, gentler Microsoft?” You can read the story here. Some youngsters and young at heart oldsters see piracy, which is theft, as A OK. According to Mr. Hong, “Microsoft is offering users a chance to redeem themselves for having purchased—unwittingly—computers or software containing counterfeit versions of the Windows XP operating system. All customers have to do is turn in the alleged perpetrators.” The offer is valid through July 30, 2009. If true, I find this interesting. Presumably Microsoft has worked out a method for determining which reports are valid and which are spoofs. I assume that those falsely accused may express some concern about the approach. Lawyers working on this project for Microsoft are probably quite happy with the program.
Stephen Arnold, March 15, 2009
New York Times: Groping for Cash, Heading for a Crash
March 15, 2009
Here we go again. I read “New York Times Mulls Online Subscription Fee” in Silicon Alley Insider” here. Mr.. Blodget offers some ideas. In than rolling out what did not work before, the Times needs new ideas. The financial crisis has not passed. I am subscriber, and I see the paper becoming a secondary source for me. I rely on Amazon for book reviews. The stories in the paper turn up in my newsreader 24 hours before my hard copy arrives. I no longer pay much attention to the magazine section. The wacky design annoys me. Mr.. Blodget was correct when he wrote:
An incremental $50-$75 million a year will buy the company more time to sell assets, restructure its business, and pacify its creditors, but it won’t save the place. The only way to do that, in our opinion, is to radically cut costs.
Nuclear winter arrives and settles in.
Stephen Arnold, March 15, 2009
Search Roll Up with CMS and eDiscovery
March 14, 2009
Two roads once diverged in a yellow wood. Now three roads merge into one muddy path. Why? Read on.
I read Barb Mosher’s “The Converging Paths of Search, eDiscovery and Enterprise CMS” here. My first pass through the article was swift. Then I went back through the write up thought about the Autonomy approach to growth: acquisitions, most recently in the eDiscovery sector. The article tackles end to end plays practiced by Open Text. The conclusion stressed that convergence is the path forward. On the surface, this view is supported by received wisdom and the actions of some high profile companies.
My view is somewhat different. First, I think search for some companies is indeed a dead end. The search technology is growing long in the tooth, and companies looking for solutions want to try newer approaches. One example is Google’s success with its Google Search Appliance, a system that certain large vendors find easy to criticize. The system may be simplistic, but the GOOG provides a potent way to make the GSA sit up and roll over. Furthermore, with about 25,000 appliances sold, the GOOG is the largest vendor of search solutions in the world. Other systems with newer technology that some big name vendors are selling in a lousy economy at a steady pace; for example, Coveo, Exalead, and ISYS Search Software.
Putting search, content management and eDiscovery in one system means a miserable path forward for the organization taking such an approach.
So what do big guys with no organic do to grow? Answer: buy promising opportunities. The fuel behind some of the acquisition activity is an inability to grow within a core market in an organic way. A short cut is needed. With some PR spin and a boatload of journalists looking for an angle, the notion of convergence gets a new lease on life.
Enterprise software is a complicated business. No company wants to have one system handle multiple tasks. The complexity of information and the context for certain content functions requires some granularity.
Searching for People
March 14, 2009
I ran across a useful summary of sources of information about people. The write up was the work of JR Raphael, and the story “People Search Engines: The Newest Web Privacy Threat” here. Mr. Raphael runs through some vertical search systems, providing tips to get useful results. The write up about Spokeo was useful. He mentioned one site with which I was not familiar, Rapleaf. His conclusion reminds the reader to be aware of what information is available. I downloaded and saved the story. Unfortunately, the publisher–an outfit called PCAdvisor–cluttered the pages with pop ups and annoying advertisements which made it a chore to read a useful article. I don’t think PCAdvisor is going to win me as a loyal reader with baloney getting in the way of the sirloin in its write ups. Too bad.
Stephen Arnold, March 14, 2009
Web Search Scoreboard
March 14, 2009
I got a lot of grief at a conference last year when I said, “Google has won the search game.” The conference organizer was annoyed because sponsors don’t want to hear that their money was wasted. Too bad. The stats about market share have understated Google’s dominance of Web search. I have seen data that pegs Google’s share at 80 percent and higher as long as 18 months ago. Believe me. The source of the data was solid and based on counts, not samples. Well, now the samples are reporting that the GOOG’s market share is in the 60 to 70 percent range. Imagine my surprise when I read ” Microsoft U.S. Search Share Hits 12-Month Low” here. The angle is not that Google has won. ComputerWorld’s approach was that Microsoft has not just lost share but Microsoft is falling further behind despite its effort to close the gap. The ComputerWorld story supports my assertion that Google has won. Game over. Search is a digital service that is a natural monopoly. What’s amazing is that Microsoft thinks it can gain traction by buying or integrating Yahoo’s search service. In my opinion, Google will continue to operate like a giant magnet, pulling traffic to itself. A leapfrog play is needed, not a me too play.
Stephen Arnold, March 14, 2009
Google AOL Shock
March 14, 2009
I read an interesting article by Nicholas Carlson called “Googlers Shocked by Armstrong Defection” here. Google is search so when a Googler goes to AOL, it is a blow to Google search. Wrong. The blow hit Google in the ego. Mr. Carlson included some interesting items in his write up. For example, I quite liked this one:
He never oversaw product managers or engineers, for example.
And this one:
Not to say he isn’t a quick decision maker, “good at people,” a good listener and responsible for hiring everyone in Google’s US sales force, but Tim really was just a sales guy at Google.
Sounds like bruised egos talking to me. Why would a high profile leader go to a loser like AOL? Easy. Money and a chance to break free of Google’s somewhat odd culture. Just my opinion, of course.
Stephen Arnold, March 14, 2009
Google and World Domination
March 13, 2009
Ryan Singel’s “Google Voice Speaks of World Domination” here gave me a wake up call. Google’s prowess in telephony has been a topic that I long ago accepted. The company has had telephony and communications on its agenda from 1998. When we ran around the country in 2007 doing briefings about Google’s communications systems and methods, the attendees were eager to deny the Googlers’ cleverness in voice search (a Brin subspecialty) to cute ways to replicate a wireless infrastructure with low cost, low power gizmos and lots of innovation in between.
To be frank, slapping chat, SMS, and Skype-type comms into a Google “container” or service is not rocket science for Google. Sure, the company has to make sure that dependencies don’t befuddle its system or a line of code ruin a Googler’s lunch hour. The work is not invention; these are slipstreaming type features.
The title of the article–“Google Voice Speaks of World Domination”–was striking. The author Ryan Singel did a good job of explaining Google Voice, the “new” service that has the Twitterworld aflame. For me, the most important comment in the article after the title was:
Google Voice also threatens to disrupt voice-to-text startups like SpinBox, with built-in support for turning your voicemail messages into searchable text. Voice-to-text is one of the cornerstones of Google’s drive into mobile search. Google already uses the same technology to power GOOG-411 and the voice-activated search app for the iPhone. Getting even more samples — from messages left for users — will only help tune the algorithms for more lucrative ventures.
This paragraph makes clear the integration of the Google comms service and its disruptive potential, not just for smaller firms but for the big, telco dinosaurs. I say this with some affection since I was a Bell Labs’s contractor, worked on the Bellcore billing system for baby Bell charge backs, and also the USWest Yellow Pages service. Google is not a telco. Telco is just an application running on the Google infrastructure, what I call the Google infrastructure or Googleplex in honor of the buildings off Shoreline Drive.
Should you care? Yes, if you want to reduce for the short term your telecom hassles. Should the telcos caer? No, in my opinions telcos missed the train, and I don’t know when another will drop by Bell Head Station again. Should regulators care? Maybe. But regulators have a tough time understanding cable versus satellite TV so there’s a knowledge gap to fill. Should the blogosphere care? Absoltutely. Those who get it will carry Google type services to the future as the “obvious way” to perform certain functions.
Is this world domination? Not by Google in my opinion. The “legacy” of Google is that it shows the way cloud based services will supplant more widespread methods. Google’s legacy is that the company is a trail blazer. Others will follow and then go further. If this sounds like an interesting premise for a book, check out my 2005 The Google Legacy. This is the story I followed between 2002 and 2004 when I did my primary research. Old stuff to the addled goose. Just not world domination. That’s a reach in my view.
Google Invents Dynamic Virtual Input Device Configuration
March 13, 2009
The addled goose loves Google open source information. A case in point is US20090070098, a patent application for “Dynamic Virtual Input Device Configuration”. You don’t care! Well, I do. The conjunction of “dynamic” and “virtual” are significant to the addled goose. Vlad Patryshev and Google legal thought so too. Here’s the Googlespeak modified by legalspeak about what I think is an important disclosure:
In one aspect, a virtual input device can be configured by detecting a language identifier associated with a selected data entry field, determining a key mapping corresponding to the detected language identifier, configuring a virtual input device in accordance with the key mapping, wherein the virtual input device includes one or more controls and the key mapping specifies a character corresponding to at least one of the plurality of controls, and presenting the virtual input device to a user. The language identifier can comprise one of an Extensible Markup Language tag and a Hypertext Markup Language tag. Further, user input selecting a second data entry field can be received, wherein a second language identifier is associated with the second data entry field, a second key mapping corresponding to the second language identifier can be determined, and the virtual input device can be configured in accordance with the second key mapping.
Take your breath away? I thought of the applicaitons of this invention for data input and behind the scenes manipulation of those data–dynamic, virtual device configuration.
Stephen Arnold, March 13, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
