Growth of Electronic Information
August 29, 2008
Larry Borsato, writing for the Industry Standard, presents some interesting information about the growth of electronic information. You can read his article “Information Overload on the Web, and Searching for the Right Sifting Tool” here. The most startling item was this statement:
IBM predicts that in the next couple of years, information will double every 11 hours [PDF].
The article runs down the problems encountered when looking for information using various search services. He’s right. Search is a problem. But that doubling of information every 11 hours underscores the opportunity that exists for a person or company with an information access solution.
Stephen Arnold, August 29, 2008
Google: Dashboard or Buzz Word
August 29, 2008
ZDNet’s “Google Apps Dashboard: Serious about the Enterprise?” does a good job of explaining that Google continues to push into the corporate market. The article, written by Michael Krigsman, summarizes a software component that allows Google Apps Premier licensees a way to check on the status of the services. For me, the most interesting point Mr. Krigsman made was:
Although Google may offer this service level to large accounts such as Cap Gemini, I doubt smaller customers will receive any personalized attention whatsoever. After all, Google isn’t known for providing stellar customer service; actually, the company’s customer care record sucks widgets. Only time will tell whether Google can successfully transition from its mass market consumer mentality to becoming a trusted, service oriented enterprise vendor.
I too have heard that Google does not return telephone calls, misses meetings, and ignores teleconference start times. But I have also heard that Google commissioned an expert to analyze the weaknesses of its sales approach and listened as the consultant explained that Google had to change its ways.
Google is a decade old, and it must give up some of its math club ethos, not just create software and spout buzz words. Will the company make the shift? I think we must wait and see.
Stephen Arnold, August 29, 2008
Computerworld: Google’s Not Hot
August 26, 2008
The Computerworld story surprised me. Preston Gralla, a really big name in tech journalism, wrote an opinion piece called “Why Google Has Lost Its Mojo — And Why You Should Care”. You can read the full text of this important essay here. The most important point in Mr. Gralla’s write up is the title. It says it clear: Google has no spice, zing, magic, and voodoo. In Gulla, Google’s medicine men have lost “it”.
Consider this statement:
So why do I think it’s lost its mojo? Let’s start with the way it treats its employees. Google’s largesse has been legendary — free food, liberal maternity and parental leave, on-site massages, fitness classes and even oil changes. But according to a recent New York Times article, those days may be gone.
Once employees sense a downshift, human resources professionals have to scramble.
I posted an innocuous story about the Amtrak passenger service selecting Autonomy. The outfit fighting for this project was Google. Google lost this high profile account. Google has other challenges as well, including legal hassles. Some big and some small. But these take time to address. Google’s technology is showing some flaws. Ads still works, but other functions are buggy. Google has started an investment branch; its foundation is pushing “green” technology. Former employees are not surfing on Google. Some like Cuil.com are competing. The fact that those Xooglers rolled out a tasty confection before it was complete does little to polish the reputation of Google and its Xooglers. For me, the fact that Computerworld is souring on Google is news. Amazing turn of events for Googzilla.
Stephen Arnold, August 26, 2008
How Yahoo Will Catch Google in Search
August 25, 2008
Here’s an interview you must read. On August 25, 2008, the Financial Express (India) here published an interview with Yahoo’s super wizard, Prabhakar Raghavan. Dr. Raghavan is the head of research at Yahoo, a Stanford professor, and a highly regarded expert in search, database, and associated technologies. He’s even the editor of computer science and mathematics journals. A fellow like this can leap over Google’s headquarters and poke out Googzilla’s right eye. The interview, conducted by Pragati Verma, provides a remarkable look inside the plans Yahoo has to regain control of Web search.
There were a number of interesting factoids that caught my attention in this interview. Let me highlight a few.
First, Yahoo insists that the cost of launching Web search is $300 million. Dr. Raghavan, who is an expert in things mathematical, said:
Becoming a serious search player requires a massive capital investment of about $300 million. We are trying to remove all barriers to entry for software developers, who have ideas about how to improve search.
The idea is to make it easy for a start up to tap into the Yahoo Web index and create new services. The question nagging at me is, “If Web search is $300 million, why hasn’t Yahoo made more progress?” I use Yahoo once in a while, but I find that its results are not useful to me. When I search Yahoo stores, I have a heck of a time finding what I need. What’s Yahoo been doing since 1998? Answer: losing market share to Google and spending a heck of a lot more than a paltry $300 million losing ground.
Second, Google can lose share to search start ups. Dr. Raghavan said:
According to comScore data, Google had a 62% share of the US search market in May, while we had 21% and MSN 9%. Our prediction models suggest that Google could lose a big chunk of its market share, as BOSS partners and players come in.
My question is, “Since Google is vulnerable, why haven’t other search systems with funding made any headway; for example, Microsoft?” The notion that lots of little mosquitos can hobble Googzilla is not supported by Yahoo’s many search efforts. These range from Mindset to InQuira, from Flickr search to the deal with IBM, etc. Chatter and projections aside, Google’s share is increasing, and I don’t see much zing from the services using Yahoo index so far.
Finally, people don’t want to search. I agree. There is a growing body of evidence that key word search is generally a hassle. Dr. Raghavan said:
Users don’t really want to search. They want to spend time on their work, personal lives and entertainment. They come to search engines only to get their tasks done. We will move search to this new paradigm of getting the task done….
My question is, “How is Yahoo with its diffused search efforts, its jumble of technologies, and its inability to make revenue progress without a deal from Google doing to reverse its trajectory?” I wish Yahoo good luck, but the company has not had much success in the last year or so.
Yahoo lost its way as a directory, as a search system, and as a portal. I will wait to see how Yahoo can turn its “pushcart full of odds and ends” into a Formula One racer.
Stephen Arnold, August 25, 2008
Punching Google in the Snoot
August 25, 2008
The San Jose Mercury News, Google’s home town newspaper, points out lousy decisions at the Mountain View firm. Chris O’Brien wrote “Google’s Ventures Outside Search Fail to Pay Dividends”. The sub title is even more direct, “Google to face first real test of its leadership as ventures outside search fail to show dividends.” You must read Mr. O’Brien’s story here.
For me, the most interesting point in the write up was this statement:
all those high-profile ventures the company has launched, and the acquisitions it’s made, have yet to contribute much to the bottom line. In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the company noted that revenue from services such as YouTube, Google Checkout and a host of others ‘were not material.’
Material is a code word for worthless. Even more galling is that this story puts some wood behind a remark I recall hearing about Google from a Microsoft professional: “Google’s a one trick pony.”
That trick continues to spin money, but Google is now officially fallible, a charge that must be galling to the Googlers.
My research suggests that Google’s short term flops cannot be interpreted as the longer term trajectory of the company. Here are three points from my 2007 Google Version 2.0 study for Infonortics, an outfit located near Oxford, England:
- Google focused on search, built a good system by leveraging indifference from competitors and the good fortune of having AltaVista.com engineers available due to Hewlett Packard’s cluelessness about online
- Google discovered that by solving some problems in search, the resulting infrastructure could do other functions quite well. The first big other function was a running a rework of the GoTo.com/Overture.com ad engine
- Google’s infrastructure is an application platform which can be repurposed without too much effort if you are a Google class brain.
The net net is that Google only has to get traction in one or two tangential business sectors to generate new revenue. My research indicates that a “blast off” will generate a fraction of the core business revenue, but if the area is mobile services or enterprise applications, these markets are sufficiently big to make the revenue contribution sufficient for Wall Street’s greed appetite.
I agree with Mr. O’Brien’s analysis in general. But I’m not sure I want to count Google out just yet. Google is one tiny step from becoming a commercial publisher and a video production company. The company has mow through other business sectors quickly and only put effort into those where money begins to flow. That’s what makes Google a threat in the short term and for the longer term as well.
Stephen Arnold, August 25, 2008
Microsoft Search Executive: Scorecard Update
August 22, 2008
I have a tough time keeping track of Microsoft “search” executives. Imagine my surprise when I read in Network World here the following:
Microsoft has appointed former Multimap CEO Jeff Kelisky to be the general manager of a new business unit focused on commercial search
I’m not sure what this means, “commercial search”. Elizabeth Montalbano, who wrote the story that caught my attention–“Microsoft taps Multimap CEO to Steer Commercial-Search Unit”–is a pretty clear writer. She clarified my understanding (a little, I think). She writes:
the new unit would be a part of Microsoft’s larger Search Business Group, the general manager of which is Brad Goldberg.
Ms. Montalbano includes Microsoft “search” guru, Satya Nardella, the boss of Microsoft search and portal advertising. She mentions Chris Liddell. She does not mention Gary Flake, former Yahoo search guru.
Please, read the story yourself and let me know if you can help me answer these questions:
- What happened to the top dogs at Fast Search & Transfer and Powerset?
- Who is in charge of SharePoint “commercial” search?
- Who is in charge of search in other Microsoft products like Dynamics?
- What is “commercial search”?
I guess I’m not smart enough to understand who these folks are or what their plan is to close the modest market gap between Google and other search engines, including those available from Microsoft. Help me out, please.
Stephen Arnold, August 22, 2008
Powerset as Antigen: Can Google Resist Microsoft’s New Threat
August 20, 2008
I found the write ups about Satya Nadella’s observations about Microsoft’s use of the Powerset technology in WebProNews, Webware.com, and Business Week magnetizing. Each of these write ups converged on a single key idea; namely, Microsoft will use the Powerset / Xerox PARC technology to exploit Google’s inability to deal with tailoring a search experience to deliver a better search experience a user. The media attention directed at a conference focused on generating traffic to a Web site without regard to the content on that site, its provenance, or its accuracy is downright remarkable. Add together the assertion that Powerset will hobble the Google, and I may have to extend my anti-baloney shields another 5,000 kilometers.
Let’s tackle some realities:
- To kill Google, a company has to jump over, leap frog, or out innovate Google. Using technology that dates from the 1990s, poses scaling challenges, and must be “hooked” into the existing Microsoft infrastructure is a way to narrow a gap, but it’s not enough to do much to wound, impair, or kill Google. If you know something about the Xerox PARC technology that I’m missing, please, tell me. I profiled Inxight Software in one of my studies. Although different from Xerox PARC technology used by Powerset, it was close enough to identify some strengths and weaknesses. One issue is the computational load the system imposes. Maybe I’m wrong but scaling is a big deal when extending “context” to lots of users.
- Microsoft is slipping further behind Google. The company is paying users, and it is still losing market share. Read my short post on this subject here. Even if the data are off by an order of magnitude, Microsoft is not making headway in the Web search market share.
- Cost is a big deal. Microsoft appears to have unlimited resources. I’m not so sure. If Google’s $1 of infrastructure investment buys 4X the performance that a Microsoft $1 does, Microsoft has an infrastructure challenge that could cost more than even Microsoft can afford.
So, there are computational load issues. There are cost issues. There are innovation issues. There are market issues. I must be the only person on the planet who is willing to assert that small scale search tweaks will not have the large scale effects Microsoft needs.
Forget the assertion that Business Week offers when its says that Google is moving forward. Google is not moving forward; Google is morphing into a different type of company. “Moving forward” only tells part of the story. I wonder if I should extend my shields of protection to include filtering baloney about search emanating from a conference focused on tricking algorithms into putting a lousy site at the top of a results list.
Agree? Disagree? I’m willing to learn if my opinions are scrambled.
Stephen Arnold, August 20, 2008
Microslump: If Search Data Are Accurate, Bad News for Microsoft
August 20, 2008
Statistics are malleable. Data about online usage are not just malleable, they are diaphanous. Silicon Valley Insider reported Web search market share data at Silicon Alley Insider here. The article by Michael Learmonth was “Google Takes 60% of Search Market, While MSN Loses Share.” The highlight of the write up is a chart, which I am reluctant to reproduce. I can, I believe, quote one statement that struck me as particularly important; namely:
MSN, which lost more than two percentage points of market share from month to month, going from 14.1% of searches to 11.9%. So if Microsoft’s “Cashback” search engine shopping gimmick actually helped boost search share in May and June, its impact seems to be dropping.
The data come from Nielsen Online, specifically the cleverly named MegaView Search report. Wow, after pumping big money into data centers, buying Fast Search & Transfer and Powerset, and ramping up search research and development, the data suggest that:
- A desktop monopoly doesn’t matter in search
- Microsoft’s billions don’t matter in search
- Aggressive marketing such as the forced download for the Olympic content doesn’t matter.
Google is like one of those weird quantum functions that defy comprehension. What else must Redmond do? Send me your ideas for closing the gap between Microsoft and Google.
Stephen Arnold, August 20, 2008
Five Tips for Reducing Search Risk
August 20, 2008
In September 2008, I will be participating in a a conference organized by Dr. Erik M. Hartman. One of the questions he asked me today might be of interest to readers of this Web log. He queried by email: “What are five tips for anyone who wants to start with enterprise search but has no clue?”
Here’s my answer.
That’s a tough question. Let me tell you what I have found useful when starting a new project with an organization that has a flawed information access system.
First, identify a specific problem and do a basic business school or consulting firm analysis of the problem. This is actually hard to do, so many organizations assume “We know everything about our needs.” That’s wrong. Inside of a set you can’t see much other than other elements of the set. Problem analysis gives you a better view of the universe of options; that is, other perspectives and context for the problem.
Second, get management commitment to solve the problem. We live in a world with many uncertainties. If management is not behind solving the specific problem you have analyzed, you will fail. When a project needs more money, management won’t provide it. Without investment, any search and content processing system will sink under the weight of itself and the growing body of content it must process and make available. I won’t participate in projects unless top management buys in. Nothing worthwhile comes easy or economically today.
Silverlight Analysis: Not Quite Gold, Not too Light
August 19, 2008
In my keynote at Information Today’s eContent conference in April 2008, I referenced Silverlight’s importance to Microsoft. Since most organizations rely on Windows desktop operating systems and applications, Silverlight becomes a good fit for some organizations. I also suggested that Silverlight would play a much larger role in online rich media. I was not able at the time to reference the role Silverlight would play in the Beijing Olympics. Most in the audience of about 150 big time media executives were not familiar with the technology, nor did those in attendance see much relevance between their traditional media operations and Silverlight. Now that the Olympics have been deemed a success for both Microsoft and NBC, I hope that some of the big media mavens understand that rich media may be important to the survival of many information organizations. I’m all for printed books and journals, but the future beckons video and other types of TV-type material.
Tim Anderson’s excellent analysis of Silverlight is available in The Register, one of my favorite news services. The analysis is “Microsoft Silverlight: 10 Reasons to Love It, 10 Reasons to Hate It”, and you should read it here. Unlike most of the top 10 lists that are increasingly common on Web logs, Mr. Anderson’s analysis is based on a solid understanding of what Silverlight does and how it goes about its business. The write up provides the advertised 10 items of strengths and weaknesses, but he supports each point with a useful technical comment.
Let me illustrate just one of his 20 points, and then you can navigate to The Register for the other 19 items. For example, consider item five in the plus column is that Silverlight interprets XAML–Microsoft’s extensible application mark up language–is interpreted directly by Silverlight “whereas Adobe’s XML GUI language, MXML, gets converted to SWF at compiling time. In fact, XAML pages are included as resources in the compiled .XAP binary used for deploying Silverlight applications.”
Mr. Anderson also includes one of those wonderful Microsoft diagrams that show how Microsoft’s various moving parts fit together. I download these immediately because they come in handy when explaining why it costs an arm and a leg to troubleshoot some Microsoft enterprise applications. This version of the chart about Silverlight requires that you install Silverlight. Now you get the idea about Microsoft’s technique for getting its proprietary technology on your PC.
A happy quack to Tim Anderson for a useful analysis.
Stephen Arnold, August 19, 2008
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
