Google TV: A New Spin on the Vast Wasteland
October 23, 2010
My hero was Newton Minow, one “n” thus differentiating him from the Leuciscinae, surely one of my favorite fish. My hero coined the phrase “vast wasteland” in a speech given in 1961. My dirt poor family got a television in 1958, so I had only three years of American Bandstand before the wasteland bon mot. I have never been hooked on TV. Lots of folks are, including one of my two friends and at least one member of my immediate family. For me, snap on the boob tube, and my eyes drift shut. The flickers and audio knock me out cold.
I have a fancy TV in my office. If I did not, the tech folks suck up bandwidth watching soccer on their workstations. Clever I solved this bandwidth problem with the big flat screen and a cable connection. I have been reading about the battle for the couch potato. Unlike Hannibal at Cannae, the Google TV phalanx seems to have marched into a thicket of troubles. Keep in mind that I know zero about the Google TV and my information comes from secondary sources. As a result, my writing this blog post is a reflection of what’s flitting around the World Wide Web news sites.
I noted two write ups that struck me as potentially problematic for the Google and for the lucky consumers who have snagged one of the gizmos that deliver the Google experience to the couch spuds.
Yahoo, probably an authority on rich media after the Semel years, posted “24 hours with Logitech’s Google TV-Enabled Revue.” Mouse maker Logitech has created a box that allows the lucky consumer to access the Google TV service.
For me, the key passage was:
As many have reported, several of the biggest TV networks — think ABC, CBS, and NBC —have blocked Google TV users from watching their online videos; needless to say, Hulu access has been blocked as well. (Online videos at Fox.com still seem to be working, at least for now.) Reuters reports that Google is in negotiations with the networks to restore access, but my guess is that the networks will hold out for the inevitable arrival of Hulu Plus — for which you’ll have to pay $10 a month (at least for now) — on Google TV.
Okay, the Google TV is available but the networks are not playing ball. Google’s Math Club team can dominate the TV executives while sending tweets and eating pizza. But when it comes to double dating with the Google, the TV executives are shy indeed. Fear? Money? Who knows.
The second write up that caught my attention was the Electronista write up “Sony’s Google TV Booted into Recovery, Opens Door to Hacks.” I can understand some rough edges with the interface and the need to update the gizmos before the lucky consumer can tap into Google’s search festivity. But a system that can allow the user to install updates and take control of the device seems to be a curious oversight. Maybe the Math Club team that worked on Buzz and Wave contributed to the Google TV? If you want to see how to hack the just released device, Electronista provides a couple of helpful YouTube videos. Left hand, right hand knowing what’s up? Go figure.
Keep in mind I don’t worship TV. I have not played with the Google TV. I can’t attest that the two cited write ups are accurate. Against this bleak factual background, my observations are:
- I wonder if the Google TV is the equivalent of the Microsoft Kin?
- Google is now moving into consumer territory. Does the Math Club understand the couch russet?
- Looking at the screenshots, some interface work seems to be in order. Someone told me that the Google TV browser lacks a browser bar. Well, the fix methinks is to know the key combination Control L. Intuitive for the Math Club, not so much for a soap opera fan.
The Apple TV is $99 and seems pretty easy to use. Yep, Apple and Google are chasing consumers. I don’t want to place a wager. I do like fireside apples, a book, and a TV on mute. Will apples take root in the vast wasteland?
Stephen E Arnold, October 23, 2010
Freebie
Click Fraud: Sucking Your Recession Bucks?
October 23, 2010
I don’t do online advertising. I don’t do sales. I don’t do marketing except this opinion-charged blog in the persona of an addled goose. But if you do online advertising, you will want to read about the alleged click fraud reported in “Click Fraud Rate Jumps in Q3 Behind Botnets.” Sports fans, put on your protective gear. You will find a real helmet to helmet collision. Here’s one passage that will make online advertisers see red, red ink that is.
Click fraud is a scheme where a person, automated script or computer program mimics a legitimate user clicking on an online ad to make money from a pay-per-click arrangement. According to a new report by Click Forensics, the click fraud rate was 22.3 percent in the third quarter of 2010, up from 18.6 percent in the previous quarter and 14.1 percent in the third quarter of 2009.
In case you did not get the point, here’s another allegation:
“While most third-party ad networks and all major search engines typically apply filters before charging advertisers, we have seen some advertisers waste as much as 10 percent of their monthly spend on invalid traffic and fraud.”
Yankee Doodle Dandy! In a lousy economic climate that’s some serious money. Now we ask, “Are these allegations accurate?” Don’t know. Or we ask, “What’s the method behind the shocking numbers?” Don’t know. And we ask, “Who else has these data?” Snap. No info.
If true, what are the online ad outfits who are rolling in dough doing to control this alleged issue? Now don’t give me Buffy the PR lady from Reed College. How about some info? The goose is thankful he has no need to hustle folks for money. The ads in this blog come from myself and the Google. Would the Google tolerate click fraud? Does a bear…?
Stephen E Arnold, October 22, 2010
Freebie which is definitely different from an online ad.
Search Engine History
October 22, 2010
Joe Stalin would love this infographic. Point your browser thingy with an Evercookie at “Search Engine History.” for the azurini, the infographic is gold. For the goose in Harrod’s Creek, the information is close—not 100 percent on the money—but horseshoe close. Were I younger, I would make some corrections. But with the testosterone charged MBAs and Amazonian females, I don’t need the push back. With Google’s market share reported as a monopoly invoking 84.73 percent, the Google will be working over time to make that market share look like a more acceptable 65 percent. Reality? Nah. Just the way the present world likes to operate. Sigh.
Stephen E Arnold, October 22, 2010
Freebie
Upgrade SharePoint, Know the Cost Maybe
October 20, 2010
A reader sent me a link to “Announcing the SharePoint 2010 Price Calculator, a Free Tool to Estimate SharePoint 2010 Licensing Costs.” If you are have a Microsoft logo tattooed on your arm, you will need this calculator. Bamboo Solutions’ engineers have created a tool that makes it possible to estimated the licensing costs for SharePoint or a SharePoint upgrade. Of particular interest to me was this passage:
Of particular note for existing SharePoint customers is that there have been a few changes to the license types available with SharePoint 2010 from the WSS/MOSS model of 2007. Of the three license types available for SharePoint 2010 (defined by Microsoft as Foundation, Standard, and Enterprise), here’s the quick ‘n’ dirty lowdown: Foundation is a free download, though companies using it must be properly licensed for Microsoft SharePoint Server; Standard and Enterprise both require the purchase of SharePoint Server 2010 and licensing of the requisite feature set; the Enterprise CAL is additive (i.e., you must already have the Standard CAL), and the Enterprise license also provides the opportunity to add on a license for FAST Search Server 2010 for SharePoint. Microsoft makes available a handy feature-comparison list between the three license types, allowing you to compare at a glance just which features are available (or unavailable, as the case may be) with each license type.
Several observations.
First, the calculator will provide “rough cut” numbers. I have heard that Microsoft has been increasingly aggressive in its pricing when Alfresco has been under consideration.
Second, Microsoft’s own pricing approach continues to confuse me. The notion of client access licenses and bundles is difficult for a goose to deconstruct.
Third, the inclusion of the Fast ESP technology makes pricing particularly difficult. The reason is that the Fast technology must be tailored, tuned, and configured. In most cases, this work requires patience, engineering expertise, and a solid knowledge of the “dark side” of precision and recall.
I recommend the pricing calculator. I would use the numbers as part of a negotiation process. You may find other uses for the tool. Whatever happened to a basic price list? Access the Bamboo widget gizmo here.
Stephen E Arnold, October 20, 2010
Freebie
Web Search Seems Interesting Again
October 15, 2010
From the goose pond, Web search has not been too interesting in the last few years. Others see an open market. I see a closed market. Others see many Web search options. I see limited options. The reason? Most people take one of a small number of options as naturally and unconsciously as a breath of air:
- Use a default search engine, which means either Bing or Google, enter a keyword or two, and pick one of the hits
- Navigate to Google, type a letter or two and click on a link
- Click something on almost any page that looks interesting.
Sounds simple right? I think it is simple and the usage data suggests that anything involving Google is good enough for two thirds of those who “search”. The other vendors are pretty much irrelevant in the US. In other countries a similar skewed usage pattern is evident. Some countries’ users rely on local systems, but for the purposes of this blog post, let’s focus on the US market.
In that market, there are, in my opinion, two players–Microsoft Bing and Google.
“Bing = Bing + Facebook” caused me to think that Web search is once again interesting. Here’s the point that hooked me:
Effective immediately, when you search on Bing you can see results based on what your friends and other people are recommending and talking about. So your search results will be different from mine because we know different people.
Eeek. Microsoft and Facebook appear to have — if the information in the write up is spot on — a search feature that Google does not. Google has stellar earnings, but Microsoft has a pipe into Facebook. What makes this more interesting is that Facebook has been hiring Googlers. The combination of chemicals could produce an interesting compound.
When I was in high school chemistry, I found that departing from the lab workbook produced some fascinating results. One example was a mixture of calcium carbide and concentrated hydrochloric acid. A click from the Bunsen burner ingniter thing was particularly memorable.
Search is interesting because the combination of Googlers migrating to Facebook, Microsoft’s Facebook data, and the poorly understood behavior of the Facebook addicts could produce a bang. Of course, the compound may be unpleasant. Google, on the other hand, is missing one of the ingredients: Facebook data. The void can be filled but at this moment, Bing is in a space and may expand.
The uncertainty adds interest to what is for most people a routine and method that gets little thought.
Stephen E Arnold, October 15, 2010
Freebie
x
Microsoft SharePoint Videos
October 13, 2010
A reader sent me a link and it pointed to a framed page on StumbleUpon.com. For the life of me, I can’t figure out who wrote what, when, and why. Here’s the StumbleUpon link.
When I shaved the url, I got a 404, so you are on your own. What interested my reader a lot and me not so much were two new videos in an article called “Microsoft’s Internet business Vision: SharePoint for Internet Sites & Fast Search.”
The two videos which I watched as I was writing this post are:
- Microsoft’s Internet Business Platform Vision Part 1. This is a seven minute video featuring a person in the Technology Solutions DPMG unit. I don’t know what the acronym means. The video is a voice over PowerPoint. The first video explained market trends.
- Microsoft’s Internet Business Platform Vision Part 2. The second video includes a nifty graphic about Redmond’s business vision. The diagram shows an “integrated platform”. Yes, another integrated platform which one hopes connects to the other platforms in an enterprise and in cloud space.
What’s this have to do with search? Well, one has to be able to find things in this integrated space. The Fast search detail was, in my opinion, thin. But there is a nifty diagram showing how Fast Search Server can deliver reach, retention, and revenue.
If you are into Microsoft, you will enjoy the voice over PowerPoint presentations. I anticipate that certified partners selling a snap in replacement for Fast Search Server may find the videos helpful with regard to their product marketing and positioning.
Stephen E Arnold, October 13, 2010
Clearwell Goes All in One
October 13, 2010
“Clearwell Unveils All-in-One eDiscovery Platform” alerted me that another vendor has shifted from a solution to a platform. Clearwell flashed on my radar with its Rocket Docket system. The company won some kudos because a law firm or corporate legal office could ring Clearwell on the phone, and the company would deliver a ready-to-run box. The system could be plugged in and pointed at the content to be processed. The company has added nifty features that lawyers find quite useful. One lawyer told me a couple of years ago, “I can save my discovery trail and rerun it or show it to a colleague.”
According to the write up in Computer Business Review:
The platform can pull data from over 50 sources, including cloud-based applications, and offers a single dashboard for report generation. Other features of the new platform include an interactive data map, which enables users to navigate through data sources with what Clearwell calls an iTunes-like filter; collection templates, which save commonly-used collection settings, including specific directories, filters and preservation stores; and collection analytics, which provide a portfolio of analytical charts and tables that display the types of data collected.
For more information about this platform, navigate to www.clearwellsystems.com.
My views, before I forget them, include:
- How many platforms does an organization need? In some situations, cloud solutions make more sense. My recollection is that Brainware offered a spin on hosted a few years ago. One could call Brainware and the firm would pick up hard copy and digital data obtained via discovery, process it, and then provide secure access to an authorized user.
- Has the law firm market shifted? My sources tell me that buyers of these eDiscovery systems are corporate legal departments. The hook for these sales is that a CEO wants to know right away if there is an “issue” in the discovered materials.
- Has the number of vendors chasing the legal market forced down prices for basic services? The “platform” sounds like a higher value sale, particularly when connectors are provided to make it easy to ingest popular file types. The platform play, if successful, could draw the attention of a larger, more established platform provider. What happens when platforms collide? Unlikely because lawyers are not diffused widely in most organizations. Maybe the play will lead to a buy out.
Just some questions to which I don’t have answers.
Stephen E Arnold, October 13, 2010
Freebie
Wolfram Alpha and Search
October 12, 2010
I read “Wolfram Alpha and the Future of Search.” When I first looked at Wolfram Alpha, I did not consider the system a search engine. Google has a similar function. The idea is that an appropriate query will generate an answer. In my first queries with Wolfram Alpha, the math questions worked well. The more generalized query elicited some head scratching from the Wolfram Alpha system.
The write up summarizes some remarks made by Stephen Wolfram, a well know wizard and software genius, whose Mathematica finds use in many PhD study areas, research labs in Silicon Valley, and puzzle solvers who find Mathematica just what the doctor ordered to avoid a silly addition error.
The write up contained two points which I found interesting.
First, Dr. Wolfram allegedly said something along the lines:
Traditional search engines help us find documents in that mountain of words. But they do very little to distill those words into knowledge, or to answer our questions. The challenge in the coming years, Wolfram said, was to make more of these files and documents computable. That would enable systems like Wolfram/Alpha to digest them, and to use them to produce answers and analysis.
Dr. Wolfram is right in the flow of the data fusion trend. The question I would raise is, “What happens when those generating the outputs fiddle the game?” I don’t think “trust”, “reputation,” or “honor” will satisfy my need for some substantive reassurance. The nifty interfaces and the point-and-click access to “the answer” may be a mixed blessing.
Second, Dr. Wolfram alleged said something along these lines:
But the way Wolfram sees it, more of us will produce information in a style (or on templates) that will make it computable, and machines like his will eventually be able to answer all sorts of questions. In a sense, an early stage of this pre-processing is already happening: An entire industry is formatting Web pages to make them more searchable.
Bingo. Data fusion. The question I would raise is, “What happens when one of the nifty acquisition and transformation systems cannot process certain content?” In my experience, the scale of operation at even Twitter content centric start ups is a significant amount of data. Presenting information as complete that may quite incomplete seems to be a sticky wicket to me.
Is this bulk content processing and machine answering the future? Google, Recorded Future, and DataSift are rushing toward that end zone. Trends are fascinating, and in this case, data fusion tells us more about the market’s need for an easy-as-pie way to get actionable information than about the validity of the methods and the appropriateness of the outputs.
Stephen E Arnold, October 12, 2010
Orkut: The Need for Speed
October 12, 2010
We think there may be a number of different points of friction for Orkut, Google’s social networking service. Orkut became available since 2004. Orkut “lived” in the US, but we have heard that it now resides on servers in Brazil, not that the location of a Google server makes much difference to a user. Other folks may have a different opinion about where a particular service should reside.
The TechCrunch article “Marissa Mayer: Orkut’s U.S. Failure Was Due To Slow Performance After Fast Growth”, shows a different side of Google. Many people have never heard of Google’s social network Orkut which was introduced before Facebook. The network attracted a lot of attention in just the first few days. However, Google was not prepared and Mayer admitted “This caused the network to slow down to a crawl.” US Internet users stopped using the program and it became obsolete. Google eventually worked out the network problems but they missed a golden opportunity and their US audience was gone. With the introduction of FaceBook, Google may have lost its chance at a social network audience. Orkut continues to be popular in Brazil but when it comes to the US it seems that ship has already sailed.
The question is, “Can Google catch up with Facebook?” If the answer is, “Yes,” then the question becomes, “Can Google leap frog Facebook?” Our view is that speed is more than the rendering time of a Web page and its images. Speed also shades into closing the gap with a competitor and quickly blasting away that competitor’s market position.
Google is good at certain types of quickness, but in terms of the Facebook problem, Google is less than fleet footed in the Facebook-type market. With Facebook now the subject of wildly popular movie, the film makes clear that any notoriety is good in Hollywood. The ClickZ article about video usage delivers another interesting fact. Please, keep in mind that these 20-something oriented surveys may have some wild and crazy aspects to them.
Here’s what ClickZ said:
Facebook is now the second largest online video property in the U.S. when ranked by unique viewers, according to data from comScore. The measurement firm’s Video Metrix service reports Facebook grew its audience substantially in August, with over 58.5 million users watching video content on the site over the course of the month, compared with around 46.6 million doing so in July. Meanwhile, viewers of video content on Yahoo sites dwindled, allowing Facebook to overtake it and claim the second spot behind Google.
If true, the need for speed in the social networking sector is increasing in our opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, October 12, 2010
Freebie
The Google Car: The Goose View Mirror
October 11, 2010
Short honk: Geese don’t drive unless killed, processed, and converted to pillows. At that stage, the geese are transported, and that’s the idea behind the Google “look, ma, no hands” Math Club car. The received wisdom appears in “Google working on Self-Driving Cars.” Some bafflement swirls about this Google initiative. Here’s the goose’s view:
- When Google drives, Google has geospatial data. Yep, it’s still search.
- When Google drives, it has a captive audience who may be surfing or otherwise consuming digital goodies in a Google-equipped vehicle
- When Google drives, Google can serve ads just like the ones Sun execs wanted so a burger joint was readily accessible without unnecessary exits and delays.
In short, the Google car makes a lot of sense and cents.
Stephen E Arnold, October 11, 2010
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
