Business Intelligence: Optimism and Palantir
June 28, 2010
Business intelligence is in the news. Memex, the low profile UK outfit, sold to SAS. Kroll, another low profile operation, became part of Altegrity, anther organization with modest visibility among the vast sea of online experts. Now Palantir snags $90 million, which I learned in “Palantir: the Next Billion Dollar Company Raises $90 Million.” In the post financial meltdown world, there is a lot of money looking for a place that can grow more money. The information systems developed for serious intelligence analysis seem to be a better bet than funding another Web search company.
Palantir has some ardent fans in the US defense and intelligence communities. I like the system as well. What is fascinating to me is that smart money believes that there is gold in them there analytics and visualizations. I don’t doubt for a New York minute that some large commercial organizations can do a better job of figuring out the nuances in their petabytes of data with Palantir-type tools. But Palantir is not exactly Word or Excel.
The system requires an understanding of such nettlesome points as source data, analytic methods, and – yikes – programmatic thinking. The outputs from Palantir are almost good enough for General Stanley McChrystal to get another job. I have seen snippets of some really stunning presentations featuring Palantir outputs. You can see some examples at the Palantir Web site or take a gander (no pun intended by the addled goose) at the image below:
Palantir is an open platform; that is, a licensee with some hefty coinage in their knapsack can use Palantir to tackle the messy problem of data transformation and federation. The approach features dynamic ontologies, which means that humans don’t have to do as much heavy lifting as required by some of the other vendors’ systems. A licensee will want to have a tame rocket scientist around to deal with the internals of pXML, the XML variant used to make Palantir walk and talk.
You can poke around at these links which may go dark in a nonce, of course: https://devzone.palantirtech.com/ and https://www.palantirtech.com/.
Several observations:
- The system is expensive and requires headcount to operate in a way that will deliver satisfactory results under real world conditions
- Extensibility is excellent, but this work is not for a desk jockey no matter how confident that person in his undergraduate history degree and Harvard MBA
- The approach is industrial strength which means that appropriate resources must be available to deal with data acquisition, system tuning, and programming the nifty little extras that are required to make next generation business intelligence systems smarter than a grizzled sergeant with a purple heart.
Can Palantir become a billion dollar outfit? Well, there is always the opportunity to pump in money, increase the marketing, and sell the company to a larger organization with Stone Age business intelligence systems. If Oracle wanted to get serious about XML, Palantir might be worth a look. I can name some other candidates for making the investors day, but I will leave those to your imagination. Will you run your business on a Palantir system in the next month or two? Probably not.
Stephen E Arnold, June 27, 2010
Freebie
Favitt: Google Custom Search Engine Gone Wild
June 28, 2010
Short honk: If you find metasearch systems useful, check out Favitt. Based in Houston, Favitt tosses in some interesting twists. I liked the stream of real time hits relevant to my query. You can toss in a custom background and create a customized search engine. Run a query and you get YouTube hits, news links, and the real time stuff. I prefer the Kosmix approach, but you will want to take a look. Navigate to www.favitt.com. To get access to the customization page, you must register.
Stephen E Arnold, June 29, 2010
Freebie
Googlers vs Xooglers: Are Smarts the X Factor?
June 28, 2010
There are lots of Xooglers now. Some are at little-known outfits with pals in the Pentagon. Some are now financiers or pundits. And some others are working at Facebook. I have watched how the Xooglers at Facebook have managed to emulate some of Google’s more interesting characteristics such as zigzagging around user security settings and pushing into the uncharted world visible to lesser mortals. I have also found some surprising insights such as skipping the 1998 approach to relevance by embracing the social network’s predilections.
I was interested in The Snitch’s write up about Web rock star Kevin Rose. Mr. Rose, a former business magazine cover personality, and podcast/meet up superstar. The article was “Is Google About to Launch a Facebook Killer? Kevin Rose Says So.” The idea is that there is a rumor, apparently Velcroed to Mr. Rose about Google’s Facebook killer.
Source: http://mark.koli.ch/2009/01/13/google-facebook.png
Let’s think about these “killers”. You know about these digital Ebolas: the Microsoft Word killer, the Oracle killer, the iPod killer, and so on. In my experience, when someone suggests that another company – usually gasping in second place or even farther behind in a market race – a sure fire way to keep the credibility is to get associated with a “killer”.
I am an old, addled goose. I am increasingly amused by the monopolization that occurs in digital markets. Decades ago, I pointed out in a series of columns for Information World Review that information pools and beckons handling in the way power companies and water companies operate. The infrastructure and captured customers eliminate competition because life is easier for the consumer.
Don’t believe me? That’s okay. You, gentle reader, are probably younger, smarter, and more hungry than this goose. But look around. Apple is in a pretty good position when it comes to high margin computers and gizmos that make teens and college students drool. Google owns the Web search and online advertising sector. The much maligned Microsoft owns the enterprise desktop no matter what a Zoho or Google PR person says. Want to buy a book online? You know the place to go: Amazon. There are other examples ranging from IBM in big companies to outfits like AT& and Verizon for “real telephony”.
Facebook on a Chocolate High
June 27, 2010
Today (Saturday, June 26, 2010) I had a short conversation with a person who argued that the Internet was Google. I would have agreed in 2006, but since that fateful year when Google when ga-ga, the company has lost its magic touch. I know the company is a money machine and ranks among the world’s superpowers in power and influence, but the excitement has shifted. Google is more of a Wal-Mart and is starting to look to me more like a Microsoft-inspired operation. The person with whom I spoke was not happy when I suggested that Facebook was the big gun in the Internet.
I think the reason I was playing like an avid Facebook friend was my recollection of “One Billion Facebook Users: The Road Ahead”, an article that appeared in Online Social Media. The argument in the short item was:
Mark Zuckerberg has been quoted as saying “that Facebook estimates of ($1.14 billion) just in revenue this year 2010 could be achieved”. One of the reasons contributing to this, could be that Facebook have become the top US publisher of display ads on the web. It appears that display ads in the first 3 months of the year captured users, and produced a 16.2% of the market share, double that of the previous year of 7.5%.
If we assume that Mr. Zuckerberg is on the beam, Facebook could mean big trouble for the Google and maybe Apple. The reason is that Microsoft seems to be comfortable with the Zuck’s creation. If Microsoft can find a way to cheerlead Facebook into bleeding ad revenue from the Google, that’s a plus. In fact, a slower Google could find itself pressure by the Cartier advertising approach of Apple on the high end and by the Zuck’s “better Google” approach.
If Facebook’s traffic keeps on growing * and if * the Facebook search system works reasonably well, Facebook may have done something not even the Googlers thought possible.
Stephen E Arnold, June 26, 2010
Freebie
The Pay Wall Payoff
June 26, 2010
In the early days of this blog, I recycled some information I had in my files from the 1980s. I believe I mentioned that problem that online throws in the path of the uninitiated. The idea is that you can charge for information online, but you must offer “must have” information. Vanilla information will generate some traffic on a fee basis but the take will be a fraction of what is needed to create the content, market the service, and keep the infrastructure alive and well. The “must have” and “nice to have” distinctions are well known to those who have been able to build commercial online products that actually make a profit. Honk. I am in that tiny segment of humanity. No ads needed, thank you. I have a view that ads – through lucrative – are down market. I like the “must have” approach even though I paddled in a goose pond in rural Kentucky. The millions and billions go to the Wal-Mart like folks. “Times Paywall: Initial Data and Analysis” is one of those semi accurate, pundit thingies. The data are cooked up based on whatever log files are available and from traffic sampling methods. Despite these concerns, one has to be in bizarro land not to see the down ward trend in the chart.
What this means is that the pay wall is a traffic inhibitor. That’s okay as long as the online revenue makes up for the downturn. My experience is that traffic will stabilize and revenues will be tough to grow. The fix is to raise the fee which means less traffic. The end game is that there will be a small number of people will to pay whatever the vendor charges. The problem is that costs go up and revenue does not keep pace. Boink. Bad news. On the brightside, some of the cash from the sale of Beliefnet might help out the pay wall play.
Stephen E Arnold, June 26, 2010
Freebie
Search Vendors Try New Sales Hooks
June 25, 2010
Forget the surveys that companies run to make clear the problems in information access. Anyone who looks for information today knows that pinpointing information to answer a business question is not exactly bulletproof. Recommind, once a vendor anchored in the legal market, stretched its wings into the enterprise. My recollection is that some of the company’s technology reminded me of Autonomy’s original approach. Now Recommind seems to be pushing into a different space, one that combines indexing, risk management, some MBA speak, and a dash of legal lingo. Navigate to “Disconnect Between Legal and IT Getting Worse, Recommind Survey Reveals.”
In my experience, information technology organizations are definitely disconnected from most of the corporate functions. I don’t think IT is at fault. IT departments are trying to protect themselves from what I call “requests from the clueless.” I know business managers are under pressure. CFOs are wild eyed in their efforts to cut costs and maximize returns. The top executives are scrambling to find ways to buy their private island, get a new BMW, and create a life without BP scale risks, bloggers, and 20somethings who want to make their bones on the corpses of today’s market leaders. Many managers see a demo or chat with pals at the country club and come to the office on Monday with requests that are essentially impossible for an IT department to meet with available resources.
What’s the Recommind survey purport to tell me? IT and legal eagles are operating on different wave lengths. I need a survey to tell me this. I don’t even operate on the same wave length as my two attorneys and I pay these guys to try and help me. For me, here’s a quote that reveals more about client management and vendors than about IT departments:
At a time when e-Discovery and regulatory issues are gaining momentum, these results don’t exactly instill confidence across the enterprise.
Here’s my view of the situation:
- Certain vendors of search technology have to find a way to make sales to keep the money pipe full. The options are market like the devil or go to Satans’ spawn and get more funding. Which path would you take? I vote for marketing. I think these types of surveys are marketing efforts and when the results are released, I know the data are viewed by the survey sponsor as a way to generate sales leads.
- Obviously plain vanilla search is not a hot ticket. I think I was one of the first people to explain that search was dead in my Searcher article for Barbara Quint four or five years ago. No search vendor is going to bridge the gap between IT and the many over stressed units in an organization. Successful vendors find ways to solve problems, not tackle the management tensions that are human centric organizational issues.
- The new lingo does not convince me that content processing software can address deeper issues with management and governance.
You may have a different view, so read the survey results. Many search vendors have marketed themselves into a corner. Now organizations have to find solutions to information access problems. I don’t think there is much margin for error. Sure, some assert the economy is improving. That’s wonderful. But the glory days of search marketing are behind us, and I think more than catch phrases, house surveys, sponsored white papers, and fawning azure chip consultants will be needed.
Here’s my checklist for starters:
- Demonstrations that solve a problem
- Clear statements of what a findability-centric software system can and cannot do
- Avoidance of MBA crazy talk, jargon, unsupported assertions, and faux case analyses
- Partnerships that give a prospect confidence that the system can be made to work at a reasonable cost in a reasonable period of time
- Focus on solutions. Search and content processing vendors are not blue chip management consultants, never will be and probably cannot afford the ministrations of Bain, Booz, Boston Consulting, or McKinsey and, therefore, have little first hand information of what is required to tackle management challenges in an organizations.
Many search vendors are scrambling for a new sales hook. What approach will work? No clue have I.
Stephen E Arnold, June 25, 2010
Freebie
Is Google Attacking Endeca with Killer Prices?
June 23, 2010
I am not sure if this eWeek story is on the money, but I want to capture the alleged Google pricing for its eCommerce service. Judge for yourself by navigating to “Google Commerce Search 2.0 Gets Refinements, $25K Price Point.” The big dogs in eCommerce include / have included Dieselpoint, EasyAsk, Endeca, SLI Systems, Omniture Mercado, and a handful of other outfits. Price points range from $25,000 right on up to millions, depending on what the customers’ specifications are perceived to be. Keep in mind that scaling and tuning may add significantly to the cost of an ecommerce system.
For me the key paragraph was:
The search engine also added a new price point for Commerce Search. The original entry level price was $50,000 per year for an indexing of 100,000 items and up to 10 million queries. Google has cut that virtually in half to appeal to smaller businesses, or businesses with smaller needs. Businesses may now license Commerce Search for $25,000 per year, which is good for 50,000 products and 3 million queries. Customers will pay more as they scale.
So what? This price point is a bargain until one considers the sentence “Customers will pay more as they scale.” Budget that, grasshopper.
Stephen E Arnold, June 21, 2010
Freebie
Ebook Reality, What Is Hot Sells
June 22, 2010
I enjoyed “Barnes & Noble Confirms New $149 NOOK Wi-Fi, Drops 3G Model Price To $199.” The Barnes & Noble ebook reader is one of those adventures in US corporate innovation that provides fodder to the case studies used in MBA land. The news is that a price cut for the gizmo is in place. The article was quite circumspect and included the Barnes & Noble news release. Three points warrant the goose’s capturing them:
First, the price cut won’t make any difference. The product is not hot and the Apple iPad is. Without buzz, a price cut won’t work. Don’t believe me. Find a 12 year old. Offer the kid a Nook or an iPad. Which will the kid take? Let me know.
Second, companies that are essentially in the middle of deals often are not too good at manufacturing. Compare the first Kindle with the first iPad. Now compare the second Kindle with the Nook. Pick the better of the two devices and go back to the iPad. See any differences?
Third, lowering the cost will clear inventory. A price cut won’t stimulate Barnes & Noble’s revenue itch. The cost of the gizmo, the price cut, and the expensive in store promotions put this product in a tough spot.
So what’s the response of Amazon? Chopping the price of the Kindle. Boy, I am delighted I paid full price. Endears the company to me for sure.
Neither Barnes & Noble or Amazon are hardware pros. Are these devices the Pontiac Aztec’s of the ebook world? Just the view from Harrod’s Creek, and it is an opinion which makes the comments even less valuable.
Stephen E Arnold, June 22, 2010
Freebie
CNN and AP News Shift
June 21, 2010
I read “CNN Drops AP Wire Service.” You may want to check it out as well. I am not sure if I know what to make of the report. Let’s assume the story is accurate. Why would CNN drop a source that many organizations consider “must have”? One view is that AP is no longer a “must have” source. Another view is that CNN wants to innovate with its business model and its vendors have to be sufficiently agile to make CNN comfortable. A few years ago dropping the Associated Press would have been unthinkable. Its state house coverage is tough to duplicate. Maybe CNN wants to cut costs? When i killed a couple of hours between flights last year I realized that CNN is one expensive puppy to keep healthy. With YouTube’s recent news feistiness, CNN may be preparing for battle. If the story is a hoax, the AP is secure. If true, the AP may be showing some signs of losing its magnetism.
Stephen E Arnold, June 22, 2010
Freebie
Real Time Search Systems, Part 1
June 21, 2010
Editor’s note: For those in the New Orleans real time search lecture and the Madrid semantic search talk, I promised to make available some of the information I discussed. Attendees are often hungry to have a take away, and I want to offer a refrigerator magnet, not the cruise ship gift shop. This post will provide a summary of the real time information services I mentioned. The group focuses on content processed from such services as Facebook, Twitter, blogs, and other geysers of digital confetti. A subsequent blog post will present the basics of my draft taxonomy of real time search. I know that most readers will kick the candy bar wrapper into the gutter. If you are one of the folks who picks up the taxonomy, a credit line would make the addled goose feel less like a down pillow and more like a Marie Antoinette pond ornament.
What’s Real Time Search?
Ah, gentle reader, real time search is marketing baloney. Life has latency. You call me on the phone and days, maybe weeks go by, and I don’t return the call. In the digital world, you get an SMS and you think it was rocketed to you by the ever vigilant telecommunications companies. Not exactly. In most cases, unless you conduct a laboratory test between mobiles on different systems, capturing the transmit time, the receiving time, and other data points such as time of day, geolocation, etc., you don’t have a clue what the latency between sending and receiving. Isn’t it easier to assume that the message was sent instantly. When you delve into other types of information, you may discover that what you thought was real time is something quite different. The “check is in the mail” applies to digital information, index updating, query processing, system response time, and double talk from organizations too cheap or too disorganized to do much of anything quickly. Thus, real time is a slippery fish.
Real Time Search Systems
Why do I use the phrase “real time”? I don’t have a better phrase at hand. Vendors yap about real time and a very, very few explain exactly what their use of the phrase means. One outfit that deserves a pat on the head is Exalead. The company explains that in an organization, most information is available to an authorized user no less than 15 minutes after the Exalead system becomes aware of the data. That’s fast, and it beats the gym shorts of many other vendors. I would love to pinpoint the turtles, but my legal eagle cautions me that this type of sportiness will get me a yellow card. Figure it out for yourself is the sad consequence.
Here’s the list of the systems I identified in my lectures. I don’t work for any of these outfits, and I use different services depending on my specific information needs. You are, therefore, invited to run sample queries on these services or turn to one of the “real” journalists for their take. If you have spare cash and found yourself in the lower quartile of your math class, you may find that an azure chip consultant is just what you need to make it in the crazy world of online information.
- Collecta – www.collecta.com – Venture funded with another infusion of $5 million
- Crowdeye www.crowdeye.com – Former Microsoft employees’ start up
- DailyRT http://dailyrt.com –
- Ice Rocket www.icerocket.com – funded by Mark Cuban
- ITPints www.itpints.com – Single entrepreneur
- Leapfish — www.leapfish.com Metasearch, controversy over alleged link fraud, backed by DotNext; integrates Topsy.com
- Newslookup – www.newslookup.com, founded 2000 regions and categories, open source engine, DataparkSearch
- OneNewsPage www.onenewspage.com – Live access to top news and analysis
- Red Tram www.redtram.com – Russian service, broad coverage in nine languages, including Chinese. Based in Cyprus
- Scoopler www.scoopler.com – Y Combinator funded
- Topsy www.topsy.com – Ignition Partners and other VC firms
- Twazzup www.twazzup.com – Self funded start up. Don’t confuse this with Exalead’s Tweepz.com
- Tweetmeme www.tweetmeme.com – Part of Fav.or.it in the UK via angel funding
- Yauba www.yauba.com – IIT and UC Berkeley, privacy safe
In my lectures I made four points about these types of real-time search services.
First, each of these services did at the time of my talks deliver more useful and comprehensive results than the “real time search” services from the Big Gals in the Web search game; namely, Google, Microsoft Bing, and Yahoo. Yahoo, I pointed out, doesn’t do real time search itself. Yahoo has a deal with the OneRiot.com outfit. The service is useful and I suppose I could stick it in the list above, but I am just cutting and pasting from the PowerPoint decks I used as crutches and dogs in my lecture.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
