Apple versus Google: Whose $100 Million Worked Harder?
June 3, 2011
I just finished reading “Google’s CEO Steps into Spotlight.” There was one item that jumped off the page in my opinion; to wit:
For the media, “it’s much more interesting — what is the latest crazy thing that Google did,” Page said. “It tends to be like three people in the company, keep that in mind. We are not betting the farm on a lot of those things. That’s not what we are doing.” Still, Page said, now-crucial products like Android and Chrome started off as technological long-shots, and there were few hostile questions from the roughly 250 shareholders who attended the annual meeting. “We don’t want to choke innovation. We want to make sure we have a lot of things going on at the company that are maybe speculative,” Page said, quickly adding, “we spend the vast majority of our resources on our core businesses, which are search and advertising. … That’s our core focus.”
The number of articles about the shareholders’ meeting and the comments of Google founder and CEO cover most of the angles. There is little that I can add other than point out the use of the word “crazy” in the phrase “the latest crazy thing that Google did.” Oh, I want to mention that my reading skills are not so hot. I thought I detected an interesting logic stream in the comment about “technoloigcal long shots”, “choke innovation”, and “our core businesses, which are search and advertising.” I interpreted these phrases as suggessting that Google does need crazy things.
The more pragmatic “thing” today is the news that Apple’s $100 million was different from Google’s alleged $100 million to music companies. Here was Google talking about the core of search and advertising, and at roughly the same time, Apple seemed to cement its grip on music in the cloud. Here’s a comment from “Major Labels, Music Publishers Lining up behind Apple’s iCloud” from the Los Angeles Times with the part I noted in bold face:
Apple, whose iTunes music store is the dominant purveyor of music downloads with between 75% and 85% of the market, has been carefully monitoring moves by rival Amazon.com as well as newcomers to the digital music space, including Google and, in Europe, Spotify.
Google has not been able to marginalize Apple. The notion of having apps in the cloud is a good one. What Apple has achieved is getting money directly from people via its walled garden approach. I don’t think of Apple doing “crazy” stuff. I don’t think of Apple taking long shots in today’s unsettled financial climate. I don’t think of Apple mired in legal hassles worldwide. I don’t think of Apple accusing countries of trying to access user data. In fact, I see Google as a company working hard to explain that online advertising and search are the foundation of Google.
I do not disagree. Google is an extension of AltaVista.com and other precursor search systems. Google is an evolution of Yahoo’s Overture (GoTo.com) ad business. The challenge for Google is to find a way to cope with the world beyond AltaVista.com search and beyond the online ad models from the traditional world of online.
Android is a start. It is arguably more successful than Apple’s mobile platform. Chrome is a start. It is arguably more successful than other cloud netbook operating systems if there are any.
Shareholders want Apple style revenues and profits. Shareholdeers want excitement too. But shareholders want performance. Me too plays, non magnetic $100 million deals, and long shots that become winners do not seem to be operating at the level of efficiency that an Indianapolis 500’s race car engine requires. Google is in the race. Can it make up lost time and, if it does, can it retain the lead in hot new markets where advertising may be only part of the revenue model and search is vastly different from the AltaVista.com method from the mid 1990s.
Apple’s $100 million may have worked harder. Google’s may not have worked yet. What is interesting is that Google’s future may be increasingly shaped by Amazon, Apple, and Facebook, not “crazy” stuff.
Stephen E Arnold, June 3, 2011
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, the resource for enterprise search information and current news about data fusion
America, We Have a Problem
May 22, 2011
Push aside the woes of publishers. After reading “Video Viewing on Netflix Accounts for Up to 30 Percent of Online Traffic,” I fear for America. I like to read. Recently I have shifted from non fiction to lighter fare, but I fall asleep in movie theaters and I just cannot pay attention to TV shows. Sports and a handful of other shows work like background noise for me. When the roar sounds, I look up and drink in the goal or the “moment”. Then, it is back to the book, iPad, or notebook computer. I am not sure watching videos delivers the type of hands on, kinaesthetic learning that my education offered. Couch potatoes can be bright, maybe Einstein class thinkers. I find this type of statement downright frightening:
People watching videos on Netflix take up more bandwidth on the Internet than users of any other Web site or service in North America, according to a report Tuesday by broadband analytics firm Sandvine. At peak Internet hours, as much as 30 percent of online traffic is generated by Netflix subscribers who are watching movies or TV shows over their laptops, game consoles and smartphones. The report highlights a rapid move by consumers toward the Web for their entertainment and news. Netflix accounted for 20 percent of Internet traffic just six months ago, according to Sandvine.
The new thinkers, yikes.
Stephen E Arnold, May 22, 2011
Freebie
Google I/O: Focus or Scatter?
May 16, 2011
Are the developments reported in EWeek’s piece, “Google Cloud Music, Movies Open Google I/O,” indicative of Google’s recent focus? It seems that the two most tout-able Google projects involve a music storage service and a movie rental site. Is it just me, or does Google seem to have little search news at its input/output conference?
With the turmoil over PageRank changes, Google is pushing into markets with a “me too” vengeance. I suppose we can’t blame Google for being a little search-shy right now. However, I don’t believe they will prosper by veering far from their core strength.
Besides, the move into music isn’t without its own complications. The article asserted:
“Unfortunately, like Amazon, Google has not secured music labels’ permission for streaming the songs…Jamie Rosenberg, Google’s director of digital content, argued that its approach is completely legal, that it is simply providing a music storage service for users. However, he allowed that labels were not receptive to Google’s service under its current iteration.
We’ll see which of Google’s many, many initiatives pan out as time goes on. We want to see more emphasis on search and details about the Blogger crash. If Google wants me to use a Chromebook, I want the Google cloud to be there, not offline with apps and content lost in the fog. The Google scatter may be reflections of the cloud coming to earth and reflecting at odd angles.
Cynthia Murrell May 16, 2011
Freebie
ZyLAB Audio Search
May 11, 2011
It’s like semantic search for audio files: Allvoipnews announces “ZyLAB Launches Audil Search Bundle.” The eDiscovery company’s product allows you to search your enterprise’s audio using speech analytics:
Company officials said that the desktop software product transforms audio recordings into a phonetic representation of the way in which words are pronounced. The investigators are able to search for dictionary terms, however also proper names, company names, or brands without the need to ‘re-ingest’ the data.
Kudos to ZyLAB. With this project, the company is pushing ahead of Microsoft Fast and Google. That’s no small feat. However, Exalead has offered audio and video search for several years.
Cynthia Murrell May 11, 2011
Find Images with GazoPa
May 11, 2011
I recently was introduced to GazoPa, an interesting new Web site and venture project from Hitachi, the inspire the next company. (I think I know what that means.) GazoPa is self-described as:
a next generation similar image search engine that uses image features such as a color and a shape that are extracted from an image.
The photo bank is populated by the continuously crawling GazoPabot and at its completion will provide categories like sports, funny, and Flickr.
The site is uncluttered, so it wasn’t difficult to start poking around the features. It allows you to upload an image, enter an image URL or a keyword to find a similar image. Pretty simple. It even provides the tools to draw an image, paintbrush style, and use that as the baseline for a picture hunt.
My preliminary queries reaped entertaining results, which seems to be part of the sites M.O. considering the inclusion of its playful “shuffle” feature. I tested a sample image provided, scribbled my own and pitched up a keyword. Some of the returned images were pretty close, others I have no idea how they were tossed into the mix. Upon further investigation, the site’s FAQ details that their algorithm is improving with time and they are in the beta phase. So the quirkiness is to be expected, at least for a while.
Will this change the internet as we know it? Doubtfully, but it is cool way to leverage information in another format, and by someone other than Google and Microsoft.
Sarah Rogers, May 11, 2011
Freebie
Yahoo Acting Fast. Another Broadcast.com?
May 11, 2011
Yahoo is at it again. Reminiscent of its 1999 $5-billion purchase of Broadcast.com, the Web site is acquiring IntoNow for reportedly $13 million. This deal is different. Yahoo is spending less. On the other hand, IntoNow is a newly hatched operation.
According to Forbes’ “Yahoo Acquires IntoNow For TV Check-ins,” IntoNow’s mobile software “makes it easier for people to let their friends know what TV shows they’re watching.” BusinessWeek’s “Yahoo acquisition adds way to share TV show info,” points out that the IntoNow technology also “lets viewers identify their favorite TV commercials, a feature that might open up ways for Yahoo to sell more ads in its online videos.”
While Yahoo is looking to combine rich media with the power of social media, the company doesn’t have a great track record with video acquisitions. Financial analyst Michael Onghai warns that while “Yahoo had a great instinct for the value of video, the problem was timing in 1999 and the problem in 2011 may be timing. Yahoo has to demonstrate that it can buy a property and generate significant revenue.” Mr. Onghai is active in a promising operation, www.thinkweb3.com.
Yahoo seems to be moving in interesting ways. Search does not seem to be a priority. Hopefully these will pay off for Yahoo’s stakeholders.
Rita Safranek, May 11, 2011
Freebie
Protected: SharePoint and Silverlight Collaborate on Rich Media
May 11, 2011
Google Images: What Is in Focus? Images or Security? Neither? Both?
May 10, 2011
This weekend (May 7 and 8, 2011), I wanted a US government picture of earth taken from space. I checked out Bing.com but did not spot the image I had in mind. I bopped over to Google.com, clicked on Images, and checked out some snaps. One caught my eye and I clicked it. The Google iFrame thing popped up. I clicked the image, saved a copy to a USB, hit the button on my KVM control, and worked some Photoshop / Gimp distortions. When I clicked back to the machine I use to look at Web sites, malware had taken over the machine. A bit of sleuthing revealed that some clever teenagers at heart had used Google’s iFrame as a vector to corrupt a computer. Nice. This particular exploit left my machine without the ability to do much of anything. If you get snookered by image malware on a Windows machine, you will have to use some crafty techniques such as running Task Manager, clicking on Run when you hold down the Control key, and working with this Swiss cheese operating system. So I got to revert back to my old command line self. Semi fun.
You can find out about the Google images malware thing in “Attackers Using Google Image Search to Distribute Malware.” I noted that in Google’s “Sort by Subject in Google Images,” there was some cheerleading for a function I don’t need. Er, a keyword search is a subject to me. Google is excited about this function. The write up pants:
Sorting by subject uses algorithms that identify relationships among images found on the web and presents those images in visual groups, expanding on the technology developed for Google Similar Images and Google Image Swirl. By looking at multiple sources of similarities, such as pixel values and semantic relationships, and by mining massive amounts of data, we can make meaningful connections and groupings among images.
In my opinion, we have a Microsoft Office type of disconnect. I want to do something and I don’t want software to do something else. Whether I am pasting text or formatting a table, Microsoft’s engineers are so darned smart that the software does what it thinks I should do. The software does not do what I want to do. Google Images is moving along this knife edge. I wanted a picture and I got an exploit.
How about getting the basics right? Skip the fancy talk about semantics and find a way to deliver the basics—one click access to an image without the accompaniment of some high IQ teenagers who want me to practice my command line skills. (For more on Google security check out “Chrome’s Security Crown Slips”. Wow. Pretty exciting. What happens to folks who, unlike me, don’t know how to work around an exploit, losing access to their computer and maybe data. No more Google Images for me.
Stephen E Arnold, May 10, 2011
Freebie just like Google images’ malware
Google in TV Marketing and PR Storm
May 6, 2011
Two items caught my attention today (May 4, 2011). First, I noticed the New York Times’s story “Google Takes to TV to Promote Browser.” The link may go dead or cost money so you will have to track down a hard copy or turn a cartwheel.) The point of the story is that the Google TV in its various incarnations did not light a fire here in Harrod’s Creek nor elsewhere. How does Google fix this? The New York Times astutely points out that marketing is needed. Okay, but I was thinking a product that solved a problem would be useful too. The write up is a long one and it dances around the big story for me: Google has to figure out how to market a consumer product. Microsoft takes three shots before sinking a short jumper. How many for Google? More than one for certain.
The second item is the big marketing and PR push for Chrome. Is Chrome an operating system? Is Chrome a browser? Is Chrome both? I still wonder how Chrome complements or competes with Android. The article I read was “Chrome Ads Are Google’s Biggest Offline Campaign Ever.” With Google’s formidable online advertising system, why does Google rely on old-fashioned, “offline” ads? If Google’s online marketing system won’t work for Google, will that alert those who think like me that Adwords is not enough? I can only speak for myself. The answer is, “Yes, Google’s use of offline advertising calls into question the efficacy of its own online system.”
Google’s offline method is working. In fact, here’s a somewhat interesting factoid from the Huffington Post write up:
Last month, Google’s chief financial officer Patrick Pichette told analysts, “On a tactical basis, everybody that uses Chrome is a guaranteed locked-in user for us in terms of having access to Google.” As with many of its videos, Google said that the ad tells a true story, though it changed the real names and used actors. The spots lack the playful aesthetic of earlier Chrome campaigns, but they’re clearly going for a wider audience. Today’s ad, It Gets Better, has already racked up over 170,000 views and mixes YouTube videos, Blogger and news videos. It tells the story of the It Gets Better project for LGBT teens facing harassment through Google Chrome.
Using both online and offline media to sell a message makes sense. But—and this is a lingering but—why does Google TV and Google Chrome warrant such massive reworking, remessaging, and remarketing? My hunch is that Google may be reacting to signals predicting a slow uptake. Which is easier? Develop a product that people want or must have or leave the product pretty much undifferentiated and throw money into the marketing and PR department’s cubicles.
Apple does the “need and want” thing. Google seems to be doing what US auto makers did in the 1970s: good old fashioned marketing and PR. What happened to good old innovation in search?
The Google is ageing, maybe maturing. Let marketing shoulder the bags of rice.
Stephen E Arnold, May 6, 2011
Freebie
Enterprise Search Reaches Out to Video
April 22, 2011
Probably many of us are familiar with video in the workplace, but with limited applications like training. The next step is finding more ways to make video work for us, as stated in “Searching for Value: Overcoming the Challenges of Video in the Enterprise”.
The referenced article focuses on the obstacles associated with implementing video as a vehicle for knowledge sharing. Namely, the amount of bandwidth required to process videos can become a nightmare for ill-prepared companies and in turn disrupt other services. Even more importantly:
“A few reasons why video poses challenges go beyond bandwidth, but confront issues associated with ownership, archival and business value. Companies serious about video need to consider a few necessary additions to their search infrastructure…”
The author recommends these additions include enterprise search technology, digital asset management and hosted video solutions.
There are a number of outfits who have already been successfully solving these problems. Exalead’s Voxalead and Autonomy’s Virage systems can both process video, making it searchable and providing an expansive toolset to the user. Even Cisco recently announced including video search capabilities in its TelePresence package. So no need to reinvent the wheel on this one; jumping on the latest corporate trend can be easier than ever before. Or should I say more robust?
Sarah Rogers, April 22, 2011
Freebie
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
