Microsoft and Search: Interface Makes Search Disappear
May 5, 2009
The Microsoft Enterprise Search Blog here published the second part of an NUI (natural user interface) essay. The article, when I reviewed it on May 4, had three comments. I found one comment as interesting as the main body of the write up. The author of the remark that caught my attention was Carl Lambrecht, Lexalytics, who commented:
The interface, and method of interaction, in searching for something which can be geographically represented could be quite different from searching for newspaper articles on a particular topic or looking up a phone number. As the user of a NUI, where is the starting point for your search? Should that differ depending on and be relevant to the ultimate object of your search? I think you make a very good point about not reverting to browser methods. That would be the easy way out and seem to defeat the point of having a fresh opportunity to consider a new user experience environment.
Microsoft enterprise search Web log’s NUI series focuses on interface. The focus is Microsoft Surface, which allows a user to interact with information by touching and pointing. A keyboard is optional, I assume. The idea is that a person can walk up to a display and obtain information. A map of a shopping center is the example that came to my mind. I want to “see” where a store is, tap the screen, and get additional information.
This blog post referenced the Fast Forward 2009 conference and its themes. There’s a refernce to EMC’s interest in the technology. The article wraps up with a statement that a different phrase may be needed to describe the NUI (natural user interface), which I mistakenly pronounced like the word ennui.
Microsoft Suface. Image Source: http://psyne.net/blog4/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/microsoftsurface.jpg
Several thoughts:
First, I think that interface is important, but the interface depends upon the underlying plumbing. A great interface sitting on top of lousy plumbing may not be able to deliver information quickly or in some cases present the information the user needed. I see this frequently when ad servers cannot deliver information. The user experience (UX) is degraded. I often give up and navigate elsewhere.
SearchMe Changes
May 1, 2009
SearchMe, http://www.searchme.com, promotes itself as “true, blended multimedia search.” You get video, images, music, web pages, Twitter results and more organized by relevance. It’s a visual slideshow interface, so you see a miniature web page instead of having to click through a link. Results returned for “Iron Chef Japan” varied, including a Flickr picture, a Yahoo! video, an About.com listing for Japanese food and the Fine Living channel profile of the show. Results for “NASA shuttle launch” were less impressive, returning the NASA home page, a CBS news article and a CNN news article, but no videos. I didn’t see any social media results on either search. The web site functions like Viewzi, which I talked about here, but doesn’t have the various entertaining display options. Searchme also has a best-selling iApp and is configured for several mobile platforms, which gives it a leg up on other visual search engines.
Jessica Bratcher, May 1, 2009
Bandwidth Cost
April 29, 2009
A happy quack to the reader who wrote, asking me to comment on the cost of bandwidth. His point of reference was the New York Times’s article “In Developing Countries, Web Grows Without Profit” here.
“I believe in free, open communications,” Dmitry Shapiro, the company’s chief executive, said. “But these people are so hungry for this content. They sit and they watch and watch and watch. The problem is they are eating up bandwidth, and it’s very difficult to derive revenue from it.”
My views on this issue are well documented in my books and studies. Let me recap three ideas and invite feedback on these.
First, most users and content centric outfits make errors when estimating the costs of online access. Unexpected spikes in telco fees are even today in my experience greeted with surprise and indignation. I hesitate to suggest that bandwidth is assumed to be cheap, readily available, and without much technical interest. As the New York Times’s article points out, bandwidth is an issue, and it can be a deal breaker financially and technically.
Second, in theory bandwidth is unlimited. The “unlimited” comes with two trap doors. One is the money available to apply to the problem. Bandwidth, even today, is not free. Someone has to build the plumbing, pay for infrastructure, hire the technical staff, and work the back office procedures. The second trap door is time. It is possible in Kentucky to make a call and get more bandwidth. But within the last two months, we found that making this call did not result in immediate bandwidth. The vendor said, “We can reprovision you within 72 hours. Take it or leave it.” The reason the vendor made the statement I learned was a result of tightening financial noose around the vendor’s neck. The vendor in turn told me to wait.
Third, user expectations are now being shaped in a direction that makes bandwidth, infrastructure, and technical resources increasingly fragile. Here’s an example. Last night in a restaurant, a young man at a table next to mine watched a YouTube.com video on a mobile device. That young man in Boston and young people throughout the world see the Internet (wireless or wireline) as a broadcast channel. In my experience, this shift to rich media will put financial and technical pressure on infrastructure needed for this use of the Internet.
In short, I think there’s a cost problem looming. Will it arrive before the technical problem? Pick your poison.
Stephen Arnold, April 29, 2009
Google Korea Gets Spicy
April 24, 2009
Asia Media here ran an interesting story. The title was “Google Korea Head Blasts Real-Name Requirement”. The publication reported:
The country has obliged Internet users to make verifiable real-name registrations to post comments on Web sites with more than 100,000 daily visitors since April. Google, which is reluctant to bend its principles only for Korea and set a precedent that might affect its business in other countries, chose to avoid the requirements by disabling users from uploading videos and comments on the Korean language site of YouTube (kr.youtube.com), its online video service. However, since the changes are only applied to YouTube’s Korean sites, users could easily upload content by setting their country preference to other countries. This has clearly miffed the Korea Communications Commission (KCC), the country’s broadcasting and telecommunications regulator, with KCC chairman Choi See-joong threatening a review of whether Google is violating the local law with its YouTube decision.
Is Google getting annoyed that mere governments are putting Googzilla traps in the company’s path? My view is that this incident may indicate an increase in the temperature within the Google pressure cooker. What will happen when the torrents issue pops up in Europe? I think there will be more activity as Google’s desires bump into nation states’ desires.
Jean de la Fontaine allegedly said, ““Everyone believes very easily whatever they fear or desire.” I think beliefs are colliding, not technology.
Stephen Arnold, April 25, 2009
Autonomy and Rich Media: Pushing Back OpenText and Endeca
April 21, 2009
OpenText and Endeca had no respite from the marketing machine from Autonomy. Forbes.com’s news release service here distributed “MediaBin now Joins Autonomy Virage Family of Products to Deliver Complete Rich Media Management”. My search files show that Autonomy has been active in the podcast, digital video, and rich media sector for several years. Autonomy rebranded the Interwoven MediaBin product as the Virage MediaBin. You can get more information about MediaBin here.
Will Autonomy push Open Text and Endeca around or will the OpenText and Endeca duo offer too much resistance to the Autonomy marketing machine?
Autonomy has been quite good about maintaining support for products it has acquired. Autonomy’s approach makes it easy for the company to give the customer a choice about information management systems and methods. IDOL, Autonomy’s integrated data operating layer, becomes the plumbing for these different systems. In my opinion, OpenText and Endeca will now find themselves the focal point of Autonomy’s formidable marketing earthmover. Will OpenText and Endeca be the granite that breaks the blade of the Caterpillar D10T WH or will Autonomy push the two companies around the enterprise information landfill? Should be exciting to observe from the mine run off pond here in Harrod’s Creek, the high technology center of Kentucky.
Stephen Arnold, April 21, 2009
Google: Not Just Publishing, Think Hollywood
April 19, 2009
The Toronto Globe and Mail’s Matt Hartley did a good job of explaining that Google is more than a disruptive force in traditional publishing. His “Google Unveils Hollywood Ambitions” here makes the cat that has been out of the bag show up on the radar of newspaper readers. He wrote “Web giant poised to bring full length movies and television programs to YouTube.” He added:
Although a limited number of full-length movies and television shows are already available on YouTube, the addition of premium content from major studios will significantly increase the site’s cache in the eyes of marketers, who have already begun to embrace competing sites such as Hulu.com. As well, although there will be no fee for the full-length videos immediately, Mr. Schmidt did not rule out the possibility of introducing a subscription or micro-payment system to YouTube at some point in the future in an effort to increase the site’s revenue.
So the conclusion I drew from this write up was that Google is a distributor of content.
I think that from the Toronto Globe and Mail’s vantage point, that’s what Google is—a throwback to the glory days of the big studios and the distribution systems those studios controlled. Hollywood makes movies. Google makes money on distribution.
Very tidy. Very narrow.
My research suggests that Google has capabilities that go well beyond the traditional Hollywood distribution model. Let me give one example which I describe in detail in my new monograph Google: The Digital Gutenberg. You can read the table of contents here. If you are more comfortable with Google as a search vendor, don’t click the link.
The GOOG has a matchmaking method, which it disclosed in one of the patent documents some folks insist are irrelevant to Google’s real business. I am not so sure. The method allows the Google to make it easy for a person looking for a creative type to locate one. Once found, the two can do a deal to create or deliver the service. Since the system exists within Google, the technology—if it is ever deployed—makes the Google into a producer. My reading of the claims opened my eyes to Googzilla wearing a Sam Goldwyn mask.
Sam Goldwyn about the time of the anti trust matter in the early 20th century
The Google has useful information about YouTube.com uploaders who attract a large following. The Google has useful information about individuals and organizations who create effective Google content. The Google has a great deal of information that creates the potential for disruption in a business that has been unchanged for many years.
Stephen Arnold, April 19, 2009
OpenText and Endeca Tie Up: Digital Asset Management Play
April 17, 2009
OpenText has a six pack of search systems. There’s the original Tim Bray SGML search system (either the first or one of the first), the Information Dimensions BASIS (structure plus analytics which we used for a Bellcore project eons ago), BRS Search (a rewrite of STAIRS III which I’m sure the newly minted search consultant who distributed a search methodology built on a taxonomy will have in depth expertise), the Fulcrum engine (sort of Windows centric with some interesting performance metrics), and a couple of others which may or may not be related to the ones I’ve named). Endeca is a privately held vendor of search and content processing technology. I like the Endeca system for ecommerce sites where the “guided navigation” can display related products. Endeca has been working overtime to develop a business intelligence revenue stream and probe new markets such as traditional library search. The company received an infusion of cash last year and I heard that the company had made strides in addressing both scaling and performance challenges. One reseller allegedly told a government procurement officer that Endeca had no significant limit on the volume of content that it could index and make findable.
So what are these two powerhouses doing?
According to Newsfactor here, the two companies are teaming up for digital asset reuse. Most organizations have an increasing amount of podcasts, videos, images, and other rich media. If you read my link tasty essay about content management (the mastodon) and the complexities of dealing with content objects in containers (tar pit), you know that there is an opportunity to go beyond search.
The Newsfactor story is called “Open Text, Endeca to Deliver Digital Asset Reuse”. My understanding of the Newsfactor version of the deal is that OpenText will integrate Endeca’s asset management system into OpenText content management systems. There are a number of product names in the write up, and I must confess I confuse them with one another. I am an old and addled goose.
What’s the implication of the tie up? I think that Autonomy’s push into asset management with its IDOL server and the Virage software has demonstrated that there’s money in those rich media objects that are proliferating like gerbils. The world of ediscovery has an asset twist as well. Videos and podcasts have to be located and analyzed either by software or a semi alert paralegal, maybe a junior lawyer. OpenText has a solid ediscovery practice, so there’s some opportunity there. In short, I think this tie up helps two established companies deal with a competitor who is aggressive and quicker to seize enterprise opportunities. Autonomy is a serious competitor.
What will Autonomy and other vendors do? I think that in this economic climate there will be several reactions to monitor. Some aggressiveness on the part of Autonomy and probably Adobe will be quick to come. Second, other vendors of search and content processing systems will shift their marketing messages. A number of search systems have this capability and some, like Exalead, can make videos searchable with markers where particular passages can be viewed in the video object. This is quite useful. You can see a demo here. Third, I think that eDiscovery companies already adept at handling complex matters and content objects will become more price competitive. Stratify comes to mind as one outfit that may use price as a counter to the OpenText and Endeca tie up. I can point to start ups, aging me-too outfits like IBM, and a fair number of little known specialists in rich media who may step up their marketing.
This will be interesting to watch. OpenText is a bit like the old Ling Temco Vought type of roll up. Endeca is a solid vendor of search and content processing technology that was unable to pull off an initial public offering and a recipient of cash infusions from Intel and SAP’s venture arm. The expectation is that one plus one will equal three. In today’s market, there’s a risk that a different outcome may result.
Stephen Arnold, April 17, 2009
Google: Lousy Economy, Web Search Share Rises
April 16, 2009
Short honk: I should just cut and paste previous Google search share write ups into a standing article called “Google Web Search Share Rises”. You will find the MSNBC (irony, of course) write up about Google’s continued dominance of Web search bittersweet. I found it funny. The article is here. The MSNBC write up “Google Widens Its U.S. Search Lead” stated:
Microsoft Corp’s share of the U.S. search market increased by 0.1 percentage points to 8.3 percent in March. (Msnbc.com is a joint Microsoft – NBC Universal venture.)
Keep in mind that the Google has a share of about 64 percent, which is in Harrod’s Creek officially a country mile. More amusing to me is the recent announcement that the Google has a deal with Universal for a video site. I wonder if MSNBC might become GOONBC? Just a thought.
Stephen Arnold, April 16, 2009
Google and Its Red Ink Geyser
April 15, 2009
Internet Evolution’s David Silversmith wrote “Google Losing up to $1.65M a Day on YouTube”. You can read it here. I would have slapped the title “So You Want to Be a Video Search Service?” I am not sure if the numbers are spot on. Talk about the Google’s losing $400 million a year or more has been floating around for quite a while. The point is that it is expensive to acquire video. host it, index it, and serve it. Not even Googzilla can deal with these costs. Hence, the new love birds: Googzilla and Universal.
Stephen Arnold, April 15, 2009
MeFeedia: Video Your Way – Just Like a Burger
April 14, 2009
A happy quack to the reader who sent me a link to this news release wrapped in a Forbes.com package. The headline was “Multimedia Search Engine MeFeedia Brings Order to the Video Web” and you can read it here. The MeFeedia system provides these improvements:
- Layout
- Site performance. The story said, “The new site also loads three times as fast, due in part to its new tableless design and highly efficient multimedia search engine.”
- Navigation
The service provides access to video, TV shows, music, news, and movies.
My test queries returned some useful results. I did like the tag at the foot of each item in the results list that provided the source and other information about the video clip; for example, “Howcast – Most Recent Videos in Travel | howcast.com“.
The challenges any video search site faces are significant:
First, there’s the issue of deep pockets. It costs big piles of dollars and euros to pay for bandwidth and lawyers. Which consumes more money is up for grabs. I am not sure pre roll advertising will do the job for any video site.
Second, there’s the problem of marketing in the shadows of YouTube.com and the distant second place challenged Hulu.com. Even Google is opening a new video service with its pal Universal. More information about that deal is here.
The goslings and I want MeFeedia to succeed. Our query for geese returned this result, which is similar to the comments I get about my opinions expressed in this Web log by azure chipped consultants who are trying to earn a living as a “real” journalist.
Stephen Arnold, April 14, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
