Time Warner, AOL, and Online News
April 4, 2009
I don’t think too much about Time Warner, AOL, and news. Renay San Miguel’s “Battle for News Eyeballs: AOL Scrapes the Bottom of the Barrel” here caught my attention. I use www.aol.fr for certain types of queries. I am accustomed to this type of splash page:
Mr. San Miguel’s article suggested to me that AOL has become a tabloid news service. Interesting idea. He wrote:
It should be as clear as a paparazzi’s lens that AOL really wants your eyeballs, and tosses together a heady mix of grabby headlines (“New Conficker Virus Strikes” — uh, actually, no), links to its celebrity-trolling corporate siblings like TMZ and Pop Eater, and an overall sense of desperation in order to capture them. It’s been going on for a while now, as parent company Time Warner made it clear early last year that it wants to make its stand against Yahoo, MSNBC/MSN and Google in the War of the Portals.
i suggest you read this article. Because I don’t pay much attention to real journalism, I was surprised at this view. The word “desperation” may be an apt one when talking about traditional media and the digital Gutenberg.
Stephen Arnold, April 4, 2009
More Agitprop for Twitter Phobes
March 22, 2009
An interesting write up suggests that Twitter is the future of search. You can read “6 Reasons Why Twitter is the Future of Search – Google Beware” here. I liked reason three: Real time content. Hit nail on the head.
Stephen Arnold, March 22, 2009
Google and Newspapers: The Saga Continues
January 9, 2009
A pretty good Web log I follow is PaidContent.org. The story “Google Won’t buy Ailing Newspapers, Could Merge without Merging” popped up in the Washington Post here. I found this interesting.
The core of this story is that newspapers wanted Google to “save” them. If the US government can “save” investment banks, newspaper wizards figured it was worth a shot to solicit the country of Google to save newspapers. Google’s top dog told another dead tree outfit (Fortune Magazine), “No way.” Google, however, wants to help, a fuzzy concept in my mind. I picture Google as the video monster Godzilla wearing a Google T shirt. I guess the fuzzy notion works for the newspaper industry.
My thoughts on this weird acknowledgment that the Web does a better job of reporting “news” than dead tree publications are:
- For most dead tree outfits, it is too late. Costs and customers have moved on.
- The Web is a news generation and distribution system that operates without the intermediating steps so essential to the ego and business paradigm of dead tree outfits. Game over.
- The consumers don’t want to fiddle with dead tree stuff. Newspapers are becoming like pale imitations of komikku , filled with soft features and pablum.
I am willing to listen to a counter argument. I enjoy hearing from professional publishers who are de facto monopolies. For most professional publishers, the days of increasing subscriptions is almost over. I also like the brilliant arguments advanced by book, magazine, and newspaper owners who tell me to look at their outstanding Web sites. Folks, building traffic asking me to look at your Web sites won’t do much today. I am also fascinated by the scientific-technical-medical crowd who relentlessly assert that their information is high value. Keep in mind that I am an addled goose happy if I can find an edible crust of bread in the coal mine runoff, I am happy. Stakeholders in the dead tree outfits want more than stale crusts of bread. Stakeholders want payoff, not promises in my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, January 9, 2009
Ballmer Criticized by Motley Fool
January 1, 2009
Tim Beyers, writing in The Motley Fool here, inked an open letter to Steve Ballmer. The idea of an open letter is that the recipient does not respond to private letters. So, the author writes a personal letter and makes it available to the public. I like open letters; it is similar to the thrill of finding a sheet of writing in a library book. Those documents are exciting and somewhat mysterious. “An Open Letter to Steve Ballmer” was not too exciting or mysterious. The message is one that is widely discussed; namely, “Google is the elephant in your Redmond, Wash. boardroom.” For years–a decade to be precise–Google has been waving the Web search flag and spraying advertising at anyone who would fall for the pitch. Google for years avoided any hint of competing with Microsoft. But after a decade, the mask is off. Google is the new Microsoft. Microsoft is now the IBM that was bedeviled by the “old” Microsoft. IBM has morphed into a weird consulting and services outfit, a path that Microsoft may be forced to follow. The shadow of Googzilla has been replaced by the dude himself.
Mr. Beyers’ made this point:
Drastic measures are all that’s left. You have to do something Google hasn’t tried but everyone wants. You’ve got to master social search, and then embed it with every platform you own.
Yep, I agree. Leapfrog is the game that must be played. Microsoft has a penchant for buying abandoned animals. My wife and I rescued a boxer. She loves us and is more grateful than my former show dog. He’s entitled in his doggy mind. Tess is thrilled not be kicked and ignored. She gets better health care than most people. But Tess is a lot of work and it is 100 percent impossible to turn her into a show dog. Microsoft’s acquisition of Fast Search & Transfer is a corollary. Powerset is another stray. Yahoo, yet another lost dog it is. None of these creatures can do battle with the Google in my opinion and win.
The problem is Googzilla and that greedy creature requires action built on reaction and stray technologies.
I don’t agree with Mr. Beyers that social search is one way to hip hop over Google. Social search is useful, but it will not do the job on the GOOG. Think 90 pound weakling against the Incredible Hulk. Life does not imitate anime.
Will Mr. Ballmer read and heed Mr. Beyers’ open letter. Nope. Will the Google continue to disrupt Microsoft’s business model. Yep. Is there a company able to stop the GOOG in 2009? Nope.
Stephen Arnold, January 1, 2009
InfoPrint: Complemented or Challenged
November 23, 2008
When I mention the IBM Richoh tie up that is available as InfoPrint, most of my confidantes don’t know what the heck the company is. You can learn more about InfoPrint here. When I read the story “Xerox Partners with IBM for Global Imaging and Document Management Services”, several questions flashed through my mind.
- What has happened to Xerox’s own enterprise publishing system initiative? You can read more about this Xerox business here. My hunch is that Xerox can’t make its enterprise publishing initiative generate significant revenues, so the company has partnered with the “other” consulting firm, IBM.
- Why is IBM teaming with Xerox and not putting its energies into the InfoPrint operation? My hunch is that enterprise publishing is showing some promise, and the more horses IBM has in the race the bettr it is for IBM.
- What will other vendors do; specifically, Hewlett Packard? My thought is that there will be stepped up competition for solid partnering like the HP Exalead deal and more interest in “on the edge” enterprise publishing system vendors. (No, I won’t name these “on the edge” players because some of that detail will appear in my forthcoming Google and Publishing monograph.)
After thinking these thoughts, I went back to the story “Xerox Partners with IBM for Global Imaging and Document Management Services” and noted a comment that had some significance for my work:
IBM will leverage Xerox’s global document management services to give clients digital access to information currently stored in paper-based documents.
The “access” word triggered thoughts of search, business intelligence, and reports that answer users’ questions. To me this means more opportunity for some search and content processing vendors and more head aches for others. Enterprise publishing systems may be a faster path to revenue than fuzzier services such as business intelligence. Your view? Just bring some facts to the table says the addled goose.
Stephen Arnold, November 23, 2008
Search Security: An Oxymoron
November 18, 2008
ZDNet runs a nifty feature called IT Facts. Every day, the ZD editors and writers post interesting statistics. Now if you have a knack for numbers, you can make those equations sit up, roll over, and play dead. Despite the “flexibility” of statistical methods, I found “42% of Organizations Reported Unauthorized Access to Their Active Directory.” If you don’t know what an AD or Active Directory is, click here and drink deeply of the information. If you are in a hurry, its a gizmo Microsoft cooked up to make security quick and easy for certified Microsoft engineers to set up. According to Osterman Research, found security loopholes in two fifths of the sample’s servers. Think about third party search systems that “look” at AD and use it to manage user access to search. In my opinion, problems with one percent of the accesses warrants concern on my part. I know folks are rushing to SharePoint, but could Active Directory be this bad? I hope not. My hunch is that anyone with a Microsoft AD will want to do some checking.
Stephen Arnold, November 18, 2008
Sponsored Research Reveals Payoff Metrics
November 6, 2008
SAP, as I have noted, is paddling its robåd in waters roiled by customer resistance to some new prices and increasing pressure from upstart alternatives to the industrial strength R/3 system. Aberdeen, a highly regarded consulting firm, authored ‘”Do More with Less: Merging Enterprise Applications with Desktop Tools” on with some support from SAP and Lawson (a maker of business software, not just human resources software). A summary of the report is here.
What I found interesting in this report were the facts highlighted in the news release; for example:
- Integrated technology delivers a 21% increase in gross margin in a 12 month time span
- Decisions are made 27% faster or what the Aberdeen management gurus and guruettes call ‘time to decision’
- And this quote from the news release: ‘technologies like enterprise search allow the Best-in-Class to spend 63% less time in non-productive tasks which include searching for and manipulating data’.
Metrics in search and related disciplines are difficult to verify. Aberdeen’s data exist in this news release is a similarly disembodied form. If I get a copy of the SAP and Lawson underwrite this study, I will look at the sample size, the data analysis method, and the context in which Aberdeen places these data for its paying customers and me, the addled goose.
Big companies, in my opinion, assume that the notion of explaining where a number comes from is silly when preparing a news release. I do not issue news releases very often, and I suppose my PR maven omits data tables.
Nevertheless, these Aberdeen numbers warrant several high level observations. Note. I am not ‘picking on’ Aberdeen, SAP, and Lawson. I am offering a personal opinion about a common practice in consultant news releases: using numbers to get editorial pick up. And it worked. I am writing about this news release in my Web log!
First, if the data are as substantial as they seem to be, why isn’t this type of pay off causing a stampede to the front doors of SAP, for example. The softening of SAP’s guidance, the annoyance of the SAP customers, and other issues suggest that the return is not commensurate with the cost. I may be an addled goose, but if I pay a reasonable price and get a big payoff, I am a happy goose, and I will do the quacking for the vendor.
Second, if the speed of decision somehow correlates with the efficacy of the decision, then I am all for speed. The problem is that in my pond, going fast may be the wrong thing to do. Here in Harrods Creek, I can decide to rush to the mailbox every morning at 8 am to see what my post mistress has delivered to me. But since she does not deliver mail until 3 pm each day, the speed of my decision is essentially irrelevant. The key to a good decision is context, accurate information, and judgment. Speed may have little or nothing to do with whether a decision is good or bad. Therefore, this goose wonders, ‘Why make a decision faster if a higher value cognitive function in incomplete?’ In the sophisticated world of SAP and Lawson, speed may mean more than it does to the goose in Harrods Creek, but I am skeptical about speed with or with out seemingly precise metrics.
Finally, a lousy search system can be a problem regardless of integration. Here’s another down home example. I index what is on my servers in my log cabin office next to the pond. The data I need are not available from a third party like Aberdeen or from the Internet index on Google. My phone is out of order. My fax is dead. In short, I am sitting alone and without a way to get the needed information. I root through what I know. Deprived of context and common sense, I can craft an uninformed paragraph even though I have an integrated system and I have my own subset of data and I have what is in my goose brain. My thought is, ‘The presence of a good or bad search system may have little or no bearing on the time I spend searching integrated information with an integrated system, manipulating the data, and analyzing the interesting numbers.’ Search is important, but if the context is wrong or the data incomplete, speed, integration, or whatever other factor I toss in invested does not make baloney into prime rib.
In my opinion, consultants and dinosaur companies are trying their best to justify the high cost of their systems. Savvy customers know that if the business process is flawed, the software will just make lousy business processes perform faster, not necessarily better.
I know that slapping numbers on independent factors that are not co related while out of context to boot may boost sales. A word of advice: vendors, please, don’t come to my goose pond to make a sales pitch with these faux data. The geese may take the vendors for an invigorating paddle across the pond.
Stephen Arnold, November 6, 2008
Nexplore: Search Redefined… Again
October 2, 2008
Nexplore’s mission is:
to radically improve the online experience. We provide Web tools and destinations that empower people to drive and define a World Wide Web perfectly suited for their unique needs, interests, and online pursuits….Leveraging advances in Web 2.0 technology, NeXplore engineers develop cutting-edge social computing websites, portals and downloadable applications that elevate online productivity, community and comfort to new heights.
Several readers sent me a link to this service today. I had been alerted to the company several months ago. I gravitate to systems that deliver intelligence-type functions. Readers of this Web log know this because I refer to Silobreaker, Sprylogics, and other answer-oreiented systems more frequently than I do ad-centric search systems. That’s my bias, and I won’t be shifting my mental longitude anytime soon.
On Octobe 1, 2008, Nexplore–a publicly traded company OTC:NXPC.PK announced an updated version of the company’s search system. You can try out the system here. For information about the company, click here. The news release said that enhancements include:
- Interface tweaks; for example, you can collapse certain lists and see the icons now. The previous version of Nexplore used icons too small for my aging goose eyes. Worms I can smell; icons I have to see.
- Performance tuning. The version released on October 1, 2008, seemed snappier to me. The system doesn’t deliver at Google speed, but the system is more usable than before.
- Social features. I am still cautious when it comes to “social” functions on public networks. Anyone thinking about Phorm as you read this? I am. Nevertheless, Nexplore allows you to use the company’s patent pending social sharing feature. The idea is that you can bookmark sites and share those bookmarks.
I ran several queries. My old chestnut “enterprise search” returned some useful results. I noticed a bias to Microsoft, which may be a consequence of what the company is spidering. Here’s the results I saw on October 1, 2008, at 8 30 pm Eastern:
The display looks very similar to those used by some eDiscovery firms. The center pane presents the relevance ranked results. The upper portion of the results list are ads and below the rule are the “organic” results. The left hand column is used for ads, clearly marked “Sponsor Results”. The left hand column provides suggested terms and a list of definitions appearing in Wikipedia “associated” with my search. When I moved my mouse over the results, previews of Web sites appeared. I dismiss these, probably due to my age and my desire to have an interface stay put as I try to figure out what I am being shown and what the usefulness of the results are to me. A younger, more flexible mind will find the pop ups more helpful. I don’t like them, never did and never will. In the results list for “enterprise search” Microsoft ranked well above Fast Search & Transfer. I think this reflects the role of Fast Search in the giant belly of the beast quite accurately. In fact, if I knew zero about enterprise search, the Nexplore results were quite useful.
My other interesting query is for “beyond search”. This phrase points to this Web log on Google today (October 1, 2008). On Nexplore, the number one result is the Seattle-based search engine optimization company. My study for Gilbane Group is the third hit after the advertisements and the Web log itself is the number six hit. This is not a big deal to me, and it probably makes the SEO group happy. The Beyond Search goose doesn’t really care. He’s too old. One feature I liked was the ability to click the “trash” icon to remove a result from the hit list. (Farewell, beyond search SEO group in Seattle.)
Nexplore operates from Frisco, a suburb near Dallas-Fort Worth in what Texans call the Metroplex, which is foreign territory to this goose. The financial informatoin available to me was modest. In fact, the data were incomplete with losses showing for the period from 2006 to the present. See for yourself by clicking here. The CEO is Edward Mandel. The CFO is Steven Gummer. And the CTO is Dion Hinchcliffe. Mr. Hinchcliffe writes a articles. For an example, click here. He also writes a Web log here. The content focuses on the social computing trend. He includes some interesting illustrations in his writings. Show below is the “General Transformation Process of Busijess to 2.0 in the 21st Century. You can read his the original graphic here.
I want to give Nexplore time to refine its product and give it a chance to make headway in what is a tough sector. I see some features that don’t appeal to me, but I found similar issues with Cuil.com. My recommendation is to give the system a test drive. I find it useful to run the same query across multiple sites. Gems often turn up. I have to remind people that Dogpile.com is a useful metasearch engine. I am willing to give under dogs plenty of leash. Perhaps you will give it a whirl as well?
Stephen Arnold, October 2, 2008
Google Vulnerabilities
June 29, 2008
Seeking Alpha has an interesting discussion of chinks in Googzilla’s armor. The essay “Does Google Have a Weakness Microsoft Can Exploit? is here. The analysis touches upon my listing of Google weaknesses which first appeared in The Google Legacy, which I updated in Google Version 2.0, 2005 and 2007 respectively.
The part of the analysis that I found interesting touches upon Microsoft’s cash back. The idea of buying market share is not new, and I think Microsoft may expand its efforts in this area. The question for me, Is Microsoft able to see the buying market share through to its logical end; that is, to win may require sucking resources from other Microsoft initiatives. Such a shift could create a weaker Microsoft and one that is vulnerable not to Google but to other firms salivating at the idea of a weaker, distracted Microsoft.
Stephen Arnold, June 29, 2008
IN-Q-TEL Investments: 2006 to April 2008
June 1, 2008
This table brings the summary of IN-Q-TEL investments through April 2008. You can access the investments from 2000 to 2003 here. The investments from 2004 and 2005 are here.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
