Comments on: Search’s Old Chestnuts Roasted and Crunched http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/2008/02/14/search%e2%80%99s-old-chestnuts-roasted-and-crunched/ by Stephen E. Arnold Tue, 22 May 2012 06:55:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Nick Patience http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/2008/02/14/search%e2%80%99s-old-chestnuts-roasted-and-crunched/comment-page-1/#comment-1395 Nick Patience Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:11:09 +0000 http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/2008/02/14/search%e2%80%99s-old-chestnuts-roasted-and-crunched/#comment-1395 Hi Stephen, I enjoy your blog - you know more about this industry than most people have forgotten. That said, I wanted to comment on your posting re the column I wrote for CIO magazine. Dealing with your three points in the same order: 1) I see you point, but I didn't write the headline; I'm assuming either the editor or copy editor did. 2) Was that Microsoft's strategy or a case of it having gaps in its functionality – gaps it presumably has filled now with the FAST acquisition? Presumably it wouldn't have paid $1.3bn in cash to fill those gaps if it didn't have to? Until the proposed Yahoo deal MSFT has been a pretty conservative acquirer, when compared with IBM and Oracle, at least. It strikes me that it has spotted a gap in its functionality and has moved to fill it; the same gap spotted by those smaller companies you've mentioned - I'm sure they're feeling a little less comfortable right now than they were before the deal was announced. 3) Yes, none of these vendors has seen the path from cradle to grave as it were in terms of enterprise search – none of them could be said to be optimal, in my view. But IBM at least has done a better job of identifying the gaps in its portfolio and building or buying to fill them – it's certainly doing more in text analysis than any other vendor, purely in terms of search none of them are streets ahead of any of the others in terms of delivering useful enterprise search functionality, Meanwhile they've all ceded the low end of the market to Google, as you know. Finally, I'd ask you – and your readers – to bear in mind that this was a word-restricted column pitched at a very high level for CIO audience, one of the primary concerns of which is the relationships with their suppliers – and judge it on that basis. We do a lot more in-depth research every day of the week in all sorts of areas within enterprise IT, but search and the broader sphere of information management as a whole is one of our key focus areas. (btw, the website I included here - an new 451 Group blog about information management - will be live later this week, apologies if it isn't when someone reads it.) Hi Stephen,

I enjoy your blog – you know more about this industry than most people have forgotten. That said, I wanted to comment on your posting re the column I wrote for CIO magazine.

Dealing with your three points in the same order:

1) I see you point, but I didn’t write the headline; I’m assuming either the editor or copy editor did.

2) Was that Microsoft’s strategy or a case of it having gaps in its functionality – gaps it presumably has filled now with the FAST acquisition? Presumably it wouldn’t have paid $1.3bn in cash to fill those gaps if it didn’t have to? Until the proposed Yahoo deal MSFT has been a pretty conservative acquirer, when compared with IBM and Oracle, at least. It strikes me that it has spotted a gap in its functionality and has moved to fill it; the same gap spotted by those smaller companies you’ve mentioned – I’m sure they’re feeling a little less comfortable right now than they were before the deal was announced.

3) Yes, none of these vendors has seen the path from cradle to grave as it were in terms of enterprise search – none of them could be said to be optimal, in my view. But IBM at least has done a better job of identifying the gaps in its portfolio and building or buying to fill them – it’s certainly doing more in text analysis than any other vendor, purely in terms of search none of them are streets ahead of any of the others in terms of delivering useful enterprise search functionality, Meanwhile they’ve all ceded the low end of the market to Google, as you know.

Finally, I’d ask you – and your readers – to bear in mind that this was a word-restricted column pitched at a very high level for CIO audience, one of the primary concerns of which is the relationships with their suppliers – and judge it on that basis.

We do a lot more in-depth research every day of the week in all sorts of areas within enterprise IT, but search and the broader sphere of information management as a whole is one of our key focus areas.

(btw, the website I included here – an new 451 Group blog about information management – will be live later this week, apologies if it isn’t when someone reads it.)

]]>