iPhone BI
July 20, 2008
Business intelligence is coming to the iPhone, the mobile device that delights those with tiny fingers and a youthful love of multi-function gizmos. Cliff Saran’s “Oracle and Salesforce Develop iPhone Business Apps”, published on July 11, 2008, pulled two announcements together that I had overlooked. One of my engineers has an iPhone, and I watch him surf the Web, make the occasional call, and send misspelled SMS messages to me about projects’ status. You can read Mr. Saran’s interesting article here.
Mr. Saran identifies two companies pushing into what is for me a territory near the BlackBerry frontier. First, he describes Oracle’s Business Indictors. The id4ea is that a hip CFO will use her iPhone to “to view the latest company financial trends and enables sales managers to receive alerts on sales performance and customer satisfaction issues.” You can learn more about Business Indicators here but the Oracle Web site is a sometimes snail-like machine. Be patient.
He also describes Salesforce Mobile for the iPhone. This application “allows Salesforce users to view and edit records (accounts, opportunities), log sales or service activities such as e-mails, phone calls, and in-person meetings, and assign tasks and events to colleagues.” More about SMiP is here.
From my vantage point in rural Kentucky, it is too soon for me to make a call about the iPhone’s ability to gain a foothold in the enterprise. But my engineer is, as he says, “likin’ it”. Also, I want to see how the Apple and Google mobile initiatives interact. Could a showdown be coming between Apple and Google with Research in Motion relegated to the scrub team?
Stephen Arnold, July 20, 2008
More Burton Group Wisdom about Enterprise Search
July 20, 2008
On July 17, I commented on the first part of an interview conducted by Margie Semilof. Her interview subjects were two consultants attached to the Burton Group. You can read my views and opinions about Part I here.
The second part arrived today with a publication date of July 14, 2008. Like the US snail mail service, express delivery can vary. You can read the full text of the interview with Guy Creese, a content management expert at Burton Group, a Midvale, Utah-based research company here.
I don’t get too excited about content management systems, and I am quick to point out that CMS has created more challenges than CMS has resolved. Software experts in CMS who want to make the leap into enterprise search or a closely allied field remind me of some of the MBAs at Booz, Allen & Hamilton when I worked there 35 years ago. These confident folks figured that with a half hour and some journal articles, no discipline was beyond their ken.
Now to the second part of the interview, which is titled “ABCs of Enterprise Search.” So, my first point is that the poetic convention is abandoned and the interview does not cover the sweep of enterprise search. The interview hits a handful of points, scattering generalizations to dazzle the interviewer.
Several points warrant comment.
First, Mr. Creese, CMS expert, narrows enterprise search to “finding content on your website as well as searching behind the firewall.” Hmmm. In a recent search installation, one of the key requirements was sending queries to a number of public Web sites, concatenating the results, and generating answers. The focus was not finding, but answering questions. Since finding systems have a dismal track record in user satisfaction, I am baffled by this definition.
Second, the interviewer asks a question about tools to normalize content so that a query goes across collections, data types, and sources. The answer given my Mr. Creese is about what’s happening in the market and what Mr. Creese calls segmenting the search market in “a Goldilocks fashion.” I have no idea how transformation and normalization tools relate to the Goldilocks reference. I ask myself, “What the heck is this CMS expert referencing.” Maybe the editor fouled up. Wacky stuff. In his answer, Mr. Creese suggested Microsoft could not develop Fast Search technology itself. I think Microsoft has tried to develop search technology and found that it was not competitive with products from Microsoft Gold partners and tried to buy a Cadillac. Fast is more of a Chevrolet Vega, and I think Microsoft has yet to confront the challenges the acquisition puts on Microsoft’s doorstep.
Third, the interviewer asks, “Who is in charge of enterprise search?” The CMS expert names people who could be in charge. The answer in most organizations is, “No one.” Search is a hot potato and responsibility moves around like a miniature poodle with fleas. I find that more organizations are using procurement teams because the single point responsibility does not work very well.
Fourth, the interviewer wants to know about Microsoft’s acquisition of Fast Search & Transfer. Mr. Creese, if I understand his answer, is that Microsoft wanted a migration strategy and a way to get around the document limit in SharePoint search. My understanding is that Microsoft itself may be confused about why it bought Fast Search & Transfer. The price tag was astounding. The Fast ESP installations require quite a bit of baby sitting to work. Integration so far consists of a Web part. One source in Norway told me that Microsoft is cleaning up the rumors swirling around Fast Search’s financial dealings. In short, the logic is clear in the Microsoft news releases. The reality is a trifle muddy.
Fifth, the interviewer wants to know what one gets with Fast Search & Transfer search technology. In my experience, you get a box of parts. Licensees have to have these assembled to deliver a system that meets specific requirements. As long as the resources are available, Fast ESP–as well as a number of other vendors’ systems–can perform many marvelous functions. When resources aren’t sufficient, well, there’s some trouble in paradise.
My thought is that the answers as published reveal a CMS expert who has not been deeply involved in multiple enterprise system projects. Just like the confident MBAs at Booz, Allen so long ago. It’s easy to talk; harder to be deeply informed.
Agree? Disagree? Help me learn.
Stephen Arnold, July 20, 2008
Google and the M Word
July 20, 2008
I try to avoid the “m word”–monopoly. Jason Lee Miller at WebProNews.com, another Kentucky outfit, does a very good job exploring this point. His “What Percent Makes a Monopoly?” is a must read. You can access the full text here. The essay contains a wealth of data about market share. The most important point in the essay concerns the duopoly that exists with Google and Microsoft as the two duopolists. Mr. Miller says, “we know from experience with telcos and cable that the government doesn’t really mind those so much.” I agree.
The one point that warrants a comment is the notion of a barrier to entry. Online services have barriers that are difficult to quantify until you have to write checks. Google and Microsoft are building infrastructures that can support cloud services. The part that’s tough to grasp is the continuing investment in innovation necessary to keep these giant data Hummers in top form.
Stephen Arnold, July 20, 2008
Google and Mass Transit
July 20, 2008
I wrote about Google’s routing patent document in my KMWorld column several months ago. The patent application is US20060149461, and you can get a copy here. Tim Doulin (The Columbus Dispatch) wrote “COTA Riders Get Help from Google in Planning Trips.” (COTA is an acronym for Central Ohio Transit Authority.)
The idea is that a person wanting to ride a bus can navigate to the COTA home page and use Google’s technology to as a trip planner. “More than 50 transit agencies around the world,” writes Mr. Doulin, “offer it.” You can read Mr. Doulin’s well written essay here.
For me this is an important news item. The “transportation” invention is a deeper function than showing bus routes and pick up times. US20060149461 allows a transit authority to shift from published routes to floating routes. Riders, according to the invention, can send a request to Google, receive a pick up time and location, and make use of individual buses that follow dynamic routes.
Once Google achieves critical mass with its “plain vanilla” route service, the company may be pulled into a cloud based routing service. The benefits of the Google invention include reduced wait times, flexible routing around traffic jams, and reduced fuel consumption.
Google and mass transportation. I recall mentioning this function in a briefing last year and I was greeted with head shaking and snorts of disbelief. Might it not be time to start watching Google and learning about the company’s “search without search” methods. Could Google become a cloud based services provider in public transportation?
Google is an application platform, not an ad agency, dear readers.
Stephen Arnold, July 20, 2008
Something Big in Google ig
July 20, 2008
On Friday, July 18, 2008, after most right coasters left their desks, Google posted “Google’s Services Converge in the New iGoogle or “ig”. You can sign up for this service here. Note that the new service is not available to every Google “ig” user, just some lucky beta testers and developers. Bloggle also has some information available here.
ReadWriteWeb has reported on this technology as well. You can read that post here.
The most noticeable change is the addition of full screen components, which makes it easier on the addled goose’s aging eyeballs.
You may be able to access this steroid-charged service by following the directions here (but no guarantees):
I have put in bold and dark red what you must copy and paste. First, navigate to google.com/ig. Then paste this string into the address bar: javascript:_dlsetp(‘v2=1’);
Here’s a sample display provided by Google here:
The principal differences are:
- An iGoogle feed is available in what Google calls “canvas view”, which is a more Gmail style layout
- A new Gmail gadget that delivers most of the features of Gmail from within iGoogle
- Gmail Chat implemented in iGoogle’s sidebar.
In my opinion this change to iGoogle is quite important. These frames look like the little boxes found on many modern Web pages. Don’t be fooled. Each “frame” is a “container”. From what I can tell by trying to make sense of Google’s prose in its technical documents, a “container” is a virtual machine. Instead of looking at a Web page with content, Google is using a virtual machine to provide content and functionality. One of my colleagues told me, “No big deal Microsoft and Yahoo do this as well.” I agree. One difference, which I noticed, is that when iGoogle is implemented on a mobile device, the mobile device’s display is a baby virtual machine–a personalized baby virtual machine able to predict what you need before you know you need the information or the service.
The big question is, “Will this container technology work on a mobile device?” The first step will be to test the functions of the “new” iGoogle or “ig” and see if the technology is sufficiently stable, latency free, and useful. Some of Google’s new services appear and then are left behind by other innovations.
The new iGoogle warrants a test drive if you can get it to work. If you have information about Google’s container technology, please, share it with the two or three other people who read this Beyond Search Web log.
Stephen Arnold, July 20, 2008
Ben Franklin and Google Truncation Fixed
July 19, 2008
I have fixed the truncation of the Ben Franklin and Google essay here. I am not sure why the full essay did not appear on the continuation page. My apologies.
Stephen Arnold, July 19, 2008
Really Useful Microsoft Jargon Demystified
July 19, 2008
Please, navigate to the Enterprise Search Web log here. The July 18, 2008, post “Microsoft Terms for SQL Server Search Components” is worth its weight in Windows XP OEM installation disks. Dr. Search, the author, defines indexing, collection, and tokenization, which I found quite useful. Even better, the mysterious yet wizardly Dr. Search includes a link to an article by Mark Bennett. “Contrasting Relational and Full-Text Engines” makes it clear Mr. Bennett knows more about search technology than I do. I suppose I should insult him, but this 2004 essay is too useful. I will probably recycle large chunks of his knowledge in a future writing, so I have to tread lightly. Download the article here. Note that it is the property of New Idea Engineering, an outfit with a solid track record.
An exclusive interview with the founders of New Idea Engineering will appear in the ArnoldIT.com Search Wizards Speak series here. I will post a news item in Beyond Search so you can read the full interview with the New Idea technology Jedi knights. The interview is as useful as “Contrasting Relational and Full Text Engines.” Highly recommended. New Idea Engineering’s Web site is here.
Stephen Arnold, July 19, 2008
Microsoft Cashback Delivers a Pay Back
July 19, 2008
Bink.nu, one of my favorite “inside Microsoft” Web information sources reports that Live Cashback is boosting Microsoft search traffic. The short article, crafted by Sumeeth Evans, “Microsoft Searches Jump 15% after Live Cashback Launch” is worth reading. You can find the story here. Ms. Evans used ComScore data and more patience than I can muster for third-party reports to assert:
the first full month after it launched (June) shows a 15% gain in search volume v. the previous month, according to ComScore. This erases the previous month’s losses, bringing Microsoft up to 9.2% overall search share.
The Live Search team is probably still partying. After months, no, years, of slipping, Ms. Evans’ analysis reports a reversal in Microsoft’s search fortunes. The percentage change is a jump to about a 9.2 percent search share, from an 8.5 percent search share between May and June. Across all Microsoft sites, Redmond enjoys even more impressive gains. I admit I was skeptical that paying for traffic would have a major effect, but it is clear from the surge measured in hundredths warrants a Kentucky barn dance.
The Beyond Search goose is repentant of his skepticism.
Stephen Arnold, July 19, 2008
Sun Rumor, Fujitsu, Siemens, and SEO
July 19, 2008
Maureen O’Gara wrote a news story with a most arresting title: “Is Sun Looking to Replace CEO Jonathan Schwartz? Fujitsu Siemens Computers May be Toast: Reuters”. The story with this title appeared on July 18, 2008, on Sys-Con.com here.
First, what a great rumor because the news about Jonathan Schwartz appears in the fourth paragraph’s last sentence. A little more exposure and detail would have been helpful to me. My first thought was, “Well, he can drive another five minutes and work at Google.” (The GOOG, according to my addled confidantes, has quite a few Sun Micro wizards working cheek by jowl with the Bell Labs’ Jedi who are pals with the Digital Equipment alums. You get the idea.)
Second, the Fujitsu Siemens tie up was, from the git go, a collection of companies struggling to keep the past alive. With global financial pressures and competitors from cities in China few can find on a map, what’s the surprise?
My conclusion is that the headline was written to appease the search engine optimization cravings, not my hunger for chunky fact soup.
Stephen Arnold, July 19, 2008
Google Learns about Ben Franklin’s Maxims
July 19, 2008
This is an opinion piece.
My 7th-grade teacher, Miss Soapes, was a Ben Franklin groupie. Of course, Mr. Franklin departed early life in 1790, and I was in the 7th-grade in 1957. To Ms. Soapes, Mr. Franklin was at hand. Her favorite Ben-ism was:
There are no gains without pains.
Google certainly understands the meaning of Mr. Franklin’s insight. After a decade of effort, Google has arrived at the summit of the Web search and online advertising mountain.
The Google brand is one of the most recognized in the world even though most people who use Google every day don’t know that the company’s name is a corruption of googol, a number that is equal to the digit one followed by 100 zeros.
Google accounts for about 70 percent of the Web searches in North America and even more in Denmark and Germany where Google enjoys an 80 percent or more share of the Web search traffic. Only China (www.baidu.com) and Russia (www.yandex.com) resist the charms of the GOOG.
In a miserable economy, Google’s second quarter revenue missed Wall Street’s estimate by a few pennies. Within moments, Google was a loser. I was shocked by the negative turn, but my surprise was nothing to shareholders who watch the Google share price drop below $490 in after hours trading right after the results came out. Financial success in today’s high-technology sector is rare indeed. But Wall Street wizards have come to expect stellar performance from the Mountain View, California, company.
The company has been somewhat less successful with its non-search and non-ad initiatives. But the lack of success is a function of comparing Google’s ad revenues with revenues from its other units. For example, in FY2007, Google reported less than $200 million in revenues from its much-watched enterprise search and services unit.
However, when I worked through Google’s financials and their less-than-helpful revenue breakouts, I identified revenue from Google geospatial services, Google’s educational sales, and fees paid by developers. After fooling with assumptions and a quite bout of spreadsheet fever, I estimated that Google’s non-search earnings that could be viewed as enterprise-centric could have been as much as $400 million. Compared to Google’s FY2007 revenue of $16.6 billion, the $400 million is larger than Autonomy (about $300 million), Endeca (about $110 million) and Fast Search & Transfer (about $70 million but subject to change) in the same 12 month period. The acquisition of Postini is likely bump these revenues upward in FY2008.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
