Another Extract from the Harmann-Communicatie Interview
August 24, 2008
I received a couple of requests for additional extracts from my interview with Eric Hartmann, who is sponsoring a conference about content management and content processing in Utrecht in September 2008. You can obtain more information about the program here. Here are three more snippets from the interview. The question is in bold. My response is in normal weight.
Everybody who’s talking about search has Google on his mind. Is that good or bad?
I have written two detailed studies of Google, The Google Legacy in 2005 and Google Version 2.0 in 2007. Google is an important company because it legitimized an alternative to desktop applications and on premises enterprise solutions. Along the way, Google changed the Web search landscape, dominated online advertising, and pushed its snout into telephony, online payments, publishing, and several other major non-search market sectors.
Google now has 70 percent of search traffic in North America. In Denmark and Germany, Google’s share of the search market is over 90 percent.
There’s a lot of talk about Google, but there is not much understanding of how the company’s strategy of disruption works, its business model options, or its potential to move into non search markets without warning.
Google’s also important because innovators are learning from the Google model. People who quit Google to start a new company—what are called Xooglers—build on the ideas made concrete by Google. As a result, Google the company could go out of business. But Google the model will have a continuing impact for many years.
On the hot seat.
After several take-overs, the market of enterprise search parties has somewhat shrunk. What’s your view on the investment and revenue opportunities?
That’s a good question. On the surface, it looks as if search companies are selling out. For example, Lexalytics has fused with a UK company. Powerset sold out to Microsoft. Fast Search also accepted a Microsoft offer. SAS Institute bought Teragram. Business Objects (now part of SAP) purchased Inxight Software.
However, there’s investment as well. Intel and SAP pumped $14 million in Endeca. I have worked on a couple of investments in search and content processing systems not yet announced to the public.
In my files I have the names of more than 300 companies engaged in search, text analytics, and content processing. The search sector is quite active even in the present economic climate.
The reason is that many people think, “If Google did it, so can we”. I don’t see any let up in search activity for the foreseeable future. Most search systems are not so good; therefore, there’s a big payday in the enterprise market. There’s a growing suspicion that Google may not be everyone’s idea of “My Favorite Monopoly”.
The search space is still like two or three interacting magnetic fields. It’s dynamic, unpredictable, and exciting to some.
What can we expect from Google, Microsoft, Autonomy and other parties?
There companies are good at keeping secrets and each is willing to sue anyone who provides highly specific information about what’s next from their creative ovens. I can offer some high level opinions with the caveat that my hunches may not be what these outfits actually do.
Autonomy. This company is morphing from search into a different type of information solutions company. When I look at the range of products on offer, I see a mini solutions conglomerate, not a search or content processing company. For example, fraud detection may or may not involve words. Fraud detection focuses on patterns in data, not search. Another example, is the company’s video solutions. Search plays a part, but Autonomy offers a more robust way for an organization to manipulate its rich content. On the strength of its non search businesses, Autonomy seems poised to grow to $300 million or more in revenue. This is a great achievement, but it is not a pure search play.
Google is a bit of a mystery to me. The company has some interesting patent documents and fascinating demonstration services. Google is content to collect billions from online advertising and sit on its hands as Amazon, Salesforce.com, and other companies push aggressively into cloud services. Google makes money from ads, but I am reluctant to say, “Google is a search company.” Google is an applications platform. Search and advertising are a couple of popular applications, not the whole company.
Microsoft is quite interesting to me. I think the fate of Microsoft will be to end up as an applications company, a game company, and a server company. Microsoft wants to have an online company like Google, but I don’t think it can achieve this unless it shatters itself and then starts online without the baggage from the past. In terms of search, Microsoft is a me-too squared company. Google is deeply duplicative of AltaVista.com, Overture.com, and Microsoft.com. Microsoft, oddly enough, is trying to duplicate Google which has duplicated part of Microsoft. Copies of copies get blurry, so Microsoft lacks focus in its search efforts across its very different business units. The Microsoft money comes from upgrades to operating systems and applications. I think the company has a struggle for the foreseeable future.
Stephen Arnold, August 24, 2008
The Unthinkable: Verizon Dates Google
August 23, 2008
Late last year and in the first four months of this year, one of the consulting firms who use me as an old rented brain had me do Google Mobile briefings. We did five or six of these to different telcos. I showed up, did my talk, took bullets and left. I can honestly say that the telcos were clueless about Google.
The key points in my briefing included:
- Google’s interest in thing telephonic date back to 1999. One of its first patent applications was for Quality of Service
- The sweep of Google’s patent documents and technical papers was broad, making it clear that ideas were not confined to two or three lone wolves; there was a range of interests evident
- Search was “baked in” to many innovations; that is, an innovation in mobile “snapped in” or “hooked” into search functions.
Now battle lines are starting to be visible. AT&T has a deal with Apple. Verizon may have a deal with Google. You can read informed descriptions of the speculations, insights about informed guesses, and business analyses. I found these write ups useful:
- eCommerce Times has a “why the deal is good” write up here.
- GigaOM’s useful business-technology comments here.
- The RedHerring.com site has a good business slant on the alleged deal here.
My take on this deal is somewhat different from the Wall Street Journal type of analysis. First, I think Verizon, like IBM, believes it has the upper hand in any deal with a vendor. Google’s a vendor, so the Verizon mind set is “we have this under control.” I think Verizon has only limited awareness of what Google’s capabilities are. Remember. Verizon is doing a search deal.
Second, Google is going to benefit from this deal. When the agreement is finalized, Google gets to learn from Bell Heads. How this first hand knowledge plays out is anyone’s guess.
Third, Google is not “officially” in the telephony game. Forget the Android partners. Forget the Sprint close dancing. Google and Verizon–it’s the hard evidence that Google is serious.
Exciting stuff if the deal gets done.
Stephen Arnold, August 23, 2008
Microsoft Search Server Express 2008 Redistribution Is Okay
August 22, 2008
Microsoft says it is okay to redistribute its search “lite” system. You can get the short version of what to do from Microsoft’s “Microsoft Enterprise Search Blog” here. The longer version is here. There are some hoops, but the good news is, you can get a free search system with document limits, of course. You will need a Windows Live ID as part of the process. If you don’t have one yet, click here. Enjoy.
Stephen Arnold, August 22, 2008
Microsoft Search Executive: Scorecard Update
August 22, 2008
I have a tough time keeping track of Microsoft “search” executives. Imagine my surprise when I read in Network World here the following:
Microsoft has appointed former Multimap CEO Jeff Kelisky to be the general manager of a new business unit focused on commercial search
I’m not sure what this means, “commercial search”. Elizabeth Montalbano, who wrote the story that caught my attention–“Microsoft taps Multimap CEO to Steer Commercial-Search Unit”–is a pretty clear writer. She clarified my understanding (a little, I think). She writes:
the new unit would be a part of Microsoft’s larger Search Business Group, the general manager of which is Brad Goldberg.
Ms. Montalbano includes Microsoft “search” guru, Satya Nardella, the boss of Microsoft search and portal advertising. She mentions Chris Liddell. She does not mention Gary Flake, former Yahoo search guru.
Please, read the story yourself and let me know if you can help me answer these questions:
- What happened to the top dogs at Fast Search & Transfer and Powerset?
- Who is in charge of SharePoint “commercial” search?
- Who is in charge of search in other Microsoft products like Dynamics?
- What is “commercial search”?
I guess I’m not smart enough to understand who these folks are or what their plan is to close the modest market gap between Google and other search engines, including those available from Microsoft. Help me out, please.
Stephen Arnold, August 22, 2008
Business Intelligence Consulting Crib Sheet
August 22, 2008
If you want to sell business intelligence, you want to learn how to spin from a grandmaster. Industry Week’s “Business Intelligence: Distilling Raw Data into Useful Information”. You can read the file here. The author is consultant Chris Rafter of Logicalis. I find it useful to review how different people explain the value of a fuzzy wuzzy service like “business intelligence”. This write up covers:
- What’s the “make up” of business intelligence
- The three components of business intelligence
- Leveraging business intelligence
- A “self help” test.
Armed with this information, an MBA can nail a big dollar consulting engagement. The one omission in the write up is that it does not have those nifty PowerPoint diagrams. If you want a cook book recipe for selling business intelligence, this article is for you.
Stephen Arnold, August 23., 2008
Patent Sense: Understanding Risk with Legal Eagles and Black Swans
August 21, 2008
Intelligent Enterprise publishes a Web newsletter. Curt Monash, a highly regarded wizard, tackles “Patent Nonsense in the Data Warehouse DBMS Market.” You will want to read this essay here.
The topic is two recent patent lawsuits in the data storage sector.
Teh key point to me is this statement:
Perhaps I’m getting senile, but I can recall only one software patent case in those 27 years that wound up having any material effect on enterprise software users — Marcam/Ross Systems, about process manufacturing ERP software.
I agree for the most part with the practical impact of legal eagles’ squabbling.
I’ve been touched by a couple of legal matters as an expert witness (a pretty tough bit of work). Here’s what I have concluded based on my experience in matters regarding patent documents.
First, litigation is expensive. Companies that embark on a legal matter have to [a] have lots of money, [b] a belief their interests have been in some way affected, and [c] are likely to be pretty consistent in those beliefs–regardless of the outcome of the legal matter.
Second, the wacky approach to patent applications and their kin in the United States is confusing to amateurs and professionals alike. When there is considerable confusion, boundary conditions can look like islands of stability only to dissolve in chaos. Chaos is tough to manage. Just ask Research in Motion whose management found out that beliefs, no matter how strongly held, may be meaningless.
Third, if the parties in the squabble don’t settle, think jury. A jury trial is a very risky operation for both sides in the matter. What pops out of a jury deliberation can be surprising. Judges and tribunals can be almost as startling when required to adjudicate.
My View
For that reason, when I am working for an organization and the issue of litigation comes up, I follow these practical guidelines, which you may find silly or useful depending on your mental stance.
First, I read the patent documents and try to learn something about what systems and methods are in operation or dispute. I’m no attorney, but those claims provide useful hooks for analyzing the system and methods disclosed, particularly in software.
Second, I want a back up plan. In some procurement environments, risk is an issue. Therefore, assuming that because something didn’t happen in the past is meaningless, when a black swan settles on the contracting officer’s desk or becomes known to the money mavens writing checks for an organization.
Finally, when a patent issue comes up, I try to look for other brush fires. My approach is to assume that the specific matter is one of an inter related activity. For example, a company hires a reasearcher away from a competitor, “invents” something, and then finds itself in the midst of a legal matter. The issue is not the invention; the issue is the management judgment that triggered the sequence. For my analytic approach, that’s the key to understanding some activities. I want to look under the hood, poke the innards, and try to find more interesting ways to understand a particular situation.
Net Net
For me, patent documents, hiring practices, and issues that are often off the radar become windows into the organizations involved.
Not surprisingly, I take any patent related litigation at face value and dig to learn more. For that reason, certain types of generalizations and placebos like “don’t worry” are of zero interest to me.
Agree? Disagree? Let me know.
Stephen Arnold, August 21, 2008
Amazon’s Storage Rain Forest: Google Lost in a Jungle
August 21, 2008
Amazon is behaving more like a hungry group of jungle foragers than a company selling books online. In the last couple of years, Amazon has evolved with some zigs and zags into a store front with a services business. Most surprising to me is that Amazon doesn’t spend Google- or Microsoft-sized billions on its infrastructure if the company’s financials have been interpreted correctly by me. Last year, I recall figuring out that Amazon squeezed by on hundreds of millions for plumbing, research and development, and engineering. Amazon’s spending was interesting to me because Google and Microsoft reported spending billions on these essential activities. My original hunch was that Amazon had some magic blend of herbs and spices that gave its Amazonians super powers. I even explored clever techniques for getting more mileage from every technical potion that Jeff Bezos (arguably the smartest man in the world by some Amazonians’ accounts) and Dr. Werner Vogels (the second smartest man in the world by some of those same cheerleaders) assembled. I found tantalizing hints that graduate students from Europe were engineering on Amazon’s behalf, then sent back to the flatlands of the Netherlands to work outside the spotlights directed at Amazon. One person suggested that Microsoft and Amazon are “collaborating” but a question to me from a well placed Microsoft executive suggested that Microsoft is as curious about Amazon as some Wall Street mavens are.
The Amazon Lightning Stike
Once again, Amazon has sent electrical strikes through cloud computing. The company has introduced what amounts to a low cost Storage Area Network running on Amazon’s servers. An SAN makes it easy to set up a storage space and then forget it. In a sense, a user of this new service gets unlimited storage without the headaches of alternative methods.
A number of technical writers are enthusiastic about this new service. I want you to enjoy the fan raves yourself. Here are several of my favorite write ups that deliver PR manna for the Amazon tech gurus, Messrs. Bezos and Vogels:
- Amazon’s own write up, stuffed full of juicy quotes about fault tolerance, engineering wizardry, and business pragmatics Amazon style.
- Rightscale’s explanation, including useful diagram here. I suggest you snag the images and add them to your cloud storage clipbook. The pricing information is extremely useful too. The “availability zone” is a bit murky to me, but you may find it right for what ails your cloud needs.
- GigaOM’s business analysis here. The key idea is that traditional data centers should be worried. Very worried. This well crafted article could have been crafted by a New York consultant carrying a Harvard MBA and a ThinkPad. As a former consultant, this is unusual in the world of “free” Web logs.
I have a different take on this announcement. Keep in mind that I am offering my opinion based on my research. If you want to read a slightly different take on Amazon’s jungle warfare prowess, stop reading. Proceed at your own risk.
My Take
In my forthcoming KMWorld column, I argue that cloud computing is useful in certain situations, but it is not yet appropriate for most enterprise applications. building a start up on an Amazon service is okay with me. A larger outfit can experiment with any Amazon service, and I will say, “No problem.” Ask me to put a mission-critical, regulated company’s applications and data on these services, and I will say, “Not me, sorry.” The problems are too frequent; the risks insufficiently documented for me. You may have a different view of walking barefoot through the foliage on the banks of the Amazon River. I’ve been there, and I am not going for a stroll no matter how innocuous and inviting the Amazon rain forest looks. My tutor in 1958 did this, and he ended up dead in a week. Reports of the death said, “No apparent cause.” That’s the Amazon rain forest in my view–risks you can’t see.
I have three other concerns as well. Let me mention them and ask you to read my KMWorld column when it appears in a few weeks:
- Stability. Anyone using MobileMe?
- Uptime. Anyone recall the Amazon Xbox ordering glitch or the mysterious all day outage this summer?
- Similarity. Anyone wonder why other vendors with arguably more infrastructure and more technical resources than Amazon have not offered this type of storage service?
For me, a company like Google should be in this business. Google is not. Is it because Google lacks the resources? Is it because Google doesn’t believe in the cloud computing revolution? Is it because Google doesn’t know how to offer this type of simple storage?
The answer to each of these questions is, “No.” Google itself makes use of these functions for its own services now, and it has for a number of years, based on my analysis of the company’s technical papers and patent documents.
Why?
This begs the question, “Why?”
My thought is that Amazon, like Microsoft, is in a hurry to out-Google Google. The path selected by Amazon seems to be to look at what Google is doing for its services and then offering a similar service to the developer world *before* Google takes action. Amazon stays “ahead” of Google. Amazon makes the GOOG look like a sluggish, overly conservative company facing increasing friction when it comes to innovation.
My hunch is that Microsoft is doing more than sitting on the sidelines and cheering Amazon on. Microsoft is learning and getting valuable assistance in the task of making Googzilla lame. I’m looking for more information on this cheerleading now.
Amazon is pointing the way to the way applications and other functions will work in a pervasive computing environment. My concern is that Amazon in its race to be first may find itself vulnerable when larger, better resourced organizations move into this sector as well.
The world’s smartest people at Amazon are confident they can win. I’m not so sure. I will avoid exploring the jungle without making sure of where I’m going and what I will confront. Agree? Disagree? Let me know.
Stephen Arnold, August 21 2008
Linguistic Agents Unveils RoboCrunch
August 21, 2008
Linguistic Agents, based in Jerusalem, has rolled out RoboCrunch.com, a semantic search engine. You can read the company news release here. Like Powerset and Hakia, Linguistic Agents’ technology makes it possible to locate information by asking the system a question. This platform enables software to respond and act upon natural human language in the most intuitive fashion for users.
As of August 21, 2008, the system operates with two functions:
- Natural Language Inquiries are transformed to Advanced Search Queries
- Results are semantically sorted by relevance.
The developer–founded in 1999–plans to change the present method of Web Navigation by using its advanced semantic technology to better understand user’s information requests. The company says, “Linguistic Agents has developed an integrative language platform that is based on the most current research in the field of theoretical linguistics.”
I have written about this company before. Check out the demo. Let me know your impressions.
Stephen Arnold, August 21, 2008
Search Points of View: One Home Run, Three Singles
August 21, 2008
Keri Morgret (I think) prepared a summary of a round table session devoted to the joys and heart aches of operating an in-house search engine for behind-the-firewall search and retrieval. The participants were:
- Andy Feit, MarkLogic
- Bill French, MyST Technology Partners
- Avi Rappoport, SearchTools.com
- Rebecca Thompson, Vivisimo.
The article is “Enterprise Search: Running Your Own Search Engine”, and it appeared in the August 18, 2008, Search Engine Roundtable. Ms. Morgret’s summary identifies the key points of each participants’ remarks. I found this summary quite interesting and very suggestive. I agree with many of the points contained in the compendium of remarks. There are several issues that warrant a comment from the addled goose.
First, the assumption implicit in this summary is that organizations need an on premises search system. I don’t agree. My research suggests that organizations need multiple search, content processing, and text analytics systems. The idea of a “one size fits all” solution doesn’t now work and won’t work in the future. In fact, my understanding of MarkLogic’s point is that success comes from defining a problem and solving it. Each of the examples offered–customer support, for example–can benefit from a solution. One system could deliver several distinct solutions, but my understanding is that success comes with focus. My view is that an organization will have multiple systems. Some will be tightly integrated. Some will not be tightly integrated.
Second, I am not too happy when search engine optimization techniques find their way into enterprise or behind-the-firewall search. The focus in an organization is making the system support a user’s business information need. MarkLogic’s approach seems anchored in this type of real world focus. Blurring the fiddling to spoof Google’s crawler with the challenge of information access in an organization is intellectually messy. Apples are apples; oranges are oranges. Enterprise search is a distinct, complex challenge.
Third, I struggle with the co-mingling of search, communication, and collaboration. I’m not sure which is more misleading: blending enterprise search with search engine optimization or turning search into some Groove-variant. Search is sufficiently complex without adding dollops of social functionality. Adding a metatag (index term) is not collaboration. It is indexing. Suggesting otherwise triggers an asthma attack for me.
I think the value of these multi-player discussions is generally high. I know I learn from the different points of view even if I don’t agree with them. For this set of remarks, I’m pleased with how MarkLogic approaches the problem of information access in an organization. The other participants offer some good ideas, but I think that other agendas are informing their remarks. For example, Vivisimo wants to emphasize that its search platform support collaboration. I think it permits a user to add an index term, and I am reluctant to make the leap that Vivisimo and its approach to search empower collaboration in an enterprise. SearchTools.com’s presentation is a bit of laundry lists of ideas. Some of these ideas are solid; others seem to be out of place. Mixing and matching buzzwords may not clarify search or contribute to enterprise information access. MarkLogic’s approach follows a path that makes business sense. Consultants are–well–consultants.
Read this interesting article yourself. For me, the bulk of the information in this summary was of interest because it makes clear the difficulty of discussing search, content processing, and text analytics without a clear definition and scope to bound the remarks. My thought is, “Give MarkLogic more time on the next panel.”
Stephen Arnold, August 20, 2008
Metadata Modeling
August 21, 2008
Embarcadero, in my opinion, is a software tools company. The company’s products allows developers and database administrators to design, build and run software applications in the environment they choose. The company says it has more than three million users of its CodeGear and DatabaseGear products.
The firm announced on August 19, 2008, that it had rolled out its ER/Studio Enterprise Portal. As I read the announcement here, ER/Studio Enterprise Portal is a search engine for data. The system “transforms the way metadata, business rules and models are located and accessed in the enterprise.”
As I thought about this phrasing, it struck me that Embarcadero wants to piggyback on the interest in search, portals, and metadata–all major problems in many organizations. The news story released on Business Wire includes this statement:
‘We’re doing for metadata what Google did for Web search. Today’s enterprise data explosion has made collecting and refining information time consuming for the architect and hard to understand for the business user,’ said Michael Swindell, Vice President of Products, Embarcadero Technologies. ‘ER/Studio Enterprise Portal dramatically simplifies the process for assembling, finding and communicating technical metadata.’
A couple of thoughts. Embarcadero tools can assist developers. No question about it. I am unsettled by two points:
- The suggestion that ER/Studio Enterprise Portal is a search engine. Search is a commodity in many ways. The term is ambiguous. I find it hard to figure out what this “portal” delivers. My hunch is that it is a metadata management tool.
- The suggestion that Embarcadero, founded in 1993, is “doing for metadata what Google did for Web search” is an example of wordsmithing of an interesting nature. “Google” is a magic word. The company generates billions of dollars and unnerves outfits like Verizon and Viacom. The notion that a software tool for managing metadata will have a “Google” effect amused me.
I find it harder and harder to figure out what business a company is in (“portal”, “search”, “metadata”) and what specific problem an company’s product solves. I’m a supporter of reasonably clear writing. Metaphors like “addled goose” can be useful as well. But mixing a stew of buzzwords leaves me somewhat confused and perhaps a bit suspicious of some product assertions.
Other companies in the metadata game are Wren and Access Innovations. What do you think?
Stephen Arnold, August 21, 2008
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
