Googzilla Plays Crawfish: Back Tracking on Chrome Terms
September 4, 2008
Ina Fried wrote “Google Backtracks on Chrome License Terms”. You can read her CNet story here. The point of the story is that Google has withdrawn some of the language of its Chrome license terms. Ms. Fried wrote:
Section 11 now reads simply: “11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.”
For me, this this sudden reversal is good news and bad news. The good news is that the GOOG recognized that it was close to becoming a Microsoft doppelgänger and reversed direction–fast. The bad news is that the original terms make it clear that Google’s browser containers would monitor the clicks, context, content, and processes of a user. Dataspaces are much easier to populate if you have the users in a digital fishbowl. The change in terms does little to assuage my perception of the utility of dataspaces to Google.
To catch up on the original language, click here. To find out a bit about dataspaces, click here.
Stephen Arnold, September 4, 2008
A Vertical Search Engine Narrows to a Niche
September 4, 2008
Focus. Right before I was cut from one of the sports teams I tried to join I would hear, “Focus.” I think taking a book to football, wrestling, basketball, and wrestling practice was not something coaches expected or encouraged. Now SearchMedica, a search engine for medical professionals, is taking my coach’s screams of “Focus” to heart. The company announced on September 3, 2008, a practice management category. The news release on Yahoo said:
The new category connects medical professionals with the best practice management resources available on the Web, including the financial, legal and administrative resources needed to effectively manage a medical practice.
To me the Practice Management focus is a collection of content about the business of running a health practice. In 1981, ABI/INFORM had a category tag for this segment of business information. Now, the past has been rediscovered. The principal difference is that access to this vertical search engine is free to the user. ABI/INFORM and other commercial databases charge money, often big money to access their content.
If you want to know more about SearchMedica, navigate to www.searchmedica.com. The company could encourage a host of copy cats. Some would tackle the health field, but others would focus on categories of information for specific user communities. If SearchMedica continues to grow, it and other companies with fresh business models will sign the death sentence for certain commercial database companies.
The fate of traditional newspapers is becoming increasingly clear each day. Super star journalists are starting Web logs and organizing conferences. Editors are slashing their staff. Senior management teams are reorganizing to find economies such as smaller trim sizes, fewer editions, and less money for local and original reporting. My though is that companies like SearchMedica, if they get traction, will push commercial databases companies down the same ignominious slope. Maybe one of the financial sharpies at Dialog Information Services, Derwent, or Lexis Nexis will offer convincing data that success is in their hands, not the claws of Google or upstarts like SearchMedica. Chime in, please. I’m tired of Chrome.
Stephen Arnold, September 4, 2008
Brainware: Oracle Exec Joins Its Board
September 3, 2008
Poor Oracle. A Google partner, a roll up of unprecedented proportions, master of the aging Codd RDBMS, and proud owner of SES10g–what a résumé for a technology firm! Rumors about a search-related acquisition have been swirling around for a couple of years. Autonomy, one candidate that I assume Oracle has vetted, is too expensive. The smaller companies don’t have enough of a foot print to dent the squishy sands of enterprise search. Is a move afoot?
The reason I as is that yesterday, Brainware, Inc., a search and content processing vendor, announced that David Bonnette of Oracle has joined the Brainware Board of Directors. Mr. Bonnette is a vice president with responsibility for customer support and call center systems, among other Oracle goodies. You can read one version of the news release here.
Brainware has been growing rapidly on the strength of its content acquisition and litigation support systems and services. Other eDiscovery vendors have been chasing other markets. My hunch is that this appointment will pay a couple of dividends. First, Mr Bonnette can provide guidance for Brainware in the CRM market. In addition, his presence on the Board increases the profile of Brainware at One Oracle Way, formerly Sea World Drive or some similar aquatic place name.
Is Brainware looking for investors, marketing support, a buyer? Let me know if you have any insight. Brainware’s pattern matching is interesting, and it is a technology quite distinct from the databasey, semantic SES10g Oracle is now selling along with bits and pieces from Triple Hop. Thoughts?
Stephen Arnold, September 3, 2008
Google Chrome License
September 3, 2008
Update: September 4, 2008, 9 30 pm Eastern
Useful summary of the modified Chrome license terms. Navigate to TapTheHive at http://tapthehive.com/discuss/This_Post_Not_Made_In_Chrome_Google_s_EULA_Sucks
Update: September 4, 2008, 11 30 am Eastern
Related links about the Chrome license:
- Change in Chrome license terms here
- Key Stroke Logging here
- Security issues here
- Back Peddling on terms here
Update: September 3, 2008, 9 18 am Eastern
WebWare’s take on the Chrome license agreement. Worth reading. It is here.
Original Post
If true, this post by Poss is a keeper. You can read his original article on Shuzak beta here. The juicy part is an extract from the Chrome terms of service. I quote Mr. Shuzak beta:
11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.
As I understand this passage, Googzilla has rights to what I do, what I post, what I see via its browser. Seems pretty reasonable for a Googzilla bent on conquering the universe. What do you think? Before you answer, check out the data model I included in my KMWorld column in July 2008.
Stephen Arnold, September 3, 2008
Google: Enterprise Video
September 3, 2008
Savvy companies have been uploading short videos to YouTube.com. When these are given non obvious names, the corporate videos are effectively “hiding in plain sight.” What’s the organization get from this upload? For one thing, Google picks up the storage and bandwidth charges. How does a company make use of these videos? Easy. The company provides the non obvious file name to an employee or some other viewer.
Well, Google has decided to formalize its enterprise video service. You can read Wired Magazine’s good discussion of the service here. The writer is Betsy Schiffman and the story is “Google Adds a Dash of Video to Enterprise Apps.” For me the most important point in the write up was:
As part of Google Apps Premier Edition, the company rolled out a video-sharing app, which lets business users upload and share videos — such as company announcements and updates — in a private environment. Just like YouTube, users can see how many times the video has been viewed, and they can rate, tag and comment on the videos. The key difference between the enterprise app and YouTube though, is that the video is “secure” and isn’t hanging out for the world to see.
I see this an important step for Google for three reasons:
- Video may not appeal to me but it is the cat’s pajamas for most of the 20 somethings and younger. I think video is brain candy, but it’s here to stay. Google is responding to a hunger for this dross.
- The video service is a test of Google’s security functions that effectively creates what I call in my forthcoming Google monograph a “GPN”; that is, Google private network. I wrote about several Google patent documents’ disclosure of this type of connection, and now a portion of these innovations is available.
- Google has new options for monetizing video, long a loss leader for the company.
- Google’s has an invention that allows the company to act as a matchmaker between talent and those who want to hire that talent. One possible application of this matchmaking service is to allow Google to act as a “virtual” agent in matching a customer who wants a video with those who can deliver.
In short, I think this, like Chrome, is an important step for the GOOG. Agree? Disagree?
Stephen Arnold, September 3, 2008
Google: More Chrome Browser Goodness
September 3, 2008
In my Google Version 2.0, published by Infonortics, I present a table of patent documents that act as beacons for Google’s engineers. On September 2, 2008, the USPTO published US 7421432 B1. Among the inventors of the “Hypertext Browser Assistant” is Larry Page. He is assisted by two super wizards, Urs Höelzle and Monika Henzinger. My research into Google’s investments in technology suggested that when either Mr. Brin’s or Mr. Page’s names appear on a patent document, that innovation is important. You and the legions of super smart MBAs who disdain grunting through technical documents will probably disagree. Nevertheless, I want to call the abstract for this invention to the attention of my two or three readers.
A system facilitates a search by a user. The system detects selection of one or more words in a document currently accessed by the user, generates a search query using the selected word(s), and retrieves a document based on the search query. When the document includes one or more links corresponding to a linked document, the system analyzes each of the links, pre fetches the linked documents corresponding to a number of the links, and presents the document to the user. The system receives selection of one of the links and retrieves the linked document corresponding to the selected link. The system identifies one or more pieces of information in the retrieved document, determines a link to a related document for each of the identified pieces of information, and provides the determined links with the related document to the user.
My “pal” Cyrus, a Google demi-wizard, thinks that I create Google images in Photoshop. No, Cyrus, these images appear in Google’s patent documents, which I suggest you and your fellow demi-wizards read before opining on my Photoshop skills. You will see that the browser represented is not Mozilla’s, Microsoft’s or Opera’s.
What this invention purports to do is provide intelligent “training wheels” to help users find information they are seeking. The system uses a range of Google infrastructure functions to perform its “helper” functions; for example, predictive math, parsed content, and related objects. A more detailed analysis will appear in the Google monograph I am preparing for Infonortics, the publisher who has an appetite for my analyses of Googley innovations. Look for the monograph before the New Year.
If you want to revel in the Page-meister’s golden prose, you can download a copy for free from the outstanding USPTO Web site here. Hint: reading the syntax examples carefully. The patent narrative suggests that this “training wheels” function will work in a standard browser, my hunch is that some of the more sophisticated functions known to “those skilled in the art” will require Chrome. After you have read the patent document, feel free to post your views of the technology Google has “invented”.
Oh, Cyrus, if you have difficulty locating Google’s patent documents, give me a call. I’m in the system.
Stephen Arnold, September 3, 2008
Microsoft Squeezes Google’s Privacy Policies
September 3, 2008
ZDNet (Australia) reported on August 29, 2008, about Microsoft’s perception of Google and its approach privacy. I saw the post in the ZDNet UK Web log. (I have to tell you that the failure to have a common index to the ZDNet content is less than helpful. If Bill Ziff were still running the outfit, I believe this oversight would have been addressed and quickly. Ah, youth and the lack of corporate memory. The folks don’t know why I am risking a heart attack over this sort of carelessness.) Liam Tung wrote “Microsoft Exec: Google Years behind Us on Privacy”. You can read the full UK article here. I haven’t been able to locate the Australian original thanks to ZDNet’s fine search system.
For me, the key point in the article was:
Google had not invested enough to build privacy into its products, citing Street View as a prime example.
What I find interesting is that Google does not break out its investments. The company prefers, like Amazon, to offer a big fuzzy ball of numbers. As a result, I don’t think I or anyone outside of Google’s finance unit knows what Google spends on privacy. The notion that a company trying to make headway in online advertising, personalization, and social functions is going to pay much attention to privacy tickles my funny bone. Yahoo’s disappointing ad performance might be attributable to the company’s alleged inability to deliver rolled up demographics so advertisers can pinpoint where to advertise to reach which specific demographic sector. If Microsoft wants to make real money from its $400 million purchase of Ciao.com, the company may have to revisit its own privacy policies.
Google’s picture taking is a privacy flash point. However, based on my research, there are other functions at Google that may warrant further research. Microsoft may be forced to follow in Google’s very big paw prints in its quest for money and catching up to Googzilla.
Stephen Arnold, September 3, 2008
Winnipeg Whining: Microsoft Failures
September 2, 2008
The one-two punch of my mother’s death and a grueling trip to Utah left me listless and more incoherent than usual. I was catching up on items snagged by my newsreader, my crawler, and my contacts who forward me ideas and links. I came across a quite interesting post by “D’Arcy from Winnipeg”. The title of the article was “Apparently .NET Is a Failure”. She identified a PCMag.com story that cataloged Microsoft failures. I missed the PCMag.com story even though I once worked for Ziff Communications, the company that owned the magazine in its salad days. I stopped listening to the PC Magazine podcast in favor of less hip, less annoying discussions of technology. I guess I’m getting old, but the present editorial team lacks the siss, boom, bah of the group that fueled the magazine in the 1980s. You can read the original list of alleged flops here.
D’Arcy does a very good job of summarizing the Dot Net section, and she opined:
The inclusion of .NET in this list is BS, and IMO its an example of irresponsible journalism. Spouting your opinion about something is one thing…having no data, examples, or …anything!…to back up your statements is nothing but spouting off… What’s worse is that PCMag is recognized, at some level, as a quality, reliable publication. When an executive editor, which Jeremy Kaplan apparently is, puts his name to something like this it brings down the authenticity, objectivity, and reliability of information published in print and online of PCMagazine. Since Jeremy and Sascha both come from more hardware and peripheral type backgrounds, maybe they should stick to making comments about those things that they are experienced and knowledgeable about and leave any opinions on development products to those qualified to make them.
D’Arcy is definitely someone who speaks clearly and without the wool-wrapped fuzzy rhetoric that obfuscates instead of clarifies. I’m on the fence about some Microsoft technologies, but I agree with D’Arcy on this post. Those Winnipeg winters season people to be tough. Write on, D’Arcy.
Stephen Arnold, September 2, 2008
Google Apps: Limited to Low Dollar Buyers
September 2, 2008
Guy Creese, a wizard consultant with the high octane The Burton Group, has analyzed Google Apps and concluded:
More nimble SMBs and cash-crunched universities will be the sweet spot for Google Apps.
You can read his analysis and plug for his prognosticative abilities here. Mr. Creese, high octane consultant, identifies four factors that have dampened enthusiasm for Google Apps. I agree with these. For example, who doubts that large organizations are conservative, slow moving, and generally indifferent to the technical trends that make college students hop about like Rafael Nadal after winning a hard fought point.
My own research suggests another couple of reasons behind the lackluster success of Google in the giant companies where IBM, Microsoft, and Oracle.
Google is not very good at sales. It use of partners is idiosyncratic. The professionalism of the Google enterprise team is not in doubt, but the approach is sufficiently math club like to make Fortune 1000 buyers buy Google stuff that provides a bit more control; for example, the Google Search Appliance and Google geospatial services. The cloud services need more than good cheer and nerd bonhomie to close a deal. Keep in mind, however, that Google closed a deal for 1.5 million mail boxes in New South Wales, but school districts aren’t big time companies where The Butler Group trolls for work.
Finally, Google’s enterprise approach often leads to exasperation on the part of the buyer. Change is underway. In fact, Google commissioned a study to find out what was off track. I haven’t seen the results, but I hear that changes in Google’s enterprise unit are coming.
Stephen Arnold, September 2, 2008
SharePoint Search: A Six Part Series!
September 2, 2008
When I was growing up on the prairie, my mother and father would as a special treat drop me at the Beverly Theater. For $0.15 I could watch one feature and a serial. The idea was that youngsters like me would come back each week to find out if the hero survived the cliff hanger on which each installment ended. Now SharePoint magazine brings me the equivalent about SharePoint search. I don’t have to pay $0.15. I can navigate here and revel in each installment’s information payload. Who would have thought SharePoint search was so exciting? Well, anyone who has tried to scale SharePoint using the up and out technique and staying below the 40 or 50 million document limit of the system. Oh, there’s also the excitement of creating pages using the two-part method involving “FrontPage” dressed in smart new pants and matching shirt. Also, there’s the issue of getting my old pal SQL Server to respond quickly. I want to add the thrill of chasing down security setting if some helpful person makes a local security change on one of the servers hosting a “site” and its content. The series is part of the Arno Nel Web log here. The first installment called “Customizing Search Series—Introduction” is here in theory. It’s about:
MOSS Search capabilities and its customization. This article serves as an introduction to search and will define several key items within the administration and configuration thereof.
When I accessed the site on August 30, 2008, I got a blank page and a time out. SharePoint fans will recognize that issue. Today (September 1, 2008), I am getting a very helpful 404 error. Give the urls a whirl. If the site is down, you are getting some insight into the behavior one often confronts in a full scale SharePoint search deployment. Enjoy.
Stephen Arnold, September 2, 2008
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
