Two New Animals: Newsosaur and Yahoosaur
October 22, 2008
Alan D. Mutter’s “Reflection of a Newsosaur” is a very good Web log post. You can find the Web log at http://newsosaur.blogspot.com and “Fat Newspaper Profits Are History” here. Mr. Mutter points out that newspapers are going to have to live with declining profits. He cites a number of papers that have debt that adds to broader sector woes such as declines in sales and circulation. He does a solid job of explaining the interplay of certain cost factors for publishers. His analysis does not apply just to newspapers. Any book, magazine, or journal publisher cranking out hard copies faces the same set of problems. The data in this article are worth saving because he has done a better job of identifying key figures and metrics than some of the high-priced consultants hired to help traditional publishers adapt to today’s business realities. For me, the keystone comment in Mr. Mutter’s analysis was:
Although the economy will recover in the fullness of time, there are very real doubts about whether newspapers still have the time, resources and ingenuity to migrate to a viable new financial model to assure their long-term survival.
After reading this article, I realized that traditional publishers, not the author of the Web log, are Newsosaur. What also occurred to me was that Yahoo is becoming a high profile Yahoosaur. As a 15 year old Internet company, Yahoo’s management faces problems that its business model and management pool cannot easily resolve.
Keep in mind that newsosauri are trapped in the dead tree problem; that is, a fungible product in an environment where young people don’t buy newspapers or read them the way their parents and grandparents did. Advertisers want to be in front of eyeballs attached to people who will buy products and services.
Yahoo may be the first identified Yahoosaur. The company’s financial results and the layoffs are not good news. The deal with Google may be in jeopardy. Yahoo’s home run technology plays like the push to open source and BOSS may not have the traction to dig the company out of its ecological niche. I think the Yahoosaur and the Newsosaur are related.
Mr. Mutter provides a useful description of the traditional publishing company woes. Perhaps he will turn his attention to the Yahoosaur.
Stephen Arnold, October 22, 2008
Nutter on the Future of Search
October 22, 2008
Blaise Nutter’s “Three Companies That Will Change How We Search” here offers an interesting view of three vendors who are competing with Google. The premise of the article is that there is room for search innovation. The five page write up profiles and analyzes Blinkx (video search spin out from some folks at Autonomy), Mahalo (journalist turned search entrepreneur Jason Calcanis), and Cuil (Anna Patterson and assorted wizards from Google, IBM, and elsewhere). As I understand the analysis, the hook is different for each company; for example:
- Blinkx. Indexes the content in the video, not just be metadata, for 26 million videos
- Mahalo. Community search engine with humans not software doing the picking of results
- Cuil. A big index with a magazine style layout.
The conclusion of the article is that innovation is possible and that each of these sites does a better job of addressing user privacy.
For me, the most interesting comment in the write up was this comment:
David and Goliath fought on a level battlefield, but Google doesn’t.
My view on each of these search systems is a bit different from Mr. Nutter’s. I do agree that Google presents a large challenge to search start ups. In fact, until a competitor can leap frog Google, I doubt that users will change their surfing behavior regardless of Google’s policy regarding privacy. Google monitors to make money. Money is needed to scale and provide “free” search.
This brings me to the difference between Mr. Nutter’s analysis and mine. First, for any of these services to challenge Google in a meaningful way, the companies are going to need cash, lots of cash. In today’s economic climate, I think that these firms can get some money, but the question is, “Will it be enough if Google introduces substantially similar features?” Second, each of these services, according to Mr. Nutter, offers features Google doesn’t provide. I don’t agree. Google is indexing content of videos and audios. In fact I wrote about a patent application that suggests Google is gearing up for more services in this area here. Google is essentially social, which is a big chunk of the notion of user clicks. The “ig” or individualized Google offers a magazine style layout if you configure the new “ig” interface to do it. It’s not Cuil, but it’s in the ballpark.
For me, the question is, “What services are implementing technology that has the potential to leap frog Google as Google jumped ahead of AltaVista.com, MSN.com, and Yahoo.com in 1998? In my opinion it’s none of these three services profiled by Mr. Nutter. “Let many flowers bloom”. But these have to be of hearty stock, have the proper climate, and plenty of nurturing. None of these three services is out of the greenhouse and into the real world, and I think their survival has to be proven, not assumed. Search innovations are often in the eye of the beholder, not in the code of the vendor.
Stephen Arnold, October 20, 2008
Dataspaces in Denmark: The 2008 Boye Conference
October 22, 2008
Earlier this year, the engaging Janus Boye asked me to give a talk and offer a tutorial at his content management and information access conference. The program is located here, and you will see a line up that tackles some of the most pressing issues facing organizations today. The conference is held in Arhus, Denmark. My first visit was a delight. I could walk to a restaurant and connect. Arhus may be one of the most wired and wireless savvy cities I’ve visited.
About a year ago, before Google decided I was Kentucky vermin, I discovered in the open source literature, a reference to a technology with which I was not familiar. In the last year, I have pulled this information thread. After much work, I believe I have discovered the basics of one of Google’s most interesting and least known technology initiatives.
Source: http://www.lohninger.com/helpcsuite/img/kohonen1.gif
Unlike some of the other innovations I have described in my 2005 The Google Legacy and my 2007 Google Version 2.0 reports. Those documents relied extensively on Google’s own patent documents. This most recent discovery reports information in Bell Labs’s patents, various presentations by Google researchers, and published journal articles with unusual names; for example, “Information Manifold”. The research also pointed to work at Stanford University and a professor who, I believe, has been involved to some degree with Google’s team leader. I also learned of a Google acquisition in 2006, which does not appear in the Wikipedia list of Google acquisitions. Although the deal was reported in several Web logs, no one dug into the company’s technology or its now-dark classified ad site.
Yahoo: Costs Come Home to Roost
October 22, 2008
By now, you have read the news about the layoffs at Yahoo. If you missed the story, the write up I found insightful was the Guardian’s write up here. The Guardian story quoted Jerry Yang as saying:
We enter this slowing market with competitive advantages as the destination of choice for consumers and a leader in providing online advertisers with the broadest set of advertising management tools and products in the industry. We plan to continue building on those strengths.
This is high quality word smithing. When I read this, several thoughts went through my mind. Before I lose them, here they are:
- Historically Yahoo has operated with its acquisitions operating in silos. Silos mean duplication. Duplication means costs. Fixing silos is not easy, so controlling certain technical costs will be difficult, even for Bainies.
- Microsoft and Yahoo are companies that have groups working without much cooperation. I cannot share my source, but the lack of cooperation has spilled over into the tech group. There are sharp divides by silo, technology, and even programming languages. Divisiveness makes it difficult to get the information needed to know where to make changes. Even Bainies will be flying blind when trying to unwrap Yahoo’s technology.
- Yahoo has tapped some vendors to provide certain services. Some of these vendors are dug in deep. Getting these folks to change their agreements or slash their fees may be hard to do. Bainies will be maxed trying to get these costs to behave. I’m thinking of the Yahoo project I heard about regarding data transformation for advertisers. I wonder if an advertiser can get information about demographics of users across Yahoo’s services.
- Buying AOL will boost costs. No comment needed.
- Losing Google will affect revenue and ultimately increase costs as Yahoo tries to revivify online advertising.
In short, I ask myself, “Is it too late for Yahoo?” One part of me says, “No, Yahoo can fix the problems.” The other part of me says, “She’s a gone goose.” What’s your take?
Stephen Arnold, October 23, 2008
Google Gets Input from Arkansas Church
October 22, 2008
Ah, the great and wise Google received some input from the New Hope Fellowship in the high-tech center, Springdale, Arkansas. Harrod’s Creek, Kentucky, takes a back seat to the folks in Springdale, Arkansas. Will Google listen? Hard to say. You can read the story of inputs in Juan Carlos Perez’s “Google Fixes Problem with Apps Start Page” here. The church was nuked with Google’s careless coding. Mr. Perez quotes the church’s media director, one John Jenkins as advising Google:
Our users were trained to access their mail through the Start page. Once that didn’t work, they could not access e-mail, which is critical to our work. We had to send paper memos around on how to access the mail without going through the Start page. Very frustrating. Google must improve communication with business customers if they wish to be competitive in the corporate IT space. The 2-sentence ‘we’re working on it’ blurbs posted in the [online discussion] groups are an unacceptable way to treat business clients.
Will Google accept advice from New Hope Fellowship? In my opinion, Google is Googley. I’m not. You may not be. The New Hope outfit is probably not Googley or the church person would have figured out how to get the mail despite the outage. What about Einstein’s “wise one”? Nah, he doesn’t work at Google. Just read the Google blurbs.
Stephen Arnold, October 20, 2008
Google’s Microsoftish Way
October 21, 2008
I think a great deal about Google’s technology, which I think is world class. I don’t think much about its sales and marketing because I think it is subjective and Google is not too good at “other directedness”. I think that’s the phrase I heard a touchy-feely type say at one of the sales meetings I attended when I worked at Ziff almost two decades ago. Lou Cabron’s “The Great Google Rebellion” reflects the thinking of a person who does care about sales, marketing, and how other people perceive math and computer science wizards. You must take a moment and read his article at 10ZenMonkeys.com here. He quotes one use of Google’s new iGoogle or “ig” for individualized Google home page who uses spicy language. For me, that language is too much like a Sichuan pepper, but you may find it just right. The point of Mr. Cabron’s post is that Google made a unilateral change. Howls from surprised users have been, if the article is accurate, ignored as of October 21, 2008, at 9am.
I wrote about “ig” in Google Version 2.0 here, and I have included the container technology in my in depth, for fee technology briefings about Google for about 18 months. The “ig” service presents the user with an interface that a user can customize. Although powerful, the “ig” interface does not flower until you run it under Chrome, Google’s industrial strength connector to the Google infrastructure complete with diamond-sheathed tracking and parsing functions. Think programmable search engine, usage tracking, and dataspaces.
Math club antics are sometimes amusing. Sometimes not too amusing. Source: http://344design.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/10/31/monster_mask.jpg
What I thought when I read Mr. Cabron’s article was that most people don’t have a good vantage point from which to observe Google. For example, in the last week as I shivered in a cheap hotel in London’s grimiest district I learned about:
- Google’s Eric Schmidt endorsing a presidential candidate and hinting that being name tech advisor would be interesting
- Google’s high resolution satellite imagery is better than the imagery available to most nation states, resolving at about one pixel showing two fee of landscape. This is good enough to read license plates when one has a few helper tools.
- Google’s Sergey Brin “dropping in” at the Russian super secret space facility to prep for his rocket ride and space jaunt
- Google’s financial performance which demonstrated that Google’s economy is more robust than that of most countries, including the UK where I am paying $400 for the equivalent of a night’s stay in the hospital in Malmesbury in the 9th century. (A “hospital” used to be a synonym for an inn. Just cough and you had a slot in a flea ridden hay mattress with several other gents.)
In my addled goose brain, several thoughts flitted through my mind as I listened to the soft sounds of rats moving between the exterior of the hotel and my room’s walls.
Economical London hotel with room for four or more instant friends.
First, Google is operating like a nation state. I advanced this argument in mid 2007 and few noticed. I don’t think awareness is spreading quickly, but I think Mr. Cabron may be getting near my hillock from which I observe the GOOG.
Second, as a commercial nation state, Google may be tough to regulate. The Dutch are trying to get some email information from Google. From what I have read, the Dutch are making progress, just slowly. Countries have a difficult time getting Google to return phone calls and answer email, so it’s no surprise to me that a few “ig” users are twisting in the wind. The US agencies are struggling with the Google-Yahoo tie up in the midst of a financial meltdown with a president nearing the end of his term.
Third, Google is pragmatic. If you are uncertain about what this means, you may want to refresh your memory by reading William James’s brilliant explanation of what pragmatism is, how it approaches reality, and what results a pragmatist can achieve. Click here for a refresher. Click here to buy the book.
As I reflected about Google’s 10-year trajectory, I concluded that my argument in The Google Legacy was 100% accurate. Microsoft has become the “new” IBM. Google has become the “new” Microsoft. The company’s actions are no longer the amusing antics of the math club kids who march to their own drummer. Google is the 21st-century version of Microsoft. It’s not surprising to me that some of Google’s mimic Microsoft’s youthful behavior in the mid 1980s.
Agree? Disagree? Bring facts and help me learn.
Stephen Arnold, October 21, 2008
Wikia: Another Search System Slipping
October 21, 2008
Valleywag reported here that Wikia, another potential “Google killer”, is shedding staff. Up to a third of the employees will be given pink slips if the news reports are in sync with reality. True, other companies are pulling their belts tighter. Wikia was on my radar because I heard Jimmy Wales explain how the service would be a better information service than other user-generated content services–almost a year ago. Wikia had a strong search spin as well. The most interesting point in the Valleywag write up was:
Wikia raised $14 million in venture capital from Bessemer Venture Partners and Amazon.com, the last of which came in December 2006; without a new infusion, it must surely be running low on cash.
I am toying with the idea of a search engine death watch. Should I put Wikia on the list of search engines in need of life support?
Stephen Arnold, October 21, 2008
Epicor: Search Based Experience
October 21, 2008
When I hear the company name “Epicor”, I think of integration services. If pressed, I can associate Epicor with CRM and other back-office services. When I dig deep, I associate Epicor with Microsoft. I recall this diagram because I have a type of eidetic memory that works better than my recall of phrases and paragraphs as I age.:
The company sends me email that reinforces my impression of the firm. Here’s an example of what the company says about itself:
Epicor is a global leader dedicated to providing integrated enterprise resource planning (ERP), customer relationship management (CRM), supply chain management (SCM) and professional services automation (PSA) software solutions to the midmarket and divisions of Global 1000 companies. Founded in 1984, Epicor serves over 20,000 customers in more than 140 countries, providing solutions in over 30 languages. Employing innovative service-oriented architecture (SOA) and Web services technology, Epicor delivers end-to-end, industry-specific solutions for manufacturing, distribution, retail, hospitality and services that enable companies to drive increased efficiency, improve performance and build competitive advantage. Epicor solutions provide the scalability and flexibility to meet today’s business challenges, while empowering enterprises for even greater success tomorrow. Epicor offers a comprehensive range of services with its solutions, providing a single point of accountability to promote rapid return on investment and low total cost of ownership. Epicor’s worldwide headquarters are located in Irvine, California with offices and affiliates around the world. For more information, visit www.epicor.com.
Why am I highlighting Epicor?
The company has announced that it delivers “search assisted applications.” This is important in my perceptual world for three reasons:
First, “regular” search is now facing competition from companies who have a broader and higher value message for their customers and prospects. Why pay extra for search when you can buy an Epicor “search enabled application”?
Second, Epicor is in tune with the Microsoft agenda. An enterprise with SharePoint or other Microsoft big-gun server will look to Epicor for value adds. Search and text utility vendors can still make sales, but Epicor may be an indication of the type of competition that awaits.
Third, Epicor’s positioning makes sense. I can’t do much “work” unless I can find the information I need. I think Epicor is being quite clever in its marketing.
Search-enabled applications is a slick phrase. A happy quack to the 20 something who crafted this three-word hook.
Stephen Arnold, October 21, 2008
SharePoint, Performance Point, and Ajax
October 21, 2008
If you want to get Performance Point and Ajax to work on your SharePoint installation, fooshen points the way. You will need to click here and then save the instructions and screen shots. Then just follow the “simple” directions to get a Microsoft product to work with another Microsoft product and also get Ajax scripts to work with SharePoint. When I read this useful post, I thought “This explains what’s wrong with SharePoint”. The product has too many loose ends. A Certified Professional armed with fooshen’s how to can use Microsoft tools to pinpoint search performance issues. But why should a Certified Professional need a detailed how to? Why not provide a control on the admin console that let’s me activate Performance Point. Why do I or one of my engineers have to cut and paste multi line config statements into another script? The Performance Point functions are useful to SharePoint. Furthermore both are Microsoft products. I can understand fiddling with scripts to get a third party vendor’s product to work with SharePoint. But, heck, these are Microsoft’s own products, yet I have to do work using fooshen’s tips. When companies seek to reduce expenses, a savvy CFO may pull the plug on people who procure products that add unnecessary tasks, thus preventing an engineer from doing more meaningful work than performing script monkey antics. If this post was useful, you will find The Magpie Paradigm an absolute must.
Click here. A happy quack to the magpie.
Stephen Arnold, October 21, 2008
FASTForward Ignores Police Action News
October 21, 2008
I took a look at the Microsoft Fast FASTForward Web log. You can find it here. The complete October 2008 archive is here. I found articles about SharePoint. I found write ups about Enterprise 2.0 (emergence and information plus other useful functions), transformation, social software, and search. What I did not find was any reference to the action taken by the Norwegian police on October 15, 2008. I am an addled goose. The thought did cross my mind that if a large company and an affiliate of Microsoft, an outfit with 100,000 employees and revenue north of $85 billion dollars is involved in a police action, a brief comment might be useful. The Web log appears to written by people who are not employees of Microsoft. The police action is important because it strikes at such issues as financial probity, trust, and reliability, among others. If the police action occurs, a bit of color from the FastForward Web log seems appropriate. A two line item pointing to an “official” statement by Microsoft would have been helpful to me. If a company wants to promote Enterprise 2.0 qualities, that firm may want to practice some Enterprise 2.0 behaviors. On the other hand, perhaps the lack of information is an indication of what is really meant by Enterprise 2.0 at Microsoft Fast. AIIM’s definition is:
A system of web-based technologies that provide rapid and agile collaboration, information sharing, emergence, and integration capabilities in the extended enterprise.
Omission fuels suspicion. With enough omission, this addled goose can fall into a muddle. Agree? Disagree? Let me know.
Stephen Arnold, October 21, 2008
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
