HP: Hardware, Software, or Ink
December 12, 2008
Hewlett Packard is an ink company to me and forever will be. HP ink works out to several thousand dollars a gallon. I calculated the amount once, but then I learned that the cartridges are often not filled to the brim. Without reliable cubic info, I stopped fiddling with numbers and adopted the “HP as an ink company” approach.
I recall getting a bulk mailing urging me to buy HP servers. I recall that HP asserted that it is one of the top two or three sellers of high end servers. I heard Google offer the same generalization. Then, in an IBM briefing I heard the same argument. I wondered, “What’s with Dell? Why is that company asserting it is one of the top three server vendors?”
The article “HP Strives for Recognition as Major Software Player” on the ZDNet.co.uk site here puzzled me. HP ships software with its printers that I find useful as examples of bloatware. I enjoy the messages to replace my ink cartridges, which reinforces the ink company notion. I recall struggling with various HP printer drivers, including a most remarkable PostScript driver that produced pages the size of stamps. We never figured out a work around. I just bought a Ricoh with PostScript that worked. I donated the HP printer to a charity and got a $10 tax deduction.
The point of the ZDNet.co.uk write up is this quote attributed to an HP executive:
In general, from an industry perspective, we think we’ve made huge progress but there’s still further room for growth in terms of brand and awareness,
I don’t agree. “In general” means that the assertion is a glittering generality. “Huge progress”, I don’t think so. For example, I have an HP laptop and it has quite a few weird software programs installed by default. I don’t know what they were, so I nuked them with Revo Uninstaller. Laptop seems okay but when I visited the HP Web site to look for updated drivers, I had absolutely no clue how to determine which software went with which notebook variant. I loaded one driver and everything worked until the reboot. Then the new driver blew away the USB and SD card functions. I rolled back the driver and forgot about the upgrade.
Yep, “huge progress.”
IBM Chides Google with Faint Praise
December 11, 2008
IBM figured in a Forbes Magazine story called “Metadata: Speaking of IBM” by Bruce Upbin here. The premise of the story is run of the mill IBM public relations. IBM spends money–about $6 billion–on research and development. Much of that research is focused on big, new ideas what wizards call blue sky or fundamental research. But what caught my attention was this passage from Mr. Upbin’s write up:
While Google scales back its beloved plan to let all employees tinker on side projects with 20% of their time, IBM will continue to commit one-third of its research to what its head of worldwide operations, Mark Dean, calls “exploratory” work.That work includes radical ideas like “cognitive computing.” In November, Dharmendra Modha of IBM’s Almaden Research Center in San José, Calif., won a $5 million grant from the Defense Department to lead a group of 10 IBM scientists and seven outside researchers to come up with a brain-like computer that can deal with ambiguity, continuously learn and make split-second decisions based on constantly changing data.
When I read this, I thought, “Hmmm. I wonder if the love fest between Google and IBM is winding down. Google, not IBM, is perceived as the innovation breeder reactor, not IBM. Furthermore, Google hired super wizard Ramanathan Guha from IBM Almaden. In short order, Dr. Guha invented five methods related to the programmable search engine published by the USPTO on the same day in February 2007. For me, the implication in the quoted snippet from Mr. McMillan’s article is that Google has to trim its expenditures and IBM doesn’t. Furthermore, IBM is working on a smart system, not Google. I will be watching to see if my monitoring systems sniff the pheromones of IBM’s executives as IBM tries to regain innovation mindshare.
Stephen Arnold, December 11, 2008
Autonomy: The Big Winner
December 11, 2008
I now have three or four readers. One of these fine people said that I am “easy” on Autonomy. I am not “easy”; I just point to interesting information related to moving beyond key word search. If you want to hassle me about Autonomy, stop reading. I want to call your attention to a December 8, 2008, news release with the headline “Autonomy Has Won the Enterprise Search Wars Declares Computer Business Review” here. I found this story intriguing because it is a bold assertion by a company that is a unit of Datamonitor, a research firm. CBROnline, according to its Web site, is:
…a leading technology website, delivering a wide variety of daily news, reports and analysis on the global technology industry. The website delivers a wide range of content which is updated throughout every business day, attracting users from the corporate technology market.
The core of the story is this passage:
“[With] sales in its latest quarter up 42% to $127.1m, [Autonomy] is clearly doing something right – especially considering the current climate,” says Jason Stamper, editor of CBR, citing Autonomy’s support for over 1,000 different data types as one of the company’s key differentiators. “Besides, analysts agree that its Meaning-based Computing takes it further than search alone, and its vast array of OEMs should help it ride the downturn better than most.”
My thought is that some vendors–possibly Google or Microsoft Fast–might assert that they are the winners of the search war. My thought is that Autonomy does clever public relations. Note: I am pointing to an article and making an observation. I am not easy, just amused.
Stephen Arnold, December 11, 2008
Google’s ActiveX and Sandboxing
December 11, 2008
Google uses unusual words to describe its inventions. If you poke around, you will find that Google has an innovation called “containers”. PCWorld’s Robert McMillan wrote about a Google technology called Native Client. There were some similarities between ActiveX and Native Client but Native Client echoed the container method. The lineage of some Google inventions is murky, but where you read Mr. McMillan’s story here, note this comment:
Called Native Client, the software was released under an open-source software license by Google engineers on Monday. It’s still in an early stage of development, but Google says it could eventually help Web developers create Web programs that would run more quickly and feel more like real desktop applications.
In my opinion, Google is signaling that it wants to provide developers with ways to “hook” more sophisticated applications into Google’s infrastructure. Unlike ActiveX, Google seems to be moving slowly so that certain security issues will be less likely to plague Native Client. Do you see influences of “sandboxing”? I do. I also found it interesting that Mr. McMillan reported that Native Client works in most browsers with the notable exception of Microsoft’s Internet Explorer. Speed is a good thing, and I think Google is blending speed and security which I find another indication of the firm’s maturation. You can find Google’s original Web log post here. Track other Google developer announcements here.
Stephen Arnold, December 11, 2008
Yahoo: Missing the Obvious
December 11, 2008
Web Pro News here has a very interesting discussion of Yahoo’s BOSS search service. Chris Crum’s “How Much Demand Is There for Open Search?” answer this question with the statement, “A Lot According to Yahoo”. You must read this article. First, it provides links to Yahoo’s explanation of BOSS. I can never remember what the letters mean, and I don’t have a compelling need to stress my addled goose brain. I can navigate to Google, enter BOSS, and click on the Google link to the service which is number five in the results list today (December 8, 2008). Run the same query on Yahoo and the direct link is the number two result. My thought, “Why not boost BOSS so it is number one and in one of the ads on the page. Nope, not Yahoo. Second, the story shows an impressive graph with BOSS daily queries running at 10 million per day. That’s a lot of monetizable traffic. Nope, Yahoo did not engineer the system to count the clicks. Here’s the quote in Mr. Crum’s story from Yahoo’s BOSS team member Bill Michels:
“Michels is also “quick to point out that, “because these queries are delivered via the BOSS API and served up by our partners, they aren’t counted as Yahoo! Search queries by comScore or other metrics providers.”
My thought is that Yahoo figured out part of the problem. There are tricky Google style methods to track these clicks, and there are even simpler methods in use. AC Nielsen has patents on a couple of angles that could serve as inspiration to Yahoo. Finally, Mr. Crum is willing to give Yahoo the benefit of the doubt, which I find admirable. He wrote:
I think time will tell how much demand there really is for open search, and how much (and if) Yahoo’s new strategies really cut into Google’s percentage of the search market share. It is refreshing to see some new and different things happening with Yahoo and search in general, regardless.
My take on this is that Yahoo is in a rush to demonstrate that it can not only run with the big dog but take a bite out of its tail zone. Yahoo is going to have to find a way to monetize its traffic. My addled goose brain recalls that Yahoo was slow to monetize Flickr after its purchase by Yahoo. Delicious was recoded over a period of two years and not effectively monetized. But with so many bright people and such an imperative to make money, I think Yahoo has need of some different thinking.
For Yahoo, I think the gap between it and Google may now be too great to bridge. Yahoo needs more services that generate 10 million queries a day. Monetization may need to become a priority and quickly.
Stephen Arnold, December 12, 2008
Nstein Branches Out
December 11, 2008
Nstein Technologies is helping media companies like Scripps, Bonnier, and Time expand search taxonomies to return better search results. By customizing word relationships, Nstein uses semantics to categorize results in context. The goal is to increase user satisfaction. By giving them better results in searches, the customers are more likely to return to the web site. To support the idea, Nstein redesigned its entire site, incorporating a custom taxonomy to increase reader satisfaction. Their example: “Stuffing” was added to the taxonomy – and an association was made between “Dressing” with “Stuffing,” so no matter which keyword a reader chose, all relevant recipes would appear. Companies also are going farther than custom taxonomies – they are adopting and expanding authority files (controlled lists of products, companies, locations, people, etc.) It all comes down to making search better.
Jessica Bratcher, December 11, 2008
Microsoft Search Head Speaks
December 10, 2008
I enjoyed Microsoft’s interview with Microsoft’s new head of search, Qi Lu. You can find the information here. The questions were not hard balls, but gently lofted nerf balls. I found the answers intriguing. Before I read the interview, I noted with interest this story about Microsoft’s and Google’s cutting back on the big capex spending for data centers. You can read that story here. No big surprise but Microsoft’s own interview with Microsoft’s own head of search said:
Steve and I first met last September, in a hotel in San Jose, California. We spent almost half a day talking. We talked about the competitive landscape, about the possibility to really innovate and take the user experience [of Microsoft’s search capabilities] to the next level, and about creating a more competitive space, particularly in the search space. We all believe that it’s better for everybody involved when we have a healthy, more competitive environment. Two things he said really stood out. First was the level of commitment on investment. Steve made it very clear how he views that as critical for the long-term future of Microsoft, and his strong commitment to invest in R&D resources is very, very important to me.
I found this somewhat jarring. But that’s a nit. Other points that I noted were:
- “I think there is a genuine opportunity to take our search products to the next level.”
- “…we’re here to win, and my view on this is that to win in the search space, fundamentally you build on the strengths of your product.”
- “We have a clear path from where we are today, to where we need to be, and to reach that next level we need to keep executing and building winning products.”
As I read these comments, several thoughts went through my mind. Yahoo was not able to get an ad platform out the door, so Google ran away with the business. Second, Google has what in my opinion is an insurmountable lead in Web search and is now gunning directly for Microsoft’s liver–the enterprise. And, I am not sure I can accept the assertion of “clear path”. Microsoft has taken runs at Web search before. Microsoft bought Fast Search & Transfer which has a decent Web indexing system and a bit of a problem with Norwegian law enforcement. Microsoft bought Powerset and not done too much with the semantic system yet. I will keep an open mind, but time is running out and demographics are on the side of Googzilla.
Stephen Arnold, December 11, 2008
Google Virginia
December 10, 2008
Navigate here and you can see pix of Google’s new Reston, Virginia, offices. Now navigate to Flickr and run a query for Google offices and compare what you see. I did and my reaction was that Google Reston looks a bit like a building built for government consultants and decorated with a bit of the discount hotel approach to interior design. The food area looked like the breakfast buffet at the Holiday Inn Express in Reston. Quite a change from the Mountain View headquarters in my opinion. Is Google going Spartan to match government customers’ expectations for penny wise vendors or one more sign that the GOOG is pinching pennies?
Stephen Arnold, December 9, 2008
Video Horserace
December 10, 2008
Many Web log wizards are chasing the story about Google’s adding magazine content to its burgeoning commercial database killing service. Old news from my point of view. The GOOG is becoming the go-to service for research with words. In fact, it is game over for Thomson Reuters, Reed Elsevier, Wolters Kluwer, Ebsco, and others in this professional content sector. Management at these companies can whip up Excel models to prove me wrong, but Google has demographics and infrastructure on its side. Besides I describe the trajectory of word-centric content in my forthcoming Google and Publishing study.
The real action is in video. Anyone under the age of 17 can explain what’s happening in information. Words are okay, but the future is the rich media experience where words are amplified by music. Do you have a soundtrack for your life? My neighbors’ kids do. Do you make pix and vids on your mobile phone and use these to perform communication functions for which I need pencil and paper? Check out the demographics, and you don’t need the flailing New York Times to remind you of trouble when reporting that Harcourt will not publish books for a while.
Consider the comScore video results table here. The handicappers look at the data, which are probably generally on track but off the mark in absolute values, and see that Google is at the top of the table. Google appears to have about 40 percent of the online video traffic measured and analyzed by comScore. So 60 percent of the video traffic is “in play”; that is, other companies can enter the video ballgame and have some room to maneuver. Look at the number two player, Fox Interactive Media. If comScore data are reasonably accurate, Fox has a chokehold on four percent of the videos viewed market. One of the largest media companies in the world has captured four percent of the market and lags Google’s YouTube by 36 percent. The rest of the field perform less well. Hulu.com, the darling of the old TV kingpins, is in the race. Maybe Hulu.com like a marathon runner getting a marvelous second wind can close the gap between Hulu and Google, but I think I will give Google the advantage for now.
Who cares? The action is text, right?
Wrong, wrong, wrong. YouTube.com could be a major cost sinkhole for Google. If video is expensive for the GOOG, how much of a dent in the bank accounts will video make at outfits like Fox, NBC, and others in the comScore table. Google, for now, seems will to spend to support YouTube.com. As the credit mistral whips through old media, a willingness to spend may winnow the companies in the comScore league table.
Demographics and time, therefore, may give Google an advantage. As pundits gnash their teeth over Google’s overt moves into commercial textual information, Google management is implementing tactics designed to bleed rich media companies, thus weakening them.
Just as the book publishers and other print gurus rolled over into a position of submission to Googzilla, the same fate awaits rich media. Google Books’ growth is old news. The real action is in rich media. The comScore table makes clear to me that the GOOG is poised to destablize more 20th century giants with its 21st century business model. Now tell me why I am incorrect. Facts, please. Catcalls make the geese honk.
Stephen Arnold, December 9, 2008
Entropy Soft and Kazeon Deal
December 10, 2008
Entropy Soft is a company that codes connectors. A “connector” allows one enterprise system to tap into the data and information in another enterprise system. Kazeon is one of the companies involved in providing information systems for eDiscovery and enterprise content applications.
Kazeon’s system can discover, search and index, classify and act on electronically stored information. Kazeon provides a full spectrum of Information Management solutions, including proactive and reactive eDiscovery, information security and privacy, records management, governance, risk & compliance, and data management. The Kazeon Information Server software automates key eDiscovery functions – identification, collection, preservation, processing, analysis and review for corporations, service providers, and law firms. The company is an end-to-end vendor which means that hard copy documents can be processed and then moved through the eDiscovery pipeline.
Entropy Soft provides connectors to a number of companies; for example, Coveo and Endeca. Kazeon will add support for content in systems developed by Alfresco, FileNet P8, Hummingbird DM, Interwoven TeamSite, Microsoft SharePoint, and IBM Lotus Quickplace.
With Entropy’s connectors, Kazeon is making clear its intention to move more aggressively into enterprise search. At a time when some search and content analysis vendors are moving from enterprise search into eDiscovery. I think search and information access companies are looking for new markets. Customers may be confused as vendors flip flop from market to market in pursuit of revenues.
Stephen Arnold, December 10, 2008
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
