Eaagle Text Processing Swoops In
September 26, 2008
Eaagle Software announced the availability of Full Text Mapper (FTM), a desktop software program that provides analysis of unstructured data. Eaagle Software brings together advanced text mining technology and desktop computing. ‘Our philosophy is that text mining and data analysis tools should be easy-to-use and not require any particular skills,’ states Yves Kergall, president and CEO of Eaagle. ‘Our software doesn’t require any setup or predefinition to begin discovering knowledge. Simply highlight the information, launch FTM, and instantly visualize your data to begin your analysis…it is that easy.’ You can read the full news story here. For more information about Eaagle, navigate to the company’s Web site here. A single user license is about $4,000.
Stephen Arnold, September 26, 2008
Whither Oracle SES10g
September 26, 2008
Oracle sent me summaries of the daily news announcements from its Oracleworld held earlier this week of September 22, 2008. You can find most of these announcements on the Oracle Web site here. I scanned the summaries Oracle emailed me and noticed a curiosity. There were no references to Oracle’s enterprise search system SES10g (Secure Enterprise Search). In May 2007, the SES10g unit gave a lunch talk punctuated with hints of a resurgence of Oracle in this market. Based on the announcements I have seen, SES10g seems to be playing a lesser role. Enterprise search is a tough market, and it takes more than a strong security model to win deals against the fierce competitors prowling this sector. Maybe SES10g is on life support? Could Oracle be shopping for an alternative? What are your thoughts?
Stephen Arnold, September 26, 2008
Microsoft: The Future and a Key Admission of Weakness
September 26, 2008
A Microsoft wizard shared Microsoft’s view of the future of computing. CNet’s Dan Farber does a very good job summarizing the key points. Mr. Farber has included some interesting screen shots. You can read his story “Microsoft’s Mundie Outlines the Future of Computing” here. Tucked away deep in the write up was a comment attributed to Mr. Mundie that caught my attention. Here’s the statement:
Programming tools, which have been a strength of Microsoft, will play a crucial role in the emergence of spatial computing. To create a kind of parallel universe–a cyberspace version of the physical world–everyone has to contribute on a continuous basis, Mundie said. Sensors and users will be generating trillions of bits of data, which requires addressing concurrency and complexity in a more loosely coupled, distributed and asynchronous environment, he said. “Our tools are not designed to address this level of system design,” Mundie explained. “We have to see a paradigm change in the way we write applications.” [Emphasis added]
My research suggests that Google has invested in programming tools. One interesting patent document discloses that JavaScript can be automatically generated. The idea is to free up talented programmers to tackle more substantive tasks. Google’s janitor technology can clean up certain ambiguities by checking methods out of a library, trying them out, and remembering which method worked better. No human programmers required.
Microsoft needs to shift from catch up to leap frog mode. Is it possible that Microsoft is so far behind that despite its best efforts it will be Fox Rental Car to the Hertz of cloud computing? Share buy backs won’t address this value issue in my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, September 26, 2008
Battle of the Business Models: The Mobile Front
September 26, 2008
Fresh from the victories in online advertising and Web search, Google is using its auction business model to disrupt the mobile telephony sector. Now patent documents are not products. Compared to IBM or Intel, Google does not run a high output patent factory. Furthermore, some of Google’s several hundred patent documents are interesting but not particularly substantive; for example, the cooling gizmos for Google’s servers.
On September 25, 2008, the USPTO published US20080232574, “Flexible Communication System and Methods.” The abstract for the invention, filed in March 2007, states:
A method of initiating a telecommunication session for a communication device include submitting to one or more telecommunication carriers a proposal for a telecommunication session, receiving from at least one of the one or more of telecommunication carriers a bid to carry the telecommunications session, and automatically selecting one of the telecommunications carriers from the carriers submitting a bid, and initiating the telecommunication session through the selected telecommunication carrier.
In a nutshell, Google has applied its auction methods to mobile telephony. Carriers bid to handle your call. You can read Wired Magazine’s discussion of this invention here. Let me offer several observations:
- The notion of a battle of business models, for me, is quite important. Telcos may find themselves innovating within a closed room. Google innovates outside those boundaries. Those in the room may find themselves conceptually unable to break of their confines. Could this trigger a replay of what’s happening in newspaper advertising?
- The computational infrastructure required to handle mobile call auctions is going to get a work out. Based on my research, no telco has a Google-killing infrastructure in place and on line. Will one or more telcos have the cash to match Google’s ability to compute at scale.
- In my briefings to selected telcos earlier this year, I recall the easy dismissal of Google’s telco dreams. I wonder if those executives are rethinking their earlier position?
With online advertising and Web search in the bag, Google is moving into another business sector with more to come.
Stephen Arnold, September 26, 2008
hakia: A Cloudsourcing Twist on Semantic Search
September 25, 2008
hakia [www.hakia.com], a semantic search engine, recently announced that it’s adding a new program designed to mine more resources for users, specifically information professionals who need to tap more than the usual 10 percent of web content.
Users can enter URLs now, not just search terms, to target credible content, not just popular results. hakia will process the URL with its semantic technology to make concept and meaning matches.
A hakia rep told me “this is the first time a search engine has channeled the collective knowledge of these expert groups to generate credibility-stamped results using semantic technology.” They’re promoting it as “Trusted Results” – returned information is run through peer review and professionals are invited to submit web sites. hakia is now expanding its content by making an open call for those submissions.
The project is in beta phase, focused on health and medical resources. For instance, results returned will come from the World Health Organization or the Mayo Clinic instead of WebMD or Wikipedia. I hope they work on expanding soon, because it’s a great idea. There’s so much popular information on the Internet, it’s really difficult to search and sort through all the MedicalNet resources when I need serious bibliography material.
You can get more information at Club hakia [http://club.hakia.com/], you just need to do a free registration. They’ve got a really nifty setup where you can enter search terms in both hakia and Google side-by-side. I entered “search engine optimization.” Google’s top returns were from Wikipedia, Google search support, SEO Chat, and then news results. hakia’s top returns included Turks Daily World News, Wikipedia, SEO.com, and Search Optimization Journal.
Jessica Bratcher, September 25, 2008
Content Management and Search
September 25, 2008
On the wonderful USAir red eye from San Francisco to Charlotte, I did some thinking about the SharePoint content managment information I picked up at the Information Today three-for-one conference in San Jose, California, tihs week. A number of vendors were offereing systems that would help users create Web content, management digital media, and locate information regardless of where it was stored in an enterprise.
I don’t want to single out any vendors. Most of the people manning the exhibits were uniformly happy. I found myself confused because since the 2007 show I saw familiar faces working in competitors’ booths. What had happened was that sales professionals changed jobs. I found myself trying to get my mind around the revolving doors at some of the CMS industry’s largest companies.
Here are the thoughts that stuck in my mind as I relaxed in the lavishness of USAir’s coach class seat:
- We’re back to portals. A number of vendors focused on providing a dashboard interface to content. The idea was that if you did a key word search and drew a big fat zero, you could look at a list of suggestions, charts, and categories. I thought the portal craze had burned itself out, but I was looking at 2001 interfaces with jazzier graphics and no significant improvement in functionality.
- Indexing without the benefit of subject matter experts. I saw many systems that purported to process SharePoint content, assign what’s called “rich metadata”, and make it easy to locate the document a user needs within a SharePoint system. I watched demonstrations that worked, but when i tried my queries, the results “sort of” worked. For me, “sort of” is a marginal improvement over “does not” work. Most of the systems on offer remain works in progress.
- Desperate sellers, desperate buyers. Someone tried to get me to take a CMS map. I don’t need a map to document how N-compass became the finely crafted wackiness of SharePoint. My queries did not work, so I don’t have too much interest in history. I want relevance. The impression I formed was that desperate sellers were trying to woo desperate buyers. The buzzwords ripped through the air with such ferocity that I was mesmerized.
CMS is broken, possibly irreparably. CMS joins “enterprise search” as an enterprise application that once seemed essential, yet has proved to be expensive to implement and deeply dissatisfying. The ranks of the CMS vendors and the CMS systems managers are likely to be thinner in 2009. Consultants are doing their level best to squeeze dollars from the desperate. But the software category looks uncertain to me. Agree? Disagree? I want to hear from alleged CMS gurus. Help me learn.
Stephen Arnold, September 25, 2008
Improving the Search Function in Photoshop
September 25, 2008
Once it was Verity. Then it was Lextek International. Now it is Autonomy.’s turn Adobe’s Help system has embraced the Cambridge firm’s IDOL or Integrated Data Operating Layer to bring some relief to Photoshop users who need help with a Photoshop function. I gave up on Adobe products’ Help search feature in Photoshop Version 4.0. When Adobe took over the Framemaker product, I cannot recall hitting F1, entering the function’s name, and launching a Help search. The reason is that Adobe’s writing style, its word choice, and the non existence relevance almost never worked. IÂ bought books or prowled the Internet for answers to my questions.
Autonomy, the $350 million search superstar, will face a tough challenge–Adobe’s word choice and its own almost opaque explanations of how to perform certain operations. Photoshop gurus think nothing of tapping three to 10 keystroke sequences to obtain a particular effect. Add to that Adobe’s word choice and you have a stiff test for almost any search system now in the channel.
You can dig into more details of this deal by clicking here and reading “Autonomy Adds Meaning to Adobe’s Creative Suite 4. When I get my copy, I will exercise the new system with this query: “transparency”. The first hit in my Photoshop CS is a weird explanation of “Mapping colors to transparency”. The Help I wanted * does not appear in the results list *. I will let you know my experiences with IDOL.
The good news is that Adobe is making an effort to improve what is an almost useless Help system. What took so long? Might it be that Adobe was so busy creating a Microsoft Office style application of gargantuan size and complexity that it lost site of a user who wants to know how to perform one simple operation?
Stephen Arnold, September 25, 2008
Google: Too Thin, Too Fat, or Just Right
September 25, 2008
As companies in the search and content processing business gird themselves for a tough 2009, I am on the look out for analyses that provide a suggestion of where big dogs will hunt. My eye was drawn to an essay with the fetching title “Is Google Spreading Itself Too Thin?” You can read the full post by Tim O’Reilly here. I agree with the key points in the write up. For me the most interesting statement was:
‘m happy to criticize Google for shallow attempts to capitalize on opportunities created by others, and am very concerned about an increasing tendency to favor Google’s own content sites rather than distributing attention to others. But Google is a long way from eating their own children, as Microsoft eventually did. Both Android and Chrome demonstrate true strategic thinking, focusing on how to grow the market for everyone rather than just finding advantage for Google.
I would add one point and, of course, invite comment. My research suggests that Google can roll out innovations with comparatively modest incremental investment and a velocity that makes some of its competitors look a bit like turtles on ice. The cost/speed factors translate to a certain luxury in experimentation. These factors translate to greater pressure on companies perceiving themselves to be in the Google headlights. Agree? Disagree?
Stephen Arnold, September 25, 2008
ESS West Endnote: Google the Winner for 2009
September 25, 2008
My end note for the Enterprise Search Summit West created a bit of a stir. I summarized three trends I perceived based on my walk arounds and attendance at sessions over the last two days. These were:
- Buzzwords that slid around some of the major issues confronting some vendors
- Concern about processes in numerous sessions
- A growing awareness of financial pressures.
What I concluded was that for 2009, Google has a dominant if not almost unassailable position in the search market. Google could, with luck and marketing, make significant gains in cloud services. Many in the audience took issue with my assessment. I listened, but in the end, I stood by my conclusions. What do you think? Will Google fizzle? Will legal procedures cripple the company? Help me learn.
Stephen Arnold, September 25, 2008
Googlezon: Tan, Ready, Rested
September 24, 2008
The avalanche of articles, commentary, and backlink bottom feeding kept me from commenting about the Google G1 mobile device. I am not that excited about a gizmo. What I am thinking about are the stories about the Google / TMobile G1 preloaded with a hook to the Amazon MP3 store. You can read about this feature here. A hook up between Amazon and Google, no matter how trivial, is interesting. For companies like Apple or eBay, the connection is more than a curiosity or a convenience for a 20 something who can’t drink coffee without a personal sound track echoing through their actions. Here’s why in my opinion this tiny deal merits scrutiny:
- Google has no footprint in music. Amazon has been eager to replace the lost revenue of traditional CD sales. Now the two also rans in the online music business seem to be taking a tiny step to address this issue. Will it work? I’m not sure, but it’s an interesting move.
- Google has sat on its haunches and watched Amazon–a company headed by the world’s smartest man–out Google Google in cloud computing. Maybe this deal is a tacit admission that the GOOG’s math and physics majors need Amazon’s market savvy. Amazon certainly could benefit from some of Google’s engineering expertise.
- Amazon could become the equivalent of a Roman siege tower in an escalating battle with Apple. Apple has outgunned both Google and Amazon in online music retailing. Google has an enternal beta in its now repositioned Froogle service, its junk filled Google Base, and its lawsuit attracting YouTube.com service. Amazon might find a way to tap into Google’s ad goodness. Apple lacks this tap dancing move.
In this tussle among Amazon, Apple, Google, an Microsoft–sorry, Yahoo, you are not in the game–a relationship between Amazon and Google might undermine Microsoft’s subtle, often behind the scenes cheerleading for Amazon. Apple might find itself in more direct competition with the GOOG. Consumers may see more disruption on the online retail market in certain sectors.
A real or virtual Google – Amazon deal would raise again the notion of Googlezon. I think this is something I will enjoy pondering. Agree? Disagree?
Stephen Arnold, September 24, 2008
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
