Word and C#: Now That’s User Friendly
January 25, 2009
This item is not directly about search, but it has to do with content creation. Close enough. The headline that stopped me in my web footed tracks was, “Take the Pain Out of Creating Word Documents by Using C# and XML” here. To be a little fair, Chris Bennett is writing to developers. But the inclusion of a reference to Microsoft Word almost guarantees that non developers will see his write up. The idea is to put a chunk of code on a server that converts whatever is on a Web page to a Word file format. He provides a clear explanation. I particularly liked the detail for the “transformation method” but you may not be as keen on reading scripts as I. You can convert an XML into a Word document using XSLT. My thought was provide the XHTML or XML and a link that spits out a PDF. You will see this approach in action when my new Google patent search system becomes available. One of the new vendors of super fast search technology will provide the stallion for my service. Watch for more details. We’re shooting to release in the first week of February 2009. No C# required either. Free service. More Google open source information. With world finally discovering Ramanathan Guha, I thought it would be useful to provide access to documents for a method that’s approaching the age of four. We don’t want the pundits to rush too quickly toward understanding Google. That effort would take time away from figuring out how to convert a Web page to a Word file.
Stephen Arnold, January 25, 2009
Autonomy’s Lynch: Governance Market
January 25, 2009
I have been confused by the words used by search wizards to describe what their systems do. As each wave of search and content processing technology crashes against the corporate beach head, the buyers surf, watch, or flee. The waves recede and after a while another wave builds and heads towards the beach head. An endless cycle think I. Governance, short for risk, is now an official buzzword.
CIO Magazine (UK version) ran an interview with Sir Michael Lynch, senior wizard at Autonomy, the Cambridge-based information systems company. I have praised Autonomy for two core attributes that other vendors cannot quite duplicate. First, a sense of what the market wants to buy or hear. Second, the ability to close deals in business sectors where other competitors have either failed or have a smaller presence. Perhaps it is drinking the water of the River Cam? Whatever the reason, Autonomy has been outflanking outfits like the scrutinized Fast Search & Transfer, dozens of newcomers, and some high-profile players like Endeca.
In Martin Veitch’s interview with Sir Michael here, I noticed several interesting comments. Let me highlight two so you have to read the original and not rely upon me as your Kentucky intellect (heaven help you!).
Point one: content management is a discipline that’s going to change. Autonomy, I opine, wants to lead the charge. Interwoven provides the helmet and the lance. Autonomy provides the knights, the battle gear, and the charger named IDOL. CMS has been one of those quasi software inventions that start out small and then multiply like gerbils. You have lots of gerbils, but they are not too useful in my opinion. Then the CMS consultants–almost always members of the trophy generation who think of content as a Web page–run up their bills. Autonomy, as I understand Sir Michael, wants to gallop into the CMS vendors and clear the field.
Point two: worries about multiple products and services that do similar functions are not the issue. The focus is on growing revenue. Autonomy will pick its friends and then makes sales. Over time, the duplication of products and services will sort themselves out. That strategy seems to have worked with IDOL and Verity’s K2.
The more interesting question to me is, “Which search and content processing vendor will challenge Autonomy in this new sector?” Any suggestions?
Stephen Arnold, January 25, 2009
Web Ownership: You Know the Answer
January 25, 2009
I get a kick out of articles with titles like “Will Google and Microsoft Own the Web?” You can read an exemplary version of this question in PCWorld here. The article is a bit different from the question in my opinion. The core of the story is a view expressed by Sun Microsystems’ Jonathan Schwartz that the Web is drifting away from the openness of bygone days. Keep in mind that Sun has fallen from grace in the eyes of Wall Street, and the company has begun hooking Microsoft’s technology into Java. What’s bubbling under the veneer of this article is the dominance of Google. Forget Microsoft, Facebook, and MySpace. (If you want to believe that Facebook is the real Google killer, read this story. I just don’t buy the argument, however.) None of those companies is in a position to become the Internet in North America, big chunks of Europe, and a number of other countries as well. Instead of coming right out and saying, “Google is in a position to become the Internet, we get the tap dancing around the elephant in search. For me the most interesting comment in the write up was:
Schwartz argues that developers should avoid the “hostile territory” altogether. Instead of the browser, he says, developers should build applications using Sun’s new JavaFX technology. But this seems somewhat disingenuous, considering that JavaFX is so far almost entirely the brainchild of Sun, and is therefore less open than any browser. But there are other reasons to be concerned about Google’s stake in Firefox and Chrome, too. Some privacy advocates worry that Google’s influence over the browser market gives it access to too much user data, which the company collects for the purposes of its massively lucrative online advertising business.
Good point. Just about seven or eight years too late based on my research.
Stephen Arnold, January 24, 2009
Video Search: No Google Killers in Sight
January 25, 2009
ZDNet reproduced a snippet of the comScore data about video searches. You can see the original ZDNet post here. The comScore Web site is here where you can purchase the full data set.
| Property | Viewers, 000 | Prcnt | Google Delta |
| Total Internet | 146,064 | ||
| Google Sites | 97,928 | 67.045% | — |
| Fox Interactive Media | 58,115 | 39.787% | 39,813 |
| Yahoo! Sites | 39,956 | 27.355% | 57,972 |
| Microsoft Sites | 34,979 | 23.948% | 62,949 |
| Viacom Digital | 27,109 | 18.560% | 70,819 |
| Hulu | 22,456 | 15.374% | 75,472 |
| AOL LLC | 22,442 | 15.364% | 75,486 |
| Turner Network | 20,735 | 14.196% | 77,193 |
| Disney Online | 13,028 | 8.919% | 84,900 |
| Time Warner – Excl. AOL | 12,564 | 8.602% | 85,364 |
What I did was calculate what percent of the total Internet video search traffic each service had in December 2008. Google accounted for about 68 percent of the traffic. The Hulu.com service which someone told me was a Google killer this week has, if my calculations and the comScore data are accurate, about 16 percent of the video search traffic. Next I calculated what I call the Google delta; that is, how much traffic a site must generate to draw even with Google. Hulu.com, for example, needs to generate an additional 75 million queries.
So what? Added to Google’s Web search share, I don’t think any of these services in the short term is poised to blast past the GOOG.
Stephen Arnold, January 25, 2009
Another Sort of Correct Google Analysis
January 24, 2009
I have to learn to keep my goose head down, shutting out the world beyond the pond filling with coal mine runoff. When I poke my beak out of the nest, I see headlines like this one: “What Would It Take to Beat Google?” The author is Don Reisinger, a person who contributes to CNet. You must read his analysis here.
The assumption for this write up is that Google is a search company. Advertising is intertwined with search. Because of Google’s dominance in search, Google has blended services. It is ubiquitous. It has a brand. It has cash. These are the barriers Google puts in front of competitors.
In general, Mr. Reisinger summarizes the received wisdom about Google. I think that received wisdom is a bit like taking a wrong turn and ending up where you wanted to be. Luck, instinct, brilliance–doesn’t matter. The result is the “right” one.
I think Google’s success in search and advertising is one manifestation of the firm’s broader achievement. Until analysts begin to dig into the details of Google’s infrastructure, most competitors will be wary of Google but make a fatal misstep. The competitors will assume that Google can’t impinge on businesses where search and advertising are not the keys to success. That’s where received wisdom will get an analyst in trouble. Google does pose a threat to business sectors outside of the search and advertising cone.
How? I cover a few of these sectors at risk in my forthcoming Google: The Digital Gutenberg.
Stephen Arnold, January 24, 2009
Microsoft Cedes Data Center Leadership to Google
January 24, 2009
I was surprised that there was not more coverage of Microsoft’s cut backs in its data center plans. Microsoft has been building data centers like the $650 million facility in San Antonia. I had heard about engineering innovations that would make these new data centers economical to build, maintain, and operate. I poked around a few technical papers and concluded that Microsoft was still saddled with the legacy of decisions made as long ago as 1999. I will put links to my writes about Microsoft’s data center writes up at the foot of this news item. Frankly I didn’t buy what I was hearing and reading about these leapfrog data centers but I am keeping an open mind. However, the financial reports from Microsoft have not been what Wall Street wanted to hear. Accordingly, this story “Microsoft Postpones Iowa Data Center” here, in my opinion, cedes leadership in data centers to Google. Microsoft is like a runner who drops out of a 5,000 meter race. The Google wins. If you think I am off base, make sure you check out these previous articles before you tell me that I am even more addled than I admit:
- Architecture in 1999 here
- Architecture in 2006 here
- Microsoft capital expenditures here
- Architecture in early 2008 here
What my research revealed is that in 1998 Google was behind Microsoft. Microsoft hired some AltaVista.com engineers but went a different direction. Google hired some AltaVista.com engineers and choose a different path. I document this in detail in my 2005 The Google Legacy. That decision allowed Google to pull ahead and eventually create the gap that exists today. Now Microsoft is taking a breather allowing Google to widen its lead. Google wins the data center race in my opinion. Microsoft now must win in software.
Stephen Arnold, January 24, 2009
A TechCrunch MSFT Analysis: Nicely Done
January 24, 2009
Erick Schonfeld’s “Microsoft Lost Nearly $500 Million on the Web Last Quarter” here elicited a happy quack from us in rural Kentucky. The article includes a snippet of Microsoft’s financial report. With two red lines, TechCrunch makes clear the challenges that Microsoft faces in the Web search and advertising sector. Forget the fancy wordsmithing in Microsoft’s announcement. The numbers are clear. In the three months ended in December 2007, Microsoft lost $247 million on revenues of $863 million. In the three months ended in December 2008, Microsoft losses rose to $471 million on revenues of $866 million. Microsoft lost more and lost market share. Remarkable. Google, on the other hand, increased its lead in Web search and reported an increase in revenues, but a slight drop in profitability. Can Microsoft close the gap? In my opinion, which I expressed to a crowd of unbelievers at a pretty small search conference in the fall, it’s game over. These numbers support my assertion.
Stephen Arnold, January 24, 2009
Autonomy Thrives Where Others Starve
January 24, 2009
Information Age here ran an article with an arresting heading: “Autonomy Post 47% Revenue Growth.” According to the article by JJ Robinson:
The company, which produces high-end search software used by companies to sift through ever increasing volumes of unstructured data, saw revenues for the year to 31 December surge to $503.2 million from $343.4 million in 2007. Adjusted net profits almost doubled, rising from $77.2 million to $148.0 million.
Each day I get information about the impact of the financial ecosystem on search and content processing companies. Conferences devoted to search seem to be struggling. Even some high profile consulting firms have sent signals that clients are cutting back. Autonomy has found a way to thrive where others starve. Investors responded with strong support for the company. Its market cap nosed into the $2.2 billion range. Autonomy’s next challenge will be to sustain the strong performance. Other search firms may want to relocate to Cambridge, England. The River Cam’s elixir may impart strength to Autonomy challengers.
Stephen Arnold, January 23, 2009
Ah, Ha, Guha: Semantics Are Coming
January 23, 2009
One of my three or four readers pointed out that Google Watch here ran “Google CEO Hints at Semantic, Contextual Search” here. What’s interesting is that the pundits and mavens are finally realizing that the GOOG wants to be the Semantic Web. It is old news. The core technology was disclosed by Google in February 2007. I covered it in detail in Google Version 2.0. And in 2007 BearStearns’ recycled some of my information in an analyst’s note that dived into the financial implications of the Google Semantic Web play. If you want to know the nitty gritty of the Google Semantic Web play, snag a copy of Google Version 2.0 here. The study, published in mid 2007, remains timely. There’s a reason I chose this cover for the monograph. That’s a black panther that’s tough to see clearly. Apt metaphor for Google’s play in the Semantic Web space in my opinion.,
Stephen Arnold, January 23, 2009
Fast Changes: Ancient Norse Myth Becomes Reality
January 23, 2009
Fast Search & Transfer was the “Google of Scandinavia.” Its engineers–among the best in the world. The leader, Dr. John Lervik, ranked as an equal to the wizards at Autonomy, Endeca, Google, and Yahoo. He was–metaphorically speaking–a modern day version of the Norse god Thor.
Thor was the god of thunder. As a god, Thor was pretty impressive. His mistress carried an iron cutlass and was skilled in karate. Thor’s eyes (which I think meant vision and understanding) flashed lighting, er, allegedly flashed lightning since I have never seen Thor to check this out myself. Thor had everything going for him until he set out from his house in Thrudheim (maybe today’s Trondheim, the legendary place of might) to kill Jormungand, the Midgard Serpent. I think the idea is that the snake is a bad guy and Thor has to kill this creature. Short version: snake wins.
Is this Norse myth about to be reenacted? When I was in high school, I wondered how the weird stuff in myths could have been true. Now, the resignation of John Lervik (the Thor of search), may be off on a mission to kill his own Midgard Serpent. I wish him luck. I think myths have corollaries in our world.
Thor prepping for his battle with the Midgard Serpent. Source: Linsdomain.com
Mr. Lervik appears to have exited the company with which he has been closely identified for more than a decade. That’s a long time in the real world. It’s the same time that Google has been around. As Google rose after yesterday’s financial results, Microsoft Fast’s prospects appear to have dipped down.
I wonder, “Is their a connection between these two opposing curves?” What are the reasons for the departure of a high profile search wizard like Mr. Lervik? Here are my thoughts, gathered as I gaze across the murky pool of mine run off and snow melt here in Harrod’s Creek, Kentucky, half a world away from the land of Thor and the Midgard Serpent.
Reasons I thought of include:
- The police curiosity about Fast Search & Transfer’s math skills appears to be one factor.
- The realization that Fast Search & Transfer’s technology was not the answer to some of Microsoft SharePoint search’s woes was another, making it desirable for executives to leave after a specified period of time.
- Then there’s the Microsoft’s own financial performance, which looks anemic next to Google’s on some yardsticks’.
- Autonomy’s surgical acquisition of Interwoven, yet another example of Autonomy out flanking Fast Search.
Maybe, maybe, maybe.
I remember Mr. Lervik as the person who sold Fast Search’s advertising business to Yahoo to make Fast Search one of the leading players in enterprise search. When this decision was made, Google moved the opposite direction; namely, let’s do online advertising. The Google revenue trajectory has been up. The Norwegian search company’s revenue trajectory has been down relative to Google’s. Now, with this shift in leadership in my opinion Fast Search may have reached its nadir.
You can read Digi.no’s take on this here. My Norwegian is not so hot, but I think the headline runs along the line that “Lervik Throws in the Towel.” The pundits and teenage search mavens are starting to jump on this interesting development. The new boss is Bjørn Olstad, a Fast executive who is a Microsoft Distinguished Engineer. The chairman of Fast Search, according to the article, is Keith Dolliver, whom I don’t know. Another take on this executive shake up is here.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
