Microsoft Rolls Out Low Cost Search to Counter Google in the Enterprise
February 8, 2009
Computerworld’s “Microsoft Unveils Enterprise Search Products” here makes public one of the worst kept secrets in the enterprise search and content processing arena in my experience. The Computerworld story reports that the enterprise search market is “at a tipping point.” (More about this idea below.) In response, Microsoft will release “a pair of low-cost enterprise search products.” The announcement will be given a big hoo ha at the Fast Forward Conference where the believers in the $1.23 billion Fast ESP search system gather each year.
The Computerworld story trots down a familiar path. Autonomy’s products are expensive. Google offers a low priced search solution which costs less than $2,000. Microsoft is now responding to an opportunity because Microsoft has a habit of playing “me too” games. Microsoft has lots of partners. The company has put up a new Web site to explain the low cost solutions. It is located at www.microsoft.com/enterprisesearch.
Now I don’t want to be a wet blanket, but I have to capture the thoughts that flapped through my mind after reading this Computerworld story. I was walking my two technical advisors, Kenlico’s Canadian Mist (a former show dog) and my rescued, hopelessly confused boxer, Tess. She, as you know, tracks Microsoft search technology for me.
The thoughts are jejune and my opinion, but I value them this morning:
- Any enterprise search system is expensive, not just six figures but often seven figures. The reason is that low cost solutions have to be matched to specific user needs and the context of the organization. Whether the tailoring is done by the licensee’s staff or by consultants, time is the killer here. The research I have done over the past decades about the cost of behind-the-firewall search is that vendors have to be cautious about their assertions regarding customization. A quick example surfaces in the event of a legal matter. The cost of the basic behind-the-firewall search system becomes an issue when that system cannot meet the needs of eDiscovery. A single system could be free like Lucene or SOLR, but the cost of behind-the-firewall search skyrockets over night. Similar cost spikes occur when non text content must be processed, the company must comply with a government’s security guidelines, when the company acquires another outfit and has to “integrate” the systems for information retrieval, and so on.
- Google is not cheap. The cheap system is a way to let an organization kick the tires. A Google system with several hot spare GB 7007s costs more than Autonomy and Endeca in similar configurations. Why is this? People want Google and are price insensitive in my experience. Sure, Google’s resellers can wheel and deal some, but most competitors are clueless about the cost of the Google solutions and what the Google solutions do to disrupt the existing information technology systems and procedures. The GOOG for its part lets the customers figure out Google functions on its own, so the penetration of Google and its costs move at a snail’s pace. The Google snail, however, is pretty smart and has a bigger picture in mind than a couple of GB 7007s.
- Enterprise search–what I rather pedantically call “behind the firewall search”–is hugely complex. A simple solution reveals the hot button for the licensee. Once in the crucible of a operating organization, the notion of search quickly yields to entity extraction, semantic analysis, reports, answering questions, and search without search. For basic search and retrieval, there are many options, including Microsoft’s. But for more significant methods for giving organizations what users need to keep the company in business, simple search won’t do the job. Companies ranging from Attivio to Relegence exist to deliver a different type of solution. In my experience, there is no single enterprise search solution.
- Where does the Fast Search & Technology, Linux centric suite of search technology fit into this free offering. If Fast ESP is now free or discounted, what will SharePoint administrators do when confronted with the need to assemble, customize, script, and baby sit a quite complex code assembly. Fast ESP consists of original code, acquired technology, licensed technology, and other pieces and parts created by different Fast engineers in different Fast offices. SharePoint is complex. Making SharePoint more complex is good for job security but not good for the organization’s debugging and maintenance budget line item in my opinion.
I think the significance of these announcements is that price pressure will be put on the vendors who offer snap in search and content processing systems for SharePoint. I like the products and services from a number of vendors in this space. The functionality of BA-Insight, Coveo, Exalead, or ISYS Search Software, among others, may offer SharePoint licensees more options than either the Microsoft solutions or the Google solutions. This announcement will lead some Microsoft faithful to say, “Well, Microsoft’s solution is good enough and cheap. Let’s do it.” But that will not be sufficient to stop the bubbling up that the Google approach uses to give Microsoft itself wet feet and chills.
Comments
3 Responses to “Microsoft Rolls Out Low Cost Search to Counter Google in the Enterprise”
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
Hello Stephen,
I agree with you, enterprise search is complex and there is no true ‘low cost’ offering when you dig inside the texts & contents.
This type of announcement is more a Gorilla Game tactic to focus attention on Sharepoint/ESP whenever the place knows by now how bad is this product architecture & how oversold are its functionalities. On top, ESP is a complex product and there is no way to use it without good customization … And that is the exact point where your project will start costing you much, much, much more than an ‘average’ Enterprise Search project price … On the other side, Google cost will be found within the short usage rate & the number of queries with no results.
Vivisimo with Velocity is one of the sole current vendors I know about providing up & running system out of the box with a wide range of functionnalities including social search at a fair price with short term implementations planning.
VBR,
Yves
Yves Simon,
There are other vendors who deliver similar functionality. Check out BA-Insight, Coveo, Exalead, and ISYS Search Software. If you want open source, look at Tesuji.eu or Lemux FLAX. And there are more! Vivisimo will be working overtime to deal with the Autonomy-Interwoven situation too.
Stephen Arnold, February 9, 2009
Hello Stephen & thanks for this discussion,
Autonomy – Intervowen situation is certainly of concern to Vivisimo management team … However, there should be more opportunities than risks in this situation for Vivisimo …
Further, I am quite unsure of the really positive impact of OEM partnerships & implementations for search vendors. Look back at Fast ESP implementation within the Documentum environment … and how poorly this integration have been done due to too sharp negociations between the two players whenever the technologies match was very good and the offer strong. In fact, ESP Documentum connector was a better deal 🙂
Autonomy move to acquire Intervowen is a better way of integrating techs & is very logical + a good way to expand it’s business coverage ‘a la Microsoft’ in a normal economic situation.
However, beeing in transition, in a fusion process, too big, in the current environment, is not a strenght & Autonomy is currently not recognized for it’s flexibility … neither will it be in the near future for it’s market reactivity as they will be focusing on Intervowen, as Microsoft is with Fast … This leave spare space for younger players like Vivisimo or new comers like Oracle or Recommind.
Regarding social search functionnalities coverage by the actors you mentionned (BA-Insight, Coveo, Exalead & Isys Search Software), I am not sure about the quality of the dynamic indexing system in place within these softs & required to manage social functionalities … this have been a concern with ESP & Velocity, but not anymore for Velocity … and Velocity was the first true integrated & implemented offer of that kind on the market, wasn’t it ?
Yves