Google and Microsoft: The Complexity Spectrum
February 12, 2009
I talked with a small group yesterday about the “big” Microsoft announcement. SharePoint administrators get an opportunity to merge SharePoint and the Fast Search & Transfer technology. You can get some useful information from ChannelWeb here. Mostly vaporware and roadmaps as of February 2009, SharePoint believers will have some to brush up on their content processing integration skills. I think the learning curve will be steep, so quit reading the addled goose’s Web log and dive into the Fast documentation. Hmm. That might be a problem. We tried to locate documentation online and could not locate the information. I had to return my three ring binders when I disengaged from my poking around inside ESP for a well known organization. Sorry, my lips are sealed on which organization. Think acronyms. Think follow the rules.
What surfaced in our discussion was a somewhat tired metaphor. A spectrum. The idea is that the ends are different. Red light waves at one end; blue light waves at the other. The diagram below shows the type of spectrum that elementary school teachers use to educate the kiddies about “light”.
For the purposes of this Web log post, one end is Google. Color Google blue. The opposite end is red. Color Microsoft red. Both companies have many similarities; for example, each is a software company; each competes in Web search; and each covets the enterprise market. Keep in mind. Search is complex. Within a complex task, the notion of a spectrum of complexity suggests that simple may be better. Less hassle. Lower cost. Easier to troubleshoot–sometimes.
One big difference is the positioning of each companies’ technology in the enterprise sector. I want to focus on the subject of behind the firewall search or what most trophy generation wizards call “enterprise search.” Google sales professionals run the game plan and make it clear that the Google Search Appliance or GSA is simple. The system is easy to deploy. Unpack the shipping container, plug in the gizmo, zoom through the administrative screens, and employees can search the processed content. No muss. No fuss. Let the GOOG do the work.
On the other end of the spectrum is Microsoft’s approach to “enterprise search.” For me, the Microsoft search product line is hard for me to understand. There are a couple of versions of search available for SharePoint. One if free; the other comes with an Office server. Earlier this week, Microsoft announced two or three different “versions” of Fast Search & Transfer information retrieval technology. I thought there was the ESP or enterprise search platform and the orphaned Fast Web search. I may have Microsoft’s reality clouded with what I recall Fast Search professionals telling me in the pre buy out era.
The point is that the message is not simple like Google’s. The product line up–SQL Server search, XP and Vista search, Outlook Express search, Live.com search, and various search functions built into different Dynamics programs–confused me in the past. Now I have to figure out how the favors of Fast Search’s ESP fit into this complicated picture.
To top it off, Fast Search’s ESP is a reasonably complicated beastie. in the beginning, Fast Search focused on indexing Web servers and delivering zippy query processing. Then the company exited the Web search and advertising business and jumped into the behind the firewall search game. Fast Search licensed some gizmos, tapped some open source resources, bought companies with software components, and whipped up original bits and pieces. The product ESP, therefore, is from a kitchen with many cooks. My recollection is that some of the work arounds to get functions to play well with other Fast Search operations are not well documented. My binder had quite few insertions and yellow sticky notes at the end of three years. Documentation lagged upgrades, which created some excitement for me.
The cherry on top of the complexity concoction is the marriage of SharePoint (another “product” that is a collection of loosely federated components just like Fast ESP. Now the thought of getting a complicated creature like SharePoint to live happily ever after with an equally convoluted animal like Fast ESP makes me hiccup.
Now back to the spectrum. Google pitches simple. The GSA is not simple, but it can be a heck of a lot easier to deploy and keep online than other search systems with which I am familiar. Microsoft’s approach on the other hand shouts complexity.
Now keep in mind that behind the firewall search is never simple. There are degrees of difficulty. In my opinion, Google is, despite its annoying trophy generation culture, doing a better job of making basic search less painful. Microsoft suggests that life will be wonderful with SharePoint, but the inclusion of Fast Search technology gives me pause. With search already complicated, the notion of wedding two very complicated systems is uncomfortable to me.
I think that over confident SharePoint administrators will dive it Fast ESP. The water in some ponds is murky. In my experience, taking the time to figure out how deep and potentially dangerous the swimming hole is may be time well spent. Google’s message is simplicity and the company has done a reasonable job of reducing the relative complexity of deploying basic search. Microsoft, based on my reading of this week’s announcement, is pitching an approach that strikes me as complex from the git go.
Which company will “win” in the enterprise sector? I think I will put a sawbuck on Googzilla.
Stephen Arnold, February 12, 2009
Comments
2 Responses to “Google and Microsoft: The Complexity Spectrum”
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
After having read your article how complex enterprise search is a qoute from H.L Mencken surfaced form the deep bowles of my memory
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat and wrong.”
perhaps you should reconsider your conclusion….
marketing message and real solutions are two very different things
Being a former FAST/Microsoft employee, I can echo your sentiment that the SharePoint+FAST combo seems complicated. Believe me, it seems complicated from inside the org too.
What I would advice potential buyers is to question suitors about metric findability. I would ask for solid documentation that the search finds what the user is looking for on several deployed services that is similar to the one being purchased. Per cent numbers for findability, preferably audited by a third party, should be presented by the search vendor.
If this is not done I would buy the simplest possible solution. A simple, low value solution is definitely better than a complex, equally low value alternative.