Finding Info about Tsunami Named Google Wave
May 30, 2009
If you are want to ride the Google Wave, you need to get up to speed. I found a couple of resources that may be useful to you. I don’t recommend the Google Web site or the Web log posts. These are breezy and are not as comprehensive as some of the third party write ups. I looked at a number of descriptions today. I would recommend that you read Ben Parr’s Google “Wave: A Complete Guide” here. Then you can sit back and check out the official video. You can find an easy link on Google Blogoscoped here or look at the Google Channel on YouTube. Once you have this information under your belt, head on over to my Overflight service here and read the posts about Wave on the Google Web logs. If you are into code instead of marketing frazzle, click here. I want to reiterate what I wrote earlier. The Wave swamped the new Microsoft Web surfer, Bing Kumo.
Stephen Arnold, May 30, 2009
More about Exalead and Its Miiget Technology
May 30, 2009
I mentioned Exalead’s Miiget not long ago. I received a couple of questions about the technology. To provide more color to that reference you may want to look at Same Story here. That company has licensed the Exalead technology. The announcement of the deal is here. The system provides content from the Same Story repository and from other sources. The system incorporates profiles so that information is tailored to the user. You can get more information about the Miiget technologies here.
Stephen Arnold, May 30, 2009
Bing Kumo Rides the Wave, Wave Soaks Bing Kumo
May 29, 2009
Think back a couple of weeks. Wolfram Alpha became available and Google rolled out announcements about enhancements to its system. Microsoft raised the curtain on its Bing search system, and the Google rolled a Wave across its developers. No accidents of timing. Google wants to be in charge of the digital information flows, and it is clear to me that Google treats capable mathematicians and $65 billion software giants exactly the same. In the war of visibility and media attention, Google neutralizes other firms’ efforts in all things digital.
The number of articles about Wave and Bing Kumo seemed high. I thought it would be interesting to try and quantify which product name received the most coverage. I took a count before I conked out after a long day in Washington, DC, and then again this morning. To my dismay, the miserable high speed Internet connection timed out in the middle of script I used for the count. I tried a couple of more times and concluded that in terms of Megite.com, Microsoft was the lead story. Google’s Wave was a sublisting under a Microsoft Bing story. Twitter wasn’t much use because I timed out and then got what looked like erroneous results. A quick check of Newsnow.co.uk revealed that Microsoft and Google were not the top stories when I checked at about 7 am Eastern.
I did some poking around and learned two things:
First, Bing is neither a winner nor a loser as a “decision engine”. It is another search engine aimed at consumers. The mash ups, the social functions, and the semantics are present, just not dominant. Product Review Net here described its position in this way:
Microsoft tells us that this new search engine will be far different than we were used to with Live Search, Google and Yahoo Search. Normally when you search for something you then get one answer, Bing is different, as it knows that one answer is not often enough.
The key point in the article was the statement,
Internet users have been asking the same question, “Why Bing” and the answer is simple. Decisionengine.com explains that although current search engines are amazing, but as more than four websites are created every second, this means that half the search results that come up are not the results that people had searched for. Bing is different as it has evolved in to something new and better, but we will only know if this is true once Bing is up and running.
Okay, multiple answers. You may find the Bing video here located by Product Reviews useful.
Second, Warwick Ashford made a good point in his write up “Google Unveils Next Wave of Online Communications” here. Mr. Ashford wrote:
Google has posted examples of how services like Twitter can be automatically included in waves. Rasmussen described it as “concurrent rich-text editing”, where users see nearly instantly what collaborators are typing in your wave as well as being able to use “playback” to rewind the wave to see how it evolved.
Google, if Mr. Ashford is correct has focused on communication in which search is one function.
My thoughts about the Wave and Bing Kumo roll outs are:
- Microsoft is trying hard to out do Google in a market sector that focuses on finding information in some consumer areas such as tickets. Although the service is interesting, it is, by definition, constrained and inherently narrow. The method of interaction is well know, focused on accessing previously indexed information, and delivering utility such as a discount in airfare and similar practical information outcomes.
- Google seems to be cobbling together mash ups of its various components and moving parts. Wave is new and open. The idea is to allow developers first and then users to create information channels and then have those flows available for communication purposes. Wave is not search.
The contrast strikes me as quite significant in the broader information market. I think these three reasons sum up my thoughts in the early days of both services:
First, both services seems to be works in progress. In short, we are watching pundits, mavens, and self appointed wizards exercise themselves with what are not much more than demos. Don’t get me wrong. There’s nothing wrong with demos. Most of my work is a demo. But demos are not products and it is not clear if either of these offerings will have much of an impact on users. In short, I am less than thrilled with both Wave and Bing.
Second, Microsoft seems intent on beating Google at the search game. Google on the other hand is trying hard to invent a new game in which it has not had much success; that is, real time information retrieval. What’s interesting to me is that both Google and Microsoft may be tilting at windmills. My hunch is that Google will plug along in search, and Microsoft will plug along in its desktop applications and server business. Both companies will be hard pressed to achieve much traction in the short term with their Thursday roll outs. Over time, both will be reasonable successful, but I don’t see a future Le Bron James in either demo.
Third, both companies underscore how monocultures react to the new information world. The similarity of each company’s approach to these roll outs makes me see two peas in a pod, not innovative, distinctive ways to address the changing needs of users.
Just my opinion. Honk.
Stephen Arnold, May 29, 2009
Buffing Chrome
May 29, 2009
The browser is the computer doesn’t have the freshness of “the network is the computer”, but it is a good indication of what Google is doing to annoy Microsoft. If you are sated with the compelling drame and theatricality of Eric Schmidt’s keynote at the Google Developer Conference, you will want to take a look at this ComputerWorld article: “Six Things to Expect from Google Chrome Extensions” by C.G. Lynch here. (This is a whopper of a url, and the link may go dead at any time.) Mr. Lynch does a very good job of pointing out the most recent buff job that Google applied to its Chrome browser. One enhancement caught my attention:
One of the things that makes Google Chrome a unique browser is that it was designed to run processes on apps and web pages at the same time. So, for instance, if you opened your Twitter feed in one tab, and Facebook in another, the browser won’t favor one app just because you opened it first. It will automatically (and fairly) allocate power to running both apps. Extensions will work the same. As you add extensions, and utilize them, the browser will fairly give them the power they need. This is also good from a security perspective, Boodman says. If one extension is riddled with malicious code, it will only affect that extension, not the other extensions or tabs.
Google’s container technology, which dates from 2004, is now making its presence more visible. Important stuff.
Stephen Arnold, May 29, 2009
Deer Injured on the Information Superhighway: Oracle and SAP
May 29, 2009
Joshua Gliddon wrote “Oracle, SAP Are Roadkill: Technology One Chairman” here. Mr. Di Marco believes that Oracle and SAP will be killed in the marketplace, which is in a state of flux.
For me the most telling passage in the article was:
Speaking exclusively with Computerworld, in a wide-ranging interview Di Marco said that the fact that SAP and Oracle use third party implementers has lead to growing customer dissatisfaction. “Oracle and SAP are expensive, and the question is whether they are delivering value for money,” Di Marco said. Technology One competes with Oracle and SAP for mid-range businesses, educational institutions and municipalities that turn over between $250 million and $2 billion.
In terms of search, both Oracle and SAP have floundered. If Mr. Di Marco is correct, two stalwarts of big, complex, expensive enterprise software are going to struggle. Their thrashing may harm the sucker fish who depend on these huge creatures for sustenance. My hunch is that Mr. Di Marco is more than half right. One of the two is going to meet its Hummer.
Stephen Arnold, May 29, 2009
LBS III: Connectors Require Baby Sitting
May 29, 2009
Question: My enterprise search system came with a connector to Lotus Notes and Domino. When I try to suck email into the search system, some data arrive, some don’t. I have to do a lot of baby sitting. Is this an exception or commonplace.
Answer: This Little Baffler in Search is one that few people talk about. Connectors, filters, or import routines are a menagerie, not a single elegant show dog. Many vendors license connectors from Oracle, Entropy Soft, or one of the other firms in this business. Some vendors create their own connectors. Others turn to third parties to code up what’s needed to move content from a source like a Notes repository to the search system’s content processing component. Much can go wrong. There is no single fix. I have a library of connectors, chunks of code that has worked wonders in the past, and a stable of coders in a far off country. You will find that some vendors charge “extra” to work out the glitches in their connectors. Others provide referrals to specialists who can resolve problems. No easy answer. Transformation of content is a budget killer. Test before you buy. Ignore this step, you will live with sudden connector syndrome for months, maybe longer. Keep in mind that source material formats may be tweaked when upgrades are installed for that system. Hassles, hassles everywhere. So, baby sitting is normal.
Stephen Arnold, May 30, 2009
HTML 5 Plus Chrome Plus Other Google Stuff
May 29, 2009
Short honk: HTML 5 is a potential problem for traditional desktop operating systems. There are quite a few posts about HTML 5. You may want to read the brief but direct write up “Java HTML5 Will Kill the OS!” in Dvorak Uncensored here. For me the key comment was:
While Java has accomplished a great deal, it’s potential as an OS-killer has not been realized. HTML5 has a better shot.
Very big deal.
Stephen Arnold, May 29, 2009
Track the Search Vendors
May 29, 2009
I will be adding to the Overflight service automatic pages that bring together a range of information about search vendors. We’ve been testing the system and for the most part, we have trimmed the number of false drops. The way the service will work is that you will navigate to a list of search vendors arranged in alphabetical order. Click on the name of a company in which you have an interest. The Overflight system will produce a run down of what’s new about the company from a range of sources. Some will be familiar like Web logs. Others will annoy like the Twitter hits. A few may be unfamiliar to you like videos about a search vendor. The idea is that you can click on a company and see what’s new. No key word searching. I find it easier to click a link and scan to see if there’s something that strikes me as important. For a preview of the service for Autonomy IDOL, click here. We will be fiddling with the final appearance so it matches my Google Overflights. More information about the vendors for which the automated service will be available will be coming soon. We have a short list of enhancements for these basic automated reports. We hope to have the full service available for free, of course, by September 2009.
Stephen Arnold, May 29, 2009
AOL for Sale: No Surprise There
May 28, 2009
After Time Magazine pronounced Google the winner in search here, the addled goose was not surprised when he read in TechRadar that “AOL Set to Be Split from Time Warner”. You can find the story here. TechRadar reported:
AOL will soon be split from its owners Time Warner, with the latter’s board of directors reportedly set to ratify the plan later on Thursday (May 28, 2009).
With a former Googler at the helm of Time Warner, Time Warner thinks the time is right to step away from an interesting acquisition. Will Yahoo jump from the frying pan into the fire? Maybe Microsoft can build its search base with a speedy deal? Other possible buyers? Ideas?
Stephen Arnold, May 28, 2009
Bing the Name Called Bob by TechRadar
May 28, 2009
One more dark morning and a delightful flight to Washington, DC. I was quiet until I read TechRadar’s “Tech Product Names Suck. Bing Blows” here. (The ComputerWorld reporter who asked yesterday me about Microsoft’s newest search engine called it Kumo. I call the Google challenger Bing Kumo, which is the best of both worlds.) When I read TechRadar’s article, I laughed. TechRadar said:
You’ve also got to wonder what they were thinking of when they chose Bing, because the four things that immediately spring to mind are Yahoo, the late Bing Crosby, Chandler from Friends and the bar in the Sopranos. Does Microsoft really want us to think of an ailing search provider, a long-dead crooner, an actor with addiction problems and a mafia strip club whenever we think of its search engine?
Keep in mind that I am pointing to a TechRadar story about the name “Bing.” Nothing more. When I hear the word Bing, I think of cherries, the phrase “bah dah bing” and the YouTube video, Bing the Guinea Pig.
Stephen Arnold, May 28, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
