Google Microsoft: Mixed Martial Arts, Not Pro Wrestling
May 22, 2009
Computer Reseller News (now CRN) published “Waiting For One (Search) Giant To Topple Another” by Brian Sheinberg here. This is not a kill Google story; it is a topple Google story. The idea is that two giants are locked in a yin yang relationship. The metaphor Mr. Sheinberg used was professional wrestling. That’s a show. I think the battle is closer to the human pit bull encounters in Mixed Martial Arts. Mr. Sheinberg wrote:
What is fascinating though is that the latest new guy (again) is Microsoft. So now we have a company many love to bash for its monopolistic tendencies pitted against another that seems to be headed in the same direction. People on the Web are so caught up in the whirlwind of rumors and announcements that they don’t realize this is turning into the equivalent of a professional wrestling matchup. While Google will probably be taken down a few notches sooner or later, it is most likely going to be in one of the areas where it hasn’t been able to grasp a foothold — not its searching capabilities. For now though, Microsoft probably should bask a little in the glory that for the first time in recent memory, a large portion of Internet surfers are actually rooting for it.
My take on the battle between the GOOG and the Redmond giant will be nasty, brutal and long. No theatricality in what’s ahead. No fake blood. No divas in skimpy duds. Just a long, brutal battle.
Stephen Arnold, May 22, 2009
A Consulting Firm Borrows from Kubler-Ross
May 22, 2009
Elisabeth Kubler-Ross’s widely read study On Death and Dying, published in the 1960s, introduced those struggling with the loss of a loved one to the stages of grief. I read her book when my friend Alan Boise, who worked at the National Institutes of Health, faced a battle with a rare form of leukemia. I found the information helpful, and since that time I have been reluctant to appropriate a useful representation of human behavior for frivolous purposes. I am an addled goose, but I keep certain activities in a private corner of my swimming hole. If you want to reacquaint yourself with Kubler-Ross’s work, you can order your copy here.
If you want to see how an azure chip consulting firm handles the idea of “stages”, you will want to read Matt Asay’s “Forrester’s Five Phases of Open Source Success” here. Mr. Asay reported that this consultancy converts the stages of grief into the stages of open source success. i anticipate that most people will find the approach amusing, perhaps instructive. After all, open source must move from denial that community supported software is of much value to acceptance of products such as Lucene from Lucid Imagination.
Open source has an important contribution to certain information technology challenges. I am pleased with open source. I am not so comfortable with the appropriation and inversion of the Kubler-Ross metaphor. In fact, the metaphor makes me uncomfortable, not with open source software, but with the associations the “stages” evoke. The addled goose’s opinion is that the azure chip consulting firm’s reach has exceeded its grasp.
Stephen Arnold, May 22, 2009
Drat. Wolfram Alpha May Not Be Revolutionary
May 22, 2009
The Guardian really wants to hobble the Google. When I lived in Brazil as a child, I recall my picking up a certain small lizard. The tail would break off and the lizard would scamper to safety. A friend of the family who was a surgeon told me that some lizards could regrow their tails. The Guardian grabs the GOOG’s tail, and it breaks off, leaving Googzilla free to do whatever Googzillas enjoy doing.
You can see this approach in the Guardian’s story “Where Does Wolfram Alpha Get Its Information?” by Bobbie Johnson here. The angle is to write about Wolfram Alpha, the current Google challenger. Bobbie Johnson said:
Some of the references come, Google-style, from ordinary websites but most of the information is drawn from the texts and databases that are pulled into Mathematica, which performs most of the numerical calculations. This means Alpha is strong on science and maths but struggles with some other fact-based disciplines (such as history) and seems nonplussed by social sciences and popular culture. There are plenty of queries that result in the weary (and wearying) refrain of “Wolfram Alpha isn’t sure what to do with your input”. However, the search engine is not just pulling information from academic data: it has its fair share of oddball references too – injected by the site’s staff in an attempt to draw a smile from users and build up early-adopter credibility.
In this passage, I can hear the sigh of disappointment that Wolfram Alpha wasn’t – well – a Google killer. Bobbie Johnson concluded:
In the end, that’s not necessarily much different or better than the information returned from a search on Google or Wikipedia. Perhaps Wolfram Alpha isn’t quite so revolutionary after all.
The Guardian will be on the look out for the next potential Google killer. Maybe Microsoft’s Bing Kumo will be the next knight in the lists. I am betting on the Google. The Guardian has another tail in its hands I believe.
Stephen Arnold, May 22, 2009
Vivisimo and Bupa
May 22, 2009
A happy quack to the reader who wanted me to know about Vivisimo’s latest customer win. The story appeared in Red Orbit here. Bupa is, according to the story, owner of “leading health information Web sites worldwide.” I was not familiar with Bupa. The company has, according to the Red Orbit write up, more than 10 million customers.
Vivisimo’s system is not search. According to the story Vivisimo’s system is “intelligent” and provides geo-spatial search, content mash ups, and social tagging. These features called to my mind the “portal systems” that deliver users a dashboard of information. The story said:
Through the power of Vivisimo Velocity, Bupa will expand and enhance the user search experience across its network of websites, starting with Bupa.co.uk and Bupa-Intl.com, and then moving out to other sites. In addition to English language Bupa websites, Vivisimo may also implement and support multiple language search across its global sites.
You can get more information about the Vivisimo system here. The new search system joins Bupa online exercise class, which became available in April 2009.
Stephen Arnold, May 20, 2009
Beta Eta a Spoiled Fish
May 21, 2009
Michael Arrington’s “Google’s Beta Love May Die in Fight for Enterprise Customers” ripped the covers off a big Google shin scrape. He pointed out here that perpetual product betas, particularly Google’s, may not help close enterprise software deals. He wrote:
About half of Google’s products were still in Beta
at the end of 2008. Retaining the Beta notation in the logo gives the company a sort of get-out-of-jail-free card when problems occur. Hey, it’s still in Beta, so don’t be surprised when something goes wrong. There’s a problem though. Sure, users think Beta is geeky and fun and cutting edge. But it turns out that enterprise customers are a little more serious about stuff working.
He provided a link to a Google video of Marissa Mayer explaining Google betas. You will have to read his essay and watch the video and make up your own mind.
My view on Google betas has been spelled out in some detail in my three Google monographs, and I can highlight a handful of my observations in this forum:
- Google, like many organizations, is not sure what will work. The result is a culture of start-stop-assess. The notion of a beta is an ideal method for making indecision work as a tactic. It’s not IBM’s fear, uncertainty, and doubt. It’s “sort of” and “maybe”.
- Google needs data. A beta is a click thermometer. A product shoved into the wild can attract a loyal following like Gmail and earn “perpetual beta” status which is what Mr. Arrington described clearly. It also makes it easy to determine which products are dogs and can be starved or killed. Think Web Accelerator.
- Betas are disruptive. I think that the discovery by Google management of its disruptive power was a happy lab accident. Now, the notion of developing a service quickly and probing a potential market makes it hard for competitors to figure out exactly what Google is going to do in their sector. Consider the Recommendations feature rolled out almost the same day as eBay’s announcement of its acquisition of StumbleUpon. Nothing much came of Recommendations, which I still use, but it is a subtle disruptive perturbation. Shoot enough waves into a sector and something interesting may happen. Betas generate these forces.
Now Google betas, if I understand Mr. Arrington’s point, are causing a bit of indigestion. Google’s betas may have eaten a spoiled fish and seems to require remediating action. I liked Google’s eternal beta program because it has helped destabilize a number of sectors, thus creating opportunities. Google’s shaking up online, for instance, helped create an environment in which Facebook and Twitter could emerge and evolve.
Stephen Arnold, May 21, 2009
Larry Page on Real Time Search
May 21, 2009
After watching Twittermania steal some Google thunder, one of Google’s founders has addressed the issue. ReadWriteWeb reported that Google is into real time indexing. You will want to read the story “Larry Page on Real Time Google: We Have To Do It” here. For me the most interesting remark in the write up was:
“I have always thought we needed to index the web every second to allow real time search,” Le Meur quotes Page as saying. “At first, my team laughed and did not believe me. With Twitter, now they know they have to do it. Not everybody needs sub-second indexing but people are getting pretty excited about real-time.”
My question: Is it too late?
Stephen Arnold, May 21, 2009
Data Tables Contain Deleted Data. Yikes. Revelation.
May 21, 2009
it was spies on Facebook. Then it was the LA Times’s spoofed via a year old Prop 8 story. Now – news flash – the issue is privacy on social networking sites. Yikes. What a scoop? Sky News in the UK published “Fears over Privacy on Social Networking Sites” here. The intrepid news hounds at Sky News reported:
Researchers from the University of Cambridge say that many social networking sites maintain copies of user photos even after users delete them.
I wonder if the wizards in the groves of academe figured out that quite a bit of other information and data lurk on these sites. In fact, unless the indexes have been rebuilt, my hunch is that my team could find some interesting stuff not searchable but available to those poking around with forensic savvy.
I am waiting for one of these intrepid reporters to define “delete” and “remove”.
Stephen Arnold, May 22, 2009
Journalists Heal Thyselves
May 21, 2009
The Christian Science Monitor’s “Why Journalists Deserve Low Pay” here may disturb the “we don’t get no respect” crowd. Now this is an opinion piece, so the Monitor’s editorial staff is not writing this heretical essay. The author was Robert Picard, who may be in for a verbal tar and feather wardrobe. He asserted:
Today all this value is being severely challenged by technology that is “de-skilling” journalists. It is providing individuals – without the support of a journalistic enterprise – the capabilities to access sources, to search through information and determine its significance, and to convey it effectively. To create economic value, journalists and news organizations historically relied on the exclusivity of their access to information and sources, and their ability to provide immediacy in conveying information. The value of those elements has been stripped away by contemporary communication developments. Today, ordinary adults can observe and report news, gather expert knowledge, determine significance, add audio, photography, and video components, and publish this content far and wide (or at least to their social network) with ease. And much of this is done for no pay.
Maybe a stronger union will help? Maybe journalists like MBAs are remnants of an older, more naive era. Doth marginalization cometh? For sure, unemployment, smaller expense accounts, and a different occupation may be just around the corner where the news paper stand used to be.
Stephen Arnold, May 22, 2009
Bing Kumo: The New Search Super Star
May 21, 2009
I awakened after an enjoyable midnight flight on UScare (I mean USAir) to find an RSS reader brimming with news of Microsoft’s new search engine. The name seems to be fluid, but I like Bing Kumo, which has an international ring to it. I picture Mr. Kumo, whom I shall call Bing, as a teen idol, androgynous in order to appeal to one and all.
You can get quite different views of Bing from the search engine optimization side of the world here and the inside Silicon Valley crowd here.
A quick run down of the speculation includes:
- A Google killer. Enough said.
- The skeptics. Larry Dignan asks, “Will it matter?” here.
- The critical wizards at Lockergnome here who said, “Seriously, it’s not going to work, no one will care, end of discussion.”
- The real Silicon Valley Insider here who said, “If Microsoft ends up doing a search deal with Yahoo (YHOO), this could all be for nothing. But either way, Microsoft needs help if it ever wants to be competitive in search. It represented 8.2% of the search market last month, down from 8.3% a year ago, according to comScore.”
The addled goose’s view of Bing Kumo, superstar, is more optimistic. Here’s why?
Bing Kumo, the new search rock star will be coming to a browser near you soon.
Most people fire up their computer with Windows 7 this fall and use whatever default Microsoft provides. I think Bing will get traction because Windows 7 will be a big success for Microsoft. The weird cursor behavior that makes it tough to navigate away from the default Microsoft splash page will discourage some users. The oddities of explaining that something other than Internet Explorer is the default browser will keep some of the Windows faithful using Bing. It’s easier.
The Google has been struggling of late. It’s not just the legal hassles, the copyright squabbles, and the YAGGs (yet another Google glitch). It’s the trust issue. I know it is hard to believe but Google has managed to achieve distrust in a remarkably short period of time. In a recent meeting, one really rich and really beef jerky tough executive asked me, “Do you trust Google with your information?” I did not answer, and he thankfully turned his cowboy features on another soft and pliant computer person.
Finally, Microsoft has been working overtime to get deals in the enterprise. These range from headway in the US government in some pretty big and well funded agencies to tough tactics to force SharePoint licensees to drink the Fast ESP Jonestown beverages. Certified Microsoft professionals in these organizations know that no mere mortal can find a file in the wild and wacky world of SharePoint. The complexity of the system and the sheer craziness of the file system’s naming conventions mean “A Job Forever.” Google is not able to deal with this combination of bundling and Certified Microsoft Professional resistance. Jobs, not technology, are operative here.
Now enter Bing Kumo. Lights, please.
Whether it works or not, Microsoft’s try-and-try-again approach to Web search is going to have an impact. I wonder if Bing Kumo will make an appearance on Oprah?
Stephen Arnold, May 20, 2001
Early Days for Information Management
May 21, 2009
In the last two weeks, I have been crisscrossing the United States. On last night’s fab flight from Philadelphia to Louisville, I watched the lights and thought about the comments I heard about data management. I have to mask the clients with whom I spoke and fuzzify the language, but I think I can communicate several key points.
Search Is a Symptom, Not the Cause
One idea that hooked me was an observation about search and the turmoil and confusion it creates and leaves behind once a new system is up and running. Search is not the problem. Search is a manifestation of the organization’s broader information management situation. If information management is lousy, then search will be lousy as well. The problem is that fixing information management in an organization under financial pressure is a big job. Furthermore, it involves change which is often resisted when job loss and work responsibilities are likely. It’s much easier to slap in a new search system and move on. Unfortunately, search gets another black eye and a vendor can be criticized, sometimes in a scathing manner, because the information management approach was flawed, broken, or non existent.
Fatigue or diabetes?
No Clue about Volume
Most of the people with whom I spoke sang one verse from one hymnal, “We have no clue about our data. We don’t know how much info we have. We are lost in bits. We are lost in bits. We are clueless.”
Most of the savvy information technology professionals know that the volume of digital information is increasing. The problem is that no one knows exactly how fast, what to do with the emails and documents, or how to keep track of what’s where. The Abbott and Costello routine “Who’s on First?” anticipates the statements about the hassle information volume poses.
One doesn’t need a degree in information science to recognize that if you can’t collect digital information, you don’t have much of a chance answering this question: “Are you sure we don’t have that document?” Finding is now becoming a must have function, and the Catch 22 is that most organizations don’t have a grasp on the amount of data in the organization or where an item is, search becomes a bit tougher.
How big is the information task?
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
