Two Countries Squabble — China and Google
June 26, 2009
In Google Version 2.0 (2007) I spelled out an argument that has been ignored. Now my analysis of Google’s options in China are playing out in real life. I asserted that Google had become a new type of company. In effect, it is operating as a supra national enterprise, which is tough to understand (particularly by regulators) and even tougher to define in terms of existing laws, guidelines and regulations. Few stop to consider that Google is not “anywhere”. To make a conceptual idea more clear, Google could plop floating barges outside a three mile limit and leave it up to its lawyers to explain where a particular computer function took place. You can follow the rest of my analysis if you snag a copy of Google Version 2.0.
Now a series of news stories highlights the squabble between China and a single commercial enterprise. The BBC’s story “Google Access Disrupted in China” makes it clear that Google is being given the digital equivalent of a shot across its bow. In addition to a service disruption, others are reporting that Google is distributing objectionable information.
Now Google has to figure out how to respond to the type of challenge that strikes me as like those issued at the outset of the 100 Years War. Google is not being handled like a mere company. Google is getting the equivalent of nation state treatment by China.
What is at stake? For starters, control of information. Another issue is the shaping of that information. In theory information is neutral. The reality is that information has mass, can be a catalyst, and behaves in weird uranium like ways. Will Google find a diplomatic solution to this problem, or will the company find itself engaged in a long cyberwar. Quite interesting to the addled goose I must say. The Google Microsoft battle pales in comparison with this first real test of a supra national digital entity against a modernizing nation state. How will Google respond? What steps will China take to make Google even more aware of the consequences of its actions within political boundaries? Will China attack Google in interesting ways? How will cultural factions line up? Exciting and new in my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, June 26, 2009
Microsoft and Its Many Brands
June 26, 2009
Business Week from its Olympian perch in Manhattan has broken new ground. News is no longer what the New York media mavens “do”. News, in case you missed the Iran story, is now in the hands of those with mobile devices. Reportage is the way to track events. Analysis is now where the Business Week type of publications claim purchase. “Microsoft Defends Its Empire” was an fascinating read for me. The premise of the business school type write up was:
The Internet has thrown even the mighty Microsoft back on its heels. No longer able to impose its will on the computing world, the Redmond (Wash.) software giant is scrambling to catch up with all the changes the Web is unleashing. Over the past few years, CEO Steve Ballmer has come to two conclusions about the future of his business. First, Microsoft needs to move away from selling software and toward renting it out, in order to compete with cheap or free Web alternatives. Second, it must revamp its programs to satisfy customers’ desire for more Internet-based collaboration. Now, Microsoft is putting those ideas into action, overhauling not only what it makes but how to deliver and charge for it.
I remember a long ago logic class in which “warrants” played a large part. The idea was that a “sign” could support a line of reasoning. I am not sure why this dusty idea crossed my mind. I think I reacted to the blend of open source, cloud computing, and “unified” communications. Each of these plays a part in Microsoft’s business actions.
Two ideas bubbled up. First, I don’t think any of these ideas is at the root of Microsoft’s present situation. For example, Microsoft has so far not been able to diversify its revenue streams. As a result, Microsoft is vulnerable to perturbations in a couple of the cash cows on which its cheese and milk depend. As most organizational development wizards might point out, the deeper management structures play an important part in this ossification. Related is the cost of maintaining the baggage train. For instance, Apple upgrades and insists that its customers shift to a newer chunk of software and hardware. So, Apple does not invest so much in its older software and compatibility with those programs. Microsoft has a built in “cost friction” and I think the cost problem is exacerbated by piling more stuff on the baggage train. Powerset, Zune, Xbox, multiple accounting software, etc.
Second, Google is more of a problem than any one of the factors that I noted in the Business Week write up. Here’s why:
- Google exerts gravitational pull on Microsoft, its customers, its competitors, its developers. The gravitational effect stretches the fabric of the Microsoft environment. Gravity is hard to see and harder to explain. But it is present and leaving it out of a discussion of larger environments can misrepresent reality. A bridge can collapse. Period.
- Google does not have to do too much to cause Microsoft to demonstrate a reflex action. In fact, Google can roll out a minor tweak to Google Apps and Microsoft reacts. Google showed a demo of a modest dataspace function and in my opinion upstaged Bing.com. Spending $80 million to get my dad to use Bing.com seems to be quite a reflex.
To wrap up, I wonder if the shift from news to analysis will be enough to keep the business magazines in tall cotton. Low cotton means backbreaking work at a low wage. In the meantime, will the giant Microsoft be moved by technology thunderstorms or the more pervasive force of gravity?
And what about brand? I don’t think this write up was about brands.
Stephen Arnold, June 26, 2009
Arnold at NFAIS: Google Books, Scholar, and Good Enough
June 26, 2009
Speaker’s introduction: The text that appears below is a summary of my remarks at the NFAIS Conference on June 26, 2009, in Philadelphia. I talk from notes, not a written manuscript, but it is my practice to create a narrative that summarizes my main points. I have reproduced this working text for readers of this Web log. I find that it is easier to put some of my work in a Web log than it is to create a PDF and post that version of a presentation on my main Web site, www.arnoldit.com. I have skipped the “who I am” part of the talk and jump into the core of the presentation.
Stephen Arnold, June 26, 2009
In the past, epics were a popular form of entertainment. Most of you have read the Iliad, possibly Beowulf, and some Gilgamesh. One convention is that these complex literary constructs begin in the middle or what my grade school teacher call “In media res.”
That’s how I want to begin my comments about Google’s scanning project – an epic — usually referred to as Google Books. Then I want to go back to the beginning of the story and then jump ahead to what is happening now. I will close with several observations about the future. I don’t work for Google, and my efforts to get Google to comment on topics are ignored. I am not an attorney, so my remarks have zero legal foundation. And I am not a publisher. I write studies about information retrieval. To make matters even more suspect, I do my work from rural Kentucky. From that remote location, I note the Amazon is concerned about Google Books, probably because Google seeks to enter the eBook sector. This story is good enough; that is, in a project so large, so sweeping perfection is not possible. Pages are skewed. Insects scanned. Coverage is hit and miss. But what other outfit is prepared to spend to scan books?
Let’s begin in the heat of the battle. Google is fighting a number things. Google finds itself under scrutiny from publishers and authors. These are the entities with whom Google signed a “truce” of sorts regarding the scanning of books. Increasingly libraries have begun to express concern that Google may not be doing the type of preservation job to keep the source materials in a suitable form for scholars. Regulators have taken an interest in the matter because of the publicity swirling around a number of complicated business and legal issues.
These issues threaten Google with several new challenges.
Since its founding in 1998, Google has enjoyed what I would call positive relationships with users, stakeholders, and most of its constituents. The Google Books’ matter is now creating what I would describe as “rising tension”. If the tension escalates, a series of battles can erupt in the legal arena. As you know, battle is risky when two heroes face off in a sword fight. Fighting in a legal arena is in some ways more risky and more dangerous.
Second, the friction of these battles can distract Google from other business activities. Google, as some commentators, including myself in Google: The Digital Gutenberg may be vulnerable to new types of information challenges. One example is Google’s absence from the real time indexing sector where Facebook, Twitter, Scoopler.com, and even Microsoft seem to be outpacing Google. Distractions like the Google Books matter could exclude Google from an important new opportunity.
Finally, Google’s approach to its projects is notable because the scope of the project makes it hard for most people to comprehend. Scanning books takes exabytes of storage. Converting images to ASCII, transforming the text (that is, adding structure tags), and then indexing the content takes a staggering amount of computing resources.
Inputs to outputs, an idea that was shaped between 1999 to 2001. © Stephen E. Arnold, 2009
Google has been measured and slow in its approach. The company works with large libraries, provides copies of the scanned material to its partners, and has tried to keep moving forward. Microsoft and Yahoo, database publishers, the Library of Congress, and most libraries have ceded the scanning of books work to Google.
Now Google finds itself having to juggle a large number of balls.
Now let’s go back in time.
I have noticed that most analysts peg Google Books’s project as starting right before the initial public offering in 2004. That’s not what my research has revealed. Google’s interest in scanning the contents of books reaches back to 2000.
In fact, an analysis of Google’s patent documents and technical papers for the period from 1998 to 2003 reveals that the company had explored knowledge bases, content transformation, and mashing up information from a variety of sources. In addition, the company had examined various security methods, including methods to prevent certain material from being easily copied or repurposed.
The idea, which I described in my The Google Legacy (which I wrote in 2003 and 2004 with publication in early 2005) was to gather a range of information, process that information using mathematical methods in order to produce useful outputs like search results for users and generate information about the information. The word given to describe value added indexing is metadata. I prefer the less common but more accurate term meta indexing.
Yahoo and Execution
June 26, 2009
WebProNews reported in “Yahoo Has Execution Problem: Stop Comparing It to Google” that Yahoo has ideas but making them reality is difficult. Mike Sachoff wrote:
She also said that Yahoo did not have a “vision problem” but that it did have an “execution problem,” which it was working on fixing. Bartz repeated her plan to update Yahoo’s main properties, including its homepage and mail service. She said Yahoo was working on allowing users to customize more services to focus on things they are interested in. Yahoo is also evaluating other existing products to “shut down, repair or outsource.”
In my opinion, thinking up some whizzy service is easy. I recall a Yahoo senior executive slapping a cost of $200 million or so on the amount needed to build a search service. That type of thinking is more deeply flawed than the ability to set a goal, execute tasks, and roll out a service. Crazy notions about cost and complexity will lead a company into more severe problems than non delivery. Yahoo is a technology company and its engineering focus is blurry. Add to that the pressure Google brings to bear on the company and toss in a pinch of economic downturn, and you have a recipe for trouble flan.
The comparisons with Google are inevitable. Yahoo followed the AOL portal path and Google did not. Yahoo stagnated in ads; Google did not. Comparisons are going to be the stuff of business school essays for years to come. Yahoo does not have an execution problem. Yahoo has deep technical, strategic, and financial challenges woven into its business model. Just my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, June 27, 2009
Future of Journalism
June 26, 2009
Short honk: I read “Exploring Journalism’s Future. Civic Media Conference Helps Hatch New Ideas” within interest. MIT is a great place to talk about technology. But what struck me was this quote from the MIT News Office:
“How could anyone worry about the future of journalism after being with these people and seeing what they and so many others are doing?” Gillmor [director of the Knight Center for Digital Media Entrepreneurship at Arizona State University] said.
When I read this, I asked myself, “Why not ask those journalists who have lost their jobs in the last nine months and those journalists who must endure furloughs without pay, editors at New York publishing houses now looking for freelance work, and the new journalism grads seeking their first job?”
No need to ask an old, addled goose. Not even an online search can turn up jobs for these people who are collateral damage of mismanagement in my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, June 24, 2009
Microsoft Search Infrastructure
June 25, 2009
Short honk: Microsoft has hired some Yahoo wizards and now information popped into my RSS reader about Autopilot. You can read Codename Windows’ write up about this program and ask yourself, “How long will it take to complete this project?” and “What is its cost?” and “How much time will be needed to catch up, then pass Google in this engineering sector?” I don’t have answers but Google did plumbing then search. Microsoft seems to be approaching the problem the other way around if this information is on target. Just my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, June 25, 2009
Facebook Streams
June 25, 2009
You will want to work through this somewhat disjointed discussion of Facebook in ReadWriteWeb’s “The Day Facebook Changed Forever: Messages to Become Public By Default.” For me the most important point was:
In time, though, people may very well decide they are comfortable with their social networking being public by default. That will be a different world, and today will have been one of the most important days in that new world’s unfolding.
The reason? More content flows to monitor and mine. Goodie. Love those social postings.
Stephen Arnold, June 26, 2009
XFN Enriches Dataspace
June 25, 2009
Short honk: I don’t want to lose this item. I am not going to explain it. A Google Profile can now explain the owner’s “this is really I” tag. You can read about the syntax but not much about the usefulness of this tag in a dataspace in Brad’s Life write up in LiveJournal. Why waste computational cycles when real me tags can be explicit and specifically provided to hook together an individual’s digital instances.
Stephen Arnold, June 26, 2009
Twitter Research Tools
June 25, 2009
Short honk: Useful list of 100 Twitter tools for research. Read “100 Tips, Tools, and Resources for Twitter Research” and snag the ones that meet your needs. Save the link. The www.selectcourses.com Web site is adept at making information hard to find.
Stephen Arnold, June 25, 2009
Microsoft Explains the Reset of the Advertising Economy
June 25, 2009
I like poetic flourishes. Call me old fashioned. The notion of pushing a reset button and causing the economy to reboot in a bit of rhetoric that jarred my sensibilities. The story “Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer: Traditional Media Will Not Bounce Back” in the Guardian backs into the ad argument. Mark Sweney wrote:
Ballmer, speaking at the Cannes Lions International Advertising Festival, argued that traditional broadcast and print media would have to plan business models around a smaller share of the advertising market, as revenues continue to move to digital outlets. “I don’t think we are in a recession, I think we have reset,” he said. “A recession implies recovery [to pre-recession levels] and for planning purposes I don’t think we will. We have reset and won’t rebound and re-grow.”
My question was, “What is Mr. Ballmer edging toward?” My thought is that the subject of this remark might be the Google. If advertising goes farther south, ad dependent Google would be hurt. I am not so sure. If ad revenues decline, Google has a baseline of ad revenue. Declines might suppress Google’s growth but a slowdown might force Microsoft to slash ad rates in an effort to get share. Buying market share means that Microsoft would have to grow traffic to make cheap ads pay. What if ad revenues don’t reset but just remain flat. Microsoft will still have to market the heck out of its services in the hopes of getting strong ad revenue. But what if those marketing costs spike? Google is not lousy at Microsoft style marketing. Google doesn’t approach marketing as Microsoft does, so it has a different cost mix.
My hunch is that the remarks were not directed at the media attendees. Those executives know exactly what is happening with their ad revenues. Month on month declines are bedeviling some publishers and media companies. Microsoft’s bold statement triggered my idea that Microsoft itself may be a victim of an ad reset. Cost control may be more of an issue at Microsoft than Google. Reset is not exactly the right metaphor for a revenue and cost challenge.
Just my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, June 25, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
