Connotate and Its Landing Page
December 15, 2009
Getting leads and making sales is the name of the game for enterprise search vendors. I think I found an example of a search vendor using Twitter and a landing page to get leads. Here’s the tweet that I saw from a person posting as dnapoleo.
This bit.ly link pointed to this special landing page:
I found this interesting. I wonder, however, if this type of marketing will deliver qualified leads. Making sales today requires a heck of a lot of work. The cost and complexity of enterprise search and content processing systems seems ill suited for Twitter. A quick look at my Overflight service reveals that a balanced marketing plan is the approach taken by Autonomy, Coveo, Exalead, and MarkLogic, for example.
In fact, making sales requires a motivated sales force, brand positioning, resellers, Web logs, media campaigns using every trick in the sales books at Barnes & Noble, and client champions. It is December and cold out there. Sales heat is needed.
Contrast the Connotate approach to Google’s use of a paper wrap around to the free commuter newspaper, Metro. Google was pitching its Chrome “consumer” Web browser.
Connotate’s effort warrants watching. Now that AOL has repositioned Relegence.com as Love.com, I think some market headroom may become available for Connotate.
Stephen E. Arnold, December 15, 2009
Oyez, oyez, I am disclosing that no one paid me to write about Connotate’s possible tweet campaign. Who’s on first? Oh, I know. I am reporting today to the Farm Credit Administration. Grow those revenues, people!
Google Reveals Some of Its Future
December 14, 2009
Great quote department. Navigate to “Marissa Mayer Details Some Broader Plans for Google Search”. Quite a few interesting points, but this is the one I thought was an interesting one from Googler Marissa Mayer:
“Imagine what it would be like if there was a tool built into the search engine which translated my search query into every language and then searched the entire world’s websites,” she says. “And then invoked the translation software a second and third time – to not only then present the results in your native language, but then translated those sites in full when you clicked through.”
See the Googlers watched Star Trek reruns too.
Stephen Arnold, December 14, 2009
Herewith I reveal that I was not paid to write this. Someone bought me lunch, but I wrote about Google. Sigh. I must report this to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I wonder what agency is also in that building along with the postal museum and the micro brew restaurant?
What a Microsoftie Learned at MSFT
December 14, 2009
I wish this were a hypothetical. A “hypothetical” is one of those law school or business school conventions. Essentially, the players discuss an imaginary scenario, usually anchored tenuously to facts. “Stuff I’ve Learned at Microsoft” by Sriram Krishnan is not hypothetical. My hunch is that the blog post is a version of reality through the eye balls and other senses of the author. The core idea is that whilst working at Microsoft, practical knowledge moved from the company to the author of the Web log.
Just for fun, let’s take the learnings and then map them to some recent Microsoft products, actions, and services. This, of course, is a hypothetical, and I want you to enter into the spirit of the exercise. Put out of your mind the realities that make up * your * learnings about Microsoft. In the table below, the Sriram Krishnan’s learnings are in the left hand column and the addled goose’s learnings in the right hand column:
| Krishnan’s Learnings | Goose’s Learnings |
| Ask for forgiveness, not for permission | At least try it at European Union hearings. |
| (Most) Screw ups are OK | Consider Bob. Consider Vista. |
| Look for the line at your door | What if the person is In when she is out and out when she is in? |
| Code is king | What about the auto numbering feature in Word? |
| Lone wolf syndrome | Group-think produces products like SharePoint |
| Try out stuff | Hard to do when Apple products are not in favor |
| New team? Pick people over products | What if the people you want now work at Google? |
| Get out of your comfort zone | Create the Xbox and not address hardware failure rates |
| Ask the uncomfortable questions | Why did MSFT pay $1.23 billion for Fast Search & Transfer when actual revenues were in question |
| Go say ‘Hi!’ | If people are “in” |
| Praise in public, pull down pants in private | Comments about killing Google in the Kai Fu Lee affair |
| Best things are taken, not given | STAC compression |
| Don’t be an a**hole | See my write up about MSFT PowerShell cmdlets for Fast Search which is a dead link. |
I like these hypotheticals. We need more of them in search and content processing. For example, Microsoft’s enterprise search system scales in a cost effective manner.
Stephen Arnold, December 14, 2009
I wish to disclose to the Department of Commerce that I was not paid to write this goosely article. The commerce associated with products that do not work at advertised does generate a lot of dough. Too bad the goose does not know how to ride a gravy train without becoming the main course.
Governments, Data, Transparency, Threats, and Common Sense
December 14, 2009
A happy quack to the reader (one of two or three sad to say) who sent me a link to The Register’s “Gov Slams Critical Database Report as Opaque, Flawed, Inaccurate”. The idea is that the UK government has a bit of a tussle underway with an outfit called Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust. The Trust published a report. The UK government says, according to the Register, that the consultants got its facts wrong. In my experience, this is the pot calling the kettle discolored.
Here are some links provided by my colleague in the Eastern Mediterranean basin:
- http://www.jrrt.org.uk/uploads/Database%20State.pdf see especially “Developing Effective Systems” pdf
- http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/government-response-rowntree-illegal-databases-report.pdf
I think consultants get stuff wrong and I think governments get stuff wrong as well. This is the norm. The reason is that consultants don’t see government efforts from the government’s point of view. The government, on the other hand, has a tough time seeing consultants as much more than reasons to have another meeting. By definition, citizen facing data will be assembled with intent. By definition, consultants will be able to find fault with almost any data a government entity produces. When consultants produce data for the government and then the government makes those data available to citizens, then other consultants will rise to the occasion. In short, data, transparency, threats to the nation state, and common sense collide. Part of the landscape. Live with it, opines this addled goose.
Stephen E. Arnold, December 14, 2009
I wish to report to the manager of the US government’s Recovery.gov Web site that I was not paid to write this paragraph pointing out what seems obvious to geese living in Harrod’s Creek. Real humans may have another viewpoint. No problemo. I disclosed, didn’t I?
Nine Ways Misses One Big Google Phone Point
December 14, 2009
I love Fortune Magazine. Dapper journalists opine about the mysteries of business as their own business model crumbles beneath them. Anyway, I do look at the occasional Fortune write up just to see what the real wizards of modern US business are thinking. I want to make sure I don’t think that way so my instrumental use of the Fortune ideas is bit different.
The article “Nine Ways of Looking at a Google Phone” did not disappoint me. The core idea is that there are nine ways of looking at the Google phone. (Sorry, Ms. Sperling). I could not resist this self referential comment. You will have to read the article to get the nine reasons. I can mention a couple of them.
For example, Google has “been watching with dismay” as folks have fiddled with Android. Yep, that’s a surprise that people fiddle with stuff that is available as open source. And, Google could – gasp – subsidize or give away the phone. Yep, another earth shaker.
Read through the other seven.
Now here’s what’s missing. The Google phone makes clear exactly how Google handles partners and former partners. The big point is that the Google phone will make some Google partners wonder if Google will repeat its Google phone trick. The Google Apple “relationship” is a wonderful aporia.
Stephen E. Arnold, December 14, 2009
I wish to report to the Employment Standards Administration that I was not paid to write this article. I think that if Google gets frisky there will be quite a bit of unemployment resulting from its disruption of certain business sectors. Could telecommunications be one such sector?
Mr. Google Goes to Washington
December 14, 2009
On Monday, December 14, 2009, I will be delivering a 10 minute talk about Google and its impact on the US government. Now I can’t cover too much in 10 minutes, but I want to hit three of the points I will be making. If you are in DC and want to hit the conference, you can get more information at http://government25.com/.
As an introduction, I want to point out that since Mr. Brin made his famous trip in sneakers and a black T shirt several years ago, the Google has leveled up. The Google’s presence sports quite a few folks who can get the Google story across. The top brass at Google also snag those nifty White House luggage tags and cuff links. So, Mr. Google has gone to Washington, and the Googlers are learning to play the Beltway game.
Three points:
First, most people—including Googlers like my pal Cyrus—don’t have a good sense of what Google’s reality is. The problem is like the one a fish has in a fish bowl. The larger world is mostly a blur. Details are tough to discern. The result is that Google can position itself as a Web search company for the masses or as a vital tool for defense mapping. It is quite difficult to locate a person who can express the “is-ness” of Google. The reason? Google’s top 200 wizards want to manage perception. Anyway, detailed explanations require a person to have a Googler’s intellect. Most of the people with that brainpower already work at Google. Therefore, why try to teach the average mobile device user the “is-ness” of Google?
Second, since 2006, the Google has been accelerating its push into various business sectors. You know about telecommunications. You know about content, mostly because the global publishing community has been asleep at the switch, allowing the Google shinkansen to blast on through without stopping. There are five or six other sectors largely unaware that Googzilla is on its way to their fertile fields. This means 2010 will witness more Google disruptions. So, fasten your seatbelt. If you work in one of the somnambulant sectors, get your résumé in order. Wal*Mart may be hiring.
Third, Google’s Lego approach to products and services means that Google can out-innovate most companies. Sure, there are a couple of outfits that have an edge on the Google. Example: Facebook. But in general, Google can move quickly which means that both competitors, customers, and partners are almost always off balance. The lack of balance means that the Google can do pretty much whatever it wants. Once folks react, the Google has moved forward. The opportunities just keep on coming while competitors waste time, resources, and energy trying to deal with where Google has been.
Bottomline: Google is going to have a major impact on the US government starting with the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 2010. In a word: unstoppable.
Stephen E. Arnold, December 14, 2009
I wish to disclose to the USGS that Google is like the San Andreas fault. The Google runs through seven business sectors, not California. Oh, I was not paid by the sponsor of this conference to give a talk. We did a horse trade or a goose trade. I suppose this means I was compensated to think up this analysis, give a talk, and write this self-serving, tongue-in-cheek article. So be it. I am a shameless shill for myself.
Androids Everywhere in Google Telco Invasion
December 14, 2009
Yep, I recall my partner from a consulting firm in a tony part of Seattle making the rounds of telecommunications companies in 2006. The presentation was “Google Telephone & Telegraph”. The presentation included some whimsy; for example, an antenna and transceiver that could be put in a pizza deliver vehicle to the serious; for example, the use of a non-intuitive method of finding a low latency path through a cellular network. The presentation also took a look at a half dozen of the Google patent documents that disclosed everything from support of double byte queries for mobile search to Sergey Brin’s voice search invention to the use of semi autonomous agents to queue content * before * a user needed that content.
A view of the wizard’s lair at Tintagel.
I have to tell you that the response to these confidential, technically charged, and blue-chip consultant type briefings was—ah, how shall I say it—dismissive, maybe indifferent.
I thought of these six or seven big dollar escapades when I read PCWorld’s “More Than 50 Android Phones to Ship in 2010”. It is not just the handsets or the Android operating system. Nope, it is the fact that there is a Google telephony consortium guzzling Googzilla’s own Kool-Aid and chanting compression algorithms in Mountain View’s Tintagel.
Now three years later, guess which big, unassailable, monopolistic industry has a Google sized problem on its plate for the New Year? Yep, those same telco executives.
Do you know which industry sector is next? Folks are waking up, but it may be a little late. More on the future of Google appears in my Google trilogy. Spend $1,000 and find out if you should be applying for work as a Wal*Mart greeter. On the other hand, pretend Google is a search and ad company. Life is more comfortable in the cloud of unknowing. Just ask your telco connections via one of Google’s communication methods. Honk.
Stephen Arnold, December 13, 2009
I wish to disclose that I was not paid to write this “I told you so” article. Now to whom must I disclose this? I know. The Federal Communications outfit. Yes, that’s the one. This is a freebie shamelessly promoting my three Google monographs. Almost 1,000 pages of Google information from its patent documents and other open source information objects.
Trouble Looms for Enterprise Database Crowd
December 13, 2009
One of the developments I await in 2010 is the impact of open source databases in the enterprise. Most organizations don’t question the costs of their commercial databases. The big numbers paid to the IBMs, the Microsofts, and the Oracles of the data management world are grandfathered. A new president or CFO doesn’t try to cut these costs. The received wisdom is that the organization could not turn on lights or flush toilets without these blue chip, wind powered digital clipper ships of software. The reference to clipper ships is appropriate. When steam poked its smoking stacks into the fair wind, the end of the wind powered era had arrived. Codd databases are like these clipper ships. The RDBMS is clever but it cannot compete with newer technologies.
When I read “The New FOSS Frontier: The Database Market”, I thought about how sleek sailing ships ended up as scrap. The era of ugly, smoke belching steamers got the job done somewhat better, almost faster, and certainly cheaper. Those clipper ships could not stuff as much stuff in their holds as the chunky steamers. I have seen some slick RDBMS implementations in my time, but that time is drawing to a close.
As Tech News World’s article makes clear, the threat is not from the Google, although Google will almost certainly chose an inopportune moment to destabilize the database market. The threat is from open source databases. One of the comments in the article I found interesting was:
With Oracle dominating the commercial DBMS market, there is ample motivation for a community to create a challenger. Postgres has the breadth and depth of features to rival Oracle, and with commercial vendors (including EnterpriseDB) offering services, support, and the all-important one throat to choke, the database market is poised to be commoditized.
Then I noted this passage:
With a viable product available, a thriving community in place, and a market ready for commoditization, it is a safe bet that the database will be the next component in the enterprise to embrace open source, and it will likely see the success shared by Linux and JBoss. This is good news for all enterprise architects and project managers who have applications to build and a budget to balance.
In my view, the financial realities will force companies to look at grandpa and make some hard decisions. Anyone who has had to deal with an aging parent knows how difficult the decision to put grandpa in the assisted living facility. I think large organizations will treat their IBM, Microsoft, and Oracle RDBMS systems like grandpa. There will be some hand wringing but then it’s off to Sylvan Acres or whatever the facility is called.
With greater economic pressure causing more organizations to look at open source databases, I think the Google will use some of its nifty data management technology both in open source and more proprietary packaging to push the IBMs, Microsofts, and Oracles into more adrenaline pumping situations.
Should be interesting for this goose to watch from the cold, gray hollow in Harrod’s Creek. My pond will be more hospitable that the CFO’s office when she informs one of the legacy vendors that the good times are over.
Stephen Arnold, December 13, 2009
I wish to disclose to the National Park Service that I was not paid to point out that the article was written for free. My approach is similar to those national parks which allow a person to enter without charge. When one needs to stay overnight, then the cash register rings.
Microsoft Fast PowerShell Cmdlets
December 13, 2009
No, I didn’t know what this cmdlets word meant either. But if you are one of the lucky folks using SharePoint 2010 Fast Search, you may want to read “FAST Search Server 2010 for SharePoint Windows PowerShell Cmdlets Overview (Beta)”.
The summary of the document says:
This document provides an overview of when to use which Windows PowerShell cmdlets in FAST Search Server 2010 for SharePoint in the functional areas: administration, schema, spell tuning, and security.
There is a hitch. I have not been able to read the document because I see this message:
I did some poking around on Bing and learned that Bing pointed to this same dead link. I then navigated to the Google’s Microsoft search index and learned that its pointer resulted in the same dead end. I sure hope that the Microsoft Fast search engine can find its cmdlets. I couldn’t. Sort of a search mystery.
Stephen Arnold, December 113, 2009
I wish to disclose that no one paid me to write this. Now who is on oversight duty on Saturday at 1800 hours. Oh, I remember. I must report this to the Jefferson Country Animal Protection Agency. Stray dogs, like errant download links, are a nuisance.
Google sdrawkcaB
December 13, 2009
I enjoyed Outspoken Media’s “Is Google Moving in the Wrong Direction?” You will want to read the story and consider the examples drawn from Google’s recent product and service announcements. The idea is that Google is succumbing to complexification. Today, some of the post 1994 crowd want to embrace simplicity. Making stuff simple is important when folks are baffled by the functions of some of today’s electronic products and services. I recall the interesting example of the Cargo Cult. I also like the idea that an advanced technology looks like deep mojo to the less sophisticated.
I don’t agree with Outspoken Media’ and I certainly don’t want to suggest that she is part of the post 1994 generation nor do I want to leave you with the impression that Outspoken Media is the metaphorical match for an Amazonian tribe member somewhat unfamiliar with iPods and ATMs. No, no. My view is that this write articulates the increasing need to keep thinking out of online services. Type a few words. Get a result. Forget the variants and their implications. Just give me a result list. That’s how I interpret signals from her write up and from some azure chip consultants who specialize in the mysteries of CRM, CMS, and ERP.
The problem is:
- Google was and remains a technically sophisticated outfit. Engineers, not MBAs, get the cold Odwalla drinks
- The Google system is 11 years old and that means there are quite a few public facing services and it is tough for those who use a couple of services to get their heads around the more than 80 services available for the average Joe and Jane
- The present services are indeed more sophisticated on the surface than typing 2.3 words in the Google search box. The problem is that these new services are less complicated that the core Google system. Googlers are assembling Lego blocks into constructions that look complicated but when broken into their constituent parts are red, blue, green and yellow components. Complex structures can be assembled from a few building blocks.
The result is that there is a superficial complexity to some Google products and services. Underneath is a deeper complexity that makes it relatively simple for Google to develop new constructs. Bottomline: don’t think too deeply about Google unless you have the tools and mental software to get below the shiny surface of Google.
In my experience, few bother to make this effort. It is easier to tell Google what to do. Or, just draw a conclusion about Google based on a partial understanding of the firm’s technical resources. Failing that, I am not sure that understanding of the radicalism Google manifests will make much sense.
Stephen Arnold, December 12, 2009
I have to tell you, dear Blog Police, at the US Senate Police, that I was paid to write this article by Joe Roberts. He bought my lunch and said, “You won’t criticize that Outspoken Media article, will you?” Yep, I did. A taco bought me off.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
