Open Source in 2010: Questions to Be Answered
January 2, 2010
Even in the hollows of Kentucky, folks know that open source software is a useful technical option. Now some of my neighbors rely on open source when they grab their mobile device and text a pal about the squirrel that fell victim to a spurt from a semi automatic shotgun. Others at the few big companies still in business may use open source on their portable computer or maybe on a software system at work. The problem is that the knowledge of open source is hazy, but the phrase “open source” resonates in the Commonwealth. That is a step forward.
The Google is in the open source camp or at least on its outskirts. Big Blue as we call UK around these parts relies to some degree on IBM hardware and software. IBM is in the open source camp or maybe trying to buy up adjacent chunks of territory around open source. (One example is Rational and its use of Lucene in ClearQuest.) In fact, quite a few tech companies have been bitten by the open source flea.
I read a link sent to me by one of my two or three readers in the Bits blog, which is part of the New York Times empire. The article was “Seeking Profit in Open Source Search and Software” by Ashlee Vance. There were some interesting points in that write up that struck me a somewhat one sided, but more of that in a moment.
The article is a mini case about a company called Lucid Imagination. I don’t know too much about the company because my view of open source has been influenced by the Tesuji.eu and Lemur Consulting approaches. Here are the items that caught my attention:
- Lucid has landed some big name companies, including Zappos.com (a unit of Amazon) and AT&T (famous for not selling the iPhone in New York city a week or so ago)
- Lucene is a decade old and there are about 10,000 downloads a week. Lucene is an open source search system which is available from Lucid as a package, obviating the need to hunt around for various software bits and pieces
- A Lucid support contract sells for something in the range of $12,000 to $50,000, depending on customer requirements. The idea is that Lucene is less expensive than signing up for one of the proprietary commercial search and content processing systems. (I think I have seen some pretty compelling products from other vendors in this price range, however.)
- Lucid Imagination is “in the millions of dollars in revenue.”
The write up is useful.
I then flipped back to the Datamation write up called “Open Source in 2010: Nine Predictions”. Bruce Byfield’s view is also interesting. He begins with an important comment:
Everything always happens ten times faster in open source than in mainstream computing, but, even by open source standards, 2010 promises to be an interesting year. We can take for granted, I think, that open source will continue to gain popularity. 2010 will not be the fabled Year of the Linux Desktop, but we should continue to see the same slow, steady increase in adoption of the past decade.
This passage suggests that companies in the open source game may have a banner year in 2010. The odd thing is that in his write up he does not mention search and content management, two areas where the hyperbole strikes me as significant.
Several observations:
First, search and content processing and I may as well toss in content management are not perceived as mainstream software applications. Each may be more like utilities on steroids. Other sectors like mobile device use of open source may have more perceived lift. If money is the name of the game, search and content related applications may not light up the pundits’ radar.
Second, the notion of “free” plus for-fee support is interesting, but it may not be enough to build out a Google-scale business. Once again this begs the question of potential market size. An open source company will have to do more to ignite some Wall Street analysts’ kitchen match. Millions buys a condo. Billions warrants attention. Search with the exception of Google has not made the kitchen matches flame. Bright stars like Autonomy and Endeca, when compared to the likes of Google, may be tough to see.
Third, to get big money, open source must become more like commercial software. In that field of play, in my experience, the keys to success are proprietary code, lock in, predatory pricing, and certifying professionals who man the Maginot line against intruders from other outfits. If I am right, then open source software in general and search in particular will have to find a way to breakthrough these virtual walls.
I am neither for or against open source software. Google plays its open source cards carefully, and I have noted in my talks that not all of Google’s technology is open sourced. In fact, Google is a pretty clever outfit, not a pure open source outfit either. Which open source company is a poster child for the tenets of “openness”?
I think answers to this question may be put forth in 2010. I just don’t know what those answers are, nor does the New York Times or Datamation. Wide open field, right?
Stephen E. Arnold, January 2, 2010
Oyez, oyez, I report officially to the Marine Mammal Commission that open source may be neither fish nor fowl.
Beyond Search Lands Its First Advertiser
January 1, 2010
Short honk: I used the space above this blog’s banner to flog my books. Gaviri, the developer of Universal Search, has become the first “real” advertiser on “Beyond Search.” I interviewed Dr. Akazuewa for the Search Wizards Speaks series, and then I invited him to give the keynote at the Seed2020 event in Louisville, on November 4, 2009. He was a hit, and I was delighted that he decided to advertise on “Beyond Search”. If you want to promote your search engine or content processing system, write me at seaky2000 at yahoo dot com, and I will provide pricing. I have only two or three readers each day, but a number of people read the Web log’s content each day. I can tell from the email I receive from folks who don’t agree with my analyses. A happy quack to Gaviri.
Stephen E. Arnold, January 1, 2010
Disclosure: I kicked in this article after Gaviri paid me for the ad space for one month. Now you know. I am a mercenary rural Kentucky dweller.
Microsoft Worries about Intellectual Arteriosclerosis
January 1, 2010
At my advanced age, I think a 50 year old is a spring chicken. Some one in their 40s is a chick. Anyone younger is a beak poking through a shell. Not at Microsoft. Based on the article “At Microsoft, Is Age More Than Just a Number?”, someone at Microsoft allegedly believes the company is losing touch with youth. The idea is that a young engineer comes to Microsoft and then high tails it somewhere else quickly. It costs a big company a lot of money to recruit a young employee, train them, and make them productive. There is a high cost to churn, just as there is in the mobile phone subscription list. To get payback from young workers, the company has to keep these lads and lasses around and productive for several years. As maddening as youth are, these folks are important to the future of an organization. The most interesting sentence in the write up, in my opinion, was:
“My research has shown that 401ks, salaries and other forms of monetary compensation are less important to Generation Y retention than fruitful collaboration with peers, recognition of work, opportunities for growth and the idea of “being a part of something”. These young employees are less averse to change and will tirelessly seek environments that promote these activities, leaving those that don’t.”
The quote is from a wizard at Microsoft. Am I alone in thinking that Google has a magnetic lure for young wizards. Those who can’t get hired at the Google can look at Apple, maybe Amazon, or even the wacky land of Facebook.com. If Microsoft has a bunch of spring chickens, these folks may not be ready for the retirement home, but they may be just the ticket for Googzilla to run over on the information highway. The spring chickens may cross the road to fix a glitch in SharePoint and then find themselves under the wheels of Messrs. Brin’s and Page’s Hummer.
Stephen E. Arnold, January 1, 2010
Another freebie. I must report this sad state of affairs to the National Park Service. A dead animal in a national park is its responsibility.
Google as A Cat D-9
January 1, 2010
VentureBeat’s “Nine Startup Dreams and Industries Google Crushed in 2009” was a fresh take on Google’s disruptive force. The premise of the write up is that Google is putting some industry sectors under considerable pressure. The examples are fascinating. I can’t list the complete run down, but I can highlight two of the examples that I found interesting. Of course, I want you to read the original article and form you own opinion.
First, Google’s impact, according to VentureBeat, is considerable on real time search. I have been following real time search for a few days, and I thought that incumbents had a head start. VentureBeat said:
Then in December, Google unveiled its work, showing real-time search results that streamed down the page, Friendfeed style.
The implication is that incumbents have been sent scrambling.
Second, the collision between Rupert Murdoch and Google is a potential “crush” experience. VentureBeat said:
He [Murdoch] tried to kill the messenger, but Murdoch’s posturing and threat to remove News Corp. content from Google indexing only amounted to a few cosmetic concessions from the search giant. The company changed its first-click free program, which lets you read a page of walled content for free if you click through in Google search results. It now limits how much non-paying subscribers can access even more.
The use of the word “crush” strikes me as not what Google is doing. In the case of real time search systems, I think Google is adding features, and it is not gunning at a specific real time search incumbent. The incumbents are innovating, so I see the Google move as a positive one. The idea that Google is going to “crush” the News Corp. is also an overstatement. Mr. Murdoch is taking a hard line with Time Warner and Google. News Corp may have an innovative play to reveal which is a positive for me. If a compromise is reached, it is business as usual.
To sum up, Google is a disruptive force, but it is not a giant earth moving vehicle smashing with abandon. Google seems reasonably circumspect in my opinion.
Stephen E. Arnold, January 1, 2010
Full disclosure. A freebie. I am telling the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) because some of the information in this brief write up point out orphan ideas.
ChaCha Dances to Its Own Revenue Tune
January 1, 2010
I think that the TechCrunch articles arrive at the Washington Post via some set up. I spotted the headline “ChaCha Makes ITs Crazy Business Model Profitable” and concluded that the DC paper could not [a] have written a jazzy headline and [b] known about ChaCha search because Indianapolis in not Annapolis by a long shot. I was right.
The key point in the story is that the human powered search system is making money. The most interesting observation in the article was:
ChaCha also made another smart move. They started archiving questions and answers on their website in January 2009. 300 million of them are now published on their website ¿ you can view and search them from the ChaCha home page. Those pages have lots of ads generating revenue, and the search engines tend to rank pages like these highly. The company serves just under a million page views to answer pages per day, they say.
Some services discard historic queries; others bury them. ChaCha makes these generate ad revenue. In addition SMS ads are generating revenue as well.
Useful information in my opinion.
Stephen E. Arnold, January 1, 2010
Oyez, oyez, I wish to disclose to the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation that ChaCha did not pay me to write this. ChaCha has cut a new channel for revenue.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
