Apple-Google and $100 Million between Pals
February 12, 2010
Who knows if this is accurate? Neither Apple nor Google are sharing much information about their tie ups, hook downs, and work arounds. “Google Paying Apple More Than $100 Million Annually For iPhone Search Deal” caught my attention because I had not thought about Google paying anyone to use its search system. Apple, mercenary outfit that it is, seems to have liked this approach to search. With Apple and Google starting to fall out of love, Apple may have a way to make some quick money with its new pal, Microsoft. Who would have thought?
For me the most interesting comment in the write up was:
While Apple isn’t going to stomp into search, Apple’s deals with Google have become more contentious lately, as the companies are increasingly competing with each other. Our source tells us when Apple first introduced the iPhone, it hammered out its deal for Google Maps in two weeks. When Apple prepared to launch the iPhone 3G with GPS a year later, it was a six-month process “full of acrimony” to get the maps deal finished.
Apple may not be a world beater in search, but the company does know how to put a world of hurt on those entities it wishes to decore. Google is not immune. Just ask Amazon about ebook pricing, Kindle SDKs, and intra company management squabbles triggered by the Cupertino crowd.
Stephen E Arnold, February 13, 2010
No one paid me to write this. I will report this sad fact to the USDA, an organization more faithful to the precepts of Johnny Appleseed than any other fruit purveyors.
Aardvark Gets a Google Logo
February 12, 2010
Not long ago I wrote about Aardvark’s white paper. I summarized the questions that the goslings and I kicked around after we worked through the methods. Our view is that with the Google “big data” approach, its computational horsepower, and the burgeoning social assault, Aardvark may be a player. You can read “Google Acquires Aardvark for $50” for a solid run down.
Our take: disruption ahead.
Stephen E Arnold, February 12, 2010
No one paid me to write this. When the snow melts, I will report this to Fish & Wildlife, an outfit concerned about Aardvarks.
Social Media Fatigue: The SSN Minute for February 11, 2010
February 11, 2010
This week’s SSN Minute talks about fatigue. The idea is that the USA Today and other consumer publications assert that social media is in decline. The SSN Minute explains that properly applied, social media can deliver results. Before listening to any poobah or so-called expert, you may want to dip your toes in the social media current. Your first hand experience will help you know what to do and when to pay for outside services. Click here to get the Strategic Social Networking minute.
Stephen E Arnold, February 11, 2010
Note: Post not sponsored.
MySpace Turmoil
February 11, 2010
I never jumped into the MySpace.com service. I looked at a couple of sites and noticed some presentations that jarred my aging goose senses. When I honk, I am reasonably gentle. One MySpace site blasted sounds and lights at me, and I lost a handful of pin feathers.
What I found interesting was the coverage in the top drawer online media about turmoil at MySpace, which is owned by the large enterprise run by Rupert Murdoch. I found myself interested in the comments in BoomTown’s “MySpace CEO Van Natta Was Fired by News Corp. Digital Head Miller in Late Afternoon Meeting.” Whenever a large online company “fires” a person, I think that there may be some dissention in the ranks. When a giant corporation “fires” someone, there is the specter of some type of litigation or intense media scrutiny. I don’t know about the legal eagles, but there is quite a bit of media interest in MySpace.
In my opinion, MySpace is a member of the Over the Hill Gang without the cinematography. The dramatic soundtrack is there, however. In the BoomTown write up, this passage caught my attention:
The long-running telenovela that has been MySpace over the years took yet another dramatic turn late today when News Corp. Chief Digital Officer Jon Miller fired MySpace CEO Owen Van Natta, whom he had hired only nine months ago to turn around the troubled social networking site, according to several sources.
Brazilian soap opera! Fascinating. But the telling facts in the write up underscored issues with management interaction. And my recollection is that Facebook has left MySpace in the dust and has begun to nose ahead of Google in some features.
I suppose this is an anomaly in the News Corp. empire. If the new pay wall program follows in MySpace’s footsteps, there will be more heads rolling out the door in my opinion. Once there is a problem, unless that problem is resolved, a domino effect can kick in. Is it money? No, in my opinion. Is it market share? No, in my opinion. Is it management? Yes, in my opinion. The management problem can become management problems.
Stephen E Arnold, February 11, 2010
No one paid me to write this comment. I will report it to someone in DC when the city digs out and the Montgomery County snow plow drivers regain their courage.
Online Pricing Insights: The Music Edition
February 11, 2010
I enjoyed reading “iTunes Price Increases Mean Slower Sales for Music Labels.” I can hear the azure chip consultants saying, “We were surprised.” Right. The core of the story is that higher prices on Apple iTunes’ music reduced sales. Got it. For me, the most telling statements in the write up were:
- “Warner Music Group revealed Tuesday that it has seen digital music sales slow down since the price increase took effect in April 2009.”
- “Warner CEO Edgar Bronfman Jr. reportedly said the pricing change has been a “net positive” for Warner, but conceded that a 30 percent price increase during a recession was not the best move.”
- “Publishers have said the increased prices will not lead to greater profits, but will protect the viability of the book marketplace by giving authors and agents the ability to make more money on every digital sale.”
Net net. Raising prices reduces sales. Get your Number 2 pencils out. Based on the data in the article, calculate the price point at which publishers generate a pre tax profit of 20 percent. I know Steve Jobs will get this problem right.
Stephen E Arnold, February 11, 2010
No one paid me to write this article or create a test question. I will report this failure to get paid for an academic exercise to the Department of Education.
GT&T: Google Telephone & Telegraph
February 11, 2010
This is old news for me and the goslings. Google made it official. You can read the startled comments of Google watchers who see the company in a one-dimensional way. Great for Euclid, not so good for understanding the disruptive power of the GOOG. Check out “Google to Offer Superfast Broadband to Homes.” For me the most interesting comment in the write up was:
It’s a classic case of “what’s good for the Internet is good for Google.” But it also looks like Google wants to get more people addicted to what really high-speed Internet can do, thereby winning over more customers for Google’s many online services. It’s also possible that the company has software in its lab that requires this type of connection, and it’s building itself a test bed.
Well, that’s one way to express that Google is becoming the Internet, and it is sniffing around the methods of the pre-break up AT&T as well.
A good question to ponder is, “For what will Google use high-speed service to its own subscribers?” Or, “What content type becomes a challenge to incumbents in the entertainment business?” Or, “What is the drawing on the big Google whiteboard of a connection between a satellite and an airplane signifying?”
Interesting. Not unexpected.
Stephen E Arnold, February 11, 2010
No one paid me to write this article. Due to the reference to an airplane, I will report my state of non compensation to the FAA, a stellar agency.
Semantic Search Explained
February 11, 2010
A happy quack to the reader who sent me “Breakthrough Analysis: Tow + Nine Types of Semantic Search”. Martin White (Intranet Focus) and I tried to explain semantic search in the text and the glossary for our Successful Enterprise Search Management. Our approach was to point out that the word “semantic” is often used in many different ways. Our purpose was to put procurement teams on alert when buzzwords were used to explain the features of an enterprise search system. Our approach was focused on matching a specific requirement to a particular function. An example would be displaying results in categories. The search vendor had to have a system that performed this type of value-added processing. The particular adjectives and marketing nomenclature were secondary to the function. The practicality of our approach was underscored for me when I read the Intelligent Enterprise article about the nine types of semantic search.
Source: http://writewellcommunications.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/homonyms1.jpg
I don’t feel comfortable listing the Intelligent Enterprise list, but I urge you to take a close look at the write up. Ask yourself these questions:
- Do you understand the difference between related searches/queries, concept search, and faceted search?
- When you look for information, are you mindful of “semantic/syntactic annotations” operating under the covers or in plain view?
- Do you type queries of about three words, or do you type queries with a dozen words or more organized in a question?
Your answer underscores one of the most fragile aspects of search and content processing. A focus on the numerical recipes that different vendors use to deliver specific functions often makes little or no sense even to engineers with deep experience in search and content processing.
A quick example.
If you run a query on the Exstream (the enterprise publishing system acquired by Hewlett Packard), you can get a list of content elements. The system is designed to allow a person in charge of placing a message in a medical invoice or an auto payment invoice and other types of content assembly operations. The system is not particularly clever, but it works reasonably well. The notion of search in this enterprise environment is in my opinion quite 1980s, despite some nice features like saved projects along the lines of Quark’s palette of frequently used objects.
Now run a query on a Mark Logic based system at a major manufacturing company. The result looks a bit like a combination of a results list and a report, but if you move to another department, the output may have a different look and feel. This is a result of the underlying plumbing of the Mark Logic system. I think that describing Mark Logic as a search system and attributing more “meaningful” functions to it is possible, but the difference is the architecture.
A person describing either the Exstream or the Mark Logic system could apply one or more of the “two + nine” terms to the system. I don’t think those terms are particularly helpful either to the users or to the engineers at Exstream or Mark Logic. Here’s why:
- Systems have to solve a problem for a customer. Describing what the outputs look like are descriptive and may not reflect what is going on under the hood. Are the saved projects the equivalent of an stored Xquery for MarkLogic?
- Users need to have interfaces that allow them to get their work done. Arguably both Exstream and Mark Logic deliver for their customers. The underlying numerical recipes are essentially irrelevant if these two systems deliver for their customers.
- The terminology in use at each company comes from different domains, and it is entirely possible that professionals of Exstream and Mark Logic use exactly the same term with very different connotations.
The discourse about search, content processing, and information retrieval is fraught with words that are rarely defined across different slices of the information industry. In retrospect, Martin and I followed a useful, if pragmatic, path. We focused on requirements. Leave the crazy lingo to the marketers, the pundits, and the poobahs. I just want systems to work for their users. Words don’t do this, obviously, which makes lingo easier than implementing systems so users can locate needed information.
Stephen E Arnold, February 11, 2010
No one paid me to put in this shameless plug for Martin White’s and my monograph, Successful Enterprise Search Management. This is a marketing write up, and I have dutifully reported this fact to you.
A Free Pass for Open Source Search?
February 11, 2010
Dateline: Harrod’s Creek, February 11, 2010
I read Gavin Clarke’s “Microsoft Drops Open Source Birthday Gift with Fast Lucidly Imaginative?” I think that the point of the story was “a free pass” to “open source search providers like Lucid Imagination” is interesting. However, I am not willing to accept “free pass”, a variant of the “free lunch” in my opinion.
Here’s my view from the pleasant clime of snowy Harrod’s Creek.
First, in my opinion, most of the Fast Search & Transfer licensees bought into the “one size fits all” approach to search: facets, reports, access to structured and unstructured data, etc. As many of these licensees discovered, the cost of making Fast’s search technology deliver on the marketing PowerPoints was high. Furthermore, some like me learned how difficult it was for certain licensees to get the moving parts in sync quickly. Fast ESP consisted, prior to the Microsoft buy out, of keyword search, semantics from a team in Germany, third-party magic from companies like Lexalytics, home brew code from Norwegian wizards, and outright acquisitions for publishing and content management functionality. Wisely, many search vendors have learned to steer clear of the path that Fast Search & Transfer chopped through the sales wilderness. This means that orphaned Fast Search licensees may be looking at procurements that narrow the scope of search and content processing systems. In fact, there are only a handful vendors who are now pitching the “kitchen sink” approach to search.
Source: http://www.graceforlife.com/uploaded_images/no_free_lunch-772769.jpg
Second, open source search solutions are not created equal. Some are tool kits; others are ready-to-run systems. Lucid Imagination has a good public relations presence in certain places; for example, San Francisco. For those who monitor the search space, there are some other open source vendors that may provide some options. I particularly like the open source version of Lucene available from Tesuji.eu. Ah, never heard of the outfit, right? I also find the FLAX system available from Lemur Consulting useful as well. I think the issues with Fast Search & Transfer are not going to be resolved by ringing up a single vendor and saying, “We’re ready to go with your open source solution.” The more prudent approach is going to be understanding what the differences among various open source search solutions are and then determining if an organization’s specific requirements match up to one of these firms’ service offerings. Open source, therefore, requires some work and I don’t think a knee jerk reaction or a sweeping statement that the Microsoft announcement will deliver a “free pass” is accurate.
Microsoft Fast Partner Update
February 11, 2010
I received from a reader at a really obscure email address an email containing some text that interested me. I don’t know if the text I received is complete or is accurate, but I wanted to document my seeing it so I can do some further checking. According to the short accompanying comments, this text is from a message made available to Microsoft partners last week. I will reproduce what I have received and invite comments. At the foot of this item, I offer several observations.
Dear________,
Today, we announced that the 2010 release of FAST Search products, Microsoft® FAST™ Search Server 2010 for Internet Sites (FSIS) and Microsoft® FAST™ Search Server 2010 for Internal Applications (FSIA), will be the last release to include a search core that runs on Linux and UNIX. By focusing on Windows we’ll be able to tap into a valuable set of competencies and assets across Microsoft and deliver better technologies more efficiently to our customers. We recognize that our future focus on Windows will be a transition for our non-Windows customers, and we’re taking steps to help.
- We’re committed to supporting ESP 5.3-our multi-OS search core-for 10 years as per our support policy. Non-Windows customers who want to remain on the ESP 5.3 core can take advantage of new Windows-only innovations by using a mixed-platform architecture.
- We remain committed to interoperability with non-Windows systems on both the front- and back-end. Our search solutions will crawl and index content stored on Windows, Linux, and Unix systems, and our UI controls will work with UI frameworks running on any operating system.
- We’re introducing a Customer Upgrade Program that will help customers evaluate our hosted solutions and/or a Windows-based deployment. The program will help customers assess level of effort, plan for the project, and implement the upgrade.
Furthermore, we are also announcing four other roadmap updates:
- Simplified licensing models: We’re simplifying the way we license our products and making pricing more transparent. In the 2010 Wave our Productivity search products will be licensed using a Server/CAL model and our Internet search products will be licensed using a Server-only model. Qualifying customers will receive license grants to our new 2010 wave products.
- SharePoint for Internet Sites, Enterprise: In the 2010 Wave we will offer two versions of SharePoint for Internet Sites-Enterprise and Standard. The Enterprise version will include rights to FAST Search for SharePoint for use outside the firewall.
- ESP Add-ons: At FAST Search for Internet Sites (FSIS) availability we will no longer sell ImPulse, Unity, Recommendations, or Featured Content as separate add-ons. Commerce, Federation, and Recommendations capabilities will still be available as a part of FSIS and are included in our product roadmap. Partners need to engage FAST Global Services to implement these capabilities for interested customers.
- AdMomentum: Effective February 2, 2010, we will no longer sell FAST AdMomentum, our search-based advertising solution.
I hope these announcements and attached <http://www.fastsearch.com/document/ESG_Roadmap_Update-FASTPartners-Feb5_2010_oyaGI.pdf.file> FAQ provide sufficient information to help you plan your engagements with FAST customers. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to write to us…
The information seems generally consistent with the news stories I read. Other observations that struck me as warranted are:
- Lots of “commitment” type words when Microsoft Fast seems to be cutting loose the Linux and Unix customers
- I like the word “wave” in the second set of bullets. Reminds me of Forrester and Google.
- Orphaned it seems are some of Fast Search & Transfer revenue generating add ons unless you get the FSIS as a bundle. FSIS means Fast Search for Internet Sites. (Why not use Google’s custom search engine? I would. It is free and works.)
- The keeper is “better technologies”.
Okay. This will be an interesting enterprise search initiative to watch.
Stephen E Arnold, February 10, 2010
No one paid me to write this short news item. I will report this to the General Accountability Office where accountability is Job One.
Autonomy to Grow the Inorganic Way
February 10, 2010
Short honk and a happy quack. A reader in the UK alerted me to the alleged $1.0 billion in cash that Autonomy is gathering. The idea is that Autonomy will buy companies to continue its growth. I read the news in “Autonomy to Create One Billion dollar Acquisition War Chest, and I will poke around for a little more information in the morning. Quite a few search and content processing companies are struggling for revenue. A big outfit like Autonomy can snag a few and gain some useful technology. Autonomy may want to move into other types of enterprise software where its technology could add value. The most interesting passage in the write up I saw was:
The Cambridge-based world leader in enterprise search and the UK’s largest tech company by market cap wants to raise the $1bn (£637.4 million) by launching a convertible bond…“The convertible bond vehicle is beneficial for current shareholders and less dilutive for a potential transaction in the short to medium term than other equity financing. “If Autonomy does not use the funds raised in a reasonable time period we would consider returning it to existing shareholders.”
Interesting.
Stephen E Arnold, February 10, 2010
No one paid me to write this. i will report this sad state of affairs to the ExIm Bank, an outfit familiar with financial instruments.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
