The Sun Case Study: Pertinent to Google?
March 4, 2010
I read the Sun case study “How Sun’s Need to Control the Code Cost Them the Company” and wondered if the information pertains to Oracle and to a lesser extent to Google. The author, Jeremy Allison, is a Googler who used to work at Sun. In addition to Mr. Allison, Eric Schmidt is a former Sun Microsystems employee. I once heard that Sun contributed quite a few employees to Google, but I don’t have any hard numbers. (If anyone does, please, use the comments section of this blog to share them.)
You will want to read the quite good write up because it combines useful business insights with a touch of humor. Rare in the world of ZDNet blog posts in my opinion. As I worked through the case study, I kept wondering “Why now?” and “For whom is this written?” I have to tell you I kept thinking about Oracle and Google even through Mr. Allison was writing his opinions and made clear that his views were not those of Google’s.
Fair enough.
First, I noticed that the discussion of the proprietary Sparc chip was a dog compared to Intel’s CPUs. When I read this, I realized that Oracle is requiring that each salesperson sell one of the big, honking servers along with the standard quota. If Oracle keeps the Sparc chip, Oracle is going to find itself selling systems that may be hard pressed to deliver the performance customers demand. Even worse, if an Oracle customer goes off the reservation, that customer may discover that commodity boxes and non relational databases are the cure for those performance woes. That would be bad news for Oracle in my opinion.
Second, I twitched my pinfeathers when I read the discussion of Sun and open source code. You must read this sequence including the “Have you ever kissed a girl?” email thread. In this exchange I see a warning (gentle, of course) about what problems Oracle may face in the open source community and how a company like Microsoft might find itself in a heap of trouble for a more savvy open source outfit. Could Google be more clever about “open”? Mr. Allison does not explore this idea, but I have a hunch that the lessons of Sun apply to both Microsoft and Oracle.
Finally, if you did not fall asleep in one of those required literature classes in college, you may be able to read even more between the words and the lines in this essay. Fascinating.
Stephen E Arnold, March 4, 2010
No one paid me to write this opinion as a blog post. I know I have to report whether my blog posts are commercials or the random thoughts of an addled goose. Ah, random. I will report this to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, an institution whose judgments are never random even though I see some of them that way.
Coveo Jumps to Version 6.1
March 4, 2010
As March begins, enterprise search giant has released its Enterprise Search Platform Version 6.1. As announced by Coveo, the updated version features new interfaces, better integration with your existing infrastructure, and complete indexing of desktop and e-mail (including attachments). Coveo’s “connectors” in this version are important, as they now allow searching of existing social network platforms like Jive and Confluence, and full search options along Enterprise 2.0 systems. In addition, the platform can be integrated into Outlook via the Coveo Outlook Sidebar, allowing users to search e-mails, attachments, and contacts all without leaving Outlook.
The Coveo Floating Desktop Searchbar hovers magically over any Windows application, allowing users to “search where they work.” Search results can now be mulled over in Coveo Search Analytics, giving users insight into the who-what-where of searches being performed within an organization. The most relevant information, if not showing up, can be promoted directly in search results. Information can also be grouped into dynamic mash-ups and dashboards allowing “composite views of key metrics” and a more efficient display of data.
Sam Hartman, March 4, 2010
ArnoldIT.com paid Sam Hartman to write this article.
Customer Experience, More Double Talk?
March 4, 2010
Call an airline. Call a bank. Call a hospital. Ask a question. Sure, when you have listened to messages that explain that the call will be recorded, the menu options have changed, and that all customer service representatives are busy.
Need technical support. Call a big company. Call a consulting firm. Call an authorized reseller. Sure, when you have listened to a recording. Provided the extension that came with the for fee hotline support you bought. Listen to a person whom you may not know and who may not know you. Explain the problem. Push aside the “pull the plug” advice. Try to get someone who can answer your question.
That’s the customer experience that seems to define “quality” today.
Source: http://www.reefbuilders.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/customer-service-fail.jpg
The word “experience” has become a metaphor for whatever it takes to get money out of a person and not have that person [a] cancel the contract, [b] talk to a manager, or [c] send tweets about the “experience.” In short, experience means doing something other than what the caller wants; namely, fix the darned problem.
I read “The Sometimes Deadly Customer Experience Strategy”. I was hoping to learn that something new was on the horizon. Nope. Here’s the key passage that I underlined. Note that the “experience” is the Toyota sudden acceleration problem:
What I saw was stonewalling rather than ever really trying to locate the problem, wrapped in polite letters and diligent dealers trying to figure it out. Customer experience.
Well, close enough for horseshoes but not close enough for me.
I am deeply suspicious of any attempt by a company to “manage” using pop psychology, apologies, or other emoluments.
Furthermore, like the Google anti trust “experience”, perhaps there is more behind these problems. Sure, executives make mistakes, but I think the larger context is that there are few, if any, downsides for short cuts. In the technical world, when people are done explaining surges and search engine failures, no one has a clue where the problem originated, whose responsibility it was to prevent the problem, and who will end up paying for the problem.
Doing business in technology is influenced by some larger cultural forces of which the lack of consequences is one small factor.
I don’t know about you but I am genuinely surprised when a company delivers a product that works, cares about me as a customer, and makes an effort to improve its products. What should be the standard operating method has become the equivalent of finding a four leaf clover.
Forget experience. Make products that work. Make it easy for customers to get answers.
Stephen E Arnold, March 3, 2010
No one paid me to write this article. I will report non payment to the GSA’s national call center which always delivers great customer service no matter what any one asks.
Quote to Note: The Foundation of Yahoo, Rotten
March 3, 2010
Navigate to “The Steady, Efficient Decline Of Yahoo.” The article has some useful analysis of Yahoo’s woes. These include silos and unexciting products. The key statement is:
Yahoo’s foundation is rotten.
When foundations are weak, the structure comes apart. Right?
Stephen E Arnold, March 2, 2010
No one paid me to write this. I will report non payment to the manager of the Blair House, which has foundations like Toyota plants.
Financial Times Hopes for a Flood of Cash
March 3, 2010
The Financial Times * was * one of the most magnetic business information brands. Now I don’t think too much about the Financial Times. Its 2009 Newssift.com site (now mercifully removed from my browser’s bookmark list) is history. Newssift featured technology from Endeca, Nstein (now surprisingly part of OpenText, and Lexalytics (now a unit of Infonics). The dreams of the SharePoint-ish interface, the weird and colorful boxes of options, and the irrelevant results are just a reminder that online is tough. The decline in revenues in the most recent quarter is not heartening either, but the company did get out of the wax museum business. That was a positive step.
I just read “FT.com Tests PayPal To Rake In Paywall Fees”. The most telling comment in the write up in my opinion was this passage:
FT.com has more than 126,000 online subscribers and 750 direct corporate licenses, according to UK’s MarketingWeek. In 2009, content revenues increased by 15%, although revenues for the overall FT Group, which contains Interactive Data and FT Publishing, fell by 12% in 2009.
I thought about some of the free thinking ideas I heard at the NFAIS Conference in Philadelphia yesterday (March 1, 2010). NFAIS is a professional organization for those in the “old” abstracting and indexing business, but there were some young folks attending as well. I heard some speakers describe in general terms their employers’ monetization efforts.
I wanted to ask some questions, but I caused enough upset tummies when I mentioned in my invited luncheon address for members the following:
In the old days of online, the publishers ruled the roost. Publishers had memberships to the country club. Publishers organized the golf foursomes. Publishers got to pick who was allowed to entertain at the 19th hole. Today companies like Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and a handful of others are the country club members who organize the foursomes, and it is the Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google executives who decide who pays and who plays. The publishers are now the caddies for these newer info-giants.
Two people excused themselves. Quite enough of the addled goose I concluded.
Now the Financial Times is about to demonstrate that it has weak magnetic power. Why will its dreams of untold riches not materialize? Individual newspapers, even those with a chunk of the Economist in its hip pocket, lack the pull that other types of online services deliver. One example is the financial information available from AOL, Google, and Yahoo. If you have not explored these resources, take a gander. These services continue to improve, and I think that as the economy continues to wobble, the Financial Times will have to do quite a bit of work to get traffic and generate significant flows of online revenue.
Can the Financial Times achieve this goal? If Newssift.com is an early indicator, I think the odds are indeed long.
Stephen E Arnold, March 3, 2010
No one paid me to write this. I suppose I have to report writing for nothing to public affairs person at the National Railway Retirement Board.
AT&T Dumps Google for Yahoo Search
March 3, 2010
I was surprised to read that AT&T prefers Yahoo Search to Google Search. The story I saw was “AT&T Ditches Google For Yahoo Search on Motorola Backflip.” I found this passage interesting:
AT&T’s first Android phone won’t ship with Google Search. Instead, The Motorola Backflip‘s home screen will sport a Yahoo Search widget, and its browser will run Yahoo searches by default. Yep. I think that’s what they call a burn. It’ll be the first Android device of any kind with Yahoo as the main search engine, which makes sense: Android is Google’s platform, so Google Search is a natural fit. But Android’s also an open platform, which means that carriers can do with it what they please—including denying its creator a chunk of valuable search revenue.
So the love birds are unhappy in the nest? I had heard that AT&T was grousing about having to spend money for Google AdWords as it whips it attorneys to find ways to make the non-telco Google heel like a well trained poodle. Then AT&T indicated that it would sell the Android phones. Now as a way of showing who is still the boss, those phones will use Yahoo Search as the default search engine.
Horrors. I assert that there will be more to this saga.
Stephen E Arnold, March 3, 2010
Nope, not paid. Because I mention AT&T, I must report a freebie to the FCC. I am now reporting: “I wrote this item for free.”
Automated Reports May Squeeze Azure Chip Consultants
March 3, 2010
On Mach 1, 2010, I heard an interesting presentation by Alacra. This company aggregates business information and packages it in an easy-to-read way. The talk focused on Alacra Pulse. The basics of the service as I recorded the speaker’s comments are:
The Alacra Pulse Platform monitors thousands of carefully selected news feeds and blogs and extracts actionable intelligence in near-real-time. Alacra’s Applied Knowledge Extraction turns Web content into an idea generation and current awareness service for financial professionals and corporate executives.
The Pulse service offers a free version and a premium version. I thought the demonstration of the free version was quite good, and it certainly shows how far automated content assembly has come in the last two or three years. You can explore the service yourself. Navigate to http://pulse.alacra.com/analyst-comments to get started.
Right after listening to the Alacra talk, I read a news release about “New Market Report Now Available: Hon Hai Precision Industry Company Limited – SWOT Analysis” from an azure chip outfit called Datamonitor. Now Hon Hai Precision, if I recall correctly, is a unit of Foxconn. Foxconn makes stuff for “hollow manufacturers.” The idea is that a company like Apple or Dell does not have the expertise or cost structure to make things. Foxconn and Hon Hoi do. The buzzword for lacking a core competency in manufacturing is outsourcing in my opinion. Foxconn is interesting because of a glitch in Apple related security and an employee death.
I think I prefer the autogenerated reports from Alacra, thank you. Image sourcehttp://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Hs_cKZPkvaU/Sxshr9-foYI/AAAAAAAAAG4/ZtHNfWYGEIE/s400/sleazy-salesman-thumb.jpg:
The azure chip crowd assembles reports, presumably like the Hon Hoi “SWOT” analysis using basic business school methods, which may or may not be germane to the present financial climate. Here’s what the news release said:
Datamonitor’s Hon Hai Precision Industry Company Limited – SWOT Analysis company profile is the essential source for top-level company data and information. Hon Hai Precision Industry Company Limited – SWOT Analysis examines the company’s key business structure and operations, history and products, and provides summary analysis of its key revenue lines and strategy.
Would you trust your retirement savings to anyone relying upon an off the shelf, MBA’s SWOT analysis in today’s real time world? I would not.
But several more important questions crossed my mind.
First, why would I pay for a profile when I could get the basic information from Alacra? Furthermore, when I get the Alacra report, it is (as I recall the speaker’s saying) generated in real time. No delay between my request and getting the freshest data. I am reasonably capable can can formulate my own views of a company from fresh data if what I saw from Alacra is indicative of what the company provides in its Pulse service.
Second, assume I don’t know about Alacra. Why not use a federating search system such as Devilfinder.com, Ixquick.com, or Vivisimo.com? There are even more interesting federating systems to tap, including Bright Planet and Deep Web Technologies. I understand laziness, but these services can deliver the basic information that provides a manager with direct links to some publicly available, quite useful reports about the company; for example, the Google Finance or the AOL company report.
Third, if I * really * want to do a good job, perhaps my firm should look into industrial strength solutions from Kapow Technologies or Kroll Ontrack? Let’s face it. Buying an off-the-shelf report chock full of business school jargon may not be what’s needed to deal with a business decision in today’s economic climate.
My opinion is that as outfits like Alacra and Google roll out more reports generated by “smart” software, the pressure will mount on the azure chip consulting crowd. Already pressured from below by the likes of Gerson Lehrman Group and from above from the blue chip outfits like McKinsey & Co, the azure chip outfits will be like the cheese and salami in a Panini, feel heat and pressure from two places at once.
My thought is that canny business executives may want to check out services like Pulse, familiarize themselves with federating search systems, consider an industrial strength solution that operates in near real time, or just sign up for a pay as you consulting service from Gerson Lehrman. In short, do something other than buying the Cliff’s Notes for executives who are lazy like this addled goose. In short, the middle may be an uncomfortable place for self appointed experts, poobahs, and mavens writing reports about Chinese businesses using English language sources. Yep, Cliff’s Notes for Harried Executives?
Stephen E Arnold, March 3, 2010
No one paid me to write this. Since I mentioned myself as a lazy goose, I will report non paid writing to Fish & Wildlife, an outfit that does a stellar job scheduling rooms at national parts and monitoring the health of geese in the US.
Microsoft SharePoint MOSS Update
March 3, 2010
Short honk: In case you missed the update. Links appear in “WSS and MOSS February 2010 CU”. Here’s the explicit link: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;978395
Stephen E Arnold, March 2, 2010
No one paid me to write this. Because it is a Microsoft story, I report non payment to the Microsoft friendly Department of Defense.
IBM to Upend Server Market
March 3, 2010
My feedreader disgorged a link to an IBM news release that trumped the mainframe baloney and the weird IBM SEO expertise news items I have reported on in this goosely blog. Now between you and me, I no longer buy branded hardware. I go with the commodity stuff. I paid 1 800 GotJunk to haul away my last two NetFinity 5500s which I replaced with a single white box dual quad core machine plugged into a Drobo sporting three one terabyte drives. My energy consumption dropped from 3000 watts to 750 watts and the 300 pounds of IBM hardware with all sorts of IBM stickers, Serve RAID goodies, and two EXP chassis became one box about the size of a briefcase. Don’t get me wrong. In the good old days of easy money and CFOs who would rubber stamp any information technology purchase order, the branded hardware made sense. Today. Not so much. My two NetFinities rang in years ago in the $10,000 range. So two cost me $20,000. The white box replacement was about $700. This goose prefers to keep his money, not give it to IBM with its $750 tech roll fees and crazy prices for FRUs.
What does the IBM news release assert? First you have to read this gem yourself. Navigate to “IBM Unveils Industry’s First Systems that Rewrite Economics of ‘Industry-Standard’ Computing”. You can watch a Flash video at the IBM x86 Web page. Second, note these points:
- I can plug in memory as needed.
- I can increase my virtualization capacity.
- I can select different form factors.
In short, I can pretty much do what I am now doing. The difference is that if I buy IBM is “upend” my ROI as IBM “upend” the branded server market. Here’s an example of IBM’s math:
IBM eXFlash technology would eliminate the need for a client to purchase two entry-level servers and 80 JBODs to support a 240,000 IOPs database environment, saving $670,000 in server and storage acquisition costs.
To me, JBOD means “just a bunch of discs” which is trendier than direct access storage devices or DASDs.
Will this address the performance problems of IBM’s implementation of search on its Web site? Nope. The problems have little to do with hardware. In my opinion, I don’t think throwing hardware at an architecture problem is the route to follow. Your mileage may vary. Have at it. Hope that I am not doing the IV&V on this type of solution to a problem such as IBM’s own Web site search system running these zippy new servers and their acronyms and assertions.
Stephen E Arnold, March 3, 2010
No one paid me to write this. Because IBM Federal Systems is helping to fix the US government’s computing infrastructure, I will report non payment to the folks in Gaithersburg. Didn’t IBM help design much of the infrastructure that IBM is now rearchitecting? Hmmm. Interesting.
Quote to Note: Google Admits It Is – Big
March 2, 2010
Navigate to “Google CFO Says Antitrust Scrutiny ‘Part of Growing Up’.” This alleged quote appears, and it is a memorable one:
Google is big. We shouldn’t pretend we’re not a big company.
I wonder if other Googlers share this viewpoint. How about a Google mouse pad? Do you stock your office with those fuzzy chairs in the hallway?
Stephen E Arnold, March 3, 2010
No one paid me to write this. Because I reference “fuzzy”, I think jurisdictional oversight of this blog falls to the World Bank, where fuzzy has no role.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
