Google and Its Chinese Options
March 14, 2010
I saw a flurry of news stories which seem to originate in a Reuters item. The gist is that Google is pulling out of China. Sounds good because it is a bold move by a company that is operating as a supra national entity.
Here’s the map of options from my 2006 study, published in 2007 by Infonortics Ltd. in Tetbury, Glos.
See page 246 and following in Google Version 2.0: The Calculating Predator.
You can see that our research identified four options. So far, Google has applied option 2, opportunism, option 4, embracing China, and now is alleged threatening option 1, abandoning the market.
I am not ready to see this as a “game over” situation. I stand by the work I did in 2006, because Google’s actions have to be put into an appropriate context. Google is playing a game for high stakes but a game nevertheless.
This statement “Google 99.9 Pct Sure to Shut China Search Engine: Report” is a bold statement. But until the Google.cn service goes dead and there is zero access from China to Google for any type of search and retrieval function, I am inclined to wait for the next action.
If you want to read our analysis from 2006, you can still get a copy of Google Version 2.0: The Calculating Predator. The information is germane to today’s interest in things Google.
Stephen E Arnold, March 14, 2010
No one paid me to write this self serving marketing item. True, I get royalties from my three Google studies, but my publisher is in a far off land relaxing, not marketing my timely analyses. Sigh.
Hating Search
March 14, 2010
I think search sucks. I don’t hate search. Rupert Murdoch has a different view. Navigate to “Video: Rupert Murdoch Loves the iPad, Hates Search”. The idea is that the “legendary founder of News Corp.” is not happy with “the content stealer.” What’s interesting to me is that this message about hating search is delivered in electronic form and appears to reference a video. There’s a great quote in the write up as well in my opinion:
But search on the Internet whether it be Bing or Google, whatever, it’s free and they simply take all our expensive and we think very good content such as Wall Street Journal or whatever and what they call they scrape it and they use it for search, it gives them their raw material for nothing and then they have this very clever business model of charging for searching it, we don’t get any of that. And they are technologically brilliant, they are a long way ahead but they do not have the right to do it if we want to stop them.”
My view is a little different. The question is, “What about Facebook and Twitter?”
Stephen E Arnold, March 13, 2010
No one paid me to point out that Google is not rowing its boat in the social media river quite as quickly as some other firms. Because I reference water, I will report non payment for this write up to the Maritime Administration * and * the Coast Guard.
CMS, Search, and Signal Flares
March 14, 2010
In my first Internet monograph—Internet 2000: The Path to the Total Network, published in 1994 by Infonortics Ltd., Tetbury, Glos—I discussed the challenges Web information posed. One of my points was:
The Internet is different from, print, video, or facsimile because it can incorporate elements of each medium in real time.
Content management systems focused on making HTML Web pages and making it possible for non programmers to create a page, ftp it to a server, and handle the various scripting issues that arose from the hackathon that HTML triggered. Since I wrote that sentence in 1994, the point-and-click browser model has supplanted other types of computer interfaces. The simplicity for the user insulates the user from the complexity beneath the surface. Even the phrase “code behind” baffles most Internet users with whom I speak.
Content management vendors have responded in one or more ways:
- Some have stuck to the “it’s really easy” method. When the customer discovers that CMS is not easy, the vendor moves on to a new town. This 19th century frontier entrepreneurship works as long as there is a “new” next town. But as Americans have learned, once one hits that Manifest Destiny barrier, life gets tougher.
- Some CMS wizards have tried to beef up their CMS to handle the increasingly complex features and functions. These systems work * when * the client has enough money, computing expertise, and stamina to see the job through. Not surprisingly, once a six or seven figure job is done, no one is too eager to reengineer the system to handle the “next big thing.” So the system just keeps doing what it is doing until the company does a rip-and-replace, which is another six or seven figure job. When these jobs go off the rails, then litigation often results.
- Some CMS vendors shift gears and become something that is more narrowly defined. Examples range from customer support content management to certain types of eDiscovery work. The idea is that replacing those glittering generalities with more narrowly defined functions makes it possible for the company to survive or successfully sell itself.
- Go open source and hope that the halo about “community” puts Neosporin on the infected wounds of what was originally code written for a single client and then boldly marketed as a “solution”.
- Mix and match.
When I read “Latest MySource Matrix Release Includes Funnelback Search Integration for Superior Search Capability”, I thought about the long journey that CMS vendors have traveled since making and managing Web pages became the equivalent of the Oklahoma Land Rush for some 19th century type entrepreneurs.
Funnelback is a search engine that is now part of Squiz, “a supported open source solutions company”. Funnelback is a search and retrieval system that was nurtured in an Australian university and research Petri dish.
The key point in the write up was:
MySource Matrix has been integrated with purpose-built Funnelback binaries incorporating powerful features for improving search results such as Contextual Navigation, Featured Pages, Type Formats and spelling suggestions. The Funnelback Search Page asset has been expanded to make it easy to implement these features. Scripts are available within the Funnelback package which can be configured to update the index, giving the administrator control over the frequency with which the indexer is run, according to the amount of content being indexed and its dynamic requirements.
My take on this is that the open source CMS created a situation in which some users were not able to locate content. The addition of search as a utility bolsters the CMS. My hunch is that CMS is morphing into a “portal” or “platform” play. Will this make users happy? I don’t know. The recent work we have done suggests that users cannot articulate what they want or need when it comes to content creation and management.
I am delighted that search is being added to a CMS. I am not confident that search alone can address the many hurdles that a CMS must jump over. Most people are not in the content producing business or are most CMS users programmers. Software that tries to facilitate both processes in a world that is shifting to rich media has a big job to tackle.
CMS is, in my opinion, increasingly a problem. Consultants are reinventing themselves. Roll ups are taking place. Open source solutions are proliferating. In short, CMS is and is likely to continue to be a black eye in the enterprise software sector.
Stephen E Arnold, March 14, 2010
No one paid me to write about content management systems. I will report non payment to the GSA, which has a heck of a content management system.
BA-Insight: New Angle on Lead Generation
March 13, 2010
The Microsoft Fast search road show was in New York this week. I stayed in rural Kentucky watching the acid run off trickle into my goose pond. I took time out from this strenuous activity to read “BA-Insight Announces New Direct Access to Free Information and Resources for SharePoint Search and Fast.”
BA-Insight develops software, including Longitude which “helps people find an analyze relevant information across the entire enterprise independently of format or location.” The firm’s Web site has been revamped and features “an enhanced support portal and new free resource library specially designed for enterprise evaluating SharePoint or Fast Search or engaging in SharePoint or Fast Search deployments, including Fast ESP.”
I took a look at the site. The splash page is below, but you will see different graphics because the rectangular area features a slide show of information.
Source: http://www.ba-insight.net/Pages/Home.aspx
You can download white papers, get inks to videos, and access the company’s Web logs. One of the documents is the Microsoft Enterprise Search 2010 Roadmap. When I clicked on that link, I saw another link and the icon labeled premium shown below.
In order to access that document, I was given an option to fill in a form with my name, title, organization, phone, email, and interests. The angle seems to be that to get this document, one must go through a vendor like BA-Insight.
One of the goslings filled in the form and the road map is a single page that explains Microsoft’s five search technologies and lists the capabilities, repository indexing, and manageability features of each product. Interesting stuff.
Here’s one snippet of the roadmap, which is more of a table than a map in my opinion:
Interesting stuff. Particularly with regard to scaling, I wonder if organizations will have the appetite for this type of hardware footprint on site. Will enterprise Fast ESP work from the cloud? © Microsoft 2010.
Several questions:
- Will more search vendors shift into education or missionary marketing mode to move their systems?
- In today’s financial climate, will the portal approach supplant the more traditional features-benefit type of marketing that characterizes some search vendors’ Web sites?
- Has the complexity of the product offering broken the back of the adage “KISS” for business oriented communications?
I will watch to see if other vendors embrace the educational portal approach to sales and lead generation. The addled goose just makes information available via a blog, assuming that content with an edge will generate inquiries. Perhaps once again I am wrong?
Stephen E Arnold, March 13, 2010
No one paid me to write this short article. Because of the references to Microsoft and its five search options, I will report non payment to the Department of Defense, an organization with an interest in Microsoft’s technology.
Lucid Hits $16 Million in Funding
March 13, 2010
Short honk: I saw an item in the San Jose business journal about Lucid Imagination’s Series B funding. The story “Open Source Search Startup Lucid Imagination Raises $10M” said:
[The] new investor Shasta Ventures of Menlo Park was joined by existing San Francisco-based investors Granite Ventures and Walden International.
Strong interest in open source search contributed to the funding I believe.
Stephen E Arnold, March 13, 2010
No one paid me to write this meaty, fact filled news item. Because I reference open source, I will report non payment for the article to the White House where “open” is a key notion.
Interfaces Put in the Corral
March 13, 2010
In the last six months, I have been flooded with user experience inputs. Books, emails, and conversations purport to tell me that Web sites have to be an “experience.” Sorry. I like command lines. I like to run queries with syntax along the lines “SS ESOP AND CC=76?? AND UD=9999.” The notion that I am going to scan a bunch of 8 pt links is nuts. I prefer to run queries, iterate, modify result sets, and then peruse content. I like to review short items—what I call information wieners and then if the source item has intellectual nutrition, examine the source document, data table, or other information object. I do research my way, and I resent having to figure out what the heck “smart software” is trying to do. The assumption is that I want to buy something like HP Trim 7 or I want to know about Lady Gaga’s most recent fashion moment. Nope, I want specific information on point to a query. For me, machine generated facets, suggestions, and what other people are seeking are irrelevant and often dorky.
I liked “Overdoing the Interface Metaphor.” The article tackles some interface issues with which I resonated. For me, the most important passage in the write up was:
Improving the product, not faithfully reproducing the physical object, always gets priority. I passed on a long, complex page-turning animation because it didn’t make sense (you’re paging up/down, not left/right) and it would have been distracting. And I opted for an extremely brief cross-fade, rather than a slide, because slides take longer and are more visually jarring.
One voice. Not enough on this subject. I know how I think about UX. It SUX. Just my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, March 13, 2010
No one paid me to write this item and misspell suck. Because of that error, I will report non payment and spelling freedom to the Bureau of Engraving, where and error can have big consequences quickly.
Microsoft Bing on Motorola Phones
March 12, 2010
Motorola has had its share of troubles, legal, financial, and technical. Not long after its Android powered phones rolled out, Google débuted its Android phone with a fresher version of the Android software. “Motorola to Put Bing Search on Android Phones”, if accurate, provides a little insight into how Motorola wants to show the Google who is in charge. If I buy an Android phone, the mobile search default is Microsoft’s Bing.com. For me the most interesting comment in the write up was:
Motorola will start loading Microsoft’s search and map services onto its Android smartphones in China, bringing more non-Google services to the phones amid a row between Google and China.
It might be a simple jersey tug in the soccer match between Google and Motorola. Google’s partners have strange ways of showing their affection. Semi passive resistance?
Stephen E Arnold, March 12, 2010
Nope. Nope. No one paid me to write this item. Because it is about sports, I will report the state of non payment to an outfit absolutely against allowing anything to take place without compensation, licensing deals, and consideration—The International Olympic Committee.
Quote to Note: IT Failure
March 12, 2010
This is for the mavens, pundits, self appointed experts, and azure chip consultants. The source is a ZDNet blog story “IT Failure: A Shameful Story.” Here’s the quote:
Is there any other industry where we accept 30-70 percent rates of failure?
Stumped me.
Stephen E Arnold, March 12, 2010
No one paid me to write this article. Since I reference IT failure, I will report non payment to the IRS, an organization still trying to get its computers to roll over but not play dead.
Hewlett Packard Trim 7
March 12, 2010
Hewlett Packard, a company that I continue to associate with low cost printers and high cost ink, lit up my radar with its acquisition of Lexington, Kentucky-based Exstream Software two years ago. Exstream (now Enterprise Document Automation), like IBM Ricoh Infoprints and Streamserve, generates outputs like invoices with warranty reminders and auto payment bills with coupons for oil change discounts. I learned that in February 2010, HP stepped up its footprint in document management. One of the source documents I examined is “HPTrim 7… How We Got Here?”. The gray background and the dark blue highlights on text were a bit much for the addled goose’s eyes, however. For me, the most interesting segment in the history of Trim 7 was this passage:
Market consolidation meant that lots of little players were gobbled up, as the larger vendors strived to meet the ever challenging demands of the marketplace, picking up technology from these smaller companies and making them a part of their overall product line. Hewlett-Packard, one of the largest IT companies in the world, did the same, acquiring TOWER Software in 2008, but with one subtle difference. Rather than cannibalize the technology and abandon the product, they kept almost all of the staff from the TOWER acquisition and told them to build the next version of what is now known as HP TRIM. And – there were no other products that HP TRIM had to compete with internally unlike a lot of the other acquisitions: IBM/FileNet, OpenText/Hummingbird/Vignette, and utonomy/Zantaz/Interwoven/Meridio. HP wanted to concentrate on the product that was HP TRIM, and add the backing that only a company like HP can bring to a product. And so, HP TRIM 7 was born.
Digging through the text, HP bought an outfit called Tower and is rolling in other software to create the “new” document management business. You can locate the main page here. Three points jumped out:
First, I did not see any indication that HP’s dynamic document system integrates our “touches” the Trim 7 product. That’s strike me as an indication that HP is chasing revenues from silo sales, not integration.
Second, how does one find a document? I could not locate any information about the search and retrieval functions within Trim 7. I surmise that if I use Trim 7 for SharePoint, I in theory would be able to use the Microsoft Fast ESP system to search for content. That also seems to be quite a bit of work; that is, consulting revenue for HP or its partners. My query “search HP Trim” resulted in 10 hits but noting on point. One result was this page, which was heavy on marketing an light on locating information within the Trim 7 system. After a legal eagle drops a gift on a company named as a party in a legal matter, job one is answering the question, “What’s this about?” Trim 7 may not be able to answer that question.
Third, HP seems to be grabbing enterprise software companies that address really big information problems. With HP’s push into printers and ink, I saw a success that may have caught the firm’s hardware mavens by surprise. The trajectory in enterprise software is being driven from bit money acquisitions. I think that the surprise of printing consumables will be different from the surprise of acquisition-based growth. One was emergent; the latter is closer to MBA spreadsheet fever.
Big bets. Big win or big loss? I am leaning toward the loss option. Outlook: worth monitoring.
Stephen E Arnold, March 12, 2010
No one paid me to write this. Because HP derives significant revenue from ink, I think I have to report non payment to the US government’s printer, GPO.
Bitrix in the Enterprise Search Game
March 12, 2010
Short honk: A happy quack to the reader who sent me a link to “Bitrix Introduces the D.I.G.™ Engine: the Ultimate in Enterprise 2.0 and Web 2.0 Search Technology.” Bitrix was a company not familiar to me and there were no data in my Overflight service.
Bitrext, founded in 1998 and based in the Washington, DC are, asserts that it is a “technology trendsetter.” The company says:
Bitrix, Inc. specializes in the development of content management systems and intranet portal solutions for managing web projects and multifunctional information systems on the Internet. Deployed at more than 30,000 customers worldwide, Bitrix products are fast, reliable, easy to use and highly scalable…Bitrix takes pride in serving clients ranging from Fortune 500 companies to funded startups, including enterprises like Xerox, Toshiba, Epson, Samsung, Panasonic, Volkswagen, Hyundai, KIA, Gazprom, VTB, Zurich Insurance, DPD, PriceWaterHouseCoopers, Cosmopolitan, Vogue, PC Magazine, and many more.
The search system makes use of the firm’s D.I.G. Engine. D.I.G. is “an advanced search engine developed specifically for enterprise Intranets and Web sites that enables high-performance data search in texts, media content and documents with smart ranking, sorting and display. The engine is available in the company’s flagship products – Bitrix Intranet Portal and Bitrix Site Manager.”
The system “enumerates texts, media content and documents while looking for morphological stems and considering their density.” The search results are “filtered with respect to the user access rights before being displayed.” The company adds:
D.I.G. offers manual or immediate automatic data indexing, making content searchable right after its submission. Users may create complex search queries using query language, inclusion/exclusion masks and logic operators, as well as choose specific site sections for a highly targeted search. The technology supports AJAX-powered interactive pages, provides advanced taxonomy service with automatic tag cloud generation, allows making Google Sitemap, as well as a user-specific search form design. It covers English, German and Russian and enables fast and painless connecting of other languages with third-party stemming tables.
There are screenshots of the company’s products on the firm’s Media Gallery page, but I did not see a search results example.
The company offers a “virtual appliance”. The idea is that multiple instances of Bitrix products can run on the same computer each in a virtual space.
Prices for the system are located at http://www.bitrixsoft.com/buy/intranet.php with the range in the $1,500 to $20,000 spectrum.
My impression is that search is an embedded feature, which exemplifies the trend of content management vendors trying to improve the utility of their systems.
Stephen E Arnold, March 12, 2010
No one paid me to write this. With the firm’s location near several interesting Federal entities, I will send an email to one of those Dot Mil addresses and report my status of free writer.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
