Real Consultants and Real Analysts Take a Hit
September 12, 2011
The Washington Post must have had a bad experience with self appointed experts. Read “The investor’s Dilemma: Earnings, Valuation and What to Do Now.” As you work through the write up, think about Microsoft’s purchase of Fast Search for $1.2 billion, Oracle’s purchase of InQuira for an estimated $66 million, Palantir’s recent intake of another $68 million, and Hewlett Packard’s interesting $11 billion purchase price for Autonomy.
Now think about the write ups from the “real” consulting companies, the trade magazines with lists of “top” companies, and the speakers on some conference programs with three or more slots in a two day period. What’s going on? The write up in the Washington Post seems to have pinpointed an important change in “analyst” behavior. Here’s the snippet I noted:
… I suspect the error is about something else. Structural changes at Wall Street firms are just as likely to be the cause. Research analysts used to work for trading and asset management divisions of big Wall Street banks. Since the 1990s, they have mostly migrated to underwriting. That’s where all the money is made. This change has changed the job of the analyst. They do far less critical analysis and far more “cheerleading.” Robert Powell, editor of Retirement Weekly, confirms it: Regarding the stocks that make up the S&P1500, Powell noted that not a single one has a Wall Street consensus “sell” rating on it. This is pretty damning proof that forecasting errors may be because of inherent structural bias.
I have a simpler way of explaining what’s going on. First, in an effort to generate revenue, analysts are now in the “pay to play” business. But wait. Conferences are also selling speaking slots for booth / exhibit purchasers or sponsors who provide “bags” for give aways, drinks at receptions, or logos for giant banners that identify who is silver, gold, or platinum. What about lists? These are hooked in to speaking, ads, or the fraternity of the trade show.
Now keep in mind that I run content for clients. We even produce information services that explain the ins and outs of financial services, rocket science technology, and silliness about social media. When I give a talk, I get money, a free meal, and, if I am lucky, two nights at a hotel without stars.
The point is that I am an addled goose, dabbling in odds and ends. The folks touched upon in the Washington Post article try to generate an aura of analytic objectivity. None of these poobahs, satraps, failed Webmasters, and unemployed English majors would dare to suggest that their work is little more than a clumsy payola, old style advertorial, or flat out fluff.
The disconnect between facts and value is fascinating. Can one believe anything from anyone in the advisory business? I hope so. I think I can filter the goose feathers from the giblets. My hunch is that others cannot, will not, or do not think goose feathers are anything by gold. Believe me, goose feathers are not gold. Goose feathers can absorb a hit. Worth having a few around if you are a “real” consultant.
Stephen E Arnold, September 12, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Android Patent Plight
September 11, 2011
PC Magazine imagines, “What If Android Lost the Patent War?” The absurd state of technology patents today is sure to impact consumers as well as the businesses under attack, including but not limited to Google.
Google, who owns the highly successful Android mobile operating system, may be suffering from its idealism. The company seems to agree with level heads who say software and processes shouldn’t be patentable. Meanwhile more realistic competitors like Apple and Microsoft have been snapping up patents left and right. Google has started to play catch up, but it may now be too far behind.
Writer Sara Yin believes one of three things will happen if Apple wins its lawsuit against Android manufacturers HTC and Samsung: First, “HTC and Samsung would be ordered to pay ongoing royalties to Apple for every smartphone it makes. Second, the courts could issue an injunction banning infringing Samsung and HTC devices. Third, Apple could choose not to license its intellectual property to Android manufacturers.
Numbers two and three could see the death of Android. However, we believe number one is more probable. Why would Apple turn down that effortless revenue stream? If Google loses, prices for Android phones will rise. Someone has to pay.
Will Google’s $12 billion purchase of Motorola Mobility do the trick? We think that the pivotal legal matter may involve Google and Oracle. The patent plight, the Motorola deal, and volatile mixture of corporate egos may have significant consequences for many companies working in the exploding mobile market sector. And Java? Is a tool booth about to break ground.
Cynthia Murrell, September 11, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com, publishers of The New Landscape of Enterprise Search
Search Engines Elderly According to New Paper
September 11, 2011
As society is quickly becoming more mobile phone based, the internet industry workers should shift developments in that direction. That is the assertion of the article, Is Web Search in Need of a Shake-Up?, on Locker Gnome. The article reviews an academic paper of similar name, Search Needs a Shake-Up, by Oren Etzioni.
The high and the low of the paper is that search engines’ techniques have largely not changed in the twenty years the world-wide-web has existed and that is simply not acceptable. Since the invention of the internet (thank you, Al Gore) and web, the devices conducting searches have changed beyond what Gene Roddenberry ever imagined.
Once, web surfers were tied down to desktop computers, but now the majority of web users are accessing the internet via their Smartphones or tablets. Because of the limits (mainly screen size) of such devices, web searches should have evolved to become more user-friendly, moving beyond the algorithms that got it thus far. The article explains,
A search engine of the future should be more than a trained monkey that knows how to find strings of text — it should be able to intelligently discern the connections between what’s being sought after and pertinent entities — such as people, places, and things — for a more sharply relevant series of results.
As any good infomercial sales person knows, once a problem is identified, there’d better dad-gum be a solution! Etzioni did not disappoint. He recommends Reverb, an open-source tool developed by his own University of Washington Turing Center, as an important first step for the next generation of search engines.
Catherine Lamsfuss, September 11, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com, publishers of The New Landscape of Enterprise Search
AOL on the Wrong Side of the Information Superhighway
September 10, 2011
I moved from the cabbage cuisine capital to beet land today. After some interesting travel, I snagged a net connection and read “AOL and Yahoo Are Not Talking About a Merger (Any More Than I Am a Yahoo CEO Candidate).” Clever stuff. I liked this passage:
AOL stock is down 36 percent since its late 2009 debut and almost 38 percent since the beginning of 2011.
The references to Ms. Bartz’s word choice and the sentence fragment “But no longer and definitely not currently in what approximates any serious effort” were memorable. However, my take on the AOL situation is anchored in the “stock is down” snippet.
AOL is making clear that getting hired at Google is not the type of preparation that makes a great manager. “Affable” is a great quality which I lack. The problem is that AOL is implementing Google style wild and crazy business plays. One of these plays is supposed to produce a touch down. So far the plays have only suppressed value.
Is there a fix? I don’t like to take a strong position in this free blog, but I am tempted to suggest that there are several facts which one may want to consider before investing one’s life savings in AOL.
- The company has a potential CEO in waiting. Maybe this person needs a shot at making good on AOL’s content investments? Lose one female CEO, and AOL can fill the gap with another one. Why wait?
- The flap over “journalism” strikes me as an example of what I call “silly leadership.” That the situation exists has less to do with journalism than getting one’s act together.
- The world is moving on, and companies like AOL and Yahoo are today’s buggy whip manufacturers. Ignoring the Facebook and Google social plays shows that these 1990 outfits can’t cope with today’s world. Will AOL adapt? Good question.
I think that AOL and Yahoo are real time, real life case studies of what happens when Internet grand parents have to figure out how to use an iPad and create a Facebook page.
In terms of search, neither company has paid attention since Google slapped the firms on the ear in 1998. Now time has run out. The question is, “Which post AOL and Yahoo will follow the trajectory of decline that these two once shining stars are taking?”
Stephen E Arnold, September 11, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Praise for Google Plus
September 10, 2011
CNN Tech applauds Google+ with “A Month with Google+: Why This Social Network Has Legs.” Writer Jacqui Cheng tried out the new social site for a month, and she’s happy with it. She especially likes the “circles” feature:
It’s clear to me that this — sending updates to certain groups of people and not to others — is the main appeal of the service. . . . With Google+, sending out certain updates to some people and other updates to other people is right at the forefront of the experience. You are always asked to make a conscious decision about your social circles and about which circles get to see which posts.
She also likes that she can see her page from other users’ perspectives, that there is no message character limit. Another plus is being able to screen out posts on certain topics, rather than certain users entirely. She likes “Hangouts” feature, but its removal wouldn’t be a deal breaker.
Cheng spends a lot of pixels comparing this service to Facebook and Twitter. However, a different comparison comes to our minds: Google+ is starting to look more like a LinkedIn with added features, not a Facebook with teens and college students on a sleep over. Perhaps it’s time for social media to grow up.
Cynthia Murrell, September 10, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com, publishers of The New Landscape of Enterprise Search
Freeware Search for Windows 7
September 10, 2011
While numerous options exist for enterprise search for firms and companies, file search options on personal computes remain few and frustrating. The default file search in Windows is woefully slow. An alternative for faster PC searches is given in “FileSearchEx Is a Fast Search Utility for Windows 7.”
Windows 7: FileSearchEx is a freeware utility for Windows 7 that searches through files faster than the default Windows search. Modeled after the Windows XP search, it features a simple, familiar interface and a variety of search filters.
Mac users might be reminded of Apple’s efficient spotlight search feature, which accomplishes much of the same functions. However, longtime PC users might have nightmares of the now defunct Rover, the Windows search puppy. In a stressful moment of locating a lost file, a user needs an efficient search option, not an animated puppy with a wagging tail. Until Windows incorporates an efficient feature, FileSearchEx seems like a good alterative.
Emily Rae Aldridge, September 10, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com, publishers of The New Landscape of Enterprise Search
Search and Job Security
September 10, 2011
I was able to snag an Internet connection, navigate the convoluted world of air line reservations, and catch up on the job security in search. Set aside the Carol Bartz fancy dance at Yahoo. As the Wordstar of findability, I stopped monitoring Yahoo years ago. What did catch my attention was “The Microsoft Revolving Door: Former Powerset CEO Has Left the Building.” Barney Pell, who sold a natural language processing system to Microsoft for about $100 million, is no longer at Microsoft. Set aside the oddities of buying Fast Search (a fascinating technical exercise for $1.2 billion), Microsoft felt that it needed more search technology at about the same time: 2008. Where’s Powerset now? Well, I am not sure. Where’s Mr. Pell? He in “full time angel investor and parallel entrepreneur” land.
Several observations:
First, anyone looking for a CEO with a track record in search, there is a fatter pool than when I hightailed it to the land of cabbage and beets
Second, CEOs of search and content processing companies will definitely want a Plan B. Career shifts seem to be part of the landscape.
Third, at what point will someone recognize that search is difficult, expensive, and very different from what the carnival barkers, the “real” consultants, and the former English majors think it is.
Just a thought from six time zones from the mine drainage filled pond in rural Kentucky.
Stephen E Arnold, September 10, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com
WebM Patent Fight May Be in Google’s Future
September 9, 2011
Streaming Media asks whether there is a “WebM Patent Fight Ahead for Google?” So, Google may be in hot water. Does Google have any cool or temperate water at the Googleplex?
WebM is a free and open Web video format that Google has adopted for use in streaming media. However, its royalty-free status is threatened by a call by MPEG LA for patents related to the format’s underlying VP8 video codec. Writer Jan Ozer explains:
Twelve parties have stepped forward with patents that they believe are essential to the VP8 standard, on which Google’s WebM is based, though no patent pool has been formed yet and MPEG LA is not releasing the patent holders’ names at this time.
For Google’s part, the company insists WebM and VP8 are community-developed and, as such, supported by the majority of the industry. They formed their own channel for the license of relevant patents, called WebM CCL (Community Cross-License).
We’ll see whether this, and the threat of Google’s giant and increasingly experienced legal team, are enough to fend off MPEG-LA.
Cynthia Murrell, September 9, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com, publishers of The New Landscape of Enterprise Search
Google: The Emergent Overlord?
September 9, 2011
This is a write up we have been thinking about for some time: The New York Review of Books’ “How Google Dominates Us.” Not “does Google. . .”, but “how Google. . .”, as if that domination can be taken for granted. Perhaps.
The article is rather wordy, but worth the time if you are at all interested in the Internet. Or the future of mankind.
It can’t be denied that Google has done what it set out to do: changed the way we access, relate to, and share information. That’s no small matter. Along the way, the company made a fortune with a brilliant new take on advertising. And it may just be getting started.
Writer James Gleick handily sums up Google’s history, accomplishments, and tendencies, as well as the misgivings many people have about the company. It also analyzes that succinct but loaded corporate motto, “don’t be evil.” Social media sites, such as Facebook and the fledgling Google +, are also discussed.
The article is full of astute observations, but this section gets to the heart of the matter:
How thoroughly and how radically Google has already transformed the information economy has not been well understood. The merchandise of the information economy is not information; it is attention. These commodities have an inverse relationship. When information is cheap, attention becomes expensive. Attention is what we, the users, give to Google, and our attention is what Google sells—concentrated, focused, and crystallized.
Here’s our view on Google’s rise to prominence:
- People don’t know what they don’t know.
- Convenience may be more important than any other factor, including privacy.
- Competitors have been too complacent, conceding huge swaths of market to companies such as Facebook and Google. These markets are not “fixed in the digital stream” and may be difficult to move or erode.
Google, and Facebook, too, continue to extend their tendrils into all aspects of the Web. Simultaneously, it becomes less possible to live a modern life without some online participation. Given those realities, perhaps we should all be paying more attention to what these Internet giants, inconceivable just a few decades ago, mean for our future.
Cynthia Murrell, September 9, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com, publishers of The New Landscape of Enterprise Search
Jaspersoft Reaches Out to the Open Source Community
September 9, 2011
Dr. Dobb’s examines “Jaspersoft’s Open Source BI Knowledge Center.” Called Self-Service Express, the new subscription service grants access to product documentation, the Jaspersoft Customer Knowledge Base, and the enterprise-search-powered repository of Jaspersoft technical information. The service itself will run from $99 to $399/ month, but the content is all freeware. Writer Adrian Bridgwater explains,
Self-Service includes tips and tricks, code samples, and best practices. Developers focused on BI tool construction will be able to use Jaspersoft’s enterprise search service to explore technical information including product documentation and knowledge base materials, as well as other resources found at Jaspersoft.com and JasperForge.org.
Jaspersoft supplies clients with business intelligence (BI) software, with an emphasis on keeping up-to-date. The company focuses on such current concerns as cost sensitivity, refined user interface experiences, Cloud computing, and getting the most out of Big Data.
This service is one-of-a-kind, claims the enterprise. Jaspersoft Senior Analyst Jay Lyman says the company hopes the project will help them draw new customers from the open source community. Sounds like a good strategy to me.
Cynthia Murrell, September 9, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
