Is Google a Monopoly? Is There Internet Freedom?
June 8, 2012
You will want to read the Wall Street Journal hard copy edition’s story “Google Monopoly and Internet Freedom.” (You may be able to access the online version at this link, but no promises where News Corp.’s business model is in action.) The print version is important. The article—more accurately, the “essay,” “op-ed,” or “gentrified blog post”—has price of place. Perched at the top of the “Opinion” page A-15, the four-column item comes with a beefy headline and a color picture. The author is Jeffrey Katz, who is “the CEO of Nextag, and a former CEO of Orbitz Inc., Swissair, and LeapFrog Enterprises.”
Is distortion inevitable or is a part of decision making?
I was not familiar with Mr. Katz. A biography appears on the Nextag Web site. He is a Stanford graduate, and he flew from the airline industry to learning products to Nextag. That company loves shopping. The company says:
Expert deal-hunters since 1999, we make it surprisingly easy for you to find everything from tech to travel to tiki torches all at the price, place and moment that’s right for you. Browse, review, share, get the 411, get the deal: with Nextag, you’ll love the way you shop. 30+ million people consult us each month to make their online purchases, and we use our best-in-class search technology and proven expertise to ensure that each and every one of those shoppers is a happy one. This focus and commitment benefits our partners as well, delivering impressive sales volume and ROI for merchants and a streamlined user experience for search providers. (Source: http://www.nextag.com/about/main)
The background helps because I understand that online ticket agencies and online shopping comparison sites need utility services to allow these enterprises to do business without having to build a global infrastructure, attract and cultivate large numbers of users, and have a business model based on advertising.
Point of view is important.
In the News Corp. essay, Mr. Katz points out that Google is powerful. Well, that’s not much of a surprise. The company is more than a decade old, has an enviable business model, and online technology which works. I enjoy comparing Google’s ability to deliver online services when I sit in an airport waiting for United Airlines to cope with the 300 people stranded in London Heathrow on Friday June 1, 2012. Have you had an experience similar to mine with an airline. I also recall fondly turning up at a hotel with my Orbitz reservation in hand to hear, “Sir, we have no record of your reservation.” I also enjoy the many messages which induce me to compare prices at Nextag.com. In 2009 Nextag filled my Yahoo page with Nextag ads. (See this Yahoo Answers response.) Nextag has implemented an “advertising cookie opt out.” You can learn more here. I, therefore, find the suggestions Mr. Katz offers to Google fascinating.
First, Mr. Katz asserts that “Google needs to be transparent about how its search engine operates.” He believes that Google “hides behind forded-tongue gobbledygook that is meant to obfuscate.” I don’t agree. I have written three monographs based on open source information provided by Google to anyone who takes the time to read it. The disconnect is that Google is a deeply technical company, and it does a very good job of explaining its systems and methods. However, if a person is an expert because he or she can use a browser to surf the Web, that type of knowledge is not going to be particularly helpful. For example, one of the systems and methods in use at Google involves populating missing cells in a database. The approach is clearly explained again and again and again. Most recently Dr. Alon Halevy gave yet another repetitive presentation about this methods at the EDBT/ICDT 2012 Joint Conference on March 26 to 30, 2012 in Berlin, Germany. Of the major information retrieval companies with which I am familiar, Google does one of the best jobs making crystal clear exactly what it does, when, and under what circumstances. The problem is that if one lacks the motivation, resources, or sticktoitivity, the Google information is tough to parse. Want to know how Google search works, read U.S. Patent 628599. There it is. English. Clear. Equations. Background. Functions. What exactly does Mr. Katz want Google to do that it is not doing? Believe me, my relative Vladimir Ivanovich Arnold would have had zero trouble figuring out what Google does, and he would have been able to replicate it. The problem is that some folks are less sharp than Googlers and my uncle. If one does not take time to learn from what is publicly available, why should Google invest time and money in what amounts to remedial education?
Second, Mr. Katz opines, “Google should provide consumers with access to the unbiased search results it was once known for—regardless of which company or organization owns the service. It should also allow users to reduce the number of ads shown or incorporate a user’s preferred services in search results.” First, no set of search results from any vendor or any system at any time has delivered unbiased search results. The decision to use a specific relevancy method, what stop words to use, how to implement a default Boolean AND or OR, or any of hundreds of other key decisions introduces variants in search results. Research itself is not unbiased. As soon as sampling is used within any online system, objectivity is sacrificed. Hey, ask two advisors what to do about a personnel issue and you get non-objective results. Google is upfront and clear about the systems and methods used to determine what gets shown under what circumstances. Pick one of Google’s public disclosures—say, for example, US8065311. Google has dozens of open source publications that explains the exact system and method used to perform a specific task. What Mr. Katz wants is for Google to explain something that most Googlers could not figure out in a month of Sundays. Google uses “smart” software. When inputs change, then the selection of a particular method occurs. Not every method gets selected for every input. As a result, the outputs adapt to inputs. With millions of these decisions made in an interdependent system, exactly what does Mr. Katz want Google to explain? My suggestion. Read what Google has written. The cloud of unknowing is not caused by Google. But asking for an explanation of a particular action within a massively parallel intelligent system is what I would describe as “uninformed.”
Third, Mr. Katz wants one of those categorical affirmatives which I find logically uncomfortable. He says, “
Google should grant all companies equal access to advertising opportunities regardless of whether they are considered a competitor. Given its market share and public commitment to providing users with the most relevant, helpful information, Google has an obligation to provide a level playing field.
My hunch is that in Mr. Katz’s own business operations, there are business processes which are of great interest to consumers; for example, when I run a query on Nextag.com, “Why do I see eBay results at the top of a results list with a big logo?” I don’t want eBay results. How does Mr. Katz implement this specific function? Does it apply to “all” result sets? You don’t need me to write down trade secret type of questions because no executive is going to reveal these unless there are quite specific circumstances and safeguards in place. Why should a company which has an obligation to its shareholders do anything other than focus on delivering value to those shareholders as long as those actions are within the letter and spirit of applicable regulations. I don’t own shares in Google, but if I did, I would expect Google to take appropriate steps to grow the company’s revenue and profits. The reason is anchored in how capitalism works. Is Mr. Katz uncomfortable with capitalism when practiced with considerable skill and finesse?
The final point is an interesting one. Mr. Katz offers:
But mostly, Google should take a good, hard look at its philosophy and business model, and ask if this is the company Sergey Brin and Larry Page set out to build when they chose as their motto: “Don’t be evil.”
Ah, the chestnut “Don’t be evil.” In my research, the phrase originated with another Googler and it ended up becoming the shibboleth waved in front of the bulls running after Messrs. Brin and Page. The current business environment is easy to explain: If you can generate revenue by an appropriate business model, do it. One does not need to flip through Shcumpeter’s or Austrian school economists’ writings for an explanation. Good and evil have zero to do with business. I have experienced the pragmatism of changing a flight using Orbitz. I have to pay. I have experienced the thrill of contacting a merchant, ordering a product identified by Nextag, and then receiving a bait-and-switch in a week. I had to live with the trickery because neither the online service nor the delivery company was “responsible.” Hmmm. Why not do some local investigation into business practices, Mr. Katz.
Now what this News Corp. write up is “about” in my opinion is:
- Nextag wants more traffic and preferential listings for its Web pages. I understand the desire to get more from Google’s free service, but why should Google do any more or any less than it is now doing. Google is tweaking its systems, methods, and business models. Are these actions not permitted? “Compete more effectively. Complain less.” might be a starting point.
- I believe the News Corp. wants to advance agendas. I hope that the Wall Street Journal is above the alleged criminal behavior associated with some News Corp. properties. But there is Fox News, and it seems to advance an agenda. When I read Mr. Katz-type opinion pieces, I wonder, “Is the Wall Street Journal looking for clicks or just poking Google in the ribs because it is thriving and the Wall Street Journal is dogpaddling in terms of advertising revenue?” Just a question. Nothing concrete. But there is potential for bias when making decisions about what action to take, what story to feature, what numerical recipe to employ.
- Writing about Google serves the needs of the readers. I think that the Wall Street Journal is adopting some of the methods which have made Mr. Murdoch’s properties successful for many years. Hard business reporting is expensive and Google is important. I would like to see more analysis of Google’s enterprise strategy as articulated by the most recent vice president responsible for what seems to me a most disappointing market initiative. I would like to see less of the Monday morning quarterbacking.
I don’t have any direct involvement with Google. In fact, I spend less and less of ArnoldIT’s research resources chasing down the company’s innovations. The reason warrants an in-depth article in a newspaper like the Wall Street Journal. Why has Google’s ability to innovate internally become such a problem? What are the management methods Google will use to integrate its recent spate of acquisitions into the firm’s existing service line? How will Google’s dataspace and semantic technology contribute to predictive search outputs; that is, search without search? I at 68, and I think I will go gently into that good night without reading substantive business analyses about an important company in a Murdoch publication. I will have ample opportunities to read baloney about Google. That’s too bad. Who’s being “evil”? Am I? Google? The Wall Street Journal?
Stephen E Arnold, June 8, 2012
Freebie from ArnoldIT.com
Amazon EC2 Pricing
June 8, 2012
Short honk. “Amazon EC2 Instance Comparison” provides some interesting data and pricing information about Amazon’s cloud services. Worth tucking away for reference. Taxi meter pricing is interesting. Like a ride with a New York City taxi driver from Kazakhstan, the cost of the trip can be surprising.
Stephen E Arnold, June 8, 2012
Search Appliance MaxxCAT Speed Test
June 8, 2012
MaxxCAT has a created speed test where prospective customers can see just how their “lightning fast” search appliances compare to their Googley rivals. They pit their SB-250 against Google Mini, and the heftier EX-5000 against Google Search Appliance version GB-7007. The page instructs:
“Use the drop-down list of queries, or enter new search terms to experience the different search performance demonstrated by this network search comparison. . . . Users of the enterprise search comparison will discover that the entry-level SB-250 and Enterprise-level EX-5000 network search appliances return results with lightning speed, saving time – which translates to dollars for businesses and enterprises. It is important to note that during the search appliance comparison, as the Google mini and Google Search Appliance reach their maximum capacity, the SB-250 and EX-5000 still have enough space for collections three times as large as those in the demo.”
That’s quite an assertion, but is difficult for me to gauge because, as of this writing, the MaxxCAT results are not displaying when I click “show results” (oops). Their products did clock in faster, but that means little without that list.
If the company’s claims are accurate, though, their products are well worth a look. According to their cost and features chart, MaxxCAT’s “startup costs” are considerably less than Google’s comparable offerings. However, just what goes into calculating these “startup costs” is left to the imagination. Do some research before hitching to this wagon.
Based in Pittsburg, PA, MaxxCAT was founded in 2007 to capitalize on the high-performance, specialized hardware corner of the enterprise search market. The company also provides integration services and managed hosting, and they pride themselves on quick and painless deployment. MaxxCAT believes in keeping it simple, silly, but still incorporates customer input into its products. Their developers come equipped with experience in the search and systems integration fields.
Cynthia Murrell, June 8, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
IBM Concerned with Personal Mobile Device Security
June 8, 2012
In an age where technology is moving completely towards mobile, including enterprise and content management solutions, concerns about security are valid and growing. General security awareness regarding mobile technology has not yet caught up to the level that is assumed for desktop or in-network computing.
David Roe gives a full report for CMS Wire in, “IBM Curtails Use of Personal Mobile Devices Over Unsecured App Fears.”
According to an article in the MIT Technology Review, IBM is stopping employees from using their own portable devices in the IBM workplace.
Some of the concern is about business intelligence and keeping a tight lid on proprietary information.
Public file transfer systems like Dropbox have been banned as has Apple’s iCloud; instead, employees use an IBM-hosted version called MyMobileHub as, Horan says, there is the possibility that internal, sensitive information will get loose and into the wild. Also getting the chop is Apple’s personal assistant Siri based on fears that confidential information will get out. It seems that the licensing agreement says that anything recorded using the app will also be recorded by Apple servers so you can see why IBM might be nervous.
However, this opens up a broader discussion about the security of mobile devices and software, and its continued usage for business essentials such as enterprise search. SharePoint deployments are common, but secure means to access the farm remotely are plagued with security concerns. Some third party solutions are doing a good job of anticipating the need and bridging the gap.
We like Fabasoft Mindbreeze and their attention to the mobility needs of the enterprise.
Smartphones and tablets allow you to act quickly in business matters – an invaluable competitive advantage. Fabasoft Mindbreeze Mobile makes company knowledge available on all mobile devices. You can act freely, independently and yet always securely. Irrespective of what format the data is in. Full functionality: Search results are displayed homogenously to the web client with regards to clear design and intuitive navigation.
Keep an eye on Fabasoft Mindbreeze and their ability to adapt quickly to the ever changing needs of SharePoint users or enterprise newcomers.
Emily Rae Aldridge, June 8, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Kenesto Rolls Out Latest Process Automation Solution
June 8, 2012
Any company utilizing a product lifecycle management solution understands how frustrating the discord between design and manufacturing can be. Kenesto, a leader in the industry, has recently announced its latest edition with simplicity the emphasis. The article, “Kenesto 2012 Is Generally Available”, on Digital Technology explains the problems facing enterprises and what measures Kenesto is providing to avoid such costly mishaps.
The article describes Kenesto’s best qualities:
“By combining cloud technology with unsurpassed ease of use, Kenesto overcomes the rigidity, cost and complexity of legacy systems like product lifecycle management systems (PLM) and business process management systems (BPMS). Kenesto enables enterprises to know more about their business, involve their suppliers and customers in important processes and reduce the time-to-market for products. More importantly, Kenesto achieves the universal acceptance that has eluded legacy systems because Kenesto allows people to create processes that work the way users want them to.”
It is important to note that like other leaders in PLM solutions Kenesto is accessing cloud technology as the basis for their new software. They also understand the importance of data management as a major component of successful PLM solutions. Another leader in the industry, Inforbix, is following a parallel path in their PLM development. Intent on helping clients find, share and reuse data Inforbix exceeds client expectations and is committed to innovation.
Catherine Lamsfuss, June 8, 2012
Walled Garden Update: The Era of Proprietary Browsers
June 8, 2012
Hear ye! Hear ye!! A new era of proprietary browsing is fast approaching! The article Yahoo’s Axis Brings Shared Visual Search Results to iOS and Browsers heralds the coming of Axis visual search application better than a professional crier paid in gold. If Yahoo’s Axis surprised us all by toppling the proprietary ruling class, the gold would go to them.
According to the author:
“Yahoo’s Axis visual search app and browser extension replaces text-based search results with visual representations of pages. The results appear in a carousel similar to Apple’s Cover Flow navigation in OS X, and can be synced between multiple devices on the same account. For example, a search that begins on an iPhone can be continued on a Windows computer with the Axis browser extension installed. “
At times, searching the web can be tiresome, in particular when doing video related search. You utilize key words hoping to be a click away from the scene or page you seek, but it doesn’t always work that way. Results vary according to browser and research methods.
The future is visual, but how does visual work with concepts? Initially, IE took the crown, and has comfortably sat on the throne ever since. However, with the era of proprietary browsers fast approaching, a challenger could arise. Moving across the board we have Axis, strategizing his next move towards the Crown.
Jennifer Shockley, June 8, 2012
Does One Fear or Not Fear in the Penguin Aftermath?
June 8, 2012
To fear or not to fear the aftermath of Penguin? The article 7 SEO Apocalypses That Never Happened recites words of encouragement, echoing the memories of past Google updates.
“My site has been at the top of Google SERPS for very competitive phrases. It’s a high quality site offering hundreds of pages of original content. Then, overnight, my site hit the bottom for almost everything thanks to Jagger.”
Despite rumors of SEO madness no one should lose hope. The past doesn’t always repeat itself as:
“Over the last three weeks, the SEO world seems to have gone mad. Panic has filled the web space: naïve and trusting webmasters start removing backlinks, content and keywords to cause a faster decrease in rankings.”
“This post is not another prescription to fight Penguin, it’s a prescription to stop sweating about Penguin.”
Penguin is going to analyze and hinder sites it believes are engaging in web spam tactics in order to increase search engine rankings. Their analysis will determine who is a spammer and who is not. It has been stated that sites affected will not be easily recognizable as spammers, but activity goes beyond white hat SEO. This could be confused with marketing.
Reassurances are irrelevant until all the kinks get worked out. Only time will tell the impact the new algorithms will have, so a false sense of security can end in an SEO nightmare. Wow, the “screwing up relevance” crowd lives to mislead another day. That is just wonderful…
Jennifer Shockley, June 8, 2012
Sponsored by IKANOW
Motorola Makes TV More User Friendly. Is Google TV Chopped Liver?
June 8, 2012
How does one make a TV program findable to a couch potato? Motorola has a solution, as Venture Beat informs us in “Motorola’s DreamGallery Aims to Eliminate Crappy TV User Interfaces.” Writer Tom Cheredar observes that unwieldy UI’s are plaguing today’s televisions, and Motorola is doing something about it. The article reports:
“At The Cable Show industry event in Boston today, the company showed off its DreamGallery media concept that’s powered by Motorola’s Medios cloud service. Essentially, it’s a pretty way to navigate and share stuff on your television set in a way that currently isn’t possible — assuming that all future televisions will have internet connectivity.
“DreamGallery focuses on making the television a cross-platform media center that works between computers/web browser, tablets, and smartphones. It will also serve to aggregate all the content from cable TV services, the internet, and Video-on-demand services (like Netflix), into a single location.”
So, Motorola knows how to improve the TV UI. Will Google know better? After all, it just acquired Motorola, but it already has Google TV in place (which, not surprisingly, emphases YouTube). Perhaps the company will combine the best from both concepts. We can hope, can’t we?
To be honest, I can’t tell from the previews which I would like better, DreamGallery (here) or GoogleTV (here). Can you?
Cynthia Murrell, June 8, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
Noetix Brings Business Intelligence to Healthcare
June 8, 2012
Here is a case study about the value of business intelligence in healthcare. Noetix declares in their blog that “Noetix Analytics is a Game Changer for Invacare.” Invacare Corporation is a leading worldwide provider of home and long-term care medical products. In 2006, the company wisely decided to pursue a modern business intelligence (BI) system. In that regard, Invacare is way ahead of the crowd in the healthcare field.
The forward-thinking company tapped Noetix Analytics for several reasons, not the least of which is its great ease of use. The write up informs us:
“Today, 100 end users are accessing financial reports through Noetix Analytics linked with Cognos 10 BI, and more users are trained daily. [Invacare CIO David] Mewes says this is revolutionary for the medical products field, which has historically not used cutting edge technology to conduct this type of business. ‘This industry doesn’t use a lot of IT tools and we’re finding Noetix Analytics to be very much a game-changer for Invacare.’
“Profitability is more important than ever in the medical devices industry due to government financial reimbursement and the ways competitive costs are scrutinized. The financial analytic reporting that Invacare has been able to conduct around its profitability has radically changed the company’s business outlook.”
We applaud Invacare for embracing BI technology. The company is now implementing Noetix Analytics globally; they plan to make it the data repository for all of their transactional systems.
Headquartered in Redmond, WA, Noetix also has offices in London, UK and Hyderabad, India. Since its founding in 1994, the company has accumulated some big-name clients, including Starbucks, Toshiba, and Visa. Now known, they say, as the Oracle Applications Reporting Experts, Noetix began as an Oracle consulting firm. In 2009, the company acquired business intelligence analytics company Jaros Technologies Corporation, which specialized in packaged analytics for Oracle E-Business Suite.
Cynthia Murrell, June 8, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
Microsoft Surprise: Lucid Thinking with Regards to Search
June 7, 2012
Our Overflight system snagged this news release: “Lucid Imagination Search Product Offered in Windows Azure Marketplace.” A version of the story appears on Beta News as well. According to the release:
Lucid Imagination…announced that its LucidWorks Cloud product has been selected by Microsoft Corp. to be offered as a Search-as-a-Service product in Microsoft’s Windows Azure Marketplace. LucidWorks Cloud is a full cloud service version of its LucidWorks Enterprise platform. LucidWorks Cloud delivers full open source Apache Lucene/Solr community innovation with support and maintenance from the world’s leading experts in open source search. An extensible platform architected for developers, LucidWorks Cloud is the only Solr distribution that provides security, abstraction and pre-built connectors for essential enterprise data sources – along with dramatic ease of use advantages in a well-tested, integrated and documented package. Example use cases for LucidWorks Cloud include Search-as-a-Service for websites, embedding search into SaaS product offerings, and Prototyping and developing cloud-based search-enabled applications in general.
According to Bill Hamilton, director, product marketing for Microsoft Azure:
In line with Windows Azure’s commitment to working with open source communities and serving developers, we’re excited that Lucid Imagination is offering its LucidWorks Cloud search technology in the Windows Azure Marketplace. Developers gain the benefits of Windows Azure’s openness and flexibility while providing search capabilities in their cloud applications.
One one hand, Microsoft is following in Amazon’s footsteps by hosting third-party search-and-retrieval systems. On the other hand, the fact that Microsoft is taking a step toward open source search is an interesting development.
Does this move presage a “Fast shuffle”? In my opinion, Microsoft is probably aware of Attivio’s use of Lucene/Solr in its platform product. Attivio, as you may know, was founded by former Fast Search & Transfer executives. With that DNA, Attivio’s embrace of Lucene is important because it suggests that Attivio may have perceived that Fast Search was nearing its “end of life.” The fact that IBM uses Lucene to reduce the massive costs that keeping a basic search system bright and shiny cannot be overlooked either.
Will Microsoft itself cozy up to Lucene / Solr? The shift would be wrenching for some developers and Certified Partners. These folks have built on going engineering and support of Fast Search technology into their business models. A Fast shift could deliver higher payoff velocities to some and strip the gears for others.
From my Harrod’s Creek vantage point, this announcement warrants a happy quack.
Stephen E Arnold, June 7, 2012
Sponsored by HighGainBlog
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
