Google and Microsoft Are Fighting. But a Battle May Loom between Coveo and Service Now
March 18, 2021
The 2021 cage match line ups are interesting. The Google – Microsoft dust up is a big deal. Google says Microsoft is using its posture on news as a way to blast rock and roll fog around the egregious security breaches for SolarWinds and Exchange Server.
But that fog could obscure a bout between Coveo (a smart search company) and Service Now (a Swiss Army knife of middleware, including Attivio search. Both companies invoke the artificial intelligence moniker. Both covet enterprise customers. Both want to extend their software into large organizations.
Service Now makes it plans clear in “Service Now Adds New AI and Low-Code Development Features.” The write up states:
[A user conference in Quebec] … also introduces AI Search, underpinned by technology acquired in ServiceNow’s purchase of Attivio. AI Search delivers intelligent search results and actionable information, complementing Quebec’s Engagement Messenger that extends self-service to third-party portals to enable AI search, knowledge management, and case interactions. Also new in Quebec is the aforementioned virtual agent, which delivers AI-powered conversational experiences for IT incident resolution.
From my vantage point, the AI is hand waving. Search has quite a few moving parts, and human involvement is necessary whether smart software is involved or not.
What Service Now has, however, is a meta-play; that is, it offers numerous management services. If properly set up and resourced could reduce the pain of some utility functions. Search is the mother of all utility services.
Coveo is a traditional enterprise search vendor. The company has targeted numerous business functions as likely customers; for example, customer support and marketing.
But niche vendors of utilities have to be like the “little engine that could.”
This may not be the main event like Google versus Microsoft, but it will be an event to watch.
Stephen E Arnold, March 18, 2021
Innovation in News: The Facebook Google Method
March 17, 2021
I read “Daily Telegraph Plans to Link Journalists’ Pay with Article Popularity.” The idea of a feedback loop is a proven money maker. A person clicks on content he or she likes. The system notes the clicks and provides more content on point with what the user clicked on. Round and round the loop the user goes. Whee. What fun!
Now the concept has been applied to “real” journalists. Write something that gets clicks or is popular. The “real news organization” counts the clicks and eject money for those clicks. Whee. What fun!
According to the write up:
An email sent by the editor, Chris Evans, last Thursday told staff that “in due course” the outlet wants to use the “Stars” system, which scores stories published online according to factors such as how many subscriptions they drive and how many clicks they get, “to link performance to reward” using subscription data. Evans said: “It seems only right that those who attract and retain the most subscribers should be the most handsomely paid,” and noted that working out the details would be “complicated” so that “we’re not ready to do that … yet”.
Old timers who do their reporting by calling public school mates or hanging out in pubs now have to put their trembling fingers on the pulse of those who read “real news.”
That may be a challenge. Thumbtypers are different from news consumers of yore.
Here’s a thought. The Daily Telegraph can recruit more agile reporters from the ranks of TikTok phenoms.
Can these next-gen reporters write? Sure, but the clicks count now, not the pyramid structure, savvy references, and sharp quotations.
Stephen E Arnold, March 17, 2021
Facebook: The Polarization Position
March 17, 2021
I find Silicon Valley “real” news amusing. I like the publications themselves; for example, Buzzfeed. I like the stories themselves; for example, “Polarization Is Good For America, Actually, Says Facebook Executive.”
How much of the Google method has diffused into Facebook? From my point of view, a magnetic influence exists. The cited article points out:
Facebook has created a ”playbook” to help its employees rebut criticism that the company’s products fuel political polarization and social division.
The idea is that employees comprise a team. The team runs plays in order to score. The playbook also directs and informs team members on their roles.
“Trapped Priors As a Basic Problem of Rationality” explains how feedback loops lead to a reinforcement of ideas, data, and rationality otherwise not noticed.
Buzzfeed references this Facebook research document:
In the [Facebook] paper, titled “What We Know About Polarization,” Cox and Raychodhury [Facebook experts] call polarization “an albatross public narrative for the company.” “The implicit argument is that Facebook is contributing to a social problem of driving societies into contexts where they can’t trust each other, can’t share common ground, can’t have conversation about issues, and can’t share a common view on reality,” they write, adding that “the media narrative in this case is generally not supported by the research.” While denying that Facebook meaningfully contributes to polarization, Pablo Barberá, a research scientist at the company, also suggested political polarization could be a good thing during Thursday’s presentation. “If we look back at history, a lot of the major social movements and major transformations, for example, the extension of civil rights or voting rights in this country have been the result of increasing polarization,” he told employees.
The value of polarization and a game plan to make explicit a particular business method are high. The fact that the trappings of research are required to justify the game plan is interesting. But those trapped priors are going to channel Facebook’s behavior into easy-to-follow grooves.
Scrutiny, legal action, and “more of the same” will allow pot holes to form. Some will be deep. Others will be no big deal.
Stephen E Arnold, March 17, 2021
Google Road Kill: Legal Eagles Circle Data Incognita
March 17, 2021
I read “Google Must Face Suit over Snooping on Incognito Browsing.” Google created the “incognito” mode to give users of Chrome a way to browse privately. The write up states:
Google failed to kill a lawsuit alleging that it secretly scoops up troves of internet data even if users browse in “Incognito” mode to keep their search activity private.
What happens when marketing to stimulate more useful clicks collides with the reality of constant data collection?
This type of legal position it seems:
“The court concludes that Google did not notify users that Google engages in the alleged data collection while the user is in private browsing mode,” U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, wrote in her ruling.
Google, according to the article, took this position:
Incognito mode in Chrome gives you the choice to browse the internet without your activity being saved to your browser or device. As we clearly state each time you open a new incognito tab, websites might be able to collect information about your browsing activity during your session.
But Google users have to agree to Google policies. These policies seems to give the friendly, mom and pop online ad company license to capture user information. Incognito, logically, does not mean invisible. Ergo, user activity is, logically, visible.
If you are Googley, you will understand the line of reasoning.
Several observations:
- The explanation is rhetorically similar to the Gibru-gibberish output with regard to a former Googler’s research paper about “ethics”
- The use of incognito mode provides a useful item of metadata which may of use to some analytic routines used by the mom and pop online ad company, its partners, and its developers
- The involvement of the courts is part of the mom and pop, online ad company’s strategy of do, deflect, and delay via marketing and legal activities.
The hitch in the git along is that users and regulators are starting to look at the mom and pop online ad agency as a less friendly entity today than it was in the years after the company’s initial public offering.
This perception shift is incorrect. Google has been consistent in its game plan, methods, and embrace of do, deflect, and delay.
What worked in the past, however, seems to be manifesting stress fractures; for example, the interesting criticism of Microsoft and the giving in to a mere country like Australia for news content.
Litigation is expensive, and Google has the motivation and the means to wear down opponents in costly, time consuming, and complex legal engagements. Not every Google opponent has the grit of Oracle to joust about Java. In the absence of meaningful regulation, Google’s logic is likely to keep those legal eagles circling in the hopes of digital road kill upon which to fatten themselves.
Stephen E Arnold, March 17, 2021
Alphabet Google: Just Helping the Public
March 17, 2021
I usually don’t read insurance industry trade publications. Decades ago I brushed into the world of “real” insurance, and I have a deep aversion for this industry. Betting on death is not my thing, but those big insurers are a jolly group.
I read “Alphabet’s Waymo Says Its Tech Would Avoid Fatal Human Crashes.” For convenience, I will refer to Alphabet Waymo with its “real” name: The Google.
The write up explains:
The autonomous-car artificial intelligence from Alphabet Inc.’s Waymo avoided or mitigated crashes in most of a set of virtually recreated fatal accidents, according to a white paper the company published Monday.
This is lingo for a model, just like the ones “real” MBAs and alleged “data scientists” run using Excel or a facsimile on steroids. The model ingests assumptions and data. The wizard at the keyboard pretty much plugs in threshold values and checks the output. Need a little more oomph; change the threshold. Once the numbers flow. Bingo. Good to go.
What I found interesting was this passage in the insurance industry centric PR piece of marketing collateral:
Waymo says it published the study for the benefit of the public, rather than regulators specifically.
But can you die riding in a smart EV from The Google?
Absolutely. The write up reports:
The Driver system failed to avoid or mitigate simulated accidents only when the autonomous car was struck from behind, according to the study.
No problems. Adjust those actuarial tables accordingly. Come to think of it, “Why use human actuaries?” Take the output from The Google’s model and pump it into a smart analytics program and let ‘er rip.
Stephen E Arnold, March 17, 2021
Microsoft: Losing an Appetite for Chinese Take Out?
March 16, 2021
I read “Microsoft Claims They Are under Attack by China.” Last month, Microsoft was under attack by Russia. In this most recent round of finger pointing, the Giant Freakin Robot states:
Microsoft says this hack actually began months ago, maybe as early as January with the hackers masking their efforts along the way and prying deeper into the base systems that stand up these email servers. Once it was noticed in early March, the company worked on a fix.
The bad actors have done significant harm. Attributing the attack to a nation state suggests that companies based in the US and deploying software and services worldwide are targets of value.
Several questions come to mind:
- With an attack which began months ago, why weren’t existing cyber security systems able to discern the breach and issue alerts?
- How long is “months ago”? What if the Exchange breaches occurred three, six, a year or more before being detected? Microsoft “defender” should have defended, but what about third party cyber security systems?
- Will the patches remediate the problem? Microsoft issued a Windows 10 update which caused some print functions to fail? Are Microsoft’s “fixes” introducing new vulnerabilities?
Net net: The bad actors (whether kids in McDonalds) or trained cyber warriors in bunkers may not be the actual problem.
What’s the problem?
Microsoft’s core business processes maybe?
The move to the cloud, background updates, flawed quality checks, and an eagerness to blame others could be contributing factors to the Redmond giant’s spate of woes.
What countries will be blamed for attacking Microsoft? I think Liechtenstein looks suspicious, don’t you?
Scrap the Chinese lunch order for today too.
Stephen E Arnold, March 16, 2021
Alleged China Data Slurping
March 16, 2021
I spotted an interesting “statistic.” The source was the article “China Harvesting 20% of World’s Data Including from India.” So one-fifth of the world’s data. The write up phrases the assertion this way:
… Approximately 20 per cent of the world’s global population are “being either directly or potentially set up for the Chinese government to collect all of their private data”.
An expert from the cyber security firm Strike Force is quoted as saying:
“If the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) has access to 20 per cent of the data going through the world’s VPNs generally, they should be expected to be using that data for a massive global spying operation that could translate into winning wars, shifting global power, and aiding the rise of an empire,” the expert warned.
If accurate, glib dismissals of TikTok or Zoom links to China may have to be re-evaluated in the shadow of the alleged data slurping.
Stephen E Arnold, March 16, 2021
Was Super Yacht Go a Digital Victim?
March 16, 2021
Modern yachts are connected to the Internet. I know very little about the specialized systems used to monitor these vessels. One interesting idea was articulated by eSysman Super Yachts via his YouTube video for March 12, 2021. You can view the program at this link. The point which snagged my attention was the observation that the boat’s controls behaved in an unusual manner. Furthermore, according to statements reported by media, the captain was unable to implement a manual override. When the helm’s instructions were not processed, no alarms sounded. Consequently the captain had to decide whether to crash into a bridge or into a pier. The captain choose the pier. No one was injured and the boat can be repaired.
The key question: Have cyber criminals compromised super yachts’ computerized control systems?
No answers yet. But in the “wake” of SolarWinds and Exchange missteps, the possibility must be considered. Odysseus thought he had problems, but he was dealing with more tractable gods, not digital monsters.
Stephen E Arnold, March 16, 2021
Russia: Taking Big Tech to Court and Maybe Penal Colony No. 2
March 16, 2021
Vladimir Putin’s power is considerable. There are the government entities and the informal entities. Both can be used to interesting effect. “Russia Sues Google, Twitter, Facebook for Not Helping to Suppress Anti-Putin Protests” explains:
Russian authorities have filed lawsuits against five of the world’s biggest social-media platforms for allegedly refusing to pull down users’ posts that urged people to join nationwide anti-Putin protests earlier this year.
What firms are in the Russian legal systems’ smart targeting system? Superstars include Twitter, Google, Facebook, TikTok, and Telegram. Telegram allegedly worked a deal with regard to encrypted messages, but that may be put aside. Some at Telegram may have family in Russia, and these individuals — if they are in the rodina — may have some interesting opportunities to meet Russian officials soon. Facebook, Google, and Twitter may ignore the legal annoyances. These firms have to worry about other issues. Google has to deal with some staffing issues. Facebook is busy explaining that it is not a monopoly to US legal eagles. And, Twitter? Yes, a PR blitz, new services, and suddenly astir digital guru. That’s an interesting problem for some. TikTok is Chinese. And with China and Russia becoming pals and planning a holiday near the moon, TikTok may just be redirected using bureaucratic tools employed to fix up Hong Kong elections.
Alleged image of a “typical” Russian Penal Colony No. 2.
The companies each have three cases against them, according to the news agency, with each case punishable by a fine of up to 4 million rubles, or around $54,000.
If found guilty, I would suggest that employees of these firms put off their vacation in Sochi. If slammed into Penal Colony No. 2, the executives of the offending firms would have a chance to meet some interesting people. Tattoos to commemorate the user experience are available as well. Internet service is spotty from what I have heard.
Stephen E Arnold, March 16, 2021
Social Audio Service Clubhouse Blocked in Oman
March 15, 2021
Just a quick note to document Oman’s blocking of the social audio service Clubhouse. The story “Oman Blocks Clubhouse, App Used for Free Debates in Mideast” appeared on March 15, 2021. The invitation only service has hosted Silicon Valley luminaries and those who wrangled an invitation via connections or social engineering. The idea is similar to the CB radio chats popular with over-the-road truckers in the United States. There’s no motion picture dramatizing the hot service, but a “Smokey and the Bandit” remake starring the hot stars in the venture capital game and the digital movers and shakers could be in the works. Elon Musk’s character could be played by Brad Pitt. Instead of a Pontiac Firebird, the Tesla is the perfect vehicle for movers and shakers in the Clubhouse.
Stephen E Arnold, March 15, 2021
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
