Microsoft Reveals Its Engineering Approach: Good Enough
January 5, 2023
I was amused to read “State of the Windows: How Many Layers of UI Inconsistencies Are in Windows 11?” We have Windows 11 running on one computer in my office. The others are a lone Windows 7, four Windows 10 computers, four Mac OS machines with different odd names like High Sierra, and two Linux installations with even quirkier names. Sigh.
The article does a masterful job of pointing out that vestiges of XP, Vista, Windows 7, and Windows 8 lurk within the Windows 11 system. I have shared my opinion that Microsoft pushed Windows 11 out to customers to deflect real journalists’ attention from the security wild fire blazing in SolarWinds. Few share my viewpoint. That’s okay. I have been around a long time, and I have witnessed some remarkable executive group think when a crisis threatens to engulf a bonus. Out she goes.
But the article makes very, very clear how Microsoft approaches the engineering of its software and systems. Think of a lousy cake baked for your 12th birthday. To hide the misshapen, mostly inedible mess, someone has layered on either Betty Croker-type frosting in a can and added healthy squirts of synthetic whipped “real” cream. “Real,” of course, means that it squeaked through the FDA review process. Good enough.
Here’s one example of the treasures within Windows 11. I quote:
The Remote Desktop Connection program is still exactly the same as it was 14 years ago, complete with Aero icons and skeuomorphic common controls.
Priorities? Sure, just not engineering excellence, attention to detail, or consistency in what the user sees.
Do I think this approach is used for Azure and Exchange security?
Now the key questions, “What engineering approach will Microsoft use as it applies smart large language models to Web search?”
Stephen E Arnold, January 5, 2022
Thinking about Google in 2023: Hopefully Not Like Stuff Does
January 5, 2023
I have not been thinking about Google per se. I do think about [a] its management methods (Hello, Dr. Timnit Gebru), [b] its attempt to solve death, [c] the Googlers love of American basketball March Madness, [d] assorted semi-quiet settlements for alleged line-crossing activities, [e] the fish bowl culture with some species of fish decidedly further up the Great Chain of Googley Creatures, [f] the efforts to control costs using methods that are mostly invisible like possibly indexing less, embracing the snorkel view of the fish bowl, and abandoning the quaint notions of precision and recall, and [g] efforts to craft remarkable explanations for why the firm’s quantum supremacy and smart software has been on the receiving end of ChatGPT supersonic fly-bys.
The Stuff article “What to Expect from Google in 2023” takes a different approach; specifically, the article highlights a folding Pixel phone (er, hasn’t this been accomplished already?), gaming Chromebooks (er, what about the Stadia money pit, service termination, and refunds?), a Pixel tablet (er, another one-trick limping pony in the mobile device race?), a Pixel watch (er, Apple are you prepared?), Android refresh (er, how about that Android fragmentation?), and a reference to Google’s penchant for killing services. Do you remember Dodgeball or Waze?
My concern with this type of Google in 2023 article is that it misses the major challenges Google faces. I am not sure Google is aware of the challenges it faces. Life is a fish bowl is good until it isn’t. Not even a snappier snorkel will help. And if the water is fouled, what will the rank ordered fish do?
I know. I know. Solve death.
Stephen E Arnold, January 6, 2023
Clearing the Clouds in the EU
January 5, 2023
For many companies, computing in the cloud so someone else can worry about all that infrastructure seems like a no-brainer. But there is one big problem. The cloud services market is dominated by just three players: Amazon, Google, and Microsoft. The Next Web argues that “Dependence on Cloud’s ‘Big Three’ Is Hurting EU Startup Growth—It’s Time for a New Approach.” Writer Marris Adikwu informs us tech firms in Europe are suffering losses, cutting payroll, and struggling to attract investors. Several related factors contribute to the problem, like the war in Ukraine, the energy crisis, and rising inflation. However, Adikwu asserts, a lack of cloudy competition also plays a role. Yep, it is time to gear up for more pressure on some high profile tech giants. We are told:
“While founders are reviewing budgets up and down looking to trim as much as possible in order to stay afloat, one major spend has been left largely untouched: cloud services. While the shift to the cloud was intended to reduce computing costs, many companies that have adopted these services are facing a surge in spending. Contract lock-ins and egress fees are making it impossible to leave. In fact, some argue that the cloud could be costing many businesses more than it’s actually saving.”
Yes, one must pay to leave but often not to enter. That can make the contract seem like a great deal at first. But once a cloud service is holding a firm’s data, the company is stuck if it cannot afford the fees to move it out. Held hostage are little items like office software, payroll systems, and customer websites. We learn:
“Currently, AWS charges between $0.08 to $0.12 per GB in egress fees, meanwhile Google Cloud and Microsoft Azure charge $0.08 and $0.05 per GB respectively for inter-continental data transfers from North America to Europe. According to Yann Lechelle, CEO of EU-based cloud provider Scaleway, startups often accept six-figure cloud credits from AWS, GCP, and Azure and take on products and services that they don’t always need, because they seem free.”
EU regulators address the issue in the European Data Act, but that legislation is still under discussion and, some feel, does not go far enough to protect against unfair contractual terms anyway. Adikwu recommends startups protect themselves by carefully considering their needs, spreading services across multiple cloud vendors, seeking out reserved instances and other discounts, and tapping into cost-saving technology. See the write-up for more details on these suggestions.
Cynthia Murrell, January 5, 2023
Google and Its View of Copy and Paste: Not Okay, No, No, No!
January 4, 2023
Another day, another hoot. Today (January 4, 2023) I read a “real” news story from the trust outfit Thomson Reuters titled “Google Alleges India Antitrust Body Copied Parts of EU Order on Android Abuse.” Yes, that’s the title. Google. Copying. India. Abuse.
I ran through my mind a few instances of allegations of the Google doing the copying. First, there was the online advertising dust up. My belief is that most people are not aware that Google paid Yahoo to make a dispute about online advertising technology go away. This was in 2004, and the Saul Hansell (who?) story is online at this link. To make a long story short, for me the deal allowed the Google to become an alleged monopoly in online advertising. It also made clear to me that innovation at Google meant copying. Interesting? I think so.
Then there were the hassles with newspapers and publishers about Google News. Wikipedia has a summary of the jousting. You can find the “Controversies with Publishers” thumbnail at this link. I would summarize the history of Google News this way: Others create timely information and Google copies it. Google emphasizes its service to users; publishers talk about copying without payment. The dismal copy paste drama began in 2002 and continues to this day.
I would be remiss if I did not mention Google’s scanning of books. I think of book scanning as similar to my photocopying a journal article when I was in college. I preferred to mark up the copy and create my University of Chicago style manual approved footnotes sitting in a cheap donut shop miles from the university library. After a decade of insisting that copying books was okay, the courts agreed. Google could copy. How are those clicks on Google Books and Google Scholar going in 2023. You can read about this copying decision in “After 10 Years, Google Books Is Legal.”
Copying is good, true, high value, and important to users and obviously to the Google.
Now what did the Reuters’ article tell me today? Let’s take a look:
Google has told a tribunal in India that the country’s antitrust investigators copied parts of a European ruling against the U.S. firm for abusing the market dominance of its Android operating system, arguing the decision be quashed, legal papers show.
Google is objecting to a nation state’s use of legal language copied from a European Union document.
Yep, copied.
Does Google care about copying and the role it has played at Google? In my opinion, no. What Google cares about is the rising tide of litigation and the deafening sound of cash registers ringing as a result of Google’s behavior.
Yep, copying. That’s a hoot. How does Google think laws, regulations, and bills are made? In my experience, it’s control C and control V.
Stephen E Arnold, January 4, 2022
Tech Transfer: Will Huawei Amp Up Litigation for Alleged Infringement
January 4, 2023
Those patents can be tough to read. However, there are legal eagles who have engineering degrees and industry experience, to determine if one firm is infringing on another outfit’s patent. What do the legal eagles for the allegedly intellectual property misdeeds do. I am no lawyer, but I think the basic objective is to figure out the alleged infraction and then do as much research as possible to learn. Ultimately the exercise can lead to patent litigation. In some instances, however, owning a patent opens the door to some fascinating analytic technology. Relationship maps, documents authored by the inventors or the engineers snared in the research, and a reason to ask questions, take stuff apart, and determine the appropriate action. In some cases, there will be a wham bam patent lawsuit. But in other situations, the outfit which feels as its it crown jewel was torn from its well formed head, just gets smarter.
Ah, has. Could this desire to get smarter or just ask a lot of questions be part of the Huawei plan for the Samsung patents?
“Samsung Transfers 98 of Its US Patents to Huawei” reports:
a new report from The Elec claims that Samsung has just transferred 98 patents it owned in the United States to Huawei last month. This includes the 81 patents that Samsung transferred to Huawei in 2019. So far, the South Korean company has transferred a total of 179 patents to Huawei.
What about the sanctions? Well, what about them? Armed with legal eagles, Huawei may obtain some useful information if it pursues alleged infringement investigations. The legal work can take place in the US. But what about the data harvested by the Huawei legal team? Could that information find its way to the China-affiliated firm?
Birds fly don’t they information going to be helpful? Hmmm.
Stephen E Arnold, January 4, 2023
Hey, TikTok, You Are the Problem
January 4, 2023
Chinese-owned TikTok has taken the world by storm, and the US is no exception. Especially among the youngest cohorts. That is a problem for several reasons, but it is the risk to privacy and data security that has officials finally taking action. First to move were several states, as CNN‘s Brian Fung reports in “Why a Growing Number of States Are Cracking Down on TikTok.” We learn:
“At least seven states have said they will bar public employees from using the app on government devices, including Alabama, Maryland, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah and Texas. (Another state, Nebraska, banned TikTok from state devices in 2020.) Last week, the state of Indiana announced two lawsuits against TikTok accusing the Chinese-owned platform of misrepresenting its approach to age-appropriate content and data security.”
We note this quote by the Berkeley Research Group’s Harry Broadman:
“I’m a little bit mystified why it’s taking so long for CFIUS [the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] to deal with this problem. There must be some issue that’s going on.”
The Arnold IT team is mystified as well. Maybe lobbying and political contributions are the issue? Or cluelessness about the immense value of children’s and young people’s data? These overdue actions on the state level were followed by proposed federal legislation. Fung discusses the bipartisan effort in, “US Lawmakers Introduce Bill to Ban TikTok:”
“The proposed legislation would ‘block and prohibit all transactions’ in the United States by social media companies with at least one million monthly users that are based in, or under the ‘substantial influence’ of, countries that are considered foreign adversaries, including China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela. The bill specifically names TikTok and its parent, ByteDance, as social media companies for the purposes of the legislation. … TikTok has previously said it doesn’t share information with the Chinese government and that a US-based security team decides who can access US user data from China. TikTok has also previously acknowledged that employees based in China can currently access user data.”
But we should totally trust them with it, right? Not willing to take ByteDance at its word, the US military, State Department, Department of Homeland Security, and other security-conscious federal agencies long since banned the app on devices under their control. Will the prohibition soon extend to the rest of the country, to both public and private entities? If so, prepare for the rage of Gen Z.
Cynthia Murrell, January 4, 2023
Google: Do Small Sites Need Anti Terrorism Help or Is the Issue Better Addressed Elsewhere?
January 3, 2023
Are “little sites” really in need of Google’s anti-terrorism tool? Oh, let me be clear. Google is — according to “Google Develops Free Terrorism-Moderation Tool for Smaller Websites” — in the process of creating Googley software. This software will be:
a free moderation tool that smaller websites can use to identify and remove terrorist material, as new legislation in the UK and the EU compels Internet companies to do more to tackle illegal content.
And what institutions are working with Google on this future software? The article reports:
The software is being developed in partnership with the search giant’s research and development unit Jigsaw and Tech Against Terrorism, a UN-backed initiative that helps tech companies police online terrorism.
What’s interesting to me is that the motivation for this to-be software or filtering system is in development. The software, it seems, does not exist.
Why would Google issue statements about vaporware?
The article provides a clue:
The move comes as Internet companies will be forced to remove extremist content from their platforms or face fines and other penalties under laws such as the Digital Services Act in the EU, which came into force in November, and the UK’s Online Safety bill, which is expected to become law this year.
I understand. Google’s management understands that regulation and fines are not going away in 2023. It is logical, therefore, to get in front of the problem. How does Google propose to do this?
Yep, vaporware. (I have a hunch there is a demonstration available.) Nevertheless, the genuine article is not available to small Web sites, who need help in coping with terrorism-related content.
How will the tool work? The article states:
Jigsaw’s tool aims to tackle the next step of the process and help human moderators make decisions on content flagged as dangerous and illegal. It will begin testing with two unnamed sites at the beginning of this year.
Everything sounds good when viewed the top of Mount Public Relations, where the vistas are clear and the horizons are unlimited.
I want to make one modest observation: Small Web sites run on hosting services. These hosting services are, in my opinion, more suitable locations for filtering software. The problem is that hosting providers comprise a complex and diverse group of enterprises. In fact, I have yet to receive from my research team a count of service providers that is accurate and comprehensive.
Pushing the responsibility to the operator of a single Web site strikes me as a non-functional approach. Would it make sense for Google’s tool to be implemented in service providers. The content residing on the service providers equipment or co-located hardware and in the stream of data for virtual private systems or virtual private servers. The terrorism related content would be easier to block.
Let’s take a reasonable hosting service; for example, Hertzner in Germany or OVHCloud in France. The European Union could focus on these enabling nodes and implement either the Google system if and when it becomes available and actually works or an alternative filtering method devised by a European team. (I would suggest that Europol or similar entities can develop the needed filters, test them, and maintain them.) Google has a tendency to create or talk about solutions and then walk away after a period of time. Remember Google’s Web Accelerator?)
Based on our research for an upcoming presentation to a group of investigators focused on cyber crime, service providers (what I call enablers) should be the point of attention in an anti-terrorism action. Furthermore, these enablers are also pivotal in facilitating certain types of online crime. Examples abound. These range from right-wing climate activists using services in Romania to child pornography hosted on what we call “shadow ISPs.” These shadow enablers operate specialized services specifically to facilitate illegal activities within specialized software like The Onion Router and other obfuscation methods.
For 2023, I advocate ignoring PR motivated “to be” software. I think the efforts of national and international law enforcement should be directed at the largely unregulated and often reluctant “enablers.” I agree that some small Web site operators could do more. But I think it is time to take a closer look at enablers operating from vacant lots in the Seychelles or service providers running cyber fraud operations to be held responsible.
Fixing the Internet requires consequences. Putting the focus on small Web sites is a useful idea. But turning up the enforcement and regulatory heat on the big outfits will deliver more heat where being “chill” has allowed criminal activity to flourish. I have not mentioned the US and Canada. I have not forgotten that there are enablers operating in plain sight in such places as Detroit and Québec City. Google’s PR play is a way to avoid further legal and financial hassles.
It is time to move from “to be” software to “taking purposeful, intentional action.”
Stephen E Arnold, January 3, 2023
Google Results Are Relevant… to Google and the Googley
January 3, 2023
We know that NoNeedforGPS will not be joining Prabhakar Raghavan (Google’s alleged head of search) and the many Googlers repurposed to deal with a threat, a real threat. That existential demon is ChatGPT. Dr. Raghavan (formerly of the estimable Verity which was absorbed into the even more estimable Autonomy which is a terra incognita unto itself) is getting quite a bit of Google guidance, help, support, and New Year cheer from those Googlers thrown into a Soviet style project to make that existential threat go away.
NoNeedforGPS questioned on Reddit.com the relevance of Google’s ad-supported sort of Web search engine. The plaintive cry in the post is an image, which is essentially impossible to read, says:
Why does Google show results that have nothing to do with what is searched?
You silly goose, NoNeedforGPS. You fail to understand the purpose of Google search, and you obviously are not privy to discussions by search wizards who embrace a noble concept: It is better to return a result than a null result. A footnote to this brilliant insight is that a null result — that is, a search results page which says, “Sorry, no matches for your query” — make it tough to match ads and convince the lucky advertiser on a blank page that a null result conveys information.
What? A null result conveys information! Are you crazy there in rural Kentucky with snow piled to a height of four French bulldogs standing atop one another?
No, I don’t think I am crazy, which is a negative word, according to some experts at Stanford University.
When I run a query like “Flokinet climate activist”, I really want to see a null result set. My hunch is that some folks in Eastern Europe want me to see an empty set as well.
Let me put the display of irrelevant “hits” in response to a query in context:
- With a result set — relevant or irrelevant is irrelevant — Google’s super duper ad matcher can do its magic. Once an ad is displayed (even in a list of irrelevant results to the user), some users click on the ads. In fact, some users cannot tell the difference between a relevant hit and an ad. Whatever the reason for the click, Google gets money.
- Many users who run a query don’t know what they are looking for. Here’s an example: A person searches Google for a Greek restaurant. Google knows that there is no Greek restaurant anywhere near the location of the Google user. Therefore, the system displays results for restaurants close to the user. Google may toss in ads for Greek groceries, sponges from Greece, or a Greek history museum near Dunedin, Florida. Google figures one of these “hits” might solve the user’s problem and result in a click that is related to an ad. Thus, there are no irrelevant results when viewed from Google’s UX (user experience) viewpoint via the crystal lenses of Ad Words, SEO partner teams, or a Googler who has his/her/its finger on the scale of Google objectivity.
- The quaint notions of precision and recall have been lost in the mists of time. My hunch is that those who remember that a user often enters a word or phrase in the hopes of getting relevant information related to that which was typed into the query processor are not interested in old fashioned lists of relevant content. The basic reason is that Google gave up on relevance around 2006, and the company has been pursuing money, high school science projects like solving death, and trying to manage the chaos resulting from a management approach best described as anti-suit and pro fun. The fact that Google sort of works is amazing to me.
The sad reality is that Google handles more than 90 percent of the online searches in North America. Years ago I learned that in Denmark, Google handles 100 percent of the online search traffic. Dr. Raghavan can lash hundreds of Googlers to the ChatGPT response meetings, but change may be difficult. Google believes that its approach to smart software is just better. Google has technology that is smarter, more adept at creating college admission essays, and blog posts like this one. Google can do biology, quantum computing, and write marketing copy while wearing a Snorkel and letting code do deep dives.
Net net: NoNeedforGPS does express a viewpoint which is causing people who think they are “expert searchers” to try out DuckDuckGo, You.com, and even the Russian service Yandex.com, among others. Thus, Google is scared. Those looking for information may find a system using ChatGPT returns results that are useful. Once users mired in irrelevant results realizes that they have been operating in the dark, a new dawn may emerge. That’s Dr. Raghavan’s problem, and it may prove to be easier to impress those at a high school reunion than advertisers.
Stephen E Arnold, January 3, 2023
The AI Copyright Wars Are Underway
January 3, 2023
Adobe develops great software for a high price tag. It really stinks when Adobe slaps the SaaS sticker on software and demands a yearly licensing fee. Adobe is making a smart, yet controversial business move says Axios: “Adobe Will Sell AI-Made Stock Images.”
Adobe decided to open its stock image service to AI-generated images. Adobe sees it as a smart business move, because the company believes AI-generated images will complement human artists. Humans will not be replaced by programs.
Adobe will accept these images as long as they are properly labeled. Getty Images, another stock photo supplier, says differently because they do not want to deal with the legal risks. Adobe is happily proceeding forward, because it means more money in their pockets:
“Adobe, by contrast, seems comfortable with the legal risk. Although it is requiring creators to affirm they have proper rights to the works they submit, it will indemnify buyers of stock images should there be any legal challenges.”
There are also the questions:
“That’s significant given that there are a number of unanswered questions around generative AI, including whether people whose works have been part of training the AI systems have any legal claim to the systems or the works they produce.”
It is a future fact that copyright trolls will legally go after people who use AI software to create substantially similar images. We cannot wait to see that litigation.
Whitney Grace, January 3, 2022
Search and Retrieval: A Sub Sub Assembly
January 2, 2023
What’s happening with search and retrieval? Google’s results irritate some; others are happy with Google’s shaping of information. Web competitors exist; for example, Kagi.com and Neva.com. Both are subscription services. Others provide search results “for free”; examples include Swisscows.com and Yandex.com. You can find metasearch systems (minimal original spidering, just recycling results from other services like Bing.com); for instance, StartPage.com (formerly Ixquick.com) and DuckDuckGo.com. Then there are open source search options. The flagship or flagships are Solr and Lucene. Proprietary systems exist too. These include the ageing X1.com and the even age-ier Coveo system. Remnants of long-gone systems are kicking around too; to wit, BRS and Fulcrum from OpenText, Fast Search now a Microsoft property, and Endeca, owned by Oracle. But let’s look at search as it appears to a younger person today.
A decayed foundation created via smart software on the Mage.space system. A flawed search and retrieval system can make the structure built on the foundation crumble like Southwest Airlines’ reservation system.
First, the primary means of access is via a mobile device. Surprisingly, the source of information for many is video content delivered by the China-linked TikTok or the advertising remora YouTube.com. In some parts of the world, the go-to information system is Telegram, developed by Russian brothers. This is a centralized service, not a New Wave Web 3 confection. One can use the service and obtain information via a query or a group. If one is “special,” an invitation to a private group allows access to individuals providing information about open source intelligence methods or the Russian special operation, including allegedly accurate video snips of real-life war or disinformation.
The challenge is that search is everywhere. Yet in the real world, finding certain types of information is extremely difficult. Obtaining that information may be impossible without informed contacts, programming expertise, or money to pay what would have been called “special librarian research professionals” in the 1980s. (Today, it seems, everyone is a search expert.)
Here’s an example of the type of information which is difficult if not impossible to obtain:
- The ownership of a domain
- The ownership of a Tor-accessible domain
- The date at which a content object was created, the date the content object was indexed, and the date or dates referenced in the content object
- Certain government documents; for example, unsealed court documents, US government contracts for third-party enforcement services, authorship information for a specific Congressional bill draft, etc.
- A copy of a presentation made by a corporate executive at a public conference.
I can provide other examples, but I wanted to highlight the flaws in today’s findability.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
