Big Plays or Little Plays: The Key to AI Revenue
July 11, 2024
I keep thinking about the billions and trillions of dollars required to create a big AI win. A couple of snappy investment banks have edged toward the idea that AI might not pay off with tsunamis of money right away. The fix is to become brokers for GPU cycles or “humble brags” about how more money is needed to fund the next big thing in what venture people want to be the next big thing. Yep, AI: A couple of winners and the rest are losers at least in terms of the pay off scale whacked around like a hapless squash ball at the New York Athletic Club.
However, a radical idea struck me as I read a report from the news service that oozes “trust.” The Reuters’ story is “China Leads the World in Adoption of Generative AI Survey Shows.” Do I trust surveys? Not really. Do I trust trusted “real” news outfits? Nope, not really. But the write up includes an interesting statement, and the report sparked what is for me a new idea.
First, here’s the passage I circled:
“Enterprise adoption of generative AI in China is expected to accelerate as a price war is likely to further reduce the cost of large language model services for businesses. The SAS report also said China led the world in continuous automated monitoring (CAM), which it described as “a controversial but widely-deployed use case for generative AI tools”.”
I interpreted this to mean:
- Small and big uses of AI in somewhat mundane tasks
- Lots of small uses with more big outfits getting with the AI program
- AI allows nifty monitoring which is going to catch the attention of some Chinese government officials who may be able to repurpose these focused applications of smart software
With models available as open source like the nifty Meta Facebook Zuck concoction, big technology is available. Furthermore the idea of applying smart software to small problems makes sense. The approach avoids the Godzilla lumbering associated with some outfits and, second, fast iteration with fast failures provides useful factoids for other developers.
The “real” news report does not provide numbers or much in the way of analysis. I think the idea of small-scale applications does not make sense when one is eating fancy food at a smart software briefing in mid town Manhattan. Small is not going to generate that. big wave of money from AI. The money is needed to raise more money.
My thought is that the Chinese approach has value because it is surfing on open source and some proprietary information known to Chinese companies solving or trying to solve a narrow problem. Also, the crazy pace of try-fail, try-fail enables acceleration of what works. Failures translate to lessons about what lousy path to follow.
Therefore, my reaction to the “real” news about the survey is that China may be in a position to do better, faster, and cheaper AI applications that the Godzilla outfits. The chase for big money exists, but in the US without big money, who cares? In China, big money may not be as large as the pile of cash some VCs and entrepreneurs argue is absolutely necessary.
So what? The “let many flowers bloom” idea applies to AI. That’s a strength possibly neither appreciated or desired by the US AI crowd. Combined with China’s patent surge, my new thought translates to “oh, oh.”
Stephen E Arnold, July 11, 2024
Cloudflare, What Else Can You Block?
July 11, 2024
I spotted an interesting item in Silicon Angle. The article is “Cloudflare Rolls Out Feature for Blocking AI Companies’ Web Scrapers.” I think this is the main point:
Cloudflare Inc. today debuted a new no-code feature for preventing artificial intelligence developers from scraping website content. The capability is available as part of the company’s flagship CDN, or content delivery network. The platform is used by a sizable percentage of the world’s websites to speed up page loading times for users. According to Cloudflare, the new scraping prevention feature is available in both the free and paid tiers of its CDN.
Cloudflare is what I call an “enabler.” For example, when one tries to do some domain research, one often encounters Cloudflare, not the actual IP address of the service. This year I have been doing some talks for law enforcement and intelligence professionals about Telegram and its Messenger service. Guess what? Telegram is a Cloudflare customer. My team and I have encountered other interesting services which use Cloudflare the way Natty Bumpo’s sidekick used branches to obscure footprints in the forest.
Cloudflare has other capabilities too; for instance, the write up reports:
Cloudflare assigns every website visit that its platform processes a score of 1 to 99. The lower the number, the greater the likelihood that the request was generated by a bot. According to the company, requests made by the bot that collects content for Perplexity AI consistently receive a score under 30.
I wonder what less salubrious Web site operators score. Yes, there are some pretty dodgy outfits that may be arguably worse than an AI outfit.
The information in this Silicon Angle write up raises a question, “What other content blocking and gatekeeping services can Cloudflare provide?
Stephen E Arnold, July 11, 2024
Common Sense from an AI-Centric Outfit: How Refreshing
July 11, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
In the wild and wonderful world of smart software, common sense is often tucked beneath a stack of PowerPoint decks and vaporized in jargon-spouting experts in artificial intelligence. I want to highlight “Interview: Nvidia on AI Workloads and Their Impacts on Data Storage.” An Nvidia poohbah named Charlie Boyle output some information that is often ignored by quite a few of those riding the AI pony to the pot of gold at the end of the AI rainbow.
The King Arthur of senior executives is confident that in his domain he is the master of his information. By the way, this person has an MBA, a law degree, and a CPA certification. His name is Sir Walter Mitty of Dorksford, near Swindon. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.
Here’s the pivotal statement in the interview:
… a big part of AI for enterprise is understanding the data you have.
Yes, the dwellers in carpetland typically operate with some King Arthur type myths galloping around the castle walls; specifically:
Myth 1: We have excellent data
Myth 2: We have a great deal of data and more arriving every minute our systems are online
Myth 3: Out data are available and in just a few formats. Processing the information is going to be pretty easy.
Myth 4: Out IT team can handle most of the data work. We may not need any outside assistance for our AI project.
Will companies map these myths to their reality? Nope.
The Nvidia expert points out:
…there’s a ton of ready-made AI applications that you just need to add your data to.
“Ready made”: Just like a Betty Crocker cake mix my grandmother thought tasted fake, not as good as home made. Granny’s comment could be applied to some of the AI tests my team have tracked; for example, the Big Apple’s chatbot outputting comments which violated city laws or the exciting McDonald’s smart ordering system. Sure, I like bacon on my on-again, off-again soft serve frozen dessert. Doesn’t everyone?
The Nvidia experts offers this comment about storage:
If it’s a large model you’re training from scratch you need very fast storage because a lot of the way AI training works is they all hit the same file at the same time because everything’s done in parallel. That requires very fast storage, very fast retrieval.
Is that a problem? Nope. Just crank up the cloud options. No big deal, except it is. There are costs and time to consider. But otherwise this is no big deal.
The article contains one gems and wanders into marketing “don’t worry” territory.
From my point of view, the data issue is the big deal. Bad, stale, incomplete, and information in odd ball formats — these exist in organizations now. The mass of data may have 40 percent or more which has never been accessed. Other data are back ups which contain versions of files with errors, copyright protected data, and Boy Scout trip plans. (Yep, non work information on “work” systems.)
Net net: The data issue is an important one to consider before getting into the let’s deploy a customer support smart chatbot. Will carpetland dwellers focus on the first step? Not too often. That’s why some AI projects get lost or just succumb to rising, uncontrollable costs. Moving data? No problem. Bad data? No problem. Useful AI system? Hmmm. How much does storage cost anyway? Oh, not much.
Stephen E Arnold, July 11, 2024
A Digital Walden Despond: Life without Social Media
July 11, 2024
Here is a refreshing post from Deep Work Culture and More about the author’s shift to an existence mostly offline, where he discovered … actual life. Upon marking one year without Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter / X, the blogger describes “Rediscovering Time and Relationships: The Impact of Quitting Social Media.” After a brief period of withdrawal, he learned to put his newly freed time and attention to good use. He writes:
“Hours previously lost to mindless scrolling were now available for activities that brought genuine enrichment. I rediscovered the joy of uninterrupted reading, long walks, and deep conversations. This newfound time became a fertile ground for hobbies that had languished in the shadows of digital distractions. The absence of the incessant need to document and share every moment of my life allowed me to be fully present in my experiences.”
Imagine that. The author states more time for reflection and self-discovery, as well as abandoning the chase for likes and comments, provided clarity and opportunities for personal growth. He even rediscovered his love of books. He considers:
“Without the constant distractions of social media, I found myself turning to books more frequently and with greater enthusiasm. … My recent literary journey has been instrumental in fostering a deeper sense of empathy and curiosity, encouraging me to view the world through varied lenses and enhancing my overall cognitive and emotional well-being. Additionally, reading more has cultivated a more reflective mindset, allowing me to draw connections between my personal experiences and broader human themes. This has translated into a more nuanced approach to both my professional endeavors and personal relationships, as the wisdom gleaned from books has informed my decision-making, problem-solving, and communication skills.”
Enticing, is it not? Strangely, this freedom, time, and depth of experience are available to any of us. All we have to do is log out of social media once and for all. Are you ready, dear reader? Find a walled in despond.
Cynthia Murrell, July 11, 2024
Oxygen: Keep the Bait Alive for AI Revenue
July 10, 2024
Andreessen Horowitz published “Who Owns the Generative AI Platform?” in January 2023. The rah-rah appeared almost at the same time as the Microsoft OpenAI deal marketing coup. In that essay, the venture firm and publishing firm stated this about AI:
…there is enough early data to suggest massive transformation is taking place. What we don’t know, and what has now become the critical question, is: Where in this market will value accrue?
Now a partial answer is emerging.
The Information, an online information service with a paywall revealed “Andreessen Horowitz Is Building a Stash of More Than 20,000 GPUs to Win AI Deals.” That report asserts:
The firm has secured thousands of AI chips, including Nvidia H100 graphics processing units, and is renting them to portfolio companies, according to a person who has discussed the initiative with the firm’s partners…. Andreessen Horowitz has told startup founders the initiative is called “oxygen.”
The initiative reflects what might be a way to hook promising AI outfits and plop them into the firm’s large foldable floating fish basket for live caught gill-bearing vertebrate animals, sometimes called chum.
This factoid emerges shortly after a big Silicon Valley venture outfit raved about the oodles of opportunity AI represents. Plus reports about Blue Chip consulting firms’ through-the-roof AI consulting has encouraged a couple of the big outfits to offer AI services. In addition to opining and advising, the consulting firms are moving aggressively into the AI implementing and operating business.
The morphing of a venture firm into a broker of GPU cycles complements the thinking-for-money firms’ shifting gears to a more hands-on approach.
There are several implications from my point of view:
- The fastest way to make money from the AI frenzy is to charge people so they can “do” AI
- Without a clear revenue stream of sufficient magnitude to foot the bill for the rather hefty costs of “doing” AI with a chance of making cash, selling blue jeans to the miners makes sense. But changing business tactics can add an element of spice to an unfamiliar restaurant’s special of the day
- The move from passive (thinking and waiting) to a more active (doing and charging for hardware and services) brings a different management challenge to the companies making the shift.
These factors suggest that the best way to cash in on AI is to provide what Andreessen Horowitz calls oxygen. It is a clear indication that the AI fish will die without some aggressive intervention.
I am a dinobaby, sitting in my rocker on the porch of the rest home watching the youngsters scramble to make money from what was supposed to be a sure-fire winner. What we know from watching those lemonade stand operators is that success is often difficult to achieve. The grade school kids setting up shop in a subdivision where heat and fatigue take their toll give up and go inside where the air is cool and TikTok waits.
Net net: The Andreessen Horowitz revelation is one more indication that the costs of AI and the difficulty of generating sufficient revenue is starting to hit home. Therefore, advisors’ thoughts seems to be turning to actions designed to produce cash, magnetism, and success. Will the efforts produce the big payoffs? I wonder if these tactical plays are brilliant moves or another neighborhood lemonade stand?
Stephen E Arnold, July 10, 2024
Microsoft Security: Big and Money Explain Some Things
July 10, 2024
I am heading out for a couple of day. I spotted this story in my newsfeed: “The President Ordered a Board to Probe a Massive Russian Cyberattack. It Never Did.” The main point of the write up, in my opinion, is captured in this statement:
The tech company’s failure to act reflected a corporate culture that prioritized profit over security and left the U.S. government vulnerable, a whistleblower said.
But there is another issue in the write up. I think it is:
The president issued an executive order establishing the Cyber Safety Review Board in May 2021 and ordered it to start work by reviewing the SolarWinds attack. But for reasons that experts say remain unclear, that never happened.
The one-two punch may help explain why some in other countries do not trust Microsoft, the US government, and the cultural forces in the US of A.
Let’s think about these three issues briefly.
A group of tomorrow’s leaders responding to their teacher’s request to pay attention and do what she is asking. One student expresses the group’s viewpoint. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. How the Recall today? What about those iPhones Mr. Ballmer disdained?
First, large technology companies use the word “trust”; for example, Microsoft apparently does not trust Android devices. On the other hand, China does not have trust in some Microsoft products. Can one trust Microsoft’s security methods? For some, trust has become a bit like artificial intelligence. The words do not mean much of anything.
Second, Microsoft, like other big outfits needs big money. The easiest way to free up money is to not spend it. One can talk about investing in security and making security Job One. The reality is that talk is cheap. Cutting corners seems to be a popular concept in some corporate circles. One recent example is Boeing dodging trials with a deal. Why? Money maybe?
Third, the committee charged with looking into SolarWinds did not. For a couple of years after the breach became known, my SolarWinds’ misstep analysis was popular among some cyber investigators. I was one of the few people reviewing the “misstep.”
Okay, enough thinking.
The SolarWinds’ matter, the push for money and more money, and the failure of a committee to do what it was asked to do explicitly three times suggests:
- A need for enforcement with teeth and consequences is warranted
- Tougher procurement policies are necessary with parallel restrictions on lobbying which one of my clients called “the real business of Washington”
- Ostracism of those who do not follow requests from the White House or designated senior officials.
Enough of this high-vulnerability decision making. The problem is that as I have witnessed in my work in Washington for decades, the system births, abets, and provides the environment for doing what is often the “wrong” thing.
There you go.
Stephen E Arnold, July 10, 2024
Market Research Shortcut: Fake Users Creating Fake Data
July 10, 2024
Market research can be complex and time consuming. It would save so much time if one could consolidate thousands of potential respondents into one model. A young AI firm offers exactly that, we learn from Nielsen Norman Group’s article, “Synthetic Users: If, When, and How to Use AI Generated ‘Research.’”
But are the results accurate? Not so much, according to writers Maria Rosala and Kate Moran. The pair tested fake users from the young firm Synthetic Users and ones they created using ChatGPT. They compared responses to sample questions from both real and fake humans. Each group gave markedly different responses. The write-up notes:
“The large discrepancy between what real and synthetic users told us in these two examples is due to two factors:
- Human behavior is complex and context-dependent. Synthetic users miss this complexity. The synthetic users generated across multiple studies seem one-dimensional. They feel like a flat approximation of the experiences of tens of thousands of people, because they are.
- Responses are based on training data that you can’t control. Even though there may be proof that something is good for you, it doesn’t mean that you’ll use it. In the discussion-forum example, there’s a lot of academic literature on the benefits of discussion forums on online learning and it is possible that the AI has based its response on it. However, that does not make it an accurate representation of real humans who use those products.”
That seems obvious to us, but apparently some people need to be told. The lure of fast and easy results is strong. See the article for more observations. Here are a couple worth noting:
“Real people care about some things more than others. Synthetic users seem to care about everything. This is not helpful for feature prioritization or persona creation. In addition, the factors are too shallow to be useful.”
Also:
“Some UX [user experience] and product professionals are turning to synthetic users to validate or product concepts or solution ideas. Synthetic Users offers the ability to run a concept test: you describe a potential solution and have your synthetic users respond to it. This is incredibly risky. (Validating concepts in this way is risky even with human participants, but even worse with AI.) Since AI loves to please, every idea is often seen as a good one.”
So as appealing as this shortcut may be, it is a fast track to incorrect results. Basing business decisions on “insights” from shallow, eager-to-please algorithms is unwise. The authors interviewed Synthetic Users’ cofounder Hugo Alves. He acknowledged the tools should only be used as a supplement to surveys of actual humans. However, the post points out, the company’s website seems to imply otherwise: it promises “User research. Without the users.” That is misleading, at best.
Cynthia Murrell, July 10, 2024
TV Pursues Nichification or 1 + 1 = Barrels of Money
July 10, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
When an organization has a huge market like the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts? What do they do to remain relevant and have enough money to pay the overhead and salaries of the top dogs? They merge.
What does an old-school talking heads television channel do to remain relevant and have enough money to pay the overhead and salaries of the top dogs? They create niches.
A cheese maker who can’t sell his cheddar does some MBA-type thinking. Will his niche play work? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. How’s that Windows 11 update doing today?
Which path is the optimal one? I certainly don’t have a definitive answer. But if each “niche” is a new product, I remember hearing that the failure rate was of sufficient magnitude to make me a think in terms of a regular job. Call me risk averse, but I prefer the rational dinobaby moniker, thank you.
“CNBC Launches Sports Vertical amid Broader Biz Shift” reports with “real” news seriousness:
The idea is to give sports business executives insights and reporting about sports similar to the data and analysis CNBC provides to financial professionals, CNBC President KC Sullivan said in a statement.
I admit. I am not a sports enthusiast. I know some people who are, but their love of sport is defined by gambling, gambling and drinking at the 19th hole, and dressing up in Little League outfits and hitting softballs in the Harrod’s Creek Park. Exciting.
The write up held one differentiator from the other seemingly endless sports programs like those featuring Pat McAfee-type personalities. Here’s the pivot upon which the nichification turns:
The idea is to give sports business executives insights and reporting about sports similar to the data and analysis CNBC provides to financial professionals…
Imagine the legions of viewers who are interested in dropping billions on a major sports franchise. For me, it is easier to visualize sports betting. One benefit of gambling is a source of “addicts” for rehabilitation centers.
I liked the wrap up for the article. Here it is:
Between the lines: CNBC has already been investing in live coverage of sports, and will double down as part of the new strategy.
- CNBC produces an annual business of sports conference, Game Plan, in partnership with Boardroom.
- Andrew Ross Sorkin, Carl Quintanilla and others will host coverage from the 2024 Olympic Games in Paris this summer.
Zoom out: Cable news companies are scrambling to reimagine their businesses for a digital future.
- CNBC already sells digital subscriptions that include access to its live TV feed.
- In the future, it could charge professionals for niche insights around specific verticals, or beats.
Okay, I like the double down, a gambling term. I like the conference angle, but the named entities do not resonate with me. I am a dinobaby and nichification is not a tactic that an outfit with eyeballs going elsewhere makes sense to me. The subscription idea is common. Isn’t there something called “subscription fatigue”? And the plan to charge to access a sports portal is an interesting one. But if one has 1,000 people looking at content, the number who subscribe seems to be in the < one to two percent range based on my experience.
But what do I know? I am a dinobaby and I know about TikTok and other short form programming. Maybe that’s old hat too? Did CNBC talk to influencers?
Stephen E Arnold, July 10, 2024
Google: Another Unfair Allegation and You Are Probably Sorry
July 10, 2024
Just as some thought Google was finally playing nice with content rightsholders, a group of textbook publishers begs to differ—in court. TorrentFreak reports, “Google ‘Profits from Pirated Textbooks’ Publishers’ Lawsuit Claims.” The claimants accuse Google of not only ignoring textbook pirates in search results, but of actively promoting them to line its own coffers. Writer Andy Maxwell quotes the complaint:
“’Of course, Google’s Shopping Ads for Infringing Works … do not use photos of the pirates’ products; rather, they use unauthorized photos of the Publishers’ own textbooks, many of which display the Marks. Thus, with Infringing Shopping Ads, this “strong sense of the product” that Google is giving is a bait-and-switch,’ the complaint alleges.”
The complaint emphasizes Google actively creates, ranks, and targets ads for pirated products. It also assesses the quality of advertised sites. It is fishy, then, that infringing works often rank before or near ads for the originals.
In case one is still willing to give Google the benefit of the doubt, the complaint lists several reasons the company should know better. There are the sketchy site names like “Cheapbok,” and “Biz Ninjas.” Then there are the unrealistically low prices. A semester’s worth of textbooks should break the bank; that is just part of the college experience. Perhaps even more damning is Google’s own assertion it verifies sellers’ identities. The write-up continues:
“[The publishers] claim that verification means Google has the ability to communicate with sellers via email or verified phone numbers. In cases where Google was advised that a seller was offering pirated content and Google users were still able to place orders after clicking an ad, ‘Google had the ability to stop the direct infringement entirely.’ In the majority of cases where pirate sellers predominantly or exclusively use Google Ads to reach their customer base, terminating their accounts would’ve had a significant impact on future sales.”
No doubt. Publishers have tried to address the issue through Google’s stated process of takedown notices to no avail. In fact, they allege, the company is downright hostile to any that push the issue. We learn:
“When the publishers sent follow-up notices for matters previously reported but not handled to their satisfaction, ‘Google threatened on multiple occasions to stop reviewing all the Publishers’ notices for up to six months,’ the complaint alleges. Google’s response was due to duplicate requests; the company warned that if that happened three or more times on the same request, it would ‘consider that particular request to be manifestly unfounded’ which could lead the company to ‘temporarily stop reviewing your requests for a period of up to 180 days.’”
Ah, corporate logic. Will Google’s pirate booty be worth the legal headaches? The textbook publishers bringing suit include Cengage Learning, Macmillan Learning, Macmillan Holdings, LLC; Elsevier Inc., Elsevier B.V., and McGraw Hill LLC. The complaint was filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Cynthia Murrell, July 10, 2024
Does Google Have a Monopoly? Does AI Search Make a Difference?
July 9, 2024
I read “2024 Zero-Click Search Study: For Every 1,000 EU Google Searches, Only 374 Clicks Go to the Open Web. In the US, It’s 360.” The write up begins with caveats — many caveats. But I think I am not into the search engine optimization and online advertising mindset. As a dinobaby, I find the pursuit of clicks in a game controlled by one outfit of little interest.
Is it possible that what looks like a nice family vacation place is a digital roach motel? Of course not! Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.
Let’s answer the two questions the information in the report from the admirably named SparkToro presents. In my take on the article, the charts, the buzzy jargon, the answer to the question, “Does Google Have a Monopoly?” the answer is, “Wow, do they.”
The second question I posed is, “Does AI Search Make a Difference in Google Traffic?’ the answer is, “A snowball’s chance in hell is better.”
The report and analysis takes me to close enough for horse shoes factoids. But that’s okay because the lack of detailed, reliable data is part of the way online operates. No one really knows if the clicks from a mobile device are generated by a nepo baby with money to burn or a bank of 1,000 mobile devices mindlessly clicking on Web destinations. Factoids about online activity are, at best, fuzzy. I think SEO experts should wear T shirts and hats with this slogan, “Heisenberg rocks. I am uncertain.
I urge you to read and study the SparkToro analysis. (I love that name. An electric bull!)
The article points out that Google gets a lot of clicks. Here’s a passage which knits together several facts from the study:
Google gets 1/3 of the clicks. Imagine a burger joint selling 33 percent of the burgers worldwide. Could they get more? Yep. How much more:
Equally concerning, especially for those worried about Google’s monopoly power to self-preference their own properties in the results, is that almost 30% of all clicks go to platforms Google owns. YouTube, Google Images, Google Maps, Google Flights, Google Hotels, the Google App Store, and dozens more means that Google gets even more monetization and sector-dominating power from their search engine. Most interesting to web publishers, entrepreneurs, creators, and (hopefully) regulators is the final number: for every 1,000 searches on Google in the United States, 360 clicks make it to a non-Google-owned, non-Google-ad-paying property. Nearly 2/3rds of all searches stay inside the Google ecosystem after making a query.
The write up also presents information which suggests that the European Union’s regulations don’t make much difference in the click flow. Sorry, EU. You need another approach, perhaps?
In the US, users of Google have a tough time escaping what might be colorfully named the “digital roach motel.”
Search behavior in both regions is quite similar with the exception of paid ads (EU mobile searchers are almost 50% more likely to click a Google paid search ad) and clicks to Google properties (where US searchers are considerably more likely to find themselves back in Google’s ecosystem after a query).
The write up presented by SparkToro (Is it like the energizer bunny?) answers a question many investors and venture firms with stakes in smart software are asking: “Is Google losing search traffic? The answer is, “Nope. Not a chance.”
According to Datos’ panel, Google’s in no risk of losing market share, total searches, or searches per searcher. On all of these metrics they are, in fact, stronger than ever. In both the US and EU, searches per searcher are rising and, in the Spring of 2024, were at historic highs. That data doesn’t fit well with the narrative that Google’s cost themselves credibility or that Internet users are giving up on Google and seeking out alternatives. … Google continues to send less and less of its ever-growing search pie to the open web…. After a decline in 2022 and early 2023, Google’s back to referring a historically high amount of its search clicks to its own properties.
AI search has not been the game changer for which some hoped.
Net net: I find it interesting that data about what appears to be a monopoly is so darned sketchy after more than two decades of operation. For Web search start ups, it may be time to rethink some of those assertions in those PowerPoint decks.
Stephen E Arnold, July 9, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
