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
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
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
CNN Surfaces an Outstanding Quote from the Zuck
December 30, 2022
Tucked in “The Year That Brought Silicon Valley Back Down to Earth” was an outstanding quotation from the chief Meta professional, Mark (the Zucker) Zuckerberg. Here’s the quote:
“Unfortunately, this did not play out the way I expected.”
The CNN article revisits what are by now old tropes and saws.
When I spotted the title, I thought a handful of topics would be mentioned; for example:
- The medical testing fraud
- The crazy “value” of wild hair styles and digital currency, lawyer parents, and disappearing billions. Poof.
- Assorted security issues (Yes, I am thinking of Microsoft and poisoned open source libraries. Hey, isn’t GitHub part of the Softies’ empire?)
- Apple’s mystical interactions with China
- Taylor Swift’s impact on Congressional interest in online ticket excitement
- An annual update on Google’s progress in solving death
- Amazon’s interaction with trusted third party sellers (Yes, I am thinking of retail thefts)
- Tesla’s outer space thinking about self driving
- Palantir’s ads asserting that it is the leader in artificial intelligence.
None of these made the CNN story. However, that quote from the Zuck touches some of these fascinating 2022 developments.
Stephen E Arnold, December 30, 2022
Apple Think: Characteristics of Working in a Ring with Echoes
December 30, 2022
Have you been reminded to think in 360 degrees. The idea, as I recall, is to look at a problem, opportunity, or action from different angles. Instead of screwing up because a decider verifies a preconceived idea, the 360 method is supposed to avoid overlooking the obvious.
What about those Apple AirTags? Was 360 degree think in operation when the idea of finding a lost phone was hatched? In my opinion, an Apple AirTag is useful for many good news use cases. iPhone users will want several, maybe six, maybe a dozen. Just clip one on a key ring, and in theory one can locate those keys. Find your luggage. Keep an eye on the cat. The trick is to sign up for the assorted Apple services which make the AirTag function.
Many Apple employees work in a circular structure which looks like a hula hoop. Could the building be a concretization of the metaphor for 360 degree thinking? If so, I cannot understand why the AirTag application for stalking was not identified as a use case? What about tracking an expensive auto so a car thief can drive off after the owner leaves the vehicle at the mall? Could an assassin use the AirTag to verify the target was at a location without having to use other means to achieve the kind of future Mr. Putin envisions for Mr. Volodymyr Zelenskyy?
Did the Apple professionals doing 360 degree thinking in the circular building consider these applications of the AirTag? My hunch is that Apple does Ring Think. It makes money, but the unforeseen consequences appear to be mere downstream details.
What about iPhone’s ability to detect a user who is in a car crash. The idea is that an accident is detected by the iPhone. Authorities are notified. Help is dispatched. Perfect. Has something been overlooked by Ring Think via the 360 degree analysis.
You decide.
“Apple Watch and iPhone Crash Detection Software an Issue for Search and Rescue Crews” reports:
One of the new features on the iPhone and Apple Watch is crash detection. It is designed to detect car crashes and if needed, alert the local authorities.
Perfect. Car crash. Alert authorities. What did the Apple wizards overlook? Here’s a quote from the write up:
“It’s quite sophisticated,” Dwight Yochim, a senior manager with the B.C. Search and Rescue Association told Global News. “It [the crash detection in an iPhone] recognizes a sudden change in speed, sound of crunching metal and glass and even the airbag deploying. But for whatever reason, people in the backcountry and maybe it’s just our B.C. backcountry enthusiasts, they’re just hardcore, and the falling and the kind of crashing through the woods literally is setting it off.”
Apple allegedly has issued software to help address the accidental alert. These unintentional, accidental alerts have consequences. The write up reports that Mr. Yochim said:
“We do 2,000 calls a year now. And we did a report a couple of years ago that showed that we’re probably going to hit 3,000 in about 10 years. So the more of these false calls we have, the more time it takes away from our members,” Yochim said. “They’re putting in 400,000 hours now in training, administration and incidents. And so every one of these calls is four or five hours for a dozen people to respond. Then you find out there’s some puzzled subject at the end going, ‘I didn’t even realize I activated it’.”
I am not all that interested in AirTags and automatic alerts. The issue is that these are two specific examples of functionality that has a number of applications. Some good and some bad.
However, what less visible, more subtle examples of failed 360 analysis and Ring Think are in the Apple ecosystem? What if some of the flubs and ignored applications have far greater consequences. Instead of knowing a human trafficker will target an individual for abduction, the latent use case is invisible and will emerge without warning?
What’s the responsibility of a company which relies on Ring Think to minimize the impact of their innovations?
Here’s a thought for the New Year: There is no remediation. Society has to live with technical activities. Therefore, why should an Apple type of organization leave its spaceship shaped structure and worry about a kidnapped child?
Why bother? Or, it’s not our problem because we are only human. And, my fave, we’re not able to predict the future. But the big reason is look at the good our work does.
Yep, I got it.
Stephen E Arnold, December 30, 2022
Apple Signals and Messages Telegram Its Intentions
December 30, 2022
Apple is losing its touch. Once the outfit was a religion with chips. Now it is a subscription machine with no right to repair.
Telegram is an encrypted message service that has avoided paying Apple fees, but according to TechRadar that has come to an end: “Telegram Forced To Crack Down On Paid Posts Because Apple Wasn’t Getting A Cut.”
Telegram used to allow users to set up paid content posts with third-party payment bots. This allowed content creators to avoid paying Apple’s fees and their fans paid them directly. Content creators received close to 100% of their fans’ donations without sending a chunk to Apple. Unfortunately, Apple wants its 30% and Telegram is forced to comply. If Telegram does not comply with Apple, then it will be removed from the App Store.
Apple has a monopoly in the app market and even other tech giants, like Elon Musk and Spotify, are saying 30% is too much. South Korea passed a law that allowed content creators to use third-party payment services other than Apple:
“You have the likes of Spotify calling the tech giant “anti-competitive” because of App Store rules that make buying an audiobook overly complicated. Newfound Twitter wrangler Elon Musk said back in May that 30 percent is “10 times higher than it should be” and South Korea thought so, too. Last year, the nation passed a law forcing Apple and Google to allow developers to use third-payment systems and not pay the hefty tax.”
Apple does not care that it charges 30%, because they have a monopoly and all its decisions are unilateral. That is what happens when they use an OS other than Windows. Will Apple compete with Telegram to capture more encrypted messaging traffic?
Absolutely.
Whitney Grace, December 30, 2022
Amazon: Filled with Holiday Cheer
December 27, 2022
In the modern world, Amazon is a catch-22; you can live without it but you would be hard-pressed not to. While buying a product on Amazon is usually simple, the return process is worse than a pain in the neck. A Canadian family has learned the hard way that Amazon will pull a scam whenever possible. CBC explains the frustrations in, “Family Says Amazon Shipped Fake Product, Refuses Refund Until ‘Correct Item’ Returned.”
Matthew Legault’s parents purchased him a computer as a high school graduation gift. He was excited about the present, until he took it apart and noticed the graphics card was hollowed out and filled with putty. The Legaults returned the defective computer and asked for a refund. Amazon, however, said they threw out the “computer” because it was a danger to employees. Amazon also demanded the Legaults need to ship the correct item.
Do you see where the cyclical problem is going?
The Legaults are like many unhappy Amazon customers, who are told that an item was disposed of to “end the conversation.”
What is hysterical is that Legault patriarch thinks Amazon cares about him:
“François says his history with Amazon should have stood for something — he’s been a loyal customer for years, and rarely returned anything. ‘The box had obviously been tampered with,’ he said. ‘We kind of expected that Amazon would have better quality controls, better procedures to ensure that something like this doesn’t happen.’”
HAHA!
NOPE!
Amazon is not a brick and mortar store. Amazon does not inspect anything and simply boxes returns up to be auctioned off to the highest bidder.
Amazon has lost revenue since the end of the COVID pandemic. The company is laying off employees.
A word of advice from the victims: take a video of yourself opening the package, so Amazon will not have any fodder against you.
The Legaults eventually got their refund when the story aired. It also helps to threaten legal action.
Is it possible that the post Bezos Amazon does not care about anyone or anything? Some more advice: order expensive products from the manufacturer’s Web site or in a physical store. Just a thought.
Whitney Grace, December 27, 2022
Google: Rank Ordering Its Wizards, Shamen, and Necromancers
December 27, 2022
Okay, six percent of the magic workers are not sufficiently Google. The figure does not count Timnit Gebru types.
Google is not afraid to fire anyone who ignites controversy within the company related to diversity and women. Sometimes it is not bad press that causes Google to lay off its employees, instead it is the economy. The Daily Hunt reports that, “Google Asked Managers To Fire 10,000 ‘Poor Performers’ As Mass Layoffs Hit Tech Sector.”
The US federal government’s raising interest rates and tech companies that make a large portion of their profits from ads are feeling the pain. Meta, Google, Amazon, Twitter, and more companies are firing more workers. Alphabet is telling its managers to lay off all employees who are rated as “poor performers.” The hope is to get rid of at least 10,000 workers and there might be some subterfuge behind it:
“As per a report from Forbes, Google might even bank on these rankings to avoid paying bonuses and stock grants. Google’s managers have been reportedly asked to categorize 10,000 employees as “poor performers” so that 10,000 people can be fired. Alphabet has a total workforce of 187,000 people, which is one of the largest workforces in tech.”
Google’s workforce is described as bloated and pays its employees 70% more than Microsoft compensates its staff or 153% compared to the top twenty big tech companies. Google pays more than its competition to hoard talent and increases its stranglehold on the tech industry.
Googzilla has to pay for NFL football any way it can.
Whitney Grace, December 27, 2022
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
