Bing Given a Facelift to Draw Search Traffic
May 11, 2012
Bing’s popularity has cooled in the shadow of Google and the company is attempting to change its image.
According to recent article, “Microsoft Gives Bing Search Engine Major Overhaul,” Bing is being revamped to increase popularity of the search site and draw traffic away from Google. The firm states the changes will get rid of “unnecessary distractions.” This includes the old navigation menu, the header, and categories for refining search. The article states:
“‘Over the past few months, we’ve run dozens of experiments to determine how you read our pages to deliver the link you’re looking for,’ Microsoft’s Bing Team noted in a recent blog post.
‘Based on that feedback, we’ve tuned the site to make the entire page easier to scan, removing unnecessary distractions, and making the overall experience more predictable and useful. This refreshed design helps you do more with search–and gives us a canvas for bringing future innovation to you.’”
The attempt from Bing to attract traffic and revenue is not lost on us. We are impressed with the boosted performance and sleek look and look forward to more provident changes from the Microsoft company.
Microsoft has also embraced the “old” Excite three column interface from the 1990s. You can read about the Facebook “column” in “Introducing the New Bing: Spend Less Time Searching, More Time Doing.”
The issue is, of course, when a person wants to search for a company with an unusual spelling–for example, Innttensity–the task becomes more difficult if the spelling is not known by the user. Research is now more social, not necessarily better in our view.
Andrea Hayden, May 11, 2012
Sponsored by Ikanow
Google Strategy Questioned
May 9, 2012
Blogger Dustin Curtis presents his take on Google’s business strategy in “Google’s Coherent Bouquet.” Riffing off of Google Co-Founder Sergey Brin’s line, “We’ve let a thousand flowers bloom; now we want to put together a coherent bouquet,” Curtis questions whether such flower arranging is within the company’s abilities. At issue is the importance of social media and, naturally, the threat of competition from Facebook that continually dogs the search giant. The write up asserts:
“Google has about 150 legacy core products which have slowly evolved into great tools over the past decade, but which were designed and built with the complete absence of consideration for any social interaction. Google+ is an attempt to shoe-horn Google’s legacy products into things that are compatible with a new set of social interaction paradigms.
“My point here is that ‘social’ is a point of view from which to design products and not a ‘layer’ that can be easily draped over existing, non-social products.”
Hmmm. Interesting logic. Curtis insists that a shift like the one Google needs is not going to happen without the impetus of “new and unexpected outside ideas.” Is the self-described “villain” blogger correct? Is Google too set in its ways to achieve social success?
Cynthia Murrell, May 9, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
Inktomi and Fast Search: Two Troubled Search Companies, One Lesson
May 8, 2012
I found the write up by Diego Basch interesting and thought provoking. I have a little experience with Inktomi. For the original FirstGov.gov system, the US government used Inktomi for the public facing index of US government unclassified information. (FirstGov.gov is now www.usa.gov)
Inktomi had in 2000 a “ready to go” index of content from Dot Gov Web sites. The firm’s business model matched the needs of the US government. There were the normal contracting and technical hurdles for a modestly sized US government project with a fairly tight timeline. No big deal. Job done. Inktomi worked.
When I read “A Relevant Tale: How Google Killed Inktomi,” I thought the write up had some useful information. However, I don’t think Google killed Inktomi or any other search system. Google did not kill Fast Search & Transfer, Excite, HotBot, or any other search system in its rise to its alleged 65 percent share of the search market. (Google share is actually much higher, based on my analyses.)
Excite’s early 1997 attempt at portalization. Can you spot the search box? Does this look like the current version of Google? Say, “No.” Now log into Google and run a query for rental car. Now do you see the similarity between the early portal craziness and the modern Google? I do.
What killed off these outfits was their business models. Let me explain using Inktomi and Fast Search as examples. I could cite other cases, but these two are okay for a free blog post for the two or three readers I have.
Inktomi, for whatever reason, concluded that people wanted to offer search, not do the heavy lifting. In the portal fever that was raging from 1998 to 2001, Web sites wanted to be the “front page” of the Internet. The result was that America Online, Excite, Lycos, and Yahoo among others jammed links on the splash page. At one time, I counted more than 60 links on the Excite home page. Once I hit 50 links, I quit counting. My eyes and patience can cope with three to five things. More than that, and I move on.
Inktomi’s analysts did the spreadsheet fever thing, making assumptions about how many Web sites would license Inktomi results, pay Inktomi’s fees, and generate revenue from the front page of the Internet craziness. The reality was that Inktomi did not have enough customers to support the cost of the spidering, bandwidth, investment in performance, research and development for precision and recall, and the other costs that are underestimated or just ignored. The result was the collapse of the company.
YouTube Lover Gets Annoyed
May 8, 2012
Wil Wheaton took to his blog to declare, “Google is Making a Huge and Annoying Mistake.” Wheaton insists:
“Yesterday, I tried to like a video on YouTube. I wasn’t signed in to my Google Plus account, and this is what I saw: Where the thumbs up and thumbs down used to be, there is now a big G+ Like button. When you go anywhere near it, you get a little popup that tells you to ‘upgrade to Google plus’ for some reason that I don’t remember, because the instant I saw it, I made a rageface.”
He then went on to Tumble a profanity-laced missive to Google expressing his righteous rage. Apparently, he products a show whose existence depends on the capture of enough YouTube up votes. I suppose the problem with a newfangled business model is the rapid change that tends to accompany new fangles.
The thing is, I can’t reproduce Wheaton’s problem. I still get the thumbs up and down buttons, and nary a Google+ button in sight. (Even in Chrome, where I’m signed into iGoogle.) The only difference I see is that I am not a Google+ subscriber. But then, he says he’s getting a “upgrade to Google+” message, and wasn’t signed into his account anyway. I don’t question his experience, he has a screenshot after all, it’s just . . . odd.
He should try rebooting.
Cynthia Murrell, May 8, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
Is Android Slipping From Google’s Grasp?
May 8, 2012
It is a tale of fragmentation and control: BetaNews declares, “Google Has Lost Control of Android.” The extensive article examines the ways in which writer Joe Wilcox says open source distribution of the Android platform is hurting the company. He asserts:
“Forrester Research predicts that proprietary Android will surpass the Google Android ecosystem by 2015. Stated differently, Google’s open-source mobile platform risks fracturing into multiple fatally fragmented Android ecosystems. Not one but many. There is little time for Google to demonstrate decisive leadership that can keep the ecosystem largely intact. . . .
“Google’s problem: Two partners are overwhelming successful, while the majority limp along, and one hurts the entire Android ecosystem. Apple is now the least of concerns. Putting Amazon and Samsung in their place is more important.”
Why are Amazon and Samsung such thorns in Google‘s side? For its part, Amazon has customized its Android platform to direct users into its retail world, not Google’s. For example, it delivers its own products and services over Google’s even if, say, the address for Google Play is typed directly into the Kindle‘s browser. Sneaky.
Samsung has hijacked the Android environment on its Galaxy Tab and on most of its smartphones, controlling the user experience. The Samsung skin is so thick, Wilcox says, that users lucky enough to get an upgrade to Ice Cream Sandwich won’t be able to see much of a difference.
See the article for more in depth discussion of Android’s fragmentation, the need for Google to exert control, and Wilcox’s suggestions for the company. Interesting reading (cute pictures, too.)
Cynthia Murrell, May X, 2012
The Wiinner in Google vs Oracle?
May 7, 2012
Who could miss the coverage of the decision from the Google Oracle Java trial? I read “Google Infringed on Oracle Copyrights, Jury Finds, but Leaves Key Question Unanswered.” The story is a pretty good write up. Like most of the stories, the question of “Who won?” goes unanswered. Here’s the answer: The lawyers. Is this a good thing? It is for the legal eagles.
Stephen E Arnold, May 8, 2012
Sponsored by Polyspot
Facebook and Its Hall of the Slain
May 7, 2012
I am no psychologist. I am not a brilliant MBA. I am not much more than an addled goose in Harrod’s Creek. However, I do know that when I read the New York Magazine’s article about Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook had arrived. (To read the story, I had to endure a number of annoying pop ups. You may be spared these intrusions, but “real” journalistic endeavors have to do their annoying thing.)
“The Maturation of the Billionaire Boy-Man.” Zowie. I can anticipate the joy among the Facebook faithful. I can only imagine how the story will be greeted among the Googlers. Here’s the first paragraph:
If all goes as planned, Facebook will finally pull the trigger later this month on its long-salivated-over IPO. The deal could value the company in the neighborhood of $100 billion, making founder and CEO Mark Elliot Zuckerberg’s own unusually large stake worth $25 billion. It is a huge sum, even in context. Zuckerberg’s impending fortune is more money than Wal-Mart’s 10,000-plus stores made last year. It’s more than Wall Street paid in bonuses to New Yorkers last year. And it has been amassed in only eight years by a 27-year-old who not long ago passed out business cards reading “I’m CEO, bitch.”
I urge you to read the full article. It is important for three reasons:
- From my point of view, Facebook is the new focal point of what one can do with technical skill, a good idea, and lots of money.
- Facebook is a business school case study of “managing better”—certainly better than most of the Silicon Valley start ups outfits. The praise for Shryl Sandberg’s contributions is put in terms of increasing revenue from $150 million to $4 billion. One cannot forget the “our dream is to save lives” notion.
- Google is history in the eyes of some. The difference is the impossible dream of “all the world’s information” to the “social mission.” Both are grandiose, but the Facebook angle is backed up with 900 million “members”, not users.
So what hurts more? Google is in pain. Facebook is feeling good. Pivot point in the mythology of running an Internet company? You bet. Will it last? Nah, but for now, the Googlers have to cope with Zuckerberg as the company that marginalized Google as the management and technical Valhalla. Is there a Hall of the Slain in Mountain View for victims of public relations?
Stephen E Arnold, May 7, 2012
Sponsored by Polyspot
A Google Nemesis Seeks Innovation Pipeline
May 7, 2012
Yandex is looking to the future. TNW Europe announces, “Russia’s Yandex Invests in Seedcamp to Gain Closer Ties with European Startups.” Seedcamp funds and mentors early-stage European startups, and Yandex has climbed aboard with, reportedly, the maximum investment the organization will allow. (The precise amount, however, has not been released.) Reporter Robin Wauters writes:
“The company thus gains an indirect stake in all the companies Seedcamp has already backed with the fund (20 existing ones to date) and all the startups it will back in the future, at least out of this fund. . . .
“Now that Yandex has invested in Seedcamp, it will actively participate in the selection and advisement of startups, and help them (as well as Seedcamp proper) better understand the Russian market and identify market opportunities. In addition, Yandex will occasionally make direct follow-up investments in Seedcamp portfolio startups, the company said.”
The top internet company in Russia, Yandex is an outfit to watch; the search giant also started its own seed investment program, Yandex.Factory, last year. It sounds like the Google competitor is laying the groundwork for a long and prosperous future on the global stage.
Europe’s top early seed fund program, Seedcamp provides guidance through its young companies’ first post-funding year. Though it has already attracted funding from prominent business angels and institutional investors, Yandex is the first corporation to directly invest in the program.
Cynthia Murrell, May 7, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
Oracle and Google Continue to Battle Over Copyright Allegations
May 6, 2012
Groklaw recently reported on the ongoing copyright lawsuit filed by Oracle against Google over the Java code being used in Android in the article “Judge Alsup Decides He, Not the Jury, Will Decide the Issue of API Copyrightability.”
In the article, the writer provides several transcripts from the trail that support the claim that this is a definite win for Google and highlight Oracle’s pettiness. By allowing Judge Alsup to make the final call in this trial Oracle will be prevented from confusing a non technical jury that doesn’t have a strong understanding of the law.
When quoting another Groklaw writer, the article states:
“So the question is, given that the Java programming language is licensed under GPLv2, are the APIs and associated class libraries necessary to make programs run in the Java language “associated interface definition files?” If so, one could argue that those 37 APIs are a part of the “work as a whole” (the Java programming language) and, thus, also subject to the GPLv2. Interesting.”
When big names like Oracle and Google are involved with a trial, it’s difficult to get an objective jury. Add a lack of technical knowledge to the equation and its nearly impossible for a jury to make a sound and educated ruling.
Once this matter is resolved, Google may face more scrutiny in Europe. Google may not be distracted but I am. The jury seems to be struggling. Whatever the decision, Google and Oracle will be scuffling for months, maybe years.
Cynthia Murrell, May 6, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
Google Drive Finally Released
May 6, 2012
The long-awaited online storage service from the mighty Google has finally arrived.
Last week, Google Drive was released after years of speculation about the product. Many wonder what the holdup was. A recent write-up on Mercury News asks the question many are begging to be answered: “O’Brien: Now That Google Drive Has Landed, I Ask: ‘What Took So Long?’”
The article speculates on Google and fast cycle development. We ponder how startups such as Dropbox and Sugarsync with similar services beat Google to the punch. Chris Sacca, who worked at Google as head of special initiatives from 2003 to 2007, became one of Silicon Valley’s most influential early stage investors. Sacca comments in the article:
“I didn’t invest in @dropbox because I’d been using GDrive at Google since ’04 and assumed would publicly launch any day. Whoops,” Sacca tweeted. “In the end, my lesson learned again and again? Never count on a big company beating a startup. Never.”
However, Sundar Pichai, Google’s senior vice president for Chrome and Apps, comments that the delay can be attributed to waiting for mainstream users to embrace these types of services. “We felt less urgency about getting something out the door than about getting the experience right,” Pichai said.
Does the release of Google Drive mean hardworking startups will be damaged? The answer may lie in innovations to come.
Andrea Hayden, May 6, 2012
Sponsored by Ikanow
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
