Palantir Gets Some Publicity
February 16, 2015
Short honk: The New York Times publishes a weekly magazine. I have a tough time figuring out what the publication covers. I noted a long article on Sunday, February 15, 2015, “The Undergraduate and the Mentor.” The cover of the magazine carried the title “The Accusation.” I was confused, but the NYT magazine is a baffler I ignore when it arrives. You may be able to access the article at this link, but don’t complain to me if the NYT wants money from you. I just want to document that the mentor was a founder of Palantir. The company is described this way:
With early funding from the C.I.A., Lonsdale helped Thiel and others start Palantir. Named for the “seeing stones” in “The Lord of the Rings,” the company developed powerful data-mining software for surveillance and won contracts with hundreds of law-enforcement agencies, including the National Security Agency and the Defense Department. In 2009, Lonsdale went on to other ventures but retained a stake in Palantir, whose value would climb to more than $9 billion. In 2011, with a small group of partners, some of whom had close ties to Asia, Lonsdale started the venture-capital fund Formation 8, named for a lucky number in China. Along with starting and financing companies, he has continued to embrace libertarian causes and recently joined the finance team for Senator Rand Paul’s possible Republican presidential campaign. And he sometimes can’t resist showing off his newfound wealth: For a viewing party of HBO’s “Game of Thrones” last year, Lonsdale bought a $30,000 replica of the show’s iron throne, posing on it like the show’s line of blustering and sadistic kings.
I made a list of some of the loaded words used in the write up to bring the former Palantir founder into more vivid relief:
- “hard time making eye contact”. The Palantir person would not look at an interlocutor.
- “condescending.” Word used to describe the Palantir person’s attitude
- “broke the rules”. Phrase used to describe Palantir person’s behavior at a swimming pool
The author of the write up paints a word picture of the Palantir person which I did not find positive. If you are curious about alleged improper interpersonal behaviors, the NYT magazine may interest you.
For me, it is one more dreary Stanford University/Silicon Valley dust up. I assume the rules are different in the go go world of high tech. Innovating in content processing could, I suppose, husband more ambitious pursuits.
Stephen E Arnold, February 16, 2015
IBM and Layoffs: Watson, Watson, Where Are You?
February 4, 2015
For months I have been commenting about the increasingly weird marketing pitches for IBM Watson. This is the Lucene and home grown script system positioned as the next big thing in information retrieval. The financial goals for this system were crazy. My recollection is that IBM wanted to generate a billion in revenue from open source search and bits and pieces of the IBM technology lumber.
Impossible. Having a system ingest bounded content and then answer “questions” about that content is neither new, remarkable, or particularly interesting to me. When the system is presented as a way to solve the problem of cancer and generate barbeque sauce with tamarind, the silliness points to desperation.
IBM marketers were trying everything to make open source search into a billion dollar baby and pull of the stunt quickly. Keep in mind that Autonomy required 15 years and a number of pretty savvy acquisitions to nose into the $700 million range.
IBM, in its confused state, believed that it could do the trick in a fraction of the time. IBM apparently was unaware of the erratic thinking at Hewlett Packard that spent $11 billion for Autonomy and wanted to generate billions from that system at the same time IBM was going to collect a billion or more from the same market.
Both of these companies, dazed by a long term struggle with spreadsheet fever, were ignoring or simply did not understand the doldrums of the enterprise information access market. Big companies were quite happy to give open source solutions a try. Vendors of proprietary systems were pitching their keyword systems as everything from customer support “solutions” to business intelligence systems that would “predict” what the company should know.
Yep, right.
I read with some sadness the posts at Alliance@IBM. The viewpoint is not that of IBM management which is now firing or resource allocating its way people. I am not sure how many folks are going to be terminated, but the comments in this series of IBM employee comments suggest that the staff are unhappy. Some may not go gentle into that good night.
The point is that the underlying problems at IBM were evident in the silly Watson marketing. An organization that can with a straight face suggest that a next generation information access system can discover a new recipe provides a glimpse into an organization’s disconnect at a fundamental level.
Too bad. The stock buybacks, the sale of manufacturing assets, and the assertions that a mainframe is a mobile platform tells me that IBM stockholders may want to reevaluate those holdings.
If IBM asked Watson, I question the outputs.
Stephen E Arnold, February 4, 2015
Google Fails: Is Google in for a Tough Year?
January 7, 2015
I don’t think too much about Google. The ad crazy search system does not output the type of results I want. But there are many Google cheerleaders in the thriving world of 2015. But there are some quasi doubters. My view is that every year has been a tough one for Google. With a single revenue stream, Google is saddled with the “one trick pony” label.
“Why Betting on Google Is Risky Business” raises mostly old concerns about the company. The write up mentions a number of Google’s flops. Any of you remember Orkut or Wave? There is some hope for Google Glass, but the write up sees Glass as evidence of a larger problem at the GOOG.
Here’s the passage I noted:
Nick Selby, a police detective and CEO of StreetCred Software, says he invested a “few thousand bucks” on Google Glass as a law enforcement tool before his team eventually decided it would never go anywhere. “All I got out of it was a very expensive paperweight and some snickering friends,” Selby says. “A lot of companies were considering law enforcement applications for Glass,” Selby says. “Since our product ranks the likelihood of finding and capturing fugitives, and provides situational awareness for officers that can be easily expressed geospatially, our thought was that we might use Glass to project attributes onto buildings.” Selby’s optimism toward Glass quickly diminished the minute he tried on a pair. “In our experience the technology both wasn’t ready and wouldn’t likely be ready for the kind of nuanced display and interactivity we would require to make this useful and cop-proof.”
Glass is a bit of an aberration. The story of its beginning and slow end have more to do with interpersonal activities mixing with half baked ideas. Too bad the write up does not dig into a story that features mobile devices, the ministrations of a psychiatrist, and the exit of a high profile wizard to Amazon.
Yep, there’s more to the story, but I am not sure this write up is anywhere near the target zone.
Stephen E Arnold, January 7, 2014
Did Hewlett Packard Overpay for Autonomy?
December 12, 2014
The Economist, the British magazine that calls itself a newspaper, published “The Dozy Watchdogs.” Well, okay. The write up does contain an interesting nugget along the lines of “when you are out you are in and when you are in you are out.” Take that cricket fans.
The snippet in the article that I noted was this bit:
In 2012 Hewlett-Packard wrote off 80% of its $10.3 billion purchase of Autonomy, a software company, after accusing the firm of counting forecast subscriptions as current sales (Autonomy pleads innocence).
What’s 80 percent of $11 billion? In Harrod’s Creek, that’s a big management mistake. HP wrote a check and drove the vehicle off the lot. Yep, let’s blame the auditors, the dozy ones.
Stephen E Arnold, December 12, 2014
Google: People, Just Do It Our Way
November 1, 2014
Not content to redefine relevance, Google wants Silicon Valley and by extension anyone who wants to be successful to do what Google says. Note. I am not saying “what Google does.” The point is “what Google says.” There is a difference.
In a massive public relations, marketing, brand boosting effort, Google taps the Financial Times to carry its message. You can find the 2,800 word article in the Financial Times at http://on.ft.com/10ceArV. You may have to register or pay for access once the hoo hah about “FT Interview with Google Co-Founder and CEO Larry Page” quiets.
I urge you to read the original write up. I want to highlight three comments or passages that shed light on information retrieval, which is my area of interest. Spoiler: Not good news for those who want relevant results.
Larry Page, not content with plain search, wants to do something bigger:
to use the money that is spouting from its search advertising business to stake out positions in boom industries of the future, from biotech to robotics.
Mr. Page wants the real movers and shakers to get in gear:
Page estimates that only about 50 investors are chasing the real breakthrough technologies that have the potential to make a material difference to the lives of most people on earth. If there is something holding these big ideas back, it is not a shortage of money or even the barrier of insurmountable technical hurdles. When breakthroughs of the type he has in mind are pursued, it is “not really being driven by any fundamental technical advance. It’s just being driven by people working on it and being ambitious,” he says. Not enough institutions – particularly governments – are thinking expansively enough about these issues: “We’re probably underinvested as a world in that.”
Technology, of course, is the one true way, but some people have not embraced Google’s view of what’s logical:
“I think people see the disruption but they don’t really see the positive,” says Page. “They don’t see it as a life-changing kind of thing. I think the problem has been people don’t feel they are participating in it.”
Like the recent Eric Schmidt opus How Google Works, Google executives want to be more than rich. Google wants to be the giver of wisdom. I am okay with that, but how many of those put out of work by technology will agree?
Stephen E Arnold, November 1, 2014
HP: Business or B-School
October 7, 2014
Venerable Hewlett Packard may be a bellwether for other established high technology companies trapped in a time warp. Some hardware and services are enterprise centric. Other hardare and services are consumer centric.. Why not create two companies and double the fun?
The Bloomberg article “HP Split Is Latest Chapter in Whitman’s Change-Filled Career” does a good job of summarizing HP management flip flops. First, it is PCs and enterprise. Then it is to be split up. No, no. HP will not sell its PC and printer business. Oh, oh, wait. Now HP management will create two companies. Wow.
The write up states:
Whitman will lead Hewlett-Packard Enterprise, a business focused on corporate hardware and services, while Dion Weisler, the vice president in charge of Hewlett-Packard’s personal-computer and printer operations, will become CEO of that business. Whitman has been introducing new products and today she expanded a job-cut program to more than 55,000 jobs to trim costs. Hewlett-Packard, based in Palo Alto, California, has fallen behind in mobile computing at a time when consumers have migrated to smartphones and tablets, and last year lost its place as the largest maker of PCs to Lenovo Group Ltd. The split represents a reversal for Whitman, who ruled out a spinoff of the company’s PC division months after replacing Leo Apotheker, who had floated that possibility earlier that year. Whitman has since reiterated Hewlett-Packard’s commitment to the PC business on numerous occasions.
HP seems to be emulating IBM. Another parallel with IBM is HP’s expectations for content processing revenue. IBM has targeted $10 billion as Watson’s goal. HP wants Autonomy to pump billions into the HP coffers. HP and IBM have more confidence in content processing’s ability to generate substantial revenue than I do.
I look forward with interest to the unfolding of the two different B school approaches. I am not sure that Yahoo’s or HP’s will work. For me, the question becomes, “Which iconic high technology company has to flounder for a solution to revenue challenges?”
And, “What is Plan B for these over stressed giants?”
Stephen E Arnold, October 7, 2014
Management for the Young at Heart
October 5, 2014
With so many search and content processing vendors struggling to meet licensees’ expectations, management insights are needed. When failed webmasters, frustrated academics, or art history majors morph into search experts, poobahs, and wizards—checklists are essential.
I want to point you to this list of items to embrace, particularly if you are young at heart, absent a successful management track record, or someone looking for a shortcut to the affection of your employees.
Navigate to “44 Engineering Management Lessons.” A lesson in this context is more like a statement or exhortation delivered with vocal tones both dulcet and soft.
Here are three “lessons”. I will leave the other 41 to your own study:
No. 5 “Provide administrative support. Schedule issues, coordinate releases, and make sure the bureaucratic machine keeps ticking.
No 12 Don’t make decisions unless you have to. Whenever possible, allow the team explore ideas and make decisions on its own
No. 38 Occasionally someone will push too far. When they do, you have to show a rough edge or you’ll lose authority with your team.
There you go.
Next time stakeholders demand a return on their investment in your search or content processing company, use these tips. If you are “teaching” people about search, integrate these ideas into your lecture.
You cannot lose, at least in the experience of the author of the management lessons, er, big list of statements.
Stephen E Arnold, October 5, 2014
Will Yahoo Oust Its Xoogler?
October 3, 2014
I read “Yahoo Turns to Ad Agencies Amid Calls for Change – Report.” On the surface, Yahoo wants to hire a pod of pros to brush up the Yahoo brand. What ever happened to the Yahooo! crafted by that fellow from Big Bear. I liked that yodel.
But tucked into the wordage was this passage:
Alternative Investment Management & Research, in a letter that said Mayer should consider selling at least a large chunk of Yahoo to Japan-based telecommunications company SoftBank — and allowing that firm’s CEO, Masayoshi Son, to run Yahoo.
That old Google magic does not seem have much of an impact on Alternative Investment Management & Research.
Would Masayoshi Son do a better job with Yahoo?
My hunch is that this type of thought plus others are zipping around the Yahooligan stakeholders. Why not hook up with Xoogler run America Online. That outfit still derives a chunk of its revenues from dial up modems. Do two Xooglers a Warren Buffet make?
Stephen E Arnold, October 4, 2014
Google, Security, Privacy: Cognitive Dissonance?
October 3, 2014
Remember the caveat? Google obtained a “promise” from Stanford to use Google money for anything—except privacy research. See “Stanford Promises Not to Use Google Money for Privacy Research.”
I read “Google: Tim Cook Is Wrong about Us.” Fascinating. Mr. Schmidt is the individual who served on the Apple board at roughly the same time Google was plotting its mobile phone play. Mr. Schmidt left the board, presumably aware of some of the idiosyncrasies of Apple and maybe—just maybe—some tiny insight into the Apple technical capability.
Google is better at encryption and secrecy than Apple. Okay.
So in the “Wrong” article, I read:
Apple got it wrong — Google is the safest place on the Web, the search giant’s chairman says. “We have always been the leader in security and encryption,” Eric Schmidt told CNNMoney. “Our systems are far more secure and encrypted than anyone else, including Apple. They’re catching up, which is great.”
Then I read what seems to be a fairly interesting statement from the “real” journalists at Money/CNN:
But Google doesn’t exactly have a perfect privacy record. Its effort in 2012 to set a single privacy policy for all Google accounts across its multiple services was extremely controversial, with detractors saying Google was trying to make it easier to track its customers’ behavior and sell that information to advertisers. Google also paid a record $22.5 million fine to the FTC for getting around Apple’s no-cookie policy on the Safari browser, and Google was caught purposefully snooping on people’s Internet sessions while driving by with its Street View cars.
I suffered through the blather of Psychology 101. I remember a lecture about cognitive dissonance. Later, when I was required to participate in some government training, I learned about methods of dissimulation.
This statement jarred me and seems to be disconnected from the sort of “is” that President Clinton struggled to define.
In short, is this an extract from a psychiatrist case notes?
Stephen E Arnold, October 3, 2014
Short Honk: The Effects of Power? Hardly Worth Worrying About
October 2, 2014
I read “Power Can Corrupt Even the Honest.” I am not sure if this is an objective scientific report or write up that says, “Hey, everybody’s doing it.” Judge for yourself.
I know that Elsevier is a purveyor of some expensive publications. The company also has an online autoclave in LexisNexis. I ran across one law librarian who told me that some law firms were reluctant to pump big bucks into Lexis queries. Sour grapes? Silliness? I don’t know.
What’s interesting is that the write up states:
After completing psychometric tests to measure various individual differences, including honesty, participants played the ‘dictator game’ where they were given complete control over deciding pay-outs to themselves and their followers. The leaders had the choice of making prosocial or antisocial decisions, the latter of which resulted in reduced total pay-outs to the group but increased the leader’s own earnings.
The findings showed that those who measured as less honest exhibited more corrupt behaviour, at least initially; however, over time, even those who initially scored high on honesty were not shielded from the corruptive effects of power.
I think I understand. To have real fun just become real powerful like a real professional publisher. Seems obvious to me, but I am not a real researcher. I do have enough common sense to come in out of the rain. Honest.
Stephen E Arnold, October 2, 2014
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
