• Home
• About

Let’s Assume Microsoft Acquires Powerset

I read Dan Farber’s most intriguing post “Is Microsoft Stalking Powerset’s Search Technology?”

I have Saturday chores to do, and I was sweeping the garage with the Microsoft-Powerset tie up buzzing in my head. I dropped the broom and grabbed by notebook for this post. Please, navigate to the News.com site and snag this “Outside the Lines”, May 10, 2008, information.

Mr. Farber writes:

Powerset raises the bar on search based on a preview that I had of the service last month. Powerset differs from the Google in that it extracts and indexes concepts, relationships, and meaning, rather than keywords. It’s able to create connections and pivot in some cases in ways that elude Google’s proficient engine, which favors more of a statistical approach

I saw an interesting demonstration of the Powerset technology at the BearStearns’ (oh, the late, lamentable BearStearns’) Internet Conference a year or two ago. I also received a link that allowed me to run some test queries on the system. Based on technology from Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center), Powerset delivers some of the functionality I wrote about in my description of Cluuz.com here.

Quite a few companies are processing content, identifying relationships, and trying to move beyond key word search. I’m not going to revisit these points. My broom awaits, and I want to offer these ideas for comment:

1. Assume the Microsoft buys Powerset. Now the giant from Redmond has to figure out what to do with its various Live.com search functionality, the Fast Search & Transfer Web search (which you can see here as AllTheWeb.com, branded as a Yahoo service but delivered using Fast Search & Transfer’s system), and the hybrid solution from Powerset (home-grown plus the third-party code from Xerox PARC).
2. Powerset has undergone a lengthy gestation. I think the service is interesting, but Hakia, which beat Powerset to market, has a niche focus in health care and a growing appetite for enterprise deals. If I had to pick between Hakia and Powerset, I think I would lean toward the Hakia system for two reasons: [a] most, if not all of the code, is the product of the Hakia team, so there’s no pesky third-party involved; and [b] the company, despite its hunger for capital, has pushed products out the door, not just demonstrated prototypes.
3. Microsoft has to find a way to slow Googzilla, and I am not certain that buying search technologies is a way to throw some body punches at the mathematicians in Mountain View, California. For example, Google continues to build out a 21st-century version of the “pre-break up” AT&T infrastructure without much push back from anyone. Even IBM has a bad case of Google love. AT&T and Verizon along with Wall Street see Google as a one-trick pony, albeit a big, big pony. Loading up on search wizards is a good thing. Trying to integrate different search technologies into the existing Microsoft platform may be less good.

Okay, now I have to return to my garage clean up duty. A happy quack from the Beyond Search goose to Mr. Farber for his interesting article and the respite he gave my tired wings.

Stephen Arnold, May 10, 2008

The AP Analyzes Microsoft’s Live Search Options

ut of the aether, I received Jessica Mintz’s story “With Microsoft Mum, Analysts Mull Next Moves for Live Search”. You can read the story here or here. As I often say, snag it quickly. The wild and wonderful world of the Associated Press’s online system can baffle even a skilled researcher.

I scanned the story, intrigued that “analysts mull” much of anything related to search, text processing, or information retrieval. The sector has a glass ceiling that kicks in at the $350 to $400 million level with most companies in the market trying to make the losses and voracious appetite for investment look like a great business.

Her analysis, which I’m confident is Grade A for the AP arrived as I read the PCWorld story “Microsoft’s Answer to Google Sky to Launch at End of May”.

Microsoft has to do more than play me-too if Microsoft is going to hobble Googzilla. The GOOG isn’t very good at PR, marketing, or sales. At least, Microsoft pays attention. That’s a good thing, I suppose.

Ms. Mintz’s interesting essay is about Micrsooft after Yahoo. I think her point is that without Yahoo, Microsoft has no easy, fast, cheap way to increase its search traffic and, hence, its online ad revenue. She writes:

Some analysts say Microsoft must increase its search traffic to attract advertisers. Others believe Microsoft should concede that market to Google Inc. and find success elsewhere — leapfrogging rivals in areas such as display and mobile advertising. All that is clear is Microsoft must come up with a Plan C soon, after acknowledging that its Plan A of going solo was troubled, forcing it to turn to Plan B of acquiring Yahoo. Part of the problem analysts face predicting Microsoft’s next moves is that the company has already tried the obvious tactics. It built its own search-ad platform from scratch and spent $6 billion to buy a major online advertising company, aQuantive. Microsoft overhauled its search engine technology, and most analysts agree that its results are at least as good as Google’s. It tweaked the design of its Live Search service to become more like Google.

Whoa, Nellie!

The most interesting information for me was Ms. Mintz presents a series of action items. I’m not sure if these are Mr. Ballmer’s or if these have been constructed from the search experts Ms. Mintz interviewed for this story. Set aside provenance for a moment. Let’s look at each action item. For ease of comparison, I put Ms. Mintz’s suggestions in the column “Microsoft Tasks” and my comment in the column labeled “Beyond Search”.

I don’t think my research for Google Version 2.0 supports the idea that Microsoft can catch Google with these four actions, individually or collectively. Let me run through my reasoning based on the information available to me.

First, Google delivers a search experience that is increasing its market share. Google’s approach works. Microsoft’s approach hasn’t. What’s astounding to me is that with Internet Explorer’s default search the Live.com service, the canyon in market share is almost unbelievable. IE users are ignoring the default search box and consciously selecting Google. That’s just amazing. One bit of bad news. The market share data are not accurate. Google’s market share is in the 80 percent range. In countries like Denmark, Google’s share is over 90 percent.

Read more

Redmond Magazine: Brainware a Winner in Desktop Search; Google, the Loser

Redmond Magazine, an independent publication that tracks things Microsoft, featured a “bake off” among desktop search systems. The companies in the technology comparison are Brainware, dtSearch, Google Desktop Search, and Microsoft Windows Desktop Search. The winner? Brainware’s Globalbrain search technology based on patented technology. The company uses trigrams–three letter sequences–to identify relevant documents.

You can read the summary of the bake off here. These types of reports can disappear or become hard to find in a blink, so click quickly.

The most interesting part of the analysis is that Globalbrain scored lower on features, but beat the other vendors’ systems on documentation, ease of installation, ease of use, and administration. dtSearch, however, matched Globalbrain on installation ease. In my own tests of these systems, I found some of Globalbrain’s terminology confusing, particularly with regard to selecting specific collections to index and search. Obviously the Redmond Magazine team didn’t have any problem with terminology.

Another key finding was that the lowest-rated search system was Google Desktop Search. In our tests, Google fared near the top of the stack, but it lagged behind both Coveo and ISYS Search Software. These two vendors’ products were not included in the Redmond Magazine analysis.

Microsoft Windows Desktop Search scored only slightly better than Google. In our tests of Windows Desktop Search, we encountered odd latency when the system processed certain queries. Again, our experience seems to be at variance with the Redmond Magazine results.

Bottomline: Redmond Magazine flagged Brainware’s Globalbrain as the “winner”; Google, the vendor with the desktop search system that needs the most work. One tip: if you run a query on Live.com or Yahoo.com to locate Windows desktop search, make certain you get the desktop system, not the SharePoint Search Express system. Two different animals, and the Redmond Magazine test looked at the desktop version which does not require SharePoint.

Stephen Arnold, May 8, 2008

SharePoint Express Installation Tips

Brevity is the soul of wit. You can make your SharePoint experience a really happy one, assert Anindya Roy and Vijay Chauhan, in their “Add Search to Your Intranet”. The article appeared on the May 7, 2008, PCQuest Web site.

Beyond Search’s experience with SharePoint suggests that installation, customization, tuning, and troubleshooting are a wee bit more complicated. The authors say:

By using this server you can crawl and index each and every piece of data on your network and storage pools, and make it searchable through a simple but powerful interface. The data which it can index are web sites, file shares, Exchange public folders, Notes Databases, Office files, XML, HTML, text files, etc. … Besides searching the internal company files, Search Server Express has the ability to search external databases and Web sites.

Nary a mention of Fast Search & Transfer or Fast ESP (enterprise search platform). That’s a work in progress, and I anticipate a follow up on that system when it becomes available. In the meantime, figuring out SharePoint Express, MOSS, and ESS is enough work for me.

Stephen Arnold, May 7, 2008

London Times Says Google’s Unhealthy Dominance Will End

A cultured journalist, David Rowan, argues that “Google’s unhealthy dominance will end”. Read the story here, before it becomes unfindable in the murky depths of the (London) Times Online, “the news site of the year”. I don’t agree with the conclusion nor do I agree with the reasoning in the article, but it will be important, particularly in London’s financial sweat shops.

The points that jumped out at me cluster under this statement, “They [Google management] feel pretty damn lucky over in Google’s Mountain View headquarters this week.” Here’s my take on the argument presented in this article:

1. The Microsoft Yahoo tie up would have been good for Microsoft and bad for Google
2. Google’s monopoly is “in none of our interests”
3. The changes in information will be significant and Google will play a big part in them
4. Microsoft and Yahoo have a chance to develop more products and services “that people actually want”

My thought is that notions of Microsoft and Yahoo building products that people want is partially correct, almost like horse shoes where getting close to the stake earns a point. The problem is that Google is an infrastructure company, and it has an operational advantage and a cost advantage.

You have to be “pretty damn lucky” if you develop a product and expect it to run fast, run economically, and run at scale on the plumbing Microsoft and Yahoo now depend upon. Google’s products and services are a by product of its infrastructure and its engineering. Until the competition figures this out and responds to it with a leap frog solution, Google faces no significant competition from Microsoft or Yahoo. As I argue in Google Version 2.0, Google faces many challenges. These range from keeping staff on the team and productive to inter personal relationships among Messrs. Brin, Page, and Schmidt. A focus on products and services won’t narrow Google’s engineering lead, which I estimate at 12 to 24 months and increasing.

Stephen Arnold, May 6, 2008

The Microsoft Yahoo Fiasco: Impact on SharePoint and Web Search

You can’t look at a Web log with out dozens of postings about Microsoft’s adventure with Yahoo. You can grind through the received wisdom on Techmeme River, a wonderful as-it-happened service. In this Web log posting, I want to recap some of my views about this remarkable digital charge at a windmill. On this cheery Monday in rural Kentucky, I can see a modern Don Quixote, who looks quite a bit like Steve Ballmer, thundering down another digital hollow.

What’s the impact on SharePoint search?

Zip. Nada. None. SharePoint search is not one thing. Read my essay about MOSS and MSS. They add up to a MESS. I’m still waiting for the well-dressed but enraged Fast Search PR wizard to spear shake a pointed lance at me for that opinion. Fast Search is sufficiently complex and SharePoint sufficiently Microsoftian in its design to make quick movement in the digital swamp all but impossible.

A T Ball player can swing at the ball until he or she gets a hit, ideally for the parents a home run. Microsoft, like the T Ball player in the illustration, will be swinging for an online hit until the ball soars from the park, scoring a home run and the adulation of the team..

Will Fast Search & Transfer get more attention?

Nope. Fast Search is what it is. I have commented on the long slog this acquisition represents elsewhere. An early January 2008 post provides a glimpse of the complexity that is ESP (that’s enterprise search platform, not extrasensory perception). A more recent discussion talks about the “perfect storm” of Norwegian management expertise, Microsoft’s famed product manager institution, and various technical currents, which I posted on April 26, 2008. These posts caused Fast Search’s ever-infallible PR gurus to try and cook the Beyond Search’s goose. The goose, a nasty bird indeed, side-stepped the charging wunderkind and his hatchet.

Will Microsoft use the Fast Search Web indexing system for Live.com search?

Now that’s a good question. But it misses the point of the “perfect storm” analysis. To rip and replace the Live.com search requires some political horse trading within Microsoft and across the research and product units. Fast Search is arguably a better Web indexing system, but it was not invented at Microsoft, and I think that may present a modest hurdle for the Norwegian management wizards.

Read more

A Word’s Meaning Expanded: Microsoft’s Been Googled

It’s a Sunday morning in rural Kentucky. The animals have been fed. Mammon’s satisfied with the Kentucky Derby: victory and tragedy.

In the post-race excitement in Harrod’s Creek, I pondered the one-sided flood of postings on Techmeme.com and Megite.com. The theme was the collapse of Microsoft’s plan to thwart Google via a purchase of Yahoo. I’m no business wizard. The entire deal baffled me, but I found one aspect interesting.

As the most recognized brand in the world, the word “google” is the name of a company and it is a synonym for research. It’s a noun, and it’s a very handy way to tell someone how to find an answer; for example, a person tells another, “Just google that company”.

But, the meaning of the word “google” has another dimension. Permit me to explain this

As the Microsoft-set deadline ticked to zero hour. Yahooligans tried to find a way to thwart Microsoft’s intentions. Yahoo announced a “test” with Google for ad sales. Pundits picked up the idea, expanded it, and spiced it with legal shamanism. Yahoo’s executives hinted that working with Google would be interesting.

Google, on the other hand, maintained the Googley silence that makes competitors uncertain of Google’s intentions, Wall Street analysts crazy from hints and lava lamps, and insiders chuckle while chugging Odwalla smoothies.

However, behind the scenes Google and Yahoo decided to cooperate to an as-yet unknown degree in advertising sales.

In the 11th hour meeting in Redmond, Washington, Yahoo mentioned the “g” word. Microsoft’s appetite was spoiled. The meaning of the word “google” has been dilated.

Allow me to illustrate a unary version of this expansion: Yahoo “googled” Microsoft. The meaning is derived from the verb “google” which in this context means derailed Microsoft’s ambitions by utilizing an un-Machiavellian ploy: an advertising deal.

Thus, “Microsoft’s been googled” means that “Microsoft has been given the shaft” or “Microsoft has been thwarted” or “Microsoft has been hosed”.

Synonyms for “google” in this new meaning are screw, befoul, muck up, and toy with.

By extension, we can craft this statement: Google googled Microsoft. In this usage, Google (the company) managed in Googley ways to foul up the Yahoo acquisition. Colloquially, this becomes, “Dudes, Google got you again”.

Stephen Arnold, May 4, 2008

SharePoint Search: The Answers May Be Here and the Check Is in the Mail

A Microsoft wizard named Dan Blood, a senior tester working in the product group that is responsible for search within MOSS and MSS, says that he will use the Microsoft Enterprise Search Blog “to provide details on the lessons that we [his Microsoft unit] have learned.” The topics Mr. Blood, a senior tester working in the search product group, include (and I paraphrase):

• His actions to optimize MOSS and MSS
• Information about optimizing index refreshes; that is, make sure the 28 million documents in his test set are “freshly indexed”
• Configuration of the SQL machine that underpins MOSS and MSS
• Monitoring actions to make sure the search system is healthy.

MOSS and MSS

My hunch is that you may not know what MOSS and MSS mean. I’m no expert on things Microsoft, but let me provide my take on these search systems. MSS is an acronym for Microsoft Search Server. MOSS is an acronym for Microsoft Office SharePoint Server. MSS originated as the search subsystem from within the more comprehensive MOSS system, given a smattering of improvements, then packaged as a separate service. Microsoft plans to eventually roll these improvements back into the MOSS line.

This image comes from http://sharepointsearch.com/images/searcharchitecture.gif. You can read another take on this product here.

Read more

Microsoft Chomps and Swallows Fast

It’s official. On April 24, 2008, Fast Search & Transfer became part of the Microsoft operation. You can read the details at Digital Trends here, the InfoWorld version here, or Examiner.com’s take here.

John Lervik, the Fast Search CEO, will become a corporate vice president at Microsoft. He will report to Jeff Teper, the corporate vice president for the Office Business Platform at Microsoft. The idea–based on my understanding of the set up–is that Dr. Lervik will develop a comprehensive group of search products and services. The offerings will involve Microsoft Search Sever 2008 Express, search for the Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007, and the Fast Enterprise Search Platform. Despite my age, I think the idea is to create a single enterprise search platform. Lucky licensees of Fast Search’s technology prior to the buy out will not be orphaned. Good news indeed, assuming the transition verbiage sets like hydrated lime, pozzolana, and aggregate. Some Roman concrete has been solid for two thousand years.

This is an example of Roman concrete. The idea of “set in stone” means that change is difficult. Microsoft has some management procedures that resist change.

A Big Job

The job is going to be a complicated one for Microsoft’s and Fast Search’s wizards.

First, Microsoft has encouraged partners to develop search solutions for its operating system, servers, and applications. The effort has been wildly successful. For example, if you are one of the more than 80 million SharePoint users, you can use search solutions from specialists like Interse in Denmark to add zip to the metadata functions of SharePoint, dtSearch to deliver lightning-fast performance with a natural language procession option, Coveo for clustering and seamless integration. You can dial into SurfRay’s snap in replacement for the native SharePoint search. You can turn to the ISYS Search System which delivers fast performance, entity extraction, and other other “beyond search” features. In short, there are dozens of companies who have developed solutions to address some of the native search weaknesses in SharePoint. So, one job will be handling the increased competition as the Fast Search team digs in while keeping “certified gold partners” reasonably happy.

This is a ceramic rendering of two of the “10,000 Immortals”. The idea is that when one Immortal is killed, another one takes his place. Microsoft’s certified gold partners–if shut out of the lucrative SharePoint aftermarket for search–may fight to keep their customers like the “10,000 Immortals”. The competitors will just keep coming until Microsoft emerges victorious.

Read more

Compete Data Tweak the Google

LiveSide.net provided a summary and helpful chart on April 4, 2008. The article’s sub title states, “New Compete.com search share numbers show surprising surge for Live Search.” The use of the word surge caught my attention. At age 64, surge to me has an old school meaning; namely, “a strong, wavelike, forward movement, rush, or sweep.” I read the article and looked at the Compete.com numbers and concluded that a post-modern meaning has been applied to surge.

The LiveSide.net article’s main point to me is:

Compete.com released their version of March US search market share numbers …, showing a surprising surge for Live Search, up nearly four percentage points from February (a notoriously slow, and short, month), and up 0.7% year over year. In addition, search volume (the number of searches performed) was up significantly as well. Also notable was that for the first time in nine months, Google lost market share.

Hmmm. I wondered about the surge. The table provides some clues here. I took these data and calculated the number of searches per minute by each service. Based on the Compete.com data, Google is averaging 2,346 queries per second. The surge notion is that Microsoft’s queries per second are 344 per minute, a difference of a few clicks, about 2,000.

The surge is more about percent change that clicks. Live.com, according to Compete.com, tallied 922 million in March 2007 searches up from 716 million in February 2007. Google, by contrast, generated about 6.3 billion searches in March 2008, up from 6.0 billion in February 2008. Not only is Microsoft’s base smaller than Google’s, the search differential is growing.

Perhaps I am misreading these data. Let me know if you think the gap is closing and the sky is falling in Google’s part of the world.

Note: Hitwise released numbers of its own recently; that consultancy says Google has a 64% marketshare in US searches for March, with MSN Search back at 5.25%.

The Google has a hefty lead, and it will take some time to bridge the gap.

Stephen Arnold, April 8, 2008

Next Page »

• 
  Feature archive
  News archive
   
  
  

  Stephen E. Arnold monitors search, content processing, text mining and related topics from his high-tech nerve center in rural Kentucky. He tries to winnow the goose feathers from the giblets. He works with colleages worldwide to make this Web log useful to those who want to go "beyond search". Contact him at sa [at] arnoldit.com. His Web site with additional information about search is arnoldit.com.
•  Only search links from this page:
  

• Search News

  • Bender Forms Group to Promote OLPC's Sugar UI - PC World
  • Analyst: PS3, 360 due for price cuts - GameSpot
  • Cyber Bullying Mom Charged in Suicide In MySpace Case - CRN
  • Apple Signs More Nonexclusive iPhone Deals - InformationWeek
  • Threatened Bear May Hold Health Secrets - Living on the Earth
  • Lawmakers concerned over Charter's Web tracking - The Associated Press
  • Nintendo set to launch "Wii Fit" exercise game - Reuters
  • Poring over Mars pictures - MSNBC
  • Google Maps Could Cross EU Privacy Laws - BusinessWeek
  • Who Is Facebook Trying to Protect? - TechNewsWorld

• Blogroll

  • Alt Search Engines
  • BMOC
  • Enterprise Cloud Computing
  • Pandia
  • Philipp Lenssen

Copyright © 2008 Beyond Search · ArnoldIT.com · Revolution News theme by Brian Gardner · Log in