Is the Microsoft Internet Business Flailing in the Information Flood?
May 12, 2011
Microsoft took a long shot. The company bet $8.5 billion that Skype, a voice over Internet protocol leader, that Microsoft will be a big player in the next generation Web.
As appears to always be the case, numbers don’t lie but executives do. Microsoft’s online services division claimed growth in an earnings release recently but… as explained in Microsoft’s Internet Business Continues to Hemorrhage ,”Microsoft lost $726 million in the Online Services Division for the quarter. It was actually their worst quarter in two years in that regard. And it was their second worst ever, as Business Insider points out in their nifty chart perfect for showing such bloodbaths. And despite the year over year revenue growth, the income was actually down year over year. As in, they managed to lose more money despite bringing in more… And how’s this for a kick in the pants: if Microsoft had just scrapped their Online Services Division for the quarter, they likely would have beaten Apple in terms of profits once again. Instead, they’re over $700 million behind — behind, mind you, for the first time in a couple decades.
Of course, Microsoft can’t afford to scrap the Online Services Division (well, figuratively afford it, at least). Like every technology company, they know this is the key to the future. And that’s precisely why they’re dumping so much money into it.”
It isn’t all bad for Microsoft, though, as their Windows and Office businesses appear to be holding their own. But for how long? The competition is stiff and if Microsoft doesn’t make some changes, it won’t be pretty. Our expert Michael Onghai believes Microsoft is a value stock but it remains to be seen if there’s any saving grace outside of Office and any other bright spot they might claim. Have the glory day of MSFT passed ? It remains to be seen. And what about search? This core function seems to have slipped low in the priorities stack. What’s $1.2 billion for Fast Search & Transfer when compared to $8.5 billion for Skype?
Alice Wasielewski, May 12, 2011
Freebie
Protected: SharePoint and Mobile
May 10, 2011
Facebook to Skype Google
May 5, 2011
If true, Facebook is going to Skype the GOOG. Annoying? Not to me. To Google? On the surface, nah. Inside the Google cubicles? You bet. You can read “Facebook Buying Out Skype? $4 Billion Deal Being Talked About” and decide for yourself if the story is on the money. The story asserts:
By the way, if you are looking at going into what the $4 billion ‘possible’ takeover would bring to Skype, let us also take you to a situation where Skype had been mulling over an IPO. If you would remember, the Skype IPO was recently delayed by its new CEO until the second half of 2011. And that public offer would have brought to the Skype coffers only around $1 billion. Considering such a scene, the Facebook move, if at all that bears fruit, could mean a lot to Skype. We also hear Google too is looking at a venture with Skype. More details are awaited.
I will “await”. But with display ads humming along, lots of stateful users who spend hours being social, and now the Skype phone and video conference plus message thing. Wow. If the deal goes down, Google has to do some fancy dancing at this ice cream social.
Stephen E Arnold, May 5, 2011
Freebie
Fwix Positions Itself Carefully in Location Information Market
May 4, 2011
“Fwix Launches Read/Write Business Listings API,” announced ProgrammableWeb.com. Fwix’s aim is to incorporate businesses’ real-world location data into their application programming interface (API). By doing so, and doing so thoughtfully, Fwix hopes to claim the position of standard underlying geodata platform. The story said:
Fwix is committed to concentrating its efforts on three key aspects of its product. Having valuable content to offer based on location and a well-organized database of places are two of them. The third is a built-in monetization opportunity through an integrated location-based ad network. Shirazi says the major growth opportunities for Fwix are in the platform itself, so having a way to translate that growth into profitability is key. Rather than creating a barrier to adoption by charging for access in order to make money, Fwix is actually offering developers a share in revenue that its location network makes possible.
Smart, but Fwix isn’t the only company on this trail. Competitors such as CityGrid are pursuing similar tactics. Helping Fwix in its endeavor is database builder Factual, who is already building what they call “the definitive database of local businesses and points of interest from around the world.”
Is the future of local virtual consolidation of information and technical services? Perhaps the importance of the Fwix initiative is a Petri dish for achieving depth and breadth using multiple tie ups? One benefit we perceived is a sharp reduction in operational and other costs.
Cynthia Murrell, May 4, 2011
Freebie
The Definition of Open Moves Toward Closed
May 4, 2011
With a broken leg and ankle, I am not chasing around the mobile velodrome. I am kicking back and thinking about the use of language in the high-technology world. The question I pondered this morning (May 3, 2011) was, “What is the definition of open?” The thought was sparked when I read “Google Plays Ball with Carriers to Kill Tethering Apps, Violates Spirit of the ‘Open Access’ It Bid $4.6B to Protect.” The story does a good and gentle job of explaining that Google is working to some degree with telecommunications companies to limit certain mobile access functions. The particular function is irrelevant. The two big points, in my opinion, are:
- Open means closed. Okay, that’s normal Orwellian activity.
- Google, if the story is spot on, is beginning to look like a traditional Fortune 100 company, not a spunky start up.
I did like this passage in the Play Ball article:
Allow me to leave you with a quote from Android boss Andy Rubin that he made nearly two years ago while vehemently denying that there was any Market rejection of a Skype app: “We also look forward to the day when consumers can access any application,including VoIP apps, from any device, on any network.” I couldn’t agree more, Andy.
So what’s next? I like the idea of renting equipment, not owning it. I also find intriguing the vertical integration of the original AT&T and just about everything. How different is Google since the management shift? Well, if you cannot control costs, you have to take steps to protect revenue. Changing the meaning of a word like “open” is small potatoes. Next up? Rapprochement with China, perhaps?
Stephen E Arnold, May 4, 2011
Freebie unlike some mobile carriers’ services.
Protected: RIM Blackberry Client for SharePoint Coming Soon
May 4, 2011
Watson and Its Methods
April 30, 2011
In the Fast Company article by Ariel Schwartz, IBM is partnering with Caltrans and the University of California at Berkeley to create a “personalized commuter forecast” for individuals living in large cities and high traffic areas. This p.c.f. will be dubbed “Watson” because everyone needs a trusty sidekick.
Schwartz’s article “IBM Will Go All Watson On Your Commute, Keep You Out Of Traffic” explains that the program, which is still in its prototypes stage, will use the GPS on your phone to analyze traffic on your daily route to traffic and suggest the route that will get you to work the fastest. (According to IBM you’re still S.O.L. if you live in an area with no or few alternate routes, go figure.)
Instead of slogging through the traffic, your phone recommends that you drive halfway to work, park in the BART parking lot, and take the subway system the rest of the way. If you leave now, you’ll make your way through traffic just in time to catch the next train to work.
I feel like that’s a little too good to be true. Though IBM’s willingness to utilize already in place technologies such as the road sensors used by Berkeley and Caltrans is admirable (no wonder they’re partnered.)
Let’s face it. It all boils down to money, IBM is hoping to generate cash based upon sales to different transportation entities, merchants who would build along newly used transit systems and sales from advertisements–in exchange for IBM knowing your every location. IBM is not the government. Some people may take the position, “What’s one more conglomerate tracking user behavior?”
Leslie Radcliff, April 30, 2011
Freebie
Key Legal Decision Affecting Google Hinges on a Definition
April 27, 2011
Wired reports that the “Google Wi-Fi Judge Asks if Packet Sniffing is Spying.” Yet more evidence that our legislative system simply cannot keep up with technology. Wired states:
At the center of the legal flap is whether Google breached the Wiretap Act. Judge Ware, however, suggested the answer to the far-reaching privacy dilemma lies in an unanswered question. He has asked each side to define ‘radio communication’ as it applies to the Wiretap Act, and wants to know whether home Wi-Fi networks are ‘radio communications’ under the Wiretap Act.
Google’s answer, of course, is yes. If Wi-Fi networks are like radio stations and radio communications bands, they are considered “readily accessible” and not covered by the antiquated Act.
The plaintiffs, however, beg to differ. They say that just because information is airborne for a few seconds as it’s relayed from one computer to another does not turn that info into a radio broadcast.
Apparently, Google didn’t even realize its Street View mapping cars were privy to the data in question, and it has suspended those operations since German authorities started looking into the issue.
We don’t know the answer to this tough question, but if the decision goes against Google, it will create more potholes for Google’s all-seeing eye and its inadvertent sucking down of Wi-Fi data. With disclosures about Google’s Android phoning home user location data, the resolution of this issue will have significant consequences. Apologizing may not be enough this time.
Cynthia Murrell April 27, 2011
Google and Mobile: Will the Pass from Web to Mobile Search Be Smooth?
April 25, 2011
Over the bunny weekend, I spoke with two people about the direction the Web is moving. In those information conversations, I learned some interesting factoids. First, the Web today is different from the Web of five, even two years ago. The person used the word “ephemeral” to describe much of the information that is available. I thought that “ephemeral” applied to Twitter “tweets” and some of the short content posted in the comments section of blogs and other social media. As I learned, this definition is too narrow. The ephemeral nature of the Web applies to such content types as:
- Dynamic Web pages such as those produced by airline ticket or hotel reservation systems. The content which is mostly availability and price changes often with each screen refresh.
- Junk pages that someone produces until the pages stop attracting traffic, often leaving no trace anywhere. To see an example, navigate to Webspace.com
- Test Web sites or blogs put up and then abandoned. To see an example, navigate to Captain Roy. The Web page stays behind, but the blog and its content is temporary.
I did not agree with the person’s approach to ephemera, but I did agree with the perception that the texture of information available via the Web was quite different today than it was a few years back.
Can Google’s Web search pass the baton to Google mobile search without losing cadence, speed, or control?
The second conversation focused on the notion of the volume of data. I had heard some astounding and unsubstantiated claims about the rate of growth of digital information. One person told me that Web and organizational content was doubling every two months. This person was the president of a trendy software company, so I zipped my lip. But on the call over the weekend, a person who shall remain anonymous asserted, “Web content doubles every 72 hours.” Again, I did not push the issue, but that is a heck of a statement.
Two observations:
There is a lot of digital information and some of it is clearly not intended to be substantive. Persistence, if it does occur, is accidental or irrelevant to the person creating the information. Other content is machine generated like the Webspace.com “page”, and it is little more than a placeholder or a way to generate ad revenue or click throughs.
Finding information in today’s environment is not particularly easy. The general purpose Web search engines like Bing.com and Google.com are able to provide pointers to more traditional Web content. To locate information that appears in a tweet, I have to exert considerable effort to locate an item. For companies with distinct name, my Overflight services works okay but some outfits have names that make it almost impossible to find them. Examples include Brainware, Stratify, and Thunderstone without lots of false drops to games, rock and roll, or other content which has appropriated a word, phrase, or semantic space.
Mobile search is the primary means of finding information for many people. On my trip to Hong Kong at the end of March 2011, I watched people in public spaces like the Starbuck’s at the giant mall near the central rapid transit station. There were a few laptops and iPads, but the majority of the people were using mobile devices. A similar uptake is evident in most big cities. Here in Harrod’s Creek, there are precious few people, so the one person using a clunky laptop at the Dairy Queen is out of the mainstream.
In my printed edition of the New York Times, I read in the business section today (April 25, 2011) “Google, a Giant in Mobile Search, Seeks New Ways to Make It Pay.” The “it”, of course, is mobile search in particular and more generally mobile online information access. You may be able to read the story online, but the links often go dead. More ephemera, I suppose. Try this one, but no guarantees: http://goo.gl/Ebpnz.
Taking Pictures for Maps: Google and Microsoft Go Different Directions
April 21, 2011
We noticed that Microsoft is firing up a service that will take pictures of businesses. If this reminded you of Street View, the Google service, you are not alone. If you want more information on Microsoft’s emulation of this popular and controversial Google service, check out “Microsoft Taking Street Photos in the UK”, which provides the basics plus a link to Microsoft’s explanation of the service.
Source: The BBC.
“Google Has Stopped Street View Photography in Germany” reported that even though a German court ruled that Google may continue its street- level photography, the company has stopped with little explanation. The article asserted:
It’s easy to assume that the service’s difficult birth has factored into the decision. German officials raised objections almost as soon as Google announced plans to launch Street View there. After lengthy negotiations, Google eventually agreed to let German residents opt-out of having their buildings appear online, and nearly 250,000 German households and businesses took Google up on that offer. I’m not a programmer, but I can’t help wonder if the presence of so many blurred buildings — and the potential challenge of updating Street View while maintaining their privacy — is a factor in Google’s decision.
Google may also suspect, as we do, that Germany will begin behaving more like China and less like a puppy rolling over. Microsoft, though an old dog, may be learning some new tricks.
Cynthia Murrell April 21, 2011
Freebie
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
