Comparing Apples to Androids
December 22, 2010
“Google: We’re Activating 300,000 Android Phones Each Day” proclaims . . . well, just like it says. To sum up: “Need help wrapping your head around the significance here? Consider that Apple claims it activates 270,000 iPhones each day, 30,000 less than Google for each 24 hour period, 210,000 less per week, and more than 10.9 million less per year (again assuming the rate of activations doesn’t change for either company).”
Sounds impressive, right?
HotHardware.com seems ready to declare Apple TKO’d. Well, I’d say not quite so fast. First of all, these numbers are about activations, not profits. Who is really making big money here? Apple, hand over fist, in the midst of a tanked economy. Google is hanging their hopes on ad revenue, while Apple dominates with sales of all iOS devices: iPhone, iPads, iPod Touch. To date, no one has made money on Android apps who hasn’t made it first on iPhone apps. In my opinion, the real fight here is not Google vs. Apple, it’s Google vs. Blackberry, with RIM on the mat and down for the count.
Alice Wasielewski, December 22, 2010
Freebie
Arnold Comments about Exalead
December 20, 2010
A couple of times a year, I make a swing through Europe. I visit vendors, get demos, and talk with engineers about the future of search. In Paris on November 30, 2010, I answered questions about my views of Exalead. As you know, Exalead is a unit of Dassault Systems, one of the most sophisticated engineering firms in the world. You can get my view of Exalead by navigating to this link. Here’s an example of the observations I made:
“Exalead delivers applications that fit seamlessly and smoothly into customer workflows,” said Arnold. “When I spoke with Exalead customers I heard only: ‘This system works,’ ‘It’s easy to use,’ ‘It’s stable,’ and ‘I don’t have to chase around.”
In the interview, I point out that Exalead’s engineering makes it possible to embed search and information access in applications. Instead of using key words to unlock the information in a traditional search and retrieval system, Exalead makes the needed information available within existing work flows and applications. Access extends across a full range of content types and devices, including smart phones.
I have tracked Exalead for a number of years, and it continues to distinguish itself in information access by going “Beyond Search.” Here at Beyond Search we use the Exalead platform for our Overflight service.
Stephen E Arnold, December 20, 2010
The Exalead engineering team bought me lunch, a plus in Paris. Too bad about the snow and ice, though.
Xoogler Predicts the Future of Chrome
December 14, 2010
Quite a bomb shell in “Gmail Creator Paul Buchheit: Chrome OS Will Perish or Merge with Android.” I don’t know if the prediction will come true, but the notion of two separate operating systems struck me as very expensive and quite confusing. Mr. Buchheit was Mr. Gmail. He then became Mr. Facebook. Now he is Mr. Banker. Xooglers are adaptable. A Xoogler even runs AOL, and that is a fascinating operation to monitor.
But back to the Android Chrome prediction. In my opinion, the key passage in the write up was not the killer tweet; it was:
Google to date has posited that Android and Chrome OS, its two operating systems, address different markets that will remain distinct despite the growing convergence of the devices they run on (netbooks, tablets, smartphones). Google co-founder Sergey Brin, however, has stated in the past that Google will likely “produce a single OS down the road”. Ironically, the key architect of the Chrome OS project, Matthew Papakipos, left Google over the Summer — for a job at Facebook, Paul Buchheit’s most recent former employer.
What will happen? I have learned that predicting Google’s activities to be a difficult challenge for even the most astute prognosticators. I confine my predictions to big fuzzy observations that are never really right or wrong. Quite a goosely skill I might add.
Observations about Android and Chrome are in order:
- Two of anything offers more choice, but it also means that in a Math Club environment one will have a higher score and, therefore, be more relevant. In short, two generates a list. The winner is the item with the most “votes”. No subjectivity involved. Google is not into subjective search results.
- Developers who pick the wrong horse are losers. Now I know the theory that Google code works like a champ on anything Google. Well, yes and no. Chrome is a cloud thing and Android is more of a gizmo thing at this time. I sure wouldn’t want to be the developer who backed the wrong horse. Maybe that unified, locked down Apple approach has some charm.
- Users are not likely to know an Android from a Chrome. The whole Google-is-into-hardware baffles me as well. Apple may end up looking pretty good. Even though the iPad and the iPhone are two different gizmos which means hassles for developers, the look and feel of the iPad and the iPhone is pretty similar. Users probably want consistency and sizzle more than detailed information about the operating system.
In short, Google threw out two “innovations.” Google now has to find a way to deal with the opportunities and downside of moving forward in a way that generates substantive revenue. Meanwhile, little old Apple just keeps cranking out gizmos people want and can use without knowing much, if anything, about the plumbing. User experience maybe?
Stephen E Arnold, December 15, 2010
Freebie
Google and Search without Search
December 12, 2010
I read “Marissa Mayer’s Next Big Thing: Contextual Discovery—Google Results without Search”. The key point in the article, in my opinion, was this passage:
“The idea is to push information to people.”
Years ago I wrote an article about push technology. I explained the benefits of search and described the efforts of PointCast and Backweb. My recollection is that I wrote the article in 1997 or 1998. The ERIC citation is here. I won an award for that article, but no one cared. No problem for me because I am not an academic and certainly at age 66, I am not interested in applying for a job in the Ivory Tower. I prefer the goose pond in Harrod’s Creek, thank you.
The phrase “contextual discovery” is short hand for the content system knowing who is logged in, what actions the user has taken in the past, and what the user is doing now. The “now” part comes from geographically aware software and some Julia Child-type numerical recipes. These “inputs” formulate a search query or point to content that others in a closely knit statistical neighborhood have recently accessed. Add salt and queue up search results. The user glances at his mobile device screen and, presto, relevant content appears.
Search without search.
Several observations:
- Pushing content is not going to be the next big thing in my opinion. The next big thing is having your Facebook environment provide you with the context for the information you want. No matter what fancy math is applied to search without search, I think the social experience in information retrieval is becoming more, not less, important. Of course, Google lacks a viable social search service, so it is understandable that the company wants 1995 technology to be the next big thing. Er, it still is 1995 technology. Even the word “push” dates from that era. It is almost 2011 and 15-year-old methods won’t hit home runs. Doubles, maybe?
- Google has tried several times to find a winner. In 2010, I suffered through Buzz, Wave, and the baffling Google TV service. I just don’t see Google having the same magic touch that it had prior to 2006, a point in time when Google began to shift from “text search” Google to “wild and crazy” Google. Push or contextual search is a great feature, but it is not going to set the 20-somethings’ hearts a-flutter.
- Google is fresh from some painful rejections. Math Club members are still struggling to gain social acceptance. The big turn down may be the Groupon.com brush off. I can tell you this: If I were Groupon, I would have grabbed that $6 billion and figured out something else to do that interested me. The rejection is all the more stunning because Google apparently was serious and so was Groupon. Maybe the deal will come back to life with another few billion added to the original offer. But the damage is done. Not only don’t major TV content people want to fall in love with Google, now a person-intensive, coupon sales company is not interested.
So what’s the next big thing? In my opinion, it is rejection. Google has to get its mojo back. Push may help, but more is needed than buying a digital rights outfit and quietly spending dough for content. Lots more.
Stephen E Arnold, December 11, 2010
Freebie
Street View and As a Ground Hog Event
December 6, 2010
The cute little ground hog pops up and events repeat themselves. Google, a cute creature indeed, is caught in a ground hog event. We refer to Street View and its ability to pop up, recycle, pop up and recycle the same sequence of activities. Is it us or the ground hog effect?
Google takes another hit with revelations of Google Street View cars again gathering private information through WiFi networks. “Google Privacy Breach: Damage to Brand ‘Substantial‘” reports that unlike the spring 2009 data gathering, this UK privacy breach was significant enough to warrant investigation, although the British Information Commissioner’s Office did not subject Google to a fine. According to the article, though, the main punishment for this offense will not be found in legal penalties:
“Jack Adams, SEO consultant at Greenlight told Web User that although Google seems to have been ‘let off lightly’, he believes the breach could have a major impact on the brand’s reputation: ‘There can’t be any denying that some extent of damage has been done to users’ confidence in the brand and its squeaky-clean image, built around the company’s “don’t be evil” motto.’”
In addition, the FCC is investigating similar accusations. Does this add to what seems to be Google’s recent losing streak with Buzz, Wave, Google TV, etc.? After all, there are objections to Street View itself with nearly a quarter of a million Germans opting out of having their homes shown. Put all this together, and I’m not sure that reputation damage is the main point to take away from Street View’s private data gathering fiasco. We are beginning to think the bigger issue is an emerging pattern of poor judgment calls. Solving problems in math does not require social savvy. Perhaps services like Street View do?
Alice Wasielewski, December 6, 2010
First XML, Then the iPad: Another Life Preserver for Publishers
December 6, 2010
Publishers love XML. Well, not the coding of XML. Publishers love the versatility and slicing – dicing functions of XML. Now the publishers have another life preserver as traditional cost structures and marketing methods come under increased pressure.
“Why the iPad Newspaper is Doomed” is broken down into a long list of all the reasons why Rupert Murdoch’s latest news venture is destined to be an epic fail. Gawker, publisher working to reinvent itself, asserts:
“Rupert Murdoch is putting $30 million and 100 journalists behind an iPad newspaper called “The Daily. He even has support from Apple CEO Steve Jobs. But no one really believes this thing will last.”
The reasons are that the morning news will be compiled the evening before, the scope is too broad, Murdoch has not had success online before, huge amounts of subscriptions will have to be sold, links will be non-existent, costs are too expensive to maintain, the cost-free news competition s too tough, and the staff is all traditional news not tech.
Yet, the post does also have a short list of reasons for optimism, which are: Steve Jobs, huge iPad sales, Murdoch’s unexpected success with Fox News, and the success of some other iPad publications. It’s the Fox News angle that interests me most. Rupert Murdoch, love him or hate him, has been known to sniff out an opportunity and keep putting his extensive resources behind it until it pans out. This iPad newspaper seems like a long shot, but sometimes Murdoch knows something we don’t. The story, as real journalists say, is still being written.
Alice Wasielewski, December 6, 2010
Android: A Success with Some Weaknesses
November 23, 2010
“Android Fail? 25% Worldwide Market Share Says “Not So Much” is one of those write ups that puzzle me. The author references another blog on the ZDNet service, sort of disagrees, but focuses on poobahing from the Harvard Business Review. I think the HBR has a great reputation, but have you check the US economy lately. Harvard has contributed some “greed is good” types who seem to have muffed Business 1.0 and are on the path to degradation for Business 2.0.
The idea is that Google has a 25 percent market share for its open source mobile operating system Android. That is a big chunk of a market. No argument. Here’s the passage that caught my attention:
Sure, open sourcing Android has and will result in some collateral damage. And Google is going to have to begin exerting some control over upgrade cycles with carriers to reduce fragmentation, which I frankly think is a far bigger problem than Baidu remaining dominant in Chinese search (this is nothing new). However, millions and millions of handsets, emerging tablets and similar devices, and now Google TV, all running Android, mean that Google shouldn’t be losing too much sleep over the Motorola Citrus.
My thought is that once the horse is out of the barn and galloping down Open Source Lane, getting the horse back in the barn may be difficult, if not impossible. Mobile advertising will be a big deal, and the fact that Baidu and Microsoft have wiggled on phones as search providers is interesting. More interesting to me is that Google has blown off China, and some of the telcos may use Android and leave some of the other Googley services buried deep in obscure menus.
But back to the Harvard reference. Maybe these Harvard Business Review assertions are correct. Google will learn tout de suite how Oracle will deal with the Java open source issue. Google may win, leaving Oracle an also ran. Google has some analysts in check, but I think fragmentation, China, and the telcos are going to be another cluster of challenges no matter how much money Google has.
Stephen E Arnold, November 23, 2010
Freebie
Google Apple Face Off
November 8, 2010
More than three quarters of all Android users are now running version 2.1 or higher” says Google’s Android Developer Web site. Sounds good, but we’re not fooled. The market Google created with Android may appear unified, but it won’t last says “The Worst Android Fragmentation is Yet to Come.” Rumors have it that Android 2.3 is will be out soon, then there will be Android 3.0 and so on and so on. With the Android track record, it’s doubtful that existing phones will be upgraded to the latest version. This fragmentation creates a management headache. For instance, what to do about old versions that can’t run apps that target recent versions? The iPad, on the other hand, is not fragmented and creates a monoculture. Which is the right approach?
Apple is the early winner with a 95-percent market share in tablets and 95-percent user satisfaction according to a survey by Strategy Analytics. Neil Mawston , the Strategy Analytics’ Director, in “Apple Increases Tablet Share to 95 Percent as Android Slips,” said that Android and other operating platforms “are trailing in Apple’s wake and they already have much ground to make up.”
Based on these results, we’re going with Apple over the all of the downfalls of the Droid. Mobile search will fly or flop based on the platform that captures the consumers’ attention. The horse race will be interesting.
Leah Moody, November 8, 2010
Freebie
Misunderstanding Facebook?
November 5, 2010
I just read “Big Deal: Facebook emerges as Major Player in Mobile and Location-Based Services.” In a sense, I agree with the write up. On the other hand, I think that the article is one of those summer stock efforts. You know the play was written by Shakespeare, but what the heck happened to make Act II so confusing.
Here’s a passage that resonated with me:
As context for all of this the company said it has an active mobile user base of 200 million people (out of more than 500 million total users). It doesn’t break out US vs. non-US numbers — though I’d bet the majority are in North America. If even half of those users are in the US it would make Facebook as large as Verizon. The difference is that Facebook’s members are much more engaged.
There are two really important points embedded in this snippet of text, and I want to highlight those and show why Facebook is in a state of increasing misunderstanding among the azurini.
The two words:
Active
Member
These two words are a very big deal, even bigger than mobile. Here’s my view.
Facebook creates a perception of this type of environment. This is not like using the services provided from the local electric or water company.
Word one: Active. As a touch point, consider the Google. Google has lots of users. The users navigate to a Web page, do something, and hit the trail. I know that lots of Google users provide some information about themselves and that lots of Google users rely on various Google services. I rely on the electric and water company, but I don’t spend what my boss at Booz, Allen used to call “quality time.” Google and some other services are like plumbing. Essential—I don’t talk about it at lunch. Facebook users are active. Active means habitual access. Habits in online behavior are good. But a habit like using an electric light are hard to break, but they are still utilitarian functions. Part of the woodwork. Have you hugged your door frame today?
Search or Apps?
November 2, 2010
A lot of 20 somethings, MBAs, and English majors working as consultants are darned excited about apps. Apps are applications and closely associated with smartphones and Apple’s iPads. The idea is that a really busy person can use an app to accomplish a task without knowing much more than one learns getting an automated teller machine to report that one’s checking account balance is running low. (Quick. Invent a new buzzword and sell some expertise!)
Apps are okay. Search sucks. Which does one pursue in order to generate vast amounts of money?
According to “Mobile Commerce: Ten Reasons to Choose the Web over Apps”, smart money bets on the Web. Yep. Now I won’t list the entire 10 reasons offered by eConsultancy.com, but I can point out four reasons and make some comments from the goose pond. For the other six reasons hie thee to eConsultancy. Yep, a rhyme.
The Web kicks Apps for these selected reasons:
- Findability, which is New Wave hip-speak for information retrieval. I agree. Finding an app is tough. I just look at the “charts” showing what’s popular or new. This works for me, but I think the eConsultancy crowd wants to keep folks keying search terms. Okay for some, but not for the 20 somethings, MBAs, and English majors working as consultants
- Marketing. You know marketing is a problem on both the Web, mobile platforms, and real life. I am not sure the Web offers particular advantages, but it does allow consultants to explain how to get traffic to a Web site. Keep in mind that 99.5 percent of Web sites get lousy traffic.
- Links. The Web allows links. Yep, but the links that count are backlinks from high traffic sites or sites that have an elephant like PageRank score. The Web sprawls and apps, at least for the iPhone and iPad, serve a somewhat more narrow audience.
- No approval. An app for Apple requires approval. An app for Android can be pretty much whatever one wants. I am not sure about the BlackBerry app store. I used it once and the store did not work, then the app did not work. Maybe curation is good? Brute force is expensive and Google may have to clean up its 100,000 apps someday anyway.
Are you convinced to go Web? I am not. This list reminded me of the editorial process for some of Ziff Communications’ consumer print magazines. Pass the soy sauce.
Stephen E Arnold, November 2, 2010
Freebie
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
