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
Anti Search in 2011
November 1, 2010
In a recent meeting, several of the participants were charged with disinformation from the azurini.
You know. Azurini, the consultants.
Some of these were English majors, others former print journalists, and some unemployed search engine optimization experts smoked by Google Instant.
But mostly the azurini emphasize that their core competency is search, content management, or information governance (whatever the heck that means). In a month or so, there will be a flood of trend write ups. When the Roman god looks to his left and right, the signal for prognostication flashes through the fabric covered cube farms.
To get ahead of the azurini, the addled goose wants to identify the trends in anti search for 2011. Yep, anti search. Remember that in a Searcher article several years ago, I asserted that search was dead. No one believed me, of course. Instead of digging into the problems that ranged from hostile users to the financial meltdown of some high profile enterprise search vendors, search was the big deal.
And why not? No one can do a lick of work today unless that person can locate a document or “find” something to jump start activity. In a restaurant, people talk less and commune with their mobile devices. Search is on a par with food, a situation that Maslow would find interesting.
The idea for this write up emerged from a meeting a couple of weeks ago. The attendees were trying to figure out how to enhance an existing enterprise search system in order to improve the productivity of the business. The goal was admirable, but the company was struggling to generate revenues and reduce costs.The talk was about search but the subtext was survival.
The needs for the next generation search system included:
- A great user experience
- An iPad app to deliver needed information
- Seamless access to Web and Intranet information
- Google-like performance
- Improved indexing and metatagging
- Access to database content and unstructured information like email.
Google on the Griddle
October 27, 2010
“Google Faces Landmark Fine for Gross Invasion of Privacy” is an interesting article. Published in the UK Independent newspaper and on the Independent Web site, Google gets grilled in words. The point of the story is that Google may be forced to sit on a hot griddle. Ouch.
The write up said:
Google faces being the first company to incur heavy fines under British privacy laws, after admitting downloading private emails and passwords. Britain’s Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham, announced yesterday that he is launching a new investigation into the Street View project, in which Google sent cars around photographing residential streets. In the process, they “mistakenly” collected entire emails and passwords from privately owned computers connected to wireless networks.
My view is that many can see Google as a cash point money dispenser. To unlock the lucre, the StreetView code is activated. Google has been apologizing and changing its policies. I find the Math Club’s approach of controlled chaos amusing, but I don’t think some of the officials in the UK and elsewhere share my sense of humor. I was in the Math Club, and I think that most government officials majored in home economics or social science, not physics.
In my opinion, the killer passage in the write up was:
A spokesman for the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) said yesterday: “Earlier this year the ICO visited Google’s premises to make a preliminary assessment of the ‘pay-load’ data it inadvertently collected whilst developing Google Street View. “Whilst the information we saw at the time did not include meaningful personal details that could be linked to an identifiable person, we have continued to liaise with, and await the findings of, the investigations carried out by our international counterparts.· “Now that these findings are starting to emerge, we understand that Google has accepted that in some instances entire URLs and emails have been captured. We will be making enquires to see whether this information relates to the data inadvertently captured in the UK, before deciding on the necessary course of action, including a consideration of the need to use our enforcement powers.”
After 12 years of unfettered frolic, is the twitching hand of regulators grabbing the heat dial for the griddle? One thing is clear to me: Google seems to have a knack for sending different signals depending upon the context. See, for example, “Google Says Whole Emails Gathered by Street View Cars.” The Information Commissioner’s Office seems to have noted the dissonance.
Stephen E Arnold, October 27, 2010
Freebie
Vamosa Acquired by T-Systems
October 27, 2010
Update: The goose is easily confused. T-Systems, not T-Mobile, purchased Vamosa. I think that Deutsche Telekom owns both of these companies. I see a similarity between the T-Systems’ Web site and the T-Mobile Web sites. The clue is the weird color and the dotted lines. I also heard from an ever-so-polite person who enjoined me in several emails to point out that T-Mobile(owned by Deutsche Telekom) did not acquire Vamosa. T-Systems (owned by Deutsche Telekom) did not buy Vamosa. Interesting because this sort of input attracts my attention; it does not diminish it. My question, “Why such a consoluted structure made more confusing with logos, color, and branding? ” Worth poking around perhaps?
And here’s an alleged official explanation from a person representing himself as affiliated with Kelso PR:
The problem is that in the UK, T-Systems and T-Mobile are different companies, owned by the same overall company, Deutsche Telekom. T-Mobile is a partnership between France Telecom & Deutsche Telekomm [sic], whereas T-Systems is wholly owned by Deutsche Telekom. Indeed, in the UK T-Mobile isn’t called T-Mobile anymore, and is now called “everything everywhere”. We are fine with you describing the purchaser as Deutsche Telekom (the overall owner), or as T-Systems (the actual buyer of Vamosa), but we would prefer if you don’t refer to the purchaser of Vamosa as “T-mobile”, which is a different company altogether. The Vamosa website has the “T-systems” branding running across the top of it. http://www.vamosa.com/ It’s just a simple issue of accuracy of the information. If you have a look here: http://www.heraldscotland.com/business/corporate-sme/t-systems-acquires-ip-and-trademarks-from-collapsed-vamosa-1.1063831 it should be clear how this is being reported in the UK. As I say, thanks so much for responding to this.
A number of questions are swirling through my mind. Got that?
Short honk: T-Mobile (TSystems) has acquired Vamosa. I think of T-Mobile as a third string player in the US mobile market and a reliable wireless provider in the parts of Europe I visit. I was near the arctic circle a couple of years ago and I got a T-Mobile signal. T-Mobile’s purchase of Vamosa interested me. Vamosa embraced the notion of content governance, but I think of the company has having software that transform content. In addition to connectors, the company’s strength was moving a big chunk of content from one system into a form that another system could use. Instead of a human slogging through sample documents, Vamosa offered software to analyze, normalize, and migrate content. A person at KelsoPR.com sent me a news release that said:
The acquisition supports T-Systems’ strategic focus fuelling growth by enabling collaboration and mobility. “Executives are looking for innovative technologies that help them reduce the complexity of managing multiple e-channels, which they rely on to drive knowledge sharing and customer transactions. An increasing number of critical business processes depend on the implementation of a secure and consistent governance structure that ensures employees, partners and customers have access to reliable content at all times and across all screens,” said Peter Row, Vice President of T-Systems UK Systems Integration who led the acquisition. “By expanding our portfolio to target this business issue we will be offering a unique end to end solution for customers in the marketplace.” The market-leading suite of products previously developed by Vamosa Limited, automatically tags digital content, cleans legacy data and seamlessly migrates content into content management systems. On an ongoing basis the software technology ensures corporate standards are adhered to and auto-fixes any breaches it uncovers.
I had heard that T-Mobile was thrashing around in search, content processing, and information services. Maybe this acquisition adds some credence to those rumors. I am not sure about the Vamosa connectors. As you know, I am watching the i2 Ltd / Palantir legal matter which seems to be about reverse engineering connectors in order to hook into proprietary file stores. Connectors and data transformation are emerging as interesting functions which warrant observation.
Stephen E Arnold, October 27, 2010
Freebie
How to Cope with Google: Change Your Name, Just Move
October 26, 2010
I find Math Club folks darned entertaining. I recall learning from someone that Google’s top dog suggested that one could deal with privacy issues by changing one’s name. No problem, but not exactly practical. Today (October 25, 2010) several people mentioned to me Dr. Schmidt’s suggestion regarding Street View’s imaging one’s home. The recommendation was, according to “Schmidt: Don’t Like Google Street View Photographing Your House? Then Move,” even more impractical than changing one’s name. In today’s real estate market, most folks struggle to make payments. The cost of moving is out of reach even if there were a compelling reason to uproot oneself. The idea of moving because Google is making snaps of one’s domicile is either pretty funny (my view) or pretty crazy (the view of one of the people in my office).
So which is it? Colbert Report material or an answer that could get you stuck in a hospital’s psychiatric ward for observation?
I side with the Math Club. Dr. Schmidt was just joking.
What’s not so funny is the mounting legal friction that Google faces. My concern is that the push back could impair Google’s ability to do deals. The issue is partially trust and partially mind share. With lawyers wanting discovery and depositions, the two Ds can get even the A student in Math Club in academic hot water. That’s bad for Google, its partners, and its stakeholders. Competitors know Google has lots of cash, but with Apple and Facebook surging, Google can no longer rely on controlled chaos to converge on a solution. Lawyers are into procedures and often lack a sense of humor.
Just move. Man, that’s a hoot. Getting a cow on top of a university bell tower will not elicit a chuckle from me. But “just move.” I am in stitches. Absolutely hilarious. But there is that other point of view… the hospital… the observation thing. Hmmm.
Stephen E Arnold, October 26, 2010
Google Waffles Backwards
October 21, 2010
Canada is annoyed at the Google. My view is that Google is mostly indifferent to legal hassles from countries. I mean when an enterprise can blow off the world’s largest market, what’s the difference when the likes of maple leaf lovers get annoyed. But there is an interesting item in the story “Google Ditches All Street View Wi-Fi Scanning.” Here’s the passage that caught my attention:
Google has no plans to resume using its Street View cars to collect information about the location of Wi-Fi networks, a practice that led to a flurry of privacy probes after the company said it unintentionally captured fragments of unencrypted data. The disclosure appeared in a report on Street View released today by Canadian privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart, who said that “collection is discontinued and Google has no plans to resume it.” Assembling an extensive list of the location of Wi-Fi access points can aid in geolocation, especially in areas where connections to cell towers are unreliable. Instead, Stoddart said that, based on her conversations with headquarters in Mountain View, Ca., “Google intends to obtain the information needed to populate its location-based services database” from “users’ handsets.”
No problem in my opinion. My thought is that the Math Club had a plan, a rogue engineer’s code, and some surprised customers. Now the GOOG seems to be doing the type of thinking one expects from a mere MBA. Is this progress? Depends on one’s point of view, right?
Stephen E Arnold, October 21, 2010
Freebie
IBM, Oracle, and Google
October 14, 2010
Update: October 14, 2010, 9 30 pm Eastern. We just got off a phone call that offered some interesting spin on the Oracle- IBM pact. This caller suggests that IBM is working both sides of the street. The IBM play looks like a stage kiss from Oracle’s point of view and a real kiss to Google. Google can now claim that IBM is the focal point of contentious Java. Interesting.
“Oracle-IBM Pact Cuts Android Off at the Knees” turns a Fortune 50 tactic into a dream. Sure Oracle and IBM are looking like love birds with little interest in making Google into more than an annoying little brother on big brother’s hot date. Here’s the passage that struck me as edging towards wishful thinking, not the cold hard reality of open source goodness:
That would be a disaster for Android. Apache developer Stephen Colebourne, who’s been following the minutiae on his personal blog, believes IBM cut this deal because Oracle agreed to unblock a logjam in the Java Community Process that controls the platform. As a result, new versions of Java with long-awaited features should arrive in 2011 and 2012. But with no major financial backing for the development of its Java libraries, Android could slip behind and lose the love of its Java-savvy developer base.
One cannot discount the fact that two elephants seem to be engaging in some trunk stroking. But, in my opinion, the “cuts off at the knees” should be “could have an impact on Google.”
I interpret this story and its wishful thinking as a poke at Google. If a company cannot stop Google in the open market, why not resort to some old fashioned for the 50 tag team action.
The world of open source is a quite interesting place. The big companies wiggling into a crowd may have some unexpected consequences. Will Google choose to go through life with no legs under Android? Stakes are rising as the Google disruption triggers some interesting mainstream media comments and some fascinating team ups.
Stephen E Arnold, October 14, 2010
App Store Developer Perceptions
September 29, 2010
Short honk: If you want some insight into how developers perceived the vendors’ app stores, point your Brower at “What Top App Developers Really Think of the App Stores.” The information comes from a consulting and research company doing business as Open First. I don’t have a good sense of the sample size or of the methodology. This passage caught my attention:
One of the most surprising results was on revenue. The survey showed 81 percent of developers for Ovi Store said they were earning less than they expected, with the corresponding figures being 49 percent for the Android Market and 28 percent for the Apple Store. Unsurprisingly, developers who reported low revenues ascribed this to a combination of inadequate promotion tools, application ranking systems and bad categorization of apps. On the other hand, 48 percent of iPhone developers reported earning more than they expected. So the Apple Store still appears to be the most lucrative for developers.
Suggestive, not definitive, however.
Stephen E Arnold, September 29, 2010
Freebie
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
