Google and Nokia: Two Mobile Flotillas to Sink
August 28, 2009
I have been involved in meetings where Google is a search engine and Microsoft is a vendor of Word software. Imagine my surprise when I surfaced this evening to read “Little Can Save Google and Nokia from Mobile Failure”. The write up is another spin on the Slate article that asserts that Google and Nokia will fail and fail big in the mobile sector. I am not certain that I am prepared to accept anyone’s fortune telling about mobile. Mobile is a complicated beastie, and it is going to get more complicated before the dust settles. What I find interesting is that Apple has emerged as the innovator in the mobile space. I am not certain that Apple itself anticipated the unintended consequences of morphing the iPod into the iPhone. The App store problems are the tip of the ice berg in my opinion. There are some wild cards not well scoped in hot markets. Africa comes to mind. The notion that mobile devices will remain candy bars in size and shape is off base. In my meetings today, the discussion focused on implants. If the implant crowd wins, the mobile device becomes a different type of system. The likely winner will be the company with the network services that make these new types of devices useful to their users. There is nothing like a write up that nukes both Google and Nokia (ties to Microsoft included). The only problem is that if the folks writing these articles knew the future, these pundits would be enjoying the wealth their super powers delivered. Since the folks are writing, I conclude that their ability to prognosticate is not firing on all cylinders.
Stephen Arnold, August 27, 2009
Google Moving Forward in Global Telco Sectors
August 11, 2009
Short honk: Globes reported “Cellcom Launches Israel’s First Googlephone.” Globes reported:
Cellcom CEO Amos Shapiro said, "I am proud to say that Cellcom is the first operator to offer its customers, as of today, the first Android device in Israel. Cellcom is the third operator in the world to launch this device. As always, Cellcom offers its customers the best communications solutions."
The article stated: “Cellcom will charge NIS 105 a month over 36 months for the Samsung i7500 and a three-year subscription to navigation content.”
Beyond Search is not sure about the “first” because India and China may have beaten Israel to the punch. Slow but sure for the Google. A happy quack to the reader who alerted us to this news item.
Stephen Arnold, August 11, 2009
BlackBerry and Quality
August 11, 2009
I bought an 8320 BlackBerry to test the device. It worked until the ball stuck. I got a replacement. I crushed that one and I had to buy a replacement. Now I have a BlackBerry 8900, and it contained information that urged me to navigate to the BlackBerry App Store to buy applications. I have several mobile devices, so the goslings and I went through the normal routine: download the desktop software, update the desktop software, update the firmware on the device, have lunch, take a nap, and then come back to explore the mobile device. I am baffled about [a] the download times and [b] the lengthy firmware update processes. Other aspects of the BlackBerry baffle me as well, but my focus is on the issue of quality control.
The goslings and I picked an application called Platinum Solitaire 2, where some information is available from a third party. The reason was that we figured version two was probably stable and it was expensive for a dorky game like Solitaire. We clicked the download button. We had to hunt around for the icon with a folder and a downward pointing arrow. We clicked the icon. The system promptly froze. We looked at one another. We took out the battery and tried again. Same result. Frozen mobile device.
To reboot this device, one removes the back and removes the battery. Then a long wait as the consumer device figures out that it is what it is supposed to be and that no evil consumer has hacked the phone. I could have a heart attack from the stress induced from this lengthy process. Unacceptable in may opinion.
Now the interesting part of this test was my navigating to the incredibly hard to use BlackBerry customer support Web site, finding the link to point out this problem with the $4.99 application, and wait to see what happened.
Here’s the scenario:
First, I got an automated response the same day telling me that BlackBerry cared. I had to provide details of the problem. I wrote back that I thought the company’s quality control was lousy. I waited.
Second, I got an email from a human who wanted to talk with me. I wrote back that I was working on a blog story about online search for the BlackBerry app store and I did not want to talk to a human. I wanted to use search to solve my problem.
Third, I got an email from another human who provided me with contact information so I could call. If I didn’t want to call the human said, I could expect a call from this BlackBerry person.
Fourth, I got a call on Friday, August 7, 2009, from a really concerned BlackBerry employee. The person wanted me to know that BlackBerry cared about my problem. I explained that I used a new 8900, went through the hoops that BlackBerry puts in front of a customer to get the phone to work, and I went to the BlackBerry App Store. I pointed out that the app called Platinum Solitaire 2 killed my phone.
FDA: Going Against the Obama Open Source Push
July 26, 2009
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has contracted to with ISYS Search Software, http://www.isys-search.com/, to provide ISYS Anywhere enterprise software for FDA staff to have secure mobile access to organizational content. ISYS Anywhere is a universal enterprise search solution that provides secure access across multiple repositories to web-enabled mobile devices.
This is quite a surprise for the Beyond Search goslings. The new administration wants to go open source, but the FDA is licensing proprietary software from a company based in Australia. We’re wondering if this is a reflection of where the federal government is going on enterprise software, or if the FDA is striking out on its own.
Stephen Arnold, July 26, 2009
Microsoft Destabilized by Google
July 26, 2009
I enjoy John Dvorak’s “crankiness.” When I worked at Ziff Communications in the hay day of computer magazine publishing, he was a home run hitter. If I turned up on his door step, he wouldn’t recognize me, but I would recognize him. He’s ubiquitous, and I think he is close to the “truth” about Microsoft.
I want to piggyback on his “Is the Party over for Microsoft?” that ran as a “second opinion” essay on July 24, 2009. He provides a good run down of the distractions to which Microsoft succumbed. But in my opinion, these distractions gained greater urgency when Microsoft realized that Google was a really big problem.
Here’s my take on the Google factor:
First, Google was a champion of open source. I don’t think Google woke up one sunny day in 1998 and said, “We are all for open source.” I think the company, once it got some cash, realized that open source could bleed Microsoft’s attention and revenue. There was only an upside for the Google because it didn’t have the legacy problem and the established base’s need for backwards compatibility. So, the Google rotated about 10 degrees and became an open source engine. Microsoft’s various executives have pointed out that open source was a problem. I will leave it to others to provide the history of Microsoft’s open source, Unix, and community initiatives. While Microsoft thrashed with open source, the Google chugged along.
Second, Apple has been a thorn in Microsoft’s side for a long time. When Apple realized that Google had Mac power connectors in its conference rooms and no Microsoft compatible power connectors, the love bond between Apple and Google grew in intensity. With Eric Schmidt on the Board and Googlers dropping to the Unix command line in their ubiquitous Mac notebooks, the folks at Microsoft had a new problem. Google and Apple found common ground in their desire to give Microsoft a digital (see the illustration below for nerd humor), the two companies cooperated to annoy Microsoft. My hunch is that the annoy Microsoft aspect of the Google Apple tie up is the driving force. Yep, I don’t pay much attention to the “competition” between the iPhone and Google’s telephonic dreams. Google is building the 21st century AT&T. Apple is the “new Sony”. I see symbiosis.
With two outfits with lots of smart nerds, Microsoft had its hands full because together Google and Apple make Microsoft’s technology look pretty lame. Enterprise search is just one example. Microsoft has no product that is industrial strength that can be deployed quickly. Google offers a search toaster which is good enough. Vaporware is not a box shipped overnight from Dell Computer, another outfit squabbling with Microsoft. So Google and Apple doubled Microsoft’s pain. Google with enterprise initiatives and Apple with killer ads that made fun in a nice way of the Microsoft technologies.
Third, Google has proved hugely disruptive to Microsoft’s internal teams. Bing.com, for example, is a response to what Google was in 2007, not what Google is today or even more telling what Google is becoming. Where is a Microsoft dataspace initiative? Google’s Wave is rolling toward a broader developer shoreline and Microsoft’s dataspace row boat is still docked.
Add this up, and I see that Microsoft’s woes have been given a couple of twists of the thumbscrews because of Google.
Mr. Dvorak is right. Don’t get me wrong. I just think the Google is a much bigger factor than most of the pundits, mavens, azure chip consultants, and analysts have recognized. Now Google is on the path to be the next Microsoft. As I wrote in 2004 or 2005, Microsoft is now the next IBM. IBM is now a consulting company.
Looks like I was spot on when I pointed out that Google was moving to “check mate” mode in its relationship with Microsoft. Zune, Xbox, Codd based SQL Server, and ribbons won’t do much to stop the decline.
Stephen Arnold, July 26, 2009
A9.com Awakens
July 19, 2009
My newsreader gonged and I read “Image Recognition Startup SnapTell Acquired by Amazon Subsidiary A9.com” in TechCrunch. I remember when A9 was under the watchful eye of Udi Manber. Mr. Manber, search wizard blew out of Burlingame and settled in Google’s Mountain View cube farm. A9.com dropped off my radar as Google added features and A9.com became less interesting to me. How tough would it be to retrieve Kindle books with tags such as “in print”, not the jumbled mess I get when looking for eBooks. Sigh.
Well, TechCrunch reported:
SnapTell’s visual product search technology lets users take a photo of the cover of any CD, DVD, book, or video game, and the technology will automatically identify the product and find ratings and pricing information online from Google, Amazon, eBay and more. The company has a database of about 5 million+ products. SnapTell launched popular apps
for both the iPhone and Android. SnapTell’s free iPhone app, in particular, was a pretty nifty tool, letting users not only get instant reviews of a product, but also providing local and online price comparisons through TheFind,
Perhaps A9.com will enhance other areas of its technology as well.
Stephen Arnold, July 19, 2009
Mobile Content: A Really Big Market
July 9, 2009
Short honk: A consulting firm with which I am not familiar calculated the size of the mobile content market. You can find the news story “Mobile Content to Top $340 billion in 2013” here. In addition to the starling figure, the article said:
The billing relationship operators have with subscribers, marks them apart from other companies, allowing them to exert significant levels of control over what content the majority of subscribers have access to.
Yep and customer control. Big opportunities. Will telcos muff the bunny or put the bunny in the hutch?
Stephen Arnold, July 8, 2009
Arnold at NFAIS: Google Books, Scholar, and Good Enough
June 26, 2009
Speaker’s introduction: The text that appears below is a summary of my remarks at the NFAIS Conference on June 26, 2009, in Philadelphia. I talk from notes, not a written manuscript, but it is my practice to create a narrative that summarizes my main points. I have reproduced this working text for readers of this Web log. I find that it is easier to put some of my work in a Web log than it is to create a PDF and post that version of a presentation on my main Web site, www.arnoldit.com. I have skipped the “who I am” part of the talk and jump into the core of the presentation.
Stephen Arnold, June 26, 2009
In the past, epics were a popular form of entertainment. Most of you have read the Iliad, possibly Beowulf, and some Gilgamesh. One convention is that these complex literary constructs begin in the middle or what my grade school teacher call “In media res.”
That’s how I want to begin my comments about Google’s scanning project – an epic — usually referred to as Google Books. Then I want to go back to the beginning of the story and then jump ahead to what is happening now. I will close with several observations about the future. I don’t work for Google, and my efforts to get Google to comment on topics are ignored. I am not an attorney, so my remarks have zero legal foundation. And I am not a publisher. I write studies about information retrieval. To make matters even more suspect, I do my work from rural Kentucky. From that remote location, I note the Amazon is concerned about Google Books, probably because Google seeks to enter the eBook sector. This story is good enough; that is, in a project so large, so sweeping perfection is not possible. Pages are skewed. Insects scanned. Coverage is hit and miss. But what other outfit is prepared to spend to scan books?
Let’s begin in the heat of the battle. Google is fighting a number things. Google finds itself under scrutiny from publishers and authors. These are the entities with whom Google signed a “truce” of sorts regarding the scanning of books. Increasingly libraries have begun to express concern that Google may not be doing the type of preservation job to keep the source materials in a suitable form for scholars. Regulators have taken an interest in the matter because of the publicity swirling around a number of complicated business and legal issues.
These issues threaten Google with several new challenges.
Since its founding in 1998, Google has enjoyed what I would call positive relationships with users, stakeholders, and most of its constituents. The Google Books’ matter is now creating what I would describe as “rising tension”. If the tension escalates, a series of battles can erupt in the legal arena. As you know, battle is risky when two heroes face off in a sword fight. Fighting in a legal arena is in some ways more risky and more dangerous.
Second, the friction of these battles can distract Google from other business activities. Google, as some commentators, including myself in Google: The Digital Gutenberg may be vulnerable to new types of information challenges. One example is Google’s absence from the real time indexing sector where Facebook, Twitter, Scoopler.com, and even Microsoft seem to be outpacing Google. Distractions like the Google Books matter could exclude Google from an important new opportunity.
Finally, Google’s approach to its projects is notable because the scope of the project makes it hard for most people to comprehend. Scanning books takes exabytes of storage. Converting images to ASCII, transforming the text (that is, adding structure tags), and then indexing the content takes a staggering amount of computing resources.
Inputs to outputs, an idea that was shaped between 1999 to 2001. © Stephen E. Arnold, 2009
Google has been measured and slow in its approach. The company works with large libraries, provides copies of the scanned material to its partners, and has tried to keep moving forward. Microsoft and Yahoo, database publishers, the Library of Congress, and most libraries have ceded the scanning of books work to Google.
Now Google finds itself having to juggle a large number of balls.
Now let’s go back in time.
I have noticed that most analysts peg Google Books’s project as starting right before the initial public offering in 2004. That’s not what my research has revealed. Google’s interest in scanning the contents of books reaches back to 2000.
In fact, an analysis of Google’s patent documents and technical papers for the period from 1998 to 2003 reveals that the company had explored knowledge bases, content transformation, and mashing up information from a variety of sources. In addition, the company had examined various security methods, including methods to prevent certain material from being easily copied or repurposed.
The idea, which I described in my The Google Legacy (which I wrote in 2003 and 2004 with publication in early 2005) was to gather a range of information, process that information using mathematical methods in order to produce useful outputs like search results for users and generate information about the information. The word given to describe value added indexing is metadata. I prefer the less common but more accurate term meta indexing.
Social Networks, Mobile Operators and Telcos Dust Up Coming
June 21, 2009
Short honk: “Head of Mobile Bebo on Why We Don’t Need Mobile Operators” seemed to be just another complaint about telcos. But after you read the article, do you think another seismic wave may be building in the datasphere? Sean Kane (Head of Mobile from social networking service Bebo) asserted, according to the GoMoNews writer Bena Roberts:
He [Sean Kane] said that apart from messaging, Bebo didn’t need mobile operators. He said that the most important asset an operator had was mobile messaging and the SMSC was vital for bebo. But that was about it. Bebo was already a leader in social networking. It was already a leader in mobile messaging boasting the largest youth exchange of messages already that it was an asset. He said that mobile was great but that the mobile operator were only one obese side of the equation and bebo was like an application that by-passed the operator.
But the killer was Ms. Roberts statement:
Now, everything that Sean said made a lot of sense. Making money is vital and any one that thinks there is something more or else than money out there – is just wrong. On top of that anyone with a business model that depends on operators and is not D2C at this stage – is flawed.
My thought was the economic pressure will spark the type of warfare that made European History so tough for me when I had to take the class. Strange names, continual squabbling, and deep rooted animosity. Is this the future for social networks, mobile operators, and telcos? Finding messages within these services is already tough, and I think search in the mobile space may become even more fractured. Who can ride to the rescue? Maybe Wave?
Stephen Arnold, June 21, 2009
Autonomy Gets Social
June 11, 2009
Autonomy has embraced the social search scene. Two announcements make this clear. The first is that Autonomy has an iPhone application. You can read about the Jobs love here. Second, Autonomy has a Facebook app as well. You can read about that here. Both of these software components are intended to allow adults do real work. The iPhone app permits document management from the Apple device. Facebook users can tap into such functions as a visual report about what’s hot in the organization’s Intranet. More information about the newly social Autonomy may be found on the Cambridge UK company’s Web site.
Stephen Arnold, June 11, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
