Smartphones and Search
January 13, 2009
Verizon tapped Microsoft for mobile search. No surprise. Bell head companies have a difficult time understanding that Google has become for the 21st century what AT&T was for the 20th century. The change has taken place over the last 10 years. With Google’s increase in reach and brand, the telcos have drifted in the other direction. Google’s time to fail awaits the company. Based on my research, the GOOG has some salad days, months, and years ahead of it. The force that through the green fuse is a powerful concoction of its technology, business models, and customer base. Mobile devices are the future for certain types of computing functions. The mobile search sector may become a more important battleground than the telcos are willing to admit. Verizon, for example, finds the Microsoft solution ideal for its needs. For the moment let’s look at the data in “Smartphone to Be Primary Worldwide Internet Device by 2020, Experts Predict” here in Telecommunications Industry News.
The point for me in the write up was:
77% of respondents predicted that “the mobile device will be the primary connection tool to the Internet for most people in the world in 2020,” while 64% expected more advanced touchscreen and voice-activated controls in the smartphones of the future.
Let’s assume that this is true. What happens if Google becomes the dominant mobile search system service? Here are three ideas that crossed my mind as I walked the dogs across the park’s verge this rainy morning:
- Verizon may be the odd telco out which can cost it mobile customers. Forced to cut a deal with Google, Google may charge a premium, further burdening the Verizon balance sheet
- Competitors trying to catch Google in Web search must open another front. A two front war with Google may exhaust the competitors’ reserves. Failure in the Web is one thing. That market is maturing. The mobile market is where the action will be, so winning is essential. A loss to Google would strengthen an already strong Googzilla.
- Countries may be forced to prohibit or limit access to Google. If this occurs, Google gets status as a country. Not much chance for underfunded start ups to make much headway without government nurturing and protection.
Let’s assume Google goes out of business. Those Xooglers will just try to build another Google. That might be a positive development.
Stephen Arnold, January 13, 2009
British Library Dubunks Myth of a Google Generation
January 11, 2009
Libraries are fighting for money and a role in the digital world. The plight of white shoe publishers is well known. Newspapers, once the life blood of information, are now stuffed with soft news or, what’s worse, old information. The shift from desktop boat anchor computers to sleek hand held devices is moving forward. Flag ship PC vendors like Dell Computers is in a fight for Wall Street respectability. The television and motion picture pasha believe that the fate of the traditional music publishing business is not theirs.
On January 16, 2008 (the date and the information come from this source), the British Library press room issued or issues or will issue “Pioneering Research Shows Google Generation Is a Myth.” The news release summarizes the study Information Behaviour of the Research of the Future. Here’s the link I located but it did not work without some clicking around. The report strikes me as something developed in an alternate universe where the Googleplex and its information system are small potatoes indeed.
He does not exist, but this member of the Google generation made it to the cover of the British Library debunking the myth study. In the future, this lad will be retrieving information from a mobile device, no PC or library required thinks this addled goose.
The study was, according to the press release,
Commissioned by the British Library and JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee), the study calls for libraries to respond urgently to the changing needs of researchers and other users. Going virtual is critical and learning what researchers want and need crucial if libraries are not to become obsolete, it warns. “Libraries in general are not keeping up with the demands of students and researchers for services that are integrated and consistent with their wider Internet experience”, says Dr Ian Rowlands, the lead author of the report.
Now this paragraph seems to suggest that “something” has happened and that libraries must “respond urgently to the changing needs of researchers and other users.” My hunch is that libraries are not surfing on the Google but paddling along trying to keep Googzilla’s spikey back in view.
Most of these curves head south, right? © British Library 2009 and presumably in the universe which I inhabit.
The news release also suggests libraries must turn to “Page 2.0”, which I presume is another silly reference to the made up world of Search 2.0, Enterprise 2.0, and Web 2.0. The news release from the future ends with the mysterious phrase “The panel:”.
Keep in mind that I am writing this notice on January 11, 2009, at 9 30 am Eastern time. The news release is from the future. It has a date of January 16, 2009. One would think that the British Library, operating outside the normal space time continuum could do more than tell me that the myth of the Google generation does not exist. Clever headline aside, libraries must define a role for themselves before funding dwindles even more. University libraries might be grandfathered into the institutional budget. Other types? Might be a tough sale.
In my opinion, what does not exist among some in the library profession is a firm grip on the hear and now. I am 65, and I think the Google generation exists. I wish it were not so, but it exists and the world one hopes will be better for the generation’s presence. Libraries seem to exist in a medieval world. Even Shakespeare is in step with the shift from paper to digital information. Consider Hamlet’s statement from one of the versions of the play crafted from Shakespeare’s foul papers:
Let us go in together,
And still your fingers on your lips, I pray.
The time is out of joint—O cursèd spite,
That ever I was born to set it right!
Nay, come, let’s go together.
No myth this, sprites.
Stephen Arnold, January 11, 2009
Verizon Microsoft Love Fest
January 9, 2009
Update: January 9, 2009, 2 49 Eastern: A reader alerted me to this Business Week article about the Verizon Microsoft search deal. According to Rob Hoff here, Microsoft’s consideration to Verizon is in the $650 million range. I don’t agree with Mr. Hof about the importance of this win for Microsoft or its impact on Google. I don’t think the GOOG is going to be affected by this tie up. But the dollar amount is an indication of what Microsoft perceives the cost of thwarting Google is.
Original Post
I spoke with a couple of real live professional journalists today. I was answering my phone. I assume that other people were busy wheeling and dealing as I floated aimlessly in my coal drainage pit in rural Kentucky. The topic of the day was Verizon’s selecting Microsoft as the vendor to fuel Verizon mobile search. My view of this announcement was, based on the annoyed silences the professional journalists offered me, is different from the received wisdom. If you want to know what “everyone” is thinking about this deal, check out the CNBC story here. This General Electric organ is not going to get too frisky in my opinion. The story by Ritsuko Ano and Sinead Carew (assisted by Franklin Paul and Tiffany Wu with editing by Derek Caney and Matthew Lewis) “Verizon Picks Microsoft Search Over, Google, Yahoo” explains that the two corporate giants have a “long term deal.” The CNBC reporters included this insight from a pundit: “It’s certainly a feather in Microsoft’s cap.” I like that, “feather”. Amazing what a team of six professionals can do.
Okay, here’s my take. Verizon is on one side of the fence, confident its billions and brand can overcome any obstacle, even Google. Yahoo does not matter. On the other side of the fence is Google and the cadre of Open Handset Alliance folks, two thirds of the Internet Web search traffic, and about 19,000 allegedly arrogant non-Bell heads. Verizon skipped over the Kindle for mobile books, even though the other players are not doing particularly well. So Verizon picked Microsoft which in my opinion is not doing too well in the mobile department. Verizon’s less concerned with what may be the consumers’ choice and more concerned about Verizon’s choice.
Oh, and there’s the matter of “consideration”. I have zero knowledge of this particular Verizon deal. However, I opine that Microsoft paid for a chance to dine with the Verizon wireless executives. There will be some bells and whistles on the consideration, but that is standard operating procedure.
Alleged picture of the Verizon Wireless headquarters. Source: http://www.naiop.org/developmentmag/images/200203/doy-01.jpg
Will this deal make a difference?
The answer is, “It depends.” For Google, this deal means little or nothing in terms of user behavior. As it stands, users decide what service to use. Unless Verizon locks the user to a specific search system, users will select a search system. If the lock down is a burden, the Verizon mobile customer will switch. Telcos like Verizon deal with churn every day of the week. Losing and acquiring customers is the business. Excellence is not measured by relevancy scores or user satisfaction.
For Verizon, I don’t think the standardization on Microsoft means much either. There will be the usual promotions that are designed to keep or acquire customers. But a deal with Microsoft is one tiny component of the mobile decision. The package is important. The price is important. A single feature is important only when it contributes financially. Verizon will know whether the Microsoft deal makes sense in a year. Not before.
For the Verizon mobile user, the deal means zero. I am a Verizon high speed wireless customer. I noted today that the service was able to display four Web sites in 30 minutes. In short, I was not a happy camper. The core service did not work the way I expected or the way it was described in the Verizon promotional literature. Will I switch? Sure. But wireless high speed access in the US is pretty crappy. I got better connections at Norway’s sliver of the arctic than I did at lunch today. Microsoft search won’t make any difference to a user. In fact, at lunch a person wanted to know how to get from the rat hole diner in Harrod’s Creek to the big city of Louisville. We showed her directions on the iPhone using Google Maps. I think she will become a Google Maps user, regardless of her wireless service. The clarity of the map and the nifty look did the selling for the AT&T iPhone service with Google Maps as the data source.
Bottom line, step back. The big picture is that Verizon is a phone company. It has the DNA of Bell heads. Microsoft is an on premises software company. You figure out how well that will work for a user looking for information on a Verizon wireless device.
Stephen Arnold, January 9, 2008
Google Video Creeps Forward
January 7, 2009
Telecompaper.com reported on January 7, 2008, here that “T-Mobile Launches YouTube Channel for G1.” Google has a Google Channel on YouTube.com. How many more channels will be available for special niches? The GOOG, unlike the traditional TV crowd, generates metatags for its videos. Creating a channel is a software process, not one requiring humans sitting in dark control rooms twirling dials. Michael Hirschorn’s “End Times” here notwithstanding, the GOOG’s potential energy in another bastion of traditional energy will increase in force. Like an earthquake, a jump from a 2.0 to a 3.0 is not a linear force. Clever writing won’t do much to change the face of traditional media when Googzilla does its waltz to the Strauss tune Schatz-Walzer. There’s gold in those honking hot videos pumped to any device that can tap into the Google umbilical.
Stephen Arnold, January 7, 2008
Mobile Search
January 4, 2009
One of the ZDnet Web logs presents snippets of data. I read “Top US Web Sites Accessed over Mobile Phones in October 2008” here. I then went back to the chart and looked at the data more carefully. What did I overlook in my first scan? The combined traffic of Google Search, Gmail, and Google Maps was twice that of the number one most used mobile site–Yahoo. So what? In my addled goose brain, the dominance of Google in mobile is moving toward the same “game over” type of market share Google has in Web search. Who is going to knock off the GOOG. Yahoo? I am not sure what Yahoo will be doing. Microsoft? Again, I am in the dark. I have given up trying to figure out who is in charge of search. The revolving door spins too quickly for me. AOL? Snort, snort. Weather, sports, news? Nope, the GOOG has nifty technology to make its traditional offerings more interesting by creating its own information. Maybe I am reading this Nielsen data incorrectly? If I am, let me know.
Stephen Arnold, January 4, 2009
The Polymorphic Android
January 3, 2009
PC World reported here that Matthaus Krzykowski and Daniel Hartmann of Mobile-facts.com have used Chrome and other bits and pieces of Google to build a desktop operating system. The article by Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols reports that the two wizards (who appear to be cartoon characters) created an operating system in a very short time. for me, the most important comment in the article was:
Google, not just some technically adept users, is already thinking about using Android as a desktop operating system. Krzykowski and Hartmann don’t see Google making its desktop move very quickly though. They believe that Android-powered netbooks, thanks to Android’s already existing hardware partners in the Open Handset Alliance, could arrive as early as spring this year.
Check out the article. One observation: the Google telephony play including Android, Chrome, and the Google phone is old news. Google’s data management play which few are giving much credence is even more profound than Google’s various telco activities. To his credit, Mr. Vaughan-Nichols acknowledges that the GOOG has been operating in misdirection mode. Good point. The misdirection mode has been in play for a decade, however. Now some folks are noticing. Problem is. Might be too late.
Stephen Arnold, January 3, 2008
Google Is a Telco–Maybe
January 2, 2009
This posting is for the dozens of US telecommunications executives who told me that Google was not adept in telephony, would never be a telephone company, and lacked the experience to deal with a specialized, sophisticated business sector. Yeah, right. I won’t mention the spectrum play, Android, or the Google phone. Nope. The big news appears in Telecom-paper.com here. You have to pay to read the short article. I won’t quote from it because I don’t need a legal eagle flapping in my face. I have not been able to confirm this story from the Netherlands. Hopefully, the item will be picked up by other Web logs and maybe a newspaper, if someone on the staff takes time off from polishing résumés, selling advertising, or building Web input forms for reader submitted articles. The headline tells the tale: “Google Authorized to Offer Voice Services in Spain.”
Stephen Arnold, January 3, 2009
Google and the Telcos: The Saga Continues
December 24, 2008
Earlier this year, Mercer Island Group and I held a series of briefings for telco executives. We reviewed Google’s considerable body of technology related to telephony. In those briefings, we encountered push back. Telcos did not understand what Google had been doing for seven or eight years. Furthermore, the telcos viewed the world of Google as one confined to looking up innocuous information on a free Web search with mostly meaningless advertisements sprinkled on the edges of the results. The Wall Street Journal reported that the GOOG allegedly communicated with some telcos to get a deal for high speed access for certain types of services. The story ran and Googzilla showed its fangs. But the story did not die. Now you can read more by Adam Lashinsky, editor at large, for Fortune Magazine, a dead tree output of the giant Time Warner. The digital version of the story “Google Wants Something for Nothing” here. I don’t subscribe to paper magazines anymore, so I can’t say if this CNN version is the whole enchilada or just the crumbs. The article runs down the Wall Street Journal’s story and takes more of a Google is doing something approach. For me the most interesting comment was:
The bottom line here isn’t the fine points of public policy. The main thing is attitude. The Web culture thinks things should be free. Internet access is a commodity. Music videos are for the taking.
You may want to read the story to get some insight into the perils of writing about Google and then rationalizing the differences between the “Web culture” and the dead tree crowd. My thought is that neither the telcos nor outfits like New York magazine publishers have a solid understanding of the scope of Google’s services and their implications for companies with business models that no longer work very well. I want to see what the New Year brings.
Stephen Arnold, December 24, 2008
Google Can Do Big, Just Not Small
December 22, 2008
eWeek’s Google Watch ran “Google, T-Mobile and the Android G2 Conspiracy” here. I pay some attention to Google’s mobile phone activities because mobile devices make entrances and exits in Google’s patent documents. The mobile search world is getting bigger, and I want to know how the GOOG will make search more automatic for old geese like me. I read the article by Clint Boulton, and I found it interesting. Mr. Boulton’s focus is the forthcoming–or alleged début–of another Google phone. The new one is cleverly named the G2. Mr. Boulton is skeptical about the G2, and I agree with him. However, his write up has sparked some comments from other Google pundits, and I found the “Santa Brought Googlers Unlocked G-1 Phones” interesting because carriers want lock in. You can read this item here. From my point of view, there is nothing very surprising to me with Google’s pushing button A and then pushing button B. Google finds useful information in reactions to distributed, loosely connected events. Google sees the big picture. Folks like T-Mobile and Google pundits have to put the pieces together. What’s Google doing with unlocked G1s and alleged G2s? The answer in my opinion is, “Learning.” Handsets are not what Google does well. Handsets are small and more like doorways to what Google does really well: big, cloud based services. Next Android will get tweaked. Then we will see some more API action. What’s next? More Google Lego blocks for competitors, journalists, and azure chip consultants to try and assemble.
Stephen Arnold, December 22, 2008
Google Selling Its G1 Phone Directly
December 7, 2008
Michael Oryl’s “Google Selling Unlocked T-Mobile G1 as Android Dev 1” here reports that developers can buy an unlocked G1 for $400. You have to pay $25 to become a Google developer. Once that bit of housekeeping is out of the way, you can get the Android Dev 1, which is like the T-Mobile G1, except for two features:
- No SIM is included
- No bootloader lock.
Should you by one? If you want to develop an application for the phone, sure. Do you want to buy one to use on a long commute? Nope. The battery life is not sufficient for a two-hour session of yapping and surfing.
Start the buying process here.
Stephen Arnold, December 7, 2008
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
