Bing and Fail Over
July 4, 2009
Short honk: I had high hopes for Bing.com and its next generation, high availability data centers. The addled goose is inspecting goose ponds 4,000 miles from Harrods Creek and was not able to access Bing.com’s travel vertical. The goose thought he was at fault. I then read “Seattle Data Center Fire Knocks out Bing Travel, Other Web Sites” and learned that others were at fault. Whew. New acronym need: MGOL or Microsoft Goes Off Line.
Stephen Arnold, July 4, 2009
Hadoop Caught in Loops
July 4, 2009
Dana Blankenhorn’s “Who Will Control Hadoop?” here raised an important question. The focus was close, but I considered his question in a broader context. Mr. Blankenthorn asked:
Do too many Hadoops spoil the code?
In a narrow sense, my view is let many flowers bloom. When the world was less fluid, flakey, and financially challenged, many efforts seemed like a good idea. Now, I am not so sure. Mr. Blankenthorn said:
But some reporters are beginning to ask who is really in charge of Hadoop. Is it Apache or Yahoo? Was Yahoo’s distribution a diss of Facebook, which previously developed its own Hadoop SQL, called Hive? Most projects have a community and a commercial arm. Hadoop’s importance has drawn a number of corporate sponsors to separately deliver their implementations. Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, and Facebook all have their own takes on Hadoop, alongside Apache and Cloudera. All these various Hadoops can be seen as a positive or a negative. As a positive, there is growth and momentum for the framework. As a negative, there are many organizations pulling Hadoop in different directions.
In a broad context, the value of open source software is that many hands working to create something that is not proprietary, not unstable, and not subject to the whims of a corporate titan is a foundation stone. On the other hand, fragmentation of an important technology makes some folks wary of open source.
The way online works is to reward one company with a virtual monopoly. This is a natural consequence of costs and user behavior. The problem is that when one outfit is in control, that organization follows the well worn path of profit and benefit maximization. That can’t be helped either.
In short, I think the same type of financial meltdown that has trashed some individuals’ plans for the future is likely to take place again. Tricky stuff, indeed.
Stephen Arnold, July 4, 2009
Performance Fireworks: Microsoft Fast Fizzles, Google Explodes
July 4, 2009
I was sitting in an airport, and I clicked on a link for Microsoft Fast ESP. A video ran and presented me with a couple of professional fellows talking about Microsoft Fast search. The video was interesting, but I went back and snagged one screen frame from the presentation because it struck me as a way to explain the distance between the performance of Microsoft Fast and the performance of Google’s system. Now performance data for search systems is a murky area. I don’t want to get into a squabble about something being five times faster. The difference here makes a point, and I will leave it to Googlers and Microsofties to post corrected performance data in the Comments section of this Web log, assuming those companies’ professionals have time to read the thoughts of the addled goose.
First, the Microsoft data. Here’s the screenshot, and I want you to notice that the performance that is presented is five to 20 queries per second. That is pretty modest for a performance threshold even for a Microsoft team in Charlotte, North Carolina, where I have heard the pace of life is on par with Harrod’s Creek.
Source: http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=kTbcCNby8xE
I ask you to click here to look at the performance data I calculated for Google. The key point is that if the Google data are reasonably accurate, the Google is cranking along about about 1,700 queries per second. Even Yahoo appears to perform better than Microsoft Fast. See my write up here.
That’s a big gap. Assume the Google data are off by a factor of four. The Google is handling 400 queries per second. If we boost the Microsoft Fast performance by a factor of four to 20 queries per second to 80 queries per second, the Google appears to be the speed demon.
If you want performance fireworks, my thought is that the Google is the fire cracker if the data are correct.
Stephen Arnold, July 4, 2009
Independence Day and the Internet as a Basic Human Right
July 4, 2009
I read a couple of weeks ago a short item in the Hindu here. The article’s title gave me pause: “Internet Access Is a Fundamental Human Right”. The story asserted:
The Internet has become such a part of today’s life, that it is now considered a necessity rather than a luxury. And, now a French court has ruled that access to the world wide web is a fundamental human right. “Under the Declaration of 1789 (founding principles of the Republic set down after the French Revolution), every man is presumed innocent until proven guilty. “The Internet is a fundamental human right that cannot be taken away by anything other than a court of law, only when guilt has been established there,” the Constitutional Council in France has ruled.
Several comments:
- How will this right be fulfilled in such places as Soweto and similar infrastructure starved regions?
- Has the Internet become synonymous with communication, leaving its technology roots behind as unnecessary baggage?
- Will the leaders of countries eager to have hardware limit access to knowledge separate the “right of access” from the accuracy, completeness, and quality of the information available?
The addled goose struggles with politics and law. Hopefully the French will provide some exemplary implementations. I can think of a couple of areas in Marseille where a demo would be useful.
Stephen Arnold, July 4, 2009
Ask, Search Marketing, and NASCAR – A Winner as NASCAR Attendance Drops
July 3, 2009
Michael Smith’s “Ask’s Next Question” provides a useful case study of search engine marketing. The story appeared in Sports Business Journal and reviews the Ask.com decision to put its marketing money into NASCAR, a rough around the edges version of the more sophisticated F1 series.
Beer, baseball caps, and barbeque characterize NASCAR, and Ask.com’s decision to build its Web search market share by sponsoring NASCAR was interesting. The approach was not original. The first search vendor to take this approach was Northern Light. That company sponsored a less blue collar race—the Indianapolis 500.
Mr. Smith wrote:
Examining the early returns, and despite the late start and a short 65-day window to conceive an activation program that launched at Daytona in February, the decision to leap into NASCAR seems to have paid off for Ask. Nielsen Online data shows that Ask’s market share has grown from 1.9 percent to 2.2 percent from January to June, although Ask remains fifth in the category behind ever-dominant Google, Yahoo!, MSN and AOL. Another Internet measurement company, comScore, has Ask fourth in the category.
That’s good news on the surface. The reality is that Google controls more than 65 percent of the search market, maybe as much as 75 percent. So, the question is, “How much did Ask.com spend for that 0.3 percent gain?” Another question I have is, “What other marketing opportunities have been lost because of the focus on the beer, baseball caps, and barbeque crowd?” I suppose that’s an unfair question, but it sure is fun to write “beer, baseball caps, and barbeque”.
These folks look like Web surfers to me. © Ask.com. Source: http://sp.ask.com/sh/i/a11/nascar/gallery/Talladega/800/ask_9_800.jpg
Mr. Smith added:
There’s also something about the fast-paced culture of a tech company that contributed to the rapid planning. In Ask’s office, results are measured daily. It’s in the company’s DNA to read and react quickly.
I think I would have said “bet the farm”, not “react quickly”. Ask.com strikes me as a company that has been struggling to find a niche. Lacking the marketing horsepower of Microsoft, the company has tried to find a short cut. No matter how enthusiastic the information in Mr. Smith’s write up, the pay off of 0.3 in share underscores the tough problem older search systems and newcomers alike face. I wonder if WolframAlpha.com will sponsor the English First Division Stoke City Football Club?
Stephen Arnold, July 3, 2009
Vivisimo Lands HCPro Deal
July 3, 2009
Vivisimo has a new client. HCPro, a health care regulation and revenue cycle management company, will use the Velocity platform, to power MedicareFind.com. That Web site offers definable search of a comprehensive database of Medicare rules, regulations, and CMS documents governing reimbursement–a critical tool for many companies in the health care business. According to a press release here, “Velocity’s ease of implementation, flexible user interface and social search features were key business drivers in selecting Vivisimo to power MedicareFind.com.” MedicareFind.com is a part of HCPro Inc., a portfolio company of Halyard Investments. Halyard is a private equity firm with more than $600 million of capital under management focused on investing in media, communications, and business services companies. If this is the type of company Vivismo is getting contracts with, they may be an even bigger player in search very soon.
Jessica Bratcher, July 3, 2009
Sci Tech Publishers: Doom Looms for the Tech Challenged
July 3, 2009
Quite interesting essay by Michael Nielsen: “Is Scientific Publishing about to Be Disrupted?” The answer is soon. I don’t agree. Sci tech publishing is in the midst of a crisis. If you want to know about Mr. Nielsen’s good news interpretation of the coming disruption, dive in.
Mr. Nielsen, in case you haven’t been keeping up with quantum computation, is a real life wizard. He is one of the pioneers of quantum computation. Together with Ike Chuang of MIT, he wrote the standard text on quantum computation. This is the most highly cited physics publication of the last 25 years, and one of the ten most highly cited physics books of all time (Source: Google Scholar, December 2007). He is the author of more than fifty scientific papers, including invited contributions to Nature and Scientific American. His research contributions include involvement in one of the first quantum teleportation experiments (related), named as one of Science Magazine’s Top Ten Breakthroughs of the Year for 1998, quantum gate teleportation, quantum process tomography, the fundamental majorization theorem for comparing entangled quantum states, and critical contributions to the formula for the quantum channel capacity.
He explains that publishers are victims of a local optimum; that is, publishers know where they should take their companies. Publishers just can’t bridge the gap. He provides a useful discussion of the knocks traditional media deliver to the digital door to online information.
But the guts of the write up are gathered in his discussion of non traditional publishing of scientific and technical information. The links are useful and the examples are compelling. Let me mention one; the others you can glean directly from his write up. He wrote:
Or consider startups like SciVee (YouTube for scientists), the Public Library of Science, the Journal of Visualized Experiments, vibrant community sites like OpenWetWare and the Alzheimer Research Forum, and dozens more. And then there are companies like Wordpress, Friendfeed, and Wikimedia, that weren’t started with science in mind, but which are increasingly helping scientists communicate their research. This flourishing ecosystem is not too dissimilar from the sudden flourishing of online news services we saw over the period 2000 to 2005.
He concludes his essay with some examples of new opportunities. His recipe for success is that publishers must understand technology in the way Steve Jobs and Messrs Brin and Page do. That’s where he and I part company. A technologist like Mr. Nielsen assumes that a motivated manager can identify, recruit, and manage a world class technologist or somehow edge closer to this capability.
Won’t happen. Technologists like Mr. Nielsen come from a different dimension; sci tech publishers adopt a very different technology world. Nevertheless, the essay is interesting and worth reading.
Stephen Arnold, July 3, 2009
OECD Data Diving
July 3, 2009
Short honk: Want to explore OECD country data. First, read the BBC story “Exploring the OECD Web Site” then navigate to OECD Explorer. Ideal for those who want short cuts to data analysis.
Stephen Arnold, July 3, 2009
UFC 2010: HTML 5, Air, and Silverlight
July 3, 2009
Mary Jo Foley opened my eyes to a new unlimited online fighting battle in 2010. Her story with a lamentably cryptic headline appeared on June 11, 2009 as “Microsoft .Net RIA Services: Not until 2010.” You can find the article here. He story revealed that Microsoft will try to push its Rich Internet Application technology into the market in 2010. She wrote:
.Net RIA Services is designed to allow coders to bring together the .Net programming model with Microsoft’s Silverlight competitor to Adobe Flash. Microsoft made a Community Technology Preview (CTP) of the technology available in March, but didn’t provide any final availability information.
The RIA acronym means stuff like Adobe Flash and Google’s HTML 5 methods. The idea is that a computing device with an Internet connection can look and feel like a traditional application, a DVD player, or an immersive game. The end of shrink-wrap software and the money machine that made Microsoft and Adobe the big dogs each is today is likely to whine and stumble to a limp along, not a footrace.
I want to capture my thoughts about the dust up:
- I think Adobe is the weakest of the three combatants in the UFC 2010 digital slugfest. Adobe’s pushing the envelope with its license fees now. The sudden spate of security problems coupled with the balky nature of some Adobe Air implementations means that whatever cash Adobe has will not be enough to cope with the GOOG and the Softies.
- The Google team has a quasi-open source angle. The Microsoft team wants everyone to get with the Windows agenda, memorize it, and live it. This is a toss up because Google has been stumbling of late with regard to security, government regulations, and that old annoyance copyright. Microsoft is Microsoft, so it is a force no matter how wacky the Silverlight code may be.
- The financial climate, despite the sunny news from TV commentators, looks bleak to me. As a result, each of these UFC 2010 fighters will be ready to rumble. I think fingers in the eyes, low blows, and blows to the back of the neck will be entertaining tactics to watch.
In short, Ms. Foley reminded me to make time in 2010 for this traveling road show.
Stephen Arnold, July 3, 2009
Google Books: Legal Eagles Carry On… Er, Carrion
July 2, 2009
It is official. an investigation of Google Books is stumbling forward. You can get “D” word on this by reading DOJ Confirms Antitrust Investigation Into Google Book Settlement. Will this be Google’s Salamis? Exciting times for the Google, those who are parties to the signed contract, those who are excluded, those who are fearful, and those who don’t see what the Google has been doing for more than a decade. As I said in my study The Google Legacy, “Lawyers can kill the GOOG.” Was I prescient? Just plain wrong? We’ll know in three or four years I suppose.
Stephen Arnold, July 2, 2009
