Internet Fact Round Up
August 1, 2009
News.com in Australia cranked out a useful Internet fact round up. The story “How Big Is the Internet?” includes some useful factoids. For example, the story cites Google’s estimate that it has indexed “more than one trillion Web addresses” is supported with Microsoft’s statement that the Web have “over one trillion” Web pages. For me the key point is that Google has indexed content and Microsoft has talked about content. Let me point out three other factoids that I noted:
- China has more Internet users than the US has people
- Mobile Internet access is growing and fast
- 1.5 billion people worldwide use the Internet.
Visit the original story for more details.
Stephen Arnold, August 1, 2009
Google and Games
July 31, 2009
Editor’s Note: Stephen E. Arnold delivered this talk at the games conference held in Louisville, Kentucky, on July 31, 2009.
Introduction
I want to provide a quick review of Google’s approach to games and gaming. I want to show some screenshots that make clear that simple and more complex games are available with more games becoming available everyday. I then want to describe how Google views the notional topic of games for users of computing devices. I want to conclude by putting my remarks in a timeline that carries the subject of Google and games to the year 2015. The date is not arbitrary because Google works in chunks of three to five years. Google’s approach to games won’t change too much in the next 16 years, but the scope, application, and monetization of games and game technology will. My conclusion may surprise you. By 2015, Google may be one of the leading game platforms with a broad range of products and services that use gaming technology in interesting, revenue-boosting ways.
Google People
Most users of Google’s systems don’t know individual Google engineers by name. The company has nearly 19,000 professionals on staff and about two thirds of them are engineers, computer scientists, mathematicians, or physicists.
Quite a few people today play games. The devices range from the high-end, state-of-the-art platforms like the Microsoft Xbox, the Nintendo Wii, and the Sony PS3 to the grandma friendly games on Yahoo or mobile phones. One store in rural Kentucky where I live sells a $5 keychain with a simple game for bored adults and affluent seven year olds to play when stuck behind a horse in Harrod’s Creek. New platforms bring new people to the “game party”. Add in the influx of mobile device users, and the stage is set for a “game revolution”.
I want to highlight two Google engineers and mention some of their work to give you an idea about how deep game technology has been embedded at Google.
Steve Lawrence, an Australian, is a gamer. In addition to authoring technical articles that have been referenced more than 5,000 times, he is the author of Game sports betting markets, Sandip Debnath, David M. Pennock, C. Lee Giles, Steve Lawrence, ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, 2003, pp. 258-259. Dr. Lawrence is one of Google’s most prolific inventors, and his technical skill has influenced inventions ranging from user interface (US7272601) to personalized network searching (US2008/0215553).
Consider Ross Koningstein. He was a graduate student at Stanford’s Aerospace Robotics Laboratory when he contributed to the development of Chuck Yeager’s Advanced Flight Trainer II and Car & Driver Text Track. Google’s advertising system is based on bids. The methods used are dependent on calculations used in traditional games like horse racing. Mr. Koningstein has been working to bring game-like features and interface elements to Google’s advertising management system. The idea is that a person at an ad agency can use a game-like method to model what certain types of ads and a specified amount of ad money will generate for the advertiser. Dr. Koningstein wants to make modeling ad spends and ad management more of an interactive game experience. You can read more about his approach in Google patent documents US20050228797 , US20050096979, US20060224444, US20060224447, US20050114198, and several others.
You get the idea. Dr. Koningstein is not dabbling; he is inventing systems and methods that have roots deep in the interactive game experience.
Keep in mind that other Googlers have equally deep roots in gaming.
Google Technology
I want to do a quick fly through of Google technology and provide you with some screenshots of applications that are available today.
First, Google is a platform, and it offers a range of software development kits, application programming interfaces, and “sandbox” toys. The idea is that a developer with online basic programming skills can use the Google platform. At the other end of the spectrum, a professional developer or a company focused on game development can create applications that run on the Google platform.
Keep in mind that the platform is a one way street. This means that you can put code into Google but it can be difficult to repurpose that code for another platform. Therefore, the best way to think about using the platform for a game or some other application is to create a game for a platform such as the iPhone and then recycle the graphics and other useful bits for the Google Android platform. You will learn in a few moments that this recycling approach may be the path forward for the next few years.
Second, Google tried to cut a deal with Yahoo for online games in the 2005 to 2006 period. My sources suggested that the tie up did not make sense. Google on the surface has not played a major role in commercial game development. In fact, the model today is influenced by Google’s need to be perceived as an open source company that is not a monopoly. The point is that if you get into the Google development space with a game, you will be operating in a competitive but open environment. At some point in the future, Google could change its approach, but there is little downside for experimenting with the Google platform. New tools such as Google Wave will be forthcoming. Coupled with Chrome (Google’s virtual machine and container system) and Android (a chunk of the Google operating system), Google now offers a usable platform for game development.
Third, the forthcoming Google Wave technology (a component of Google’s dataspace initiative) appears to be a significant new component of the Google service suite. The idea behind Wave is a plastic bag. Put carrots or small parts in the bag, and you can manage them. Wave allows a developer to create a space – a digital freezer bag. Activities can take place within the bag. Wave makes it possible to have the objects in the digital bag interact. The idea is to make it possible to create new types of social interactions with information objects. The most important feature is that states can be saved. It is possible to slice and dice the objects and the interactions by time. If you think about this functionality, new opportunities for games and game like experiences can be built on these multidimensional functions. Let me give one example: lectures, lab experiments, and student interaction. I think certain types of instructional constructs where traditional game like features and time can be combined with social interaction in useful ways.
Keep in mind that Google’s technologies pivot on programming languages that many developers know. These include JavaScript, php, python, and Java, among others. The point is that you can hit the ground running with Google’s sample code and your favorite programming language. At this time, there’s no fee, just a Google registration.
Opportunities
In the time I have remaining, let me look at two different doors that are now opening. Each door is a metaphor for a way to exploit Google as a game platform as well as a platform for building game like applications. In short, I want to suggest that the notion of a game must be viewed in two ways.
Google has completed much of its next-generation computing platform. Consumer applications such as games are now a potential growth area with Android, Chrome, and Wave as enablers.
First, I think it is wise to look at the Google platform as one in which 10 percent of one’s development effort should be invested. The reason is that Android and Wave are immature or not yet built out. Therefore, the idea is to take a simple game idea or an existing game feature and recycle it for Google. Within the next two to five years, additional development resources should be directed at the Google platform. Five or six years out, development for only the Google platform is likely to be possible.
The reason for this is that the game platform and game device market does not change as rapidly as some believe. The high end, dedicated game devices will persist in the market. In the short term, the Apple iPhone is a more viable mobile game platform. However, over time, the shift to mobile computing and cloud computing will change the equation.
In short, learn and recycle. Don’t bet the farm on Google.
Second, I think it is important to recognize that Google moves in small, incremental steps. The company does this in order to avoid alerting competitors to its broader strategy and to minimize antitrust actions. Nevertheless, you should plan on allocating your time based on how the Google market shapes up. This means that delay in learning how to code for Google is a bad idea. Among the technologies to learn are SketchUp (Google’s drawing program), Android (the visible part of the Google operating system), Wave (collaborative spaces), and Google Apps and OneBox APIs. These functions are, at a minimum, the way in which to obtain the Googley expertise you need.
In closing, let me make three observations about Google, games, and the game like applications that will be the norm in computing in the future:
Books Do Not Have Lift
July 30, 2009
Mike Hendrickson posted his mid-2009 State of the Computer post on O’Reilly Radar at http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/07/state-of-the-computer-book-mar-25.html. He’s tracking sales of computer industry books, and sales are going down, down, down in a possible reflection of the economy. On the other hand, if you’re looking for technical information and how-to’s for systems like Windows Vista, Mac Programming, or SharePoint, wouldn’t you start on the Internet? We would. There’s so much good real-time data out there to crunch (if you’re willing to put in a little extra work ). That combined with the exponential growth of the Internet is going to put more nails into traditional media’s coffin. Book readers are mostly oldsters and the younger folks seem to relate to fresher media.
Jessica Bratcher, July 30, 2009
Bing.com Nuked with Extreme Prejudice
July 29, 2009
Taranfx.com posted this inflammatory list at http://www.taranfx.com/blog/?p=1016 back in June: “Why Bing Sucks. Top 5 Reasons.” Pretty harsh words. The post runs through the normal gamut of complaints: speed (“The Bing stuff feels sluggish to me.”), relevancy (“I did a search on Bing for “Bing Blog” Microsoft. What comes up? Lots of less than relevant stuff.”), layout and design (“Bing buries news search off the main page”), and content (“technical search results like “binomial theorem” will never end up in what you were actually looking for.”).
Some of those comments (the news search) have already been resolved through Microsoft updates, and just like anything else online, Bing is a work in progress. As Microsoft’s new search engine, we think Bing is relatively good and actually much better than its forerunners.
Jessica Bratcher, July 29, 2009
Sparse Data Locality Invention from the Google
July 29, 2009
Google has been lighting up my Overflight patent watch in the last couple of days. The USPTO seems to be pushing work out the door this week. Vacation may be luring the intrepid examiners. One Google patent caught my eye. The title is certainly exciting: “Storing a Sparse Table Using Locality Groups”. You can locate the document at the USPTO searching for US patent 7,567,973. The abstract is as clearly written as the lawyers, mathematicians, and physicists at Google can make it:
Each of a plurality of data items is stored in a table data structure. The table structure includes a plurality of columns. Each of the columns is associated with one of a plurality of locality groups. Each locality group is stored as one or more corresponding locality group files that include the data items in the columns associated with the respective locality group. In some embodiments, the columns of the table data structure may be grouped into groups of columns and each group of columns is associated with one of a plurality of locality groups. Each locality group is stored as one or more corresponding locality group files that include the data items in the group of columns associated with the respective locality group.
The addled goose interprets this invention, filed in August 2005, as an important component of the BigTable technology. A blue-collar version of some of this data management wizardry is available as Hadoop. The good stuff, however, has not yet made it into the wild and wonderful world of open source.
The schematic for Logical Table Data Structure
Why is this an important invention?
In my opinion, this technology performs three modest tricks. Think of trained dogs at an animal circus who can perform a small number of tricks very, very quickly with little or no intervention by the ring master.
First, the invention tackles the problem of storing large amounts of data in distributed computer systems. To make this approach even feasible, an “efficient manner” is needed to represent the data. The “locality group” is one of the key notions that the USPTO has blessed.
Second, the invention has to handle Google’s multi dimensional data. For Google to perform clever tricks with time, the company has to have a way to handle x, y, and z axes. The invention explains some of engineering for this important twist.
Finally, squishing the data tables to minimize storage, transfer, look up and other size-sensitive functions, the inventors have a method for compressing locality groups and metadata for each group.
If you want to get a look at Google circa 2005, the document is a useful one.
The question is, “What’s up for 2010?”
Stephen Arnold, July 29, 2009
Google Health
July 28, 2009
My column for KMWorld this month talked about the UK’s waltz with Google and Microsoft for citizen medical information. I pointed out that Google was the best looking system at the ball but Microsoft was a close second. The Guardian has tackled this topic as well. An editorial “Medical Privacy: Dr Google Will See You Now” takes a whack at the Google. For me the most interesting passage was:
But for individuals to be empowered, they must first be protected. Data is only guarded by the promises of the organisations that hold it. Users can protest if the terms of their contracts are changed, but there are no central rules around no central control. For some, that is the attraction. But do not mistake this for a right to privacy.
The Guardian’s anonymous editorial writer poked a finger in the privacy pie. My thought was that the Guardian should have pointed out that the British government tried to create a health information system but could not make it work. Google and Microsoft have systems that work. Privacy is a nice issue, but that issue can be addressed. Making the shift to digital information is likely to have other benefits such as saving a life or two. A system that does not work costs money, risks lives, and makes clear that commercial ventures may be better equipped to develop complex systems. I understand that it is fun to pick on Googzilla. But jesting aside, the UK government tried to create a system and created a giant cost sinkhole. I think that failure is reason enough to give the Google and Microsoft a chance.
Stephen Arnold, July 28, 2009
Bargain Basement Usability and SEO
July 27, 2009
I get asked about SEO and usability almost every day. Let’s get this fact out one more time: I like the dot command line interface and I think search engine optimization is a load of lignite coal.
But if you want to “fix up” your flawed Web site and maybe improve your Google ranking, then you will want to work through Web Designer’s Depot article “10 Tools to Improve Your Site’s Usability”. I located this article using the deeply flawed Digglicioius.com service. This outfit makes it impossible for me to get the source page’s url without extra effort. I posted a nasty gram to the Web site, but no action. No surprise there because Web site owners are trying to stay in business, avoiding the fate of TechFuga.com and SearchMe.com.
Among the more interesting tips in the article were these two points:
- Get free feedback about a Web site from Feedback Army
- Use the utility ClickTale to “see” what users really do when visiting your site.
My recommendation is keep the site simple and create original, compelling content. Last time I checked indexing robots don’t pay much attention to arts and crafts, delusions from those with MFA degrees, or color.
Stephen Arnold, July 27, 2009
Media Moguls Want Money the Old Way. We Pay Them
July 26, 2009
I found the Bloomberg story “Diller Calls Free Web Content a ‘Myth, Joins Refrain” useful for my snippet file. I am doing a talk for the Magazine Publishers Association, and I want some current quotes to make clear the hopes and beliefs of media moguls. Mr. Diller knows how to make money. His judgment is not quite so good when it comes to Web search. He is the proud owner of Ask.com, the search engine of NASCAR. This is a sport that is struggling just like most Web search companies. At least eHarmony.com did not make the match up.
The Bloomberg story runs down some examples of media executives’ plans for getting those who connect to the Internet to pay for content. You can work through the examples yourself and decide which approach is right for you.
My thought after reading the story was that the information on my Web site and in this marketing blog is free. I run some Google ads, but the revenue doesn’t pay for Tess’s heartworm medicine. I don’t charge for the information available from ArnoldIT.com. I even have a couple of monographs available for free if you click around and do some hunting.
So categorical assertions aside, this Web log costs a reader nothing. I don’t market the Web log. I don’t care if people are annoyed at the comments the addled goose makes.
I think the point is that as long as there are individuals who have time and some ideas to share, there will be free content on the Internet. In fact, for a person wanting to keep track of the topics covered in Beyond Search, some of the for fee information comes in a distant second to what I provide.
The difference, of course, is that I have a reasonably zippy business model compared to traditional information companies. I don’t have to huff and puff. I don’t have to deny that the older models are not as flexible as they once were. I don’t have shareholders to reassure.
For that reason, there will be information available to anyone with an information connection as long as this addled goose can paddle and a handful of fellow geese flock to the information opportunities of the Internet. Quack.
Stephen Arnold, July 26, 2009
Lucene / Solr to Bite the Big Search Dogs
July 26, 2009
Matt Asay’s “Open Source Lucene Threatens Microsoft, Google Enterprise Search” is a thought-provoker. The hook for the story is a chart from Indeed.com that shows hiring for Lucene, Solr, and Hadoop experts is on the rise. Matt Assay reported that he spoke with Lucid Imagination’s chief technical officer. Lucid Imagination is a hybrid company. The core is open source, and in my opinion, the firm will “wrap” proprietary services and possible products around the open source core.
The question is, “Is open source a threat to Microsoft and Google?” Several observations:
- Google plays the open source card. One might suggest that if open source wins, then Google will benefit. Google, after all, is plumbing, not just search. The fact that search is part of Google’s plumbing has some interesting implications. I, therefore, don’t buy the open source threat to Google.
- Microsoft is another kettle of fish. Microsoft faces a challenge from itself, Google, and open source. If the Microsoft Fast Enterprise Search Platform flops, Microsoft will bundle it with SharePoint and give it away as a utility. Microsoft-centric shops and those who see a steady paycheck as a SharePoint engineer will jump at this offer.
Where does open source search fit? I think there will be interest from organizations suffering cash crunches. The notion of no license fees and cafeteria style, open consulting is appealing. Start ups will find open source attractive as well. Some government agencies will follow the Obama administration’s suggestion that open source is good.
But—and this is a big “but”—open source firms must demonstrate that they can market, sell, deliver, and generate revenue from engineering and consulting services. The future to me looks like small open source search outfits that will be gobbled up by giants looking to control their ecosystem. Lemur Consulting is one acquisition opportunity. The lesser known Tesuji is another. Oracle pulled this trick with the Sun Microsystems buy out. Whither MySQL? Maybe no where. IBM is an open source champion. The company can sell services and tons of quasi-proprietary software, hardware, and partner services.
In short, open source is important. There are some twists not covered in Matt Asay’s write up, which strikes me as an article that could benefit from more analysis of the Google, Microsoft threat assertion. I don’t buy it.
Stephen Arnold, July 26, 2009
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
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
