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
Twitter and Business
July 25, 2009
Short honk: “Twitter Offers Clues to the Puzzled” in Silicon Valley Blog provided an interesting tidbit to the goose’s bill. The comment that caught my attention was:
We need to do a better job of explaining ourselves to people who hear about us and then have no idea what do to.” Part of that effort is Twitter 101, a guide aimed at the business users the company may try to monetize some day.
Another monetization prognostication. In today’s economy, make money and take money. Promising revenues is easy. Generating revenues is tough. I just learned that SearchMe is a gone goose. A niche publisher has told staff that it is a four day week, folks. Twitter needs to crank the dough meter in my opinion. Businesses may not be the place to look for cash. Too much work to make the system pay off unless the businesses like the newly unemployed or the riffed folks in New Jersey have extra time on their hands.
Stephen Arnold, July 25, 2009
Analyzing the Web Consulting Game
July 25, 2009
Darned interesting article “Joel Spolsky: The Day My Industry Died” in Inc Magazine, a publication I have not looked at for years. I don’t read many magazines now so this is not a criticism of Inc. I am commenting on my changed information acquisition habits. I do not know Joel Spolsky. He mentions that he is a programmer. The write up explains that Web consulting is a tough way to earn a living. For me one of the most interesting comments was:
My theory was that if I could start a company and be only partially incompetent instead of entirely incompetent, I would be ahead of the game.
Yep, consulting looks easy. Just tell people you are an expert and wait for the phone to ring. Mr. Spolsky revealed:
We started late, and we hadn’t had a chance to hire very many people yet, so we didn’t burn through cash as quickly as others. And we were fortunate enough to have a software product under development, so that when the Web consulting industry disappeared, we still had money coming in. Because if you can survive the death of your industry, well, you can survive just about anything. In the next issue, I’ll tell you how Fog Creek pulled it off.
What we have is a case study recast as a 1950s’ movie cliff hanger. My hunch is that this is a good news set up. What’s this have to do with search? Ah, try and find case studies of successful Web consulting companies. Neither Bing.com nor Google.com shed much light on this topic. The reason? Lousy indexing and a dearth of information. One needs a consultant to assemble meaning case analyses in my view.
Stephen Arnold, July 25, 2009
AP News Registry
July 25, 2009
Important initiative from the Associated Press. A news registry. You must read the official announcement with the killer title “Associated Press to Build News Registry to Protect Content”. Because I am fearful of legal reprisals against me, I won’t quote from this “news release.” I do have some questions:
- What’s news?
- When news in in a public news release, what is protected?
- What happens if some addled goose cites an AP story and includes a sentence or two in a blog post?
Will this initiative protect content? I only know that if I was cautious about AP before reading this announcement, the addled goose wants to steer clear of underpaid stringers, constantly changing stories sent down the wire, and the general made AP’s intellectual property because a publi9c announcement from a state government office in Illinois finds its way into the AP state feed. Honk if you are afraid of change.
Stephen Arnold, July 24, 2009
Wake Up Call for Smaller Scale Digital Initiatives
July 24, 2009
Thank goodness I am not trying to get a small scale archiving or abstracting project off the ground. The story “Japanese E-library Project Could Lose Out to Google Book Search without Government Flex” in the Mainichi Daily News caused a number of thoughts to flap through the addled goose’s brain. The story asserted:
It is hoped that the Japanese government will flexibly proceed with legal revisions so as to facilitate online distribution of books’ content in Japan, including the e-library project.
I took a look at the Japanese original and could not make sense of Google’s transformation. Despite the prose in the Mainichi version, I concluded that Google operates at a government or nation state level. A library scale project is a non starter unless a motivated government jumps in to pay the cost of dig9itzation, transformation, and indexing. The commercial database publishers will the next group of entities to find themselves in Google’s pressure cooker. Commercial database publishers have been forced to innovate in pricing, packaging, and placement. Once these dinosaurs run out of wiggle room, the Google pressure cooker will infuse some excitement into these low profile operations.
Stephen Arnold, July 24, 2009
Elsevier and Its Article of the Future
July 23, 2009
I write a column for Information World Review for money. As an addled goose blogger, I want to call your attention to an item that appeared with the headline “Elsevier Releases Article of the Future Prototypes.” For me, the most interesting comment in the story was:
IJsbrand Jan Aalbersberg, vice president of content innovation for Elsevier science & technology journal publishing said: “These tools will enhance the presentation of scientific results and improve the interpretation and speed of results analysis. They are central to driving innovation in scientific publishing and represent our investment in the future of research, enabling scientists all over the world to access, interpret, and create better science more efficiently.”
I will not put up pointers to my Web log posts about sponsored articles or other material that may not be exactly what readers expect from certain sci-tech publishers. I hope that the Article of the Future does not drag along some methods from the not-to-distant past. I hope legitimate publishers regardless of type find ways to generate revenue without hip hopping over content accuracy. Alas, unlike the addled goose, some publishers are human.
Stephen Arnold, July 23, 2009
Data.gov Revealed
July 22, 2009
Mashable ran an analysis by Jim Hendler called “What’s in Data.gov?” I must admit that I have not set aside the time necessary to figure out what this new government service offers. I am a bit jaded when it comes to government information. The Web accessible content is often interesting, but I find it less helpful than information that I have seen in the course of my projects for a number of countries’ governmental entities. In short, the good stuff is rarely online. What is online, is often baffling to me because basic metadata such as the date the document was created and last changed are often missing. Even the author is elusive. Locating a person who knows about a particular document can be an exercise in frustration. Mr. Hendler’s write up explains what is in Data.gov. For me, the most interesting comment was:
Not all of the datasets have a link to downloadable data because some offer only browseable data via their own websites, Others publish datasets in multiple formats. As of today, the online static files associated with the datasets are distributed as follows: 204 datasets offer a CSV format dump, 10 datasets offer an XML format dump, and 21 datasets offer an XLS format dump.
In short, a promising start but inconsistent, incomplete, and fragmented. Governments are not particularly skilled in electronic publishing. Progress is evident however.
Stephen Arnold, July 22, 2009
Search Engine Types
July 21, 2009
The South African Web site IOLTechnology has a useful run down of its view of the types of Web search engines. I download “Moving beyond Bing.” Useful.
Stephen Arnold, July 20, 2009
Google Travel
July 20, 2009
Short honk: Navigate to Google.com. Enter the query “LGA SFO” and you get a structured search box. Click and you get air ticket prices. Google has a number of vertical sectors in its tractor beam. Google’s wants to be a player in online travel information as well. The story in Hotel Marketing provides the basics and offers some links. I provide a run down of the vertical sectors my research suggests. Disruption ahead for those in other sectors. Google is picking up its pace in my opinion. How will travel publishers and information providers respond? Ignore, surf, fight, or dither?
Stephen Arnold, July 20, 2009
Brainware and Exalead: Name Magnetism
July 20, 2009
A rose by any other name may smell as sweet … not in the world of search companies!
Let me give you two examples of search company naming and point out the importance of eliminating confusion for those seeking information about a search and content processing system.
First, run a query on Google Video for Exalead. The system returned 17 pages of videos. I scanned the 170 links and did not spot a false drop. I like the name Exalead. The “exa” reminds me of exabytes of data. With the volume of email I get as a result of my addled goose musings in this Web log. One thousand petabytes is an exabyte, so Exalead’s name connotes software that can handle large volumes of data. The “lead” evokes leadership. I think the founder of Exalead contributed to the company’s name. Whoever came up with “Exalead” deserves a happy quack. Herewith: Quack.
Exalead’s branding, therefore, is solid and strong in my opinion. Tossing the name “Exalead” into a metasearch engine like Navgle.com, I got a mash up of content from various sources, and again I did not spot a false hit. In fact, it is easy to isolate information about the Exalead search system. For Exalead, Twitter had spot on results. No false hits.
Second, run a query on Google Video for Brainware. Looking through the smaller hit list (roughly one third the number of hits for Exalead videos), I noticed several items of interest. (Please, run these queries yourself and draw your own conclusions.)
I noticed straightaway that another organization uses the name “brainware” as a conference name; that is, Montreal Brainware. Interesting. The conference was given in 2001 and did not seem to get traction. Some confusion, but it is difficult to confuse a conference with a software company. As I scanned the results list, I saw a link to a computer game, which seemed to be five months old but a dead link, a link to a wiffle ball team video, a link to a health related video, and more game references. I ran the “brainware” query on Navgle.com and left the hit list review with these points in mind:
- Navgle returned a number of false drops for the query “brainware”, including a link to a childhood education program
- One of the top Web results was a design company operating under the name “Brainware” at a .net domain which means the search vendor Brainware did not snag other domains to help prevent such brand claim jumping
- There were zero tweets about the search vendor.
There were zero tweets about the search vendor. (Twitter is reviled by many, but it mirrors certain market conditions.)
Why is naming a search and content processing company important? In my opinion there are several reasons:
First, if a searcher is confused about “which Brainware”, it may be a marketing negative. Second, by not buying other domains, the search vendor loses control of the selected name. I was surprised at how many “brainwares” were in the wild. Did the search vendor consider that potential customers, faced with wiffle ball, might give up look elsewhere for scanning and indexing technology? In my opinion, an unambiguous brand is important for search engine indexing robots, but obviously some people do not agree with my view.
My take: Exalead has a name that makes it quite easy for a potentially interested customer to find information about the firm’s search and content processing technology. No brand claim jumping. Even the single word query returns relevant results. Zero confusion in my goose pond. In contrast, Brainware has a name that creates opportunities for confusion. Naming is a big deal for marketing, trademark protection, and getting a high ranking in Bing.com or Google.com result lists.
Google’s and Microsoft’s naming conventions are problematic in my view, but these outfits can cope due to their size and marketing horsepower. Smaller search vendors need to get the basics lined up like toy soldiers. Putting hurdles in front of a prospect does not seem like a good business tactic. In today’s business environment, getting the name associated aspects of marketing nailed down is important because it can affect the perceived value of a company and its
products. Just my opinion. Honk!
Stephen Arnold, July 20, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
