AOL for Sale: No Surprise There
May 28, 2009
After Time Magazine pronounced Google the winner in search here, the addled goose was not surprised when he read in TechRadar that “AOL Set to Be Split from Time Warner”. You can find the story here. TechRadar reported:
AOL will soon be split from its owners Time Warner, with the latter’s board of directors reportedly set to ratify the plan later on Thursday (May 28, 2009).
With a former Googler at the helm of Time Warner, Time Warner thinks the time is right to step away from an interesting acquisition. Will Yahoo jump from the frying pan into the fire? Maybe Microsoft can build its search base with a speedy deal? Other possible buyers? Ideas?
Stephen Arnold, May 28, 2009
Bing the Name Called Bob by TechRadar
May 28, 2009
One more dark morning and a delightful flight to Washington, DC. I was quiet until I read TechRadar’s “Tech Product Names Suck. Bing Blows” here. (The ComputerWorld reporter who asked yesterday me about Microsoft’s newest search engine called it Kumo. I call the Google challenger Bing Kumo, which is the best of both worlds.) When I read TechRadar’s article, I laughed. TechRadar said:
You’ve also got to wonder what they were thinking of when they chose Bing, because the four things that immediately spring to mind are Yahoo, the late Bing Crosby, Chandler from Friends and the bar in the Sopranos. Does Microsoft really want us to think of an ailing search provider, a long-dead crooner, an actor with addiction problems and a mafia strip club whenever we think of its search engine?
Keep in mind that I am pointing to a TechRadar story about the name “Bing.” Nothing more. When I hear the word Bing, I think of cherries, the phrase “bah dah bing” and the YouTube video, Bing the Guinea Pig.
Stephen Arnold, May 28, 2009
Yahoo 1.1 Revealed
May 28, 2009
At the categorical affirmative “All Things Digital” Conference, Yahoo 1.1 was revealed. In an interview with Carol Bartz (Yahoo’s new CEO) conducted by Kara Swisher, information about Yahoo Version 1.1 was reveled. A blizzard of posts appeared on Megite.com but I gravitated to John Paczkowski’s “Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz: We’re a Different Company than Google” here. For me, the killer comment in Mr. Paczkowski’s story was this explanation of Yahoo:
We use great technology to deliver search, content, advertising.
Mr. Paczkowski included a remarkable bit of local color, noting that Kara pointed out that former Yahooligan Terry Semel and Yahooliganette Sue Decker were in the audience.
Other points I thought interesting included:
- Ms. Bartz wants improve and integrate Yahoo’s services
- Yahoo email has to be made more simple
- Social network services are of interest
- Buying online ads must be made less complex
- Google “does not have the positioning and reach” of Yahoo.
In my opinion, Yahoo has a technology challenge. No large company will have homogeneous systems. The key is to have more homogeneity than stray cats and dogs. My analysis of Yahoo considers ads, traffic, and brand, but the iceberg that sank the Titantic looked small until it sank the ship. Yahoo’s iceberg is the cost of its technology; that is, there are costs that are tough to control due to the tech cats and dogs. As a result, Yahoo has fewer degrees of tech freedom and runs the risk of a cost spike that can puncture the hull of Yahoo 1.1.
Time may be running out, and it is not clear if a sugar daddy can rescue Yahoo. Yahoo is hanging tough. Yahoo may be following the same path that AOL took in its quest to become the Internet portal of choice. Didn’t work at AOL. Will it work at Yahoo? Ms. Bartz has confidence and a great track record. That technology iceberg is a threat that may be tough for a management strategist to deal with. I am not so sure about the “great technology” assertion. It’s Yahoo 1.1., not Yahoo 2.0 in my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, May 28, 2009
Social Search: Nay Sayers Eat Twitter Pie
May 27, 2009
My comments will be carried along on the flow of Twitter commentary today. This post is to remind me that at the end of May 2009, the Google era (lots of older Web content) has ended and the Twitter or real time search era has arrived. Granted, the monetization, stability, maturity, and consumerization has not yet climbed on the real time search bandwagon. But I think these fellow travelers are stumbling toward the rocket pad.
Two articles mark this search shift. Sure, I know I need more data, but I want to outline some ideas here. I am not (in case you haven’t noticed) a real journalist. Save the carping for the folks who used to have jobs and are now trying to make a living with Web logs.
The first article is Michael Arrington’s “Topy Search Launches: Retweets Are the New Currency of the Web” here. The key point for me was not the particular service. What hooked me were these two comments in the article:
- “Topsy is just a search engine. That has a fundamentally new way of finding good results: Twitter users.” This is a very prescient statement.
- “Influence is gained when others retweet links you’ve sent out. And when you retweet others, you lose a little Influence. So the more people retweet you, the more Influence you gain. So, yes, retweets are the new currency on the Web.”
My thoughts on these two statements are:
- Topsy may not be the winner in this sector. The idea, however, is very good.
- The time interval between major shifts in determining relevance are now likely to decrease. Since Google’s entrance, there hasn’t been much competition for the Mountain View crowd. The GOOG will have to adapt of face the prospect of becoming another Microsoft or Yahoo.
- Now that Topsy is available, others will grab this notion and apply it to various content domains. Think federated retweeting across a range of services. The federated search systems have to raise the level of their game.
The second article was Steve Rubel’s “Visits to Twitter Search Soar, Indicating Social Search Has Arrived” here. I don’t have much to add to Mr. Rubel’s write up. The key point for me was:
I think there’s something fundamentally new that’s going on here: more technically savvy users (and one would assume this includes journalists) are searching Twitter for information. Presumably this is in a tiny way eroding searches from Google. Mark Cuban, for example, is one who is getting more traffic to his blog from Twitter and Facebook than Google.
For the purposes of this addled goose, the era of Googzilla seems to be in danger of drawing to a close. The Googlers will be out in force at their developers’ conference this week. I will be interested to see if the company will have an answer to the social search and real time search activity. With Google’s billions, it might be easier for the company to just buy tomorrow’s winners in real time search. Honk.
Stephen Arnold, May 27, 2009
Direct Mail Nuked by Search, Social Networks
May 27, 2009
Digital information, search, and social networks are disruptive. Publishers understand the disruption, and most publishers are working hard to find a way to manage the opportunities disruption creates. Gavin O’Malley’s “Direct Mail Doomed, Long Live Email” here gave me a fresh perspective on disruption in a sector tangential to publishing. Mr. O’Malley wrote:
After making quick work of print newspapers, and the Yellow Pages industry, “The kudzu-like creep of the Internet is about to claim its third analog victim,” warns a new report from research firm Borrell Associates. The victim? “The largest and least-read of all print media: Direct mail.”
Referencing a research report, Mr. O’Malley provides a number of useful data points; for example:
- “A 39% decline for direct mail over the next five years, from $49.7 billion in annual ad spending in 2008 to $29.8 billion by the end of 2013.”
- “In fact, last year, email advertising quietly moved to the No. 1 online ad category spot, surpassing all other forms of interactive advertising.”
- “We’re expecting local e-mail advertising to grow from $848 million in 2008, to $2 billion in 2013, as more small businesses abandon direct mail couponing and promotional orders and turn to a more measurable and less costly medium, e-mail.”
Useful write up.
Stephen Arnold, May 27, 2009
Social Search and Security
May 27, 2009
Might these terms comprise an oxymoron? Some organizations are plunging forward with social networking, social search, and open collaboration. You may find Vanessa Ho’s “Risks Associated with Web 2.0” here a useful article. She summarizes the results of a study by an outfit called Dynamic Markets conducted for WebSense. With a sample of 1,300 business professionals, the report contained some interesting information. This statement from the article struck a chord in me:
“The thing about the web is once it is out there, it is out there [forever],” Meizlik [a WebSense executive’] noted. Other findings of the survey include 80 per cent of respondents reported feeling confident in their organizations web security, despite the fact that the numbers show that they are ill-equipped to protect against Web 2.0 security threats. For example, 68 per cent do not have real-time analysis of web content; 59 per cent cannot prevent URL re-directs; 53 per cent do not have security solutions that stop spyware from sending information to bots; 52 per cent do not have solutions to detect embedded malicious code on trusted websites; and 45 per cent do not have data loss prevention technology to stop company-confidential information from being uploaded to sites like blogs and wikis, hosted on unauthorized cloud computing sites or leaked as a result of spyware and phishing attacks.
I learned from a chirpy 30 year old conference manager last week that security is not an issue of interest to that conference attendee audience. Yep, those 30 somethings set me straight again.
Stephen Arnold, May 28, 2009
Bing Kumo Brings Life to Old Domain
May 27, 2009
Busy day on the phone with media types and professional journalists. Bing Kumo, Microsoft’s tough new search dude, is expected soon. I enjoyed JR Raphael’s “Microsoft Bing Would Bring New Life to Old Domain.” You can read the story here. I found the history of the domain name interesting. Microsoft’s approach to Bing will become clear when Steve Ballmer demos the new system at the D Conference. (D means “digital” for the Wall Street Journal, owner of the show.) With the turnover in owners for Bing, let’s hope this use of the domain sticks.
Stephen Arnold, May 27, 2009
EDI Data Transformation
May 27, 2009
Most of the mavens and pundits write about a handful of search vendors. Not me. I grub around in the dark and often very important corners of search. If you have to transform data for EDI in an XML environment, you will find Alex Woodie’s “MegaXML Looks to Drive Expense Out of EDI” here useful. Mr. Woodie describes a new product, which if it works as described can eliminate some sleepless nights and a long weekend or two. The article describes Task Performance Group’s MegaXML utility. For me, the key passage in the article was:
Task Performance Group launched MegaXML a decade ago to take advantage of the flexibility of XML. On the front end, the Windows-based product can generate and send EDI documents, such as purchase orders and invoices, over VANs or the Internet using protocols like AS2. And on the backend, MegaXML can translate EDI documents to the format needed for specific platforms, such as flat files for AS/400-based ERP systems on DB2.
MegaXML has a hybrid or semi-cloud option that may be worth investigating. Mr. Woodie wrote:
With the outsourcing option, MegaXML will reside on a Windows server in Task Performance Group’s data center near Chicago. After mapping the EDI documents to the customer’s systems (a process that takes a few days), the customer will upload and download documents to the MegaXML data center using Secure FTP (S/FTP). MegaXML, in turn, will handle the translation to EDI formats and the distribution via AS2 or another method.
Data transformation consumes a significant portion of an information technology group’s time and budget. MegaXML may be a partial solution in some situations. More information is available at www.megaXML.com
Stephen Arnold, May 27, 2009
Ramp Time for Web Killers: Google to Alta Vista, X to Google
May 26, 2009
Harry McCracken’s “How Long Did It Take for the World to Identify Google as an Alta Vista Killer?” here asks an interesting question. His write up provides some examples of early positive Google evaluations in trade and news publications. His conclusion was that no one figured out how good Google was until several years raced by. I agree with his concluding remark:
A Google killer may well be out there even as we speak. We may even be saying nice things about it. But it would amaze me if we’ve figured out yet that it’s going to kill Google…
Several ideas raced through my mind as I reviewed his chronological list of early Google references; namely:
- Google pushed into search at a time when the leading Web sites were becoming portals, an evolutionary arc that reached its zenith with Yahoo.com and the MSN.com Web sites in the mid 2000s. Both companies were in effect mini-AOLs with search relegated to a “search box” that wasn’t all that useful or interesting to me
- The leading Web search engines were running aground on two well known problems to those familiar with Web indexing: the cost of scaling to keep pace with the growing volume of new and changed content and the baked in problems of traditional server architecture. Google tackled input output, failure, and cheap scaling early in its history. The company did not reveal what it did until the job was done. This put the company several years ahead of its competition at the time of its 2004 IPO
- Existing search vendors were looking for exits from Web indexing. The most notable challenger after Hewlett Packard muffed the Alta Vista project was Fast Search & Transfer. At the time of 9-1-1, Fast Search had indexed breaking news before Google, and the Fast Search system was, in terms of Web indexing, the equal of Google. What did Fast Search do? It sold its advertising and Web search business to concentrate on enterprise search. A decision that cut a path to the financial quagmire in which Fast Search became stuck and the police action about which most people know nothing.
- Other search vendors ran out of cash, ran into index updating problems similar to those encountered by Excite and Lycos, or changed business direction.
Google’s emergence, as I have written in my Google trilogy here, was a combination of several factors: luck, technical acumen, talent availability from the Alta Vista effort, and business savvy on the part of Google’s investors. Killing Google, therefore, will take more than a simple technical innovation. A specific moment in time combined with other ingredients will be needed.
For some of the big players today, time has run out. A Google killer may be in someone’s garage, but until the other chemicals are mixed together, the GOOG has won. Every time I make this statement, I get howls of outrage from conference organizers, venture firms, and pundits. I stand by my claim that Web search is not effectively in Google’s paws. Let me excite some readers on a related front: Google is poised to pull the same 70 percent market share trick in other business sectors. Digital goodies from Yahoo and the Microsoft Bing Kumo play notwithstanding, embrace Googzilla or stay out of its way.
Stephen Arnold, May 26, 2009
Description of Data.gov
May 26, 2009
A happy quack to the reader who sent me a link to Propublica’s “Gov’s Got Data” here. Data.gov is a data portal created by the US government. Republica reported that there were 47 raw data sets on the site plus another 27 software utilities. Click here for a sample data set.
For me, the most important comment was:
There’s not a lot there yet, but the new federal Web site, which the Obama administration had promised to create, is up and running. The site is designed to be a clearinghouse of data from federal agencies.
Data sets are the type of content that Wolfram Alpha and some of Google’s more sophisticated system ingest to generate value-added outputs.
The challenge is that US government agencies are silos and sharing is often a lengthy administrative process. After all, why share when headcount could be reduced due to the trimming of tasks for an agency. In my experience, government entities want to preserve data, tasks, and services to keep the bean counters from chopping a manager’s staff.
Long slog ahead for Data.gov I think.
Stephen Arnold, May 26, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
