Microsoft Search: A Brand Problem
April 9, 2009
I love trophy generation simplifications. I don’t think most of these folks know why Google continues to widen its lead in Web search. Sure, the trophy generation perceives itself as expert online searchers and savvy in the ways of electronic information. The confidence, in my opinion, is not based on substance in most cases.
Consider this article: “Microsoft Faces Branding Problem In Effort to Top Google.” This is from the Wall Street Journal Web log machine, and you must read it here. I hope it is online when you click the link. The WSJ is in the forefront of online information success, well, semi-success. The author (Nick Wingfield) simplifies the problem of disabling Googzilla as a “branding problem.” Mr. Wingfield wrote:
Even though Microsoft still finds itself in a distant third-place position in its share of the online search market behind Google and Yahoo, with just over 8% of searches by U.S. users, Mr. Mehdi says the mood in the search group is upbeat. “It’s a very visceral feeling in the hallways,” he says.
I like the “visceral” image. My stomach would be churning too if my search service was losing ground to Google as every newspaper person in the universe is attacking Googzilla for its pillaging of the traditional media.
Let’s think about this:
- Who uses Google? The children of the people who work in traditional companies finding themselves marginalized because their technology and product appeal doesn’t have much magnetism. Google is a lot of things, but it lets users discover Google. In fact, Google’s sales and marketing are pretty terrible, but it makes no difference. The difference is not brand. The difference is that users perceive Google as a problem solver when it comes to electronic information. The brand and the market share are a consequence, not a cause.
- What gives the GOOG an advantage over companies with people as smart or smarter than Google? In my experience, when a Microsoft executive or a Yahoo engineers joins Google, the GOOG keeps on rolling. The company makes the difference. Employees fit in or leave. After a decade, there are plenty of Xooglers working at competitive firms, but as yet, none of these outfits have been able to hobble the Google. What’s the difference? My thought is management and management methods such as they are at Google.
- Whose technology is better? There are some companies who are better at certain technical functions than the GOOG. I think Relegence.com does a better job with mashups. But overall, the GOOG is good at plumbing, automated processes, smart software and programming tools. I think it is tough to be the Google without the Google infrastructure. Most people don’t know what to make of Google’s cost and performance advantages. My research suggests that these factors are important because without a way to scale, the Google can’t keep up with the load. While not perfect, the GOOG is darn good.
The positive spin on Microsoft search is interesting, but it is not going to close the gap between Microsoft and Google any time soon in my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, April 9, 2009
Outwit: An Information Access Assistant
April 9, 2009
OutWit Technologies, http://www.outwit.com/ offers a suite of products through a Firefox 3 extension designed to help streamline your online searches. Its goal is to provide simple, one-function applications: OutWit Docs beta, http://www.outwit.com/products/docs/license.php, finds and collects documents, spreadsheets and presentations and allows you to work with them; With OutWit Images, you can automatically explore Web pages or search engine results for pictures and easily create, save, and share your collections or view them as full-screen slide shows. There’s also OutWit Hub, http://www.outwit.com/products/hub/, an all-purpose Web collection engine. With it you can find, grab and organize all kinds of data and media from online sources. They aim for simple, but I found all these programs a little overwhelming. If you’re in the market for looking at a web page and seeing every link, document and graphic listed on it, OutWit seems comprehensive. Check it out.
Jessica W. Bratcher, April 9, 2009
Oracle: More Google Goodness
April 9, 2009
The disappearance of Oracle’s Secure Enterprise Search 10g behind Oracle’s Gadget Wizard for Google Apps continued. Forbes.com reported in its news release service “Oracle Introduces Oracle Gadget Wizard for Google Apps and Support for Google’s Secure Data Connector” made zero reference to Oracle’s own search solution. I might be missing something, but Oracle–a Google partner–seems to be getting more Googley. You can read the news release / story here. One statement in the news release / story caught my attention:
Now corporations connect selected data elements from within their enterprise with Oracle’s gadgets on their Google Sites. — With the Oracle Gadget Wizard for Google Apps, users can easily build gadgets without any prior programming knowledge. This promotes the development of gadgets that leverage Oracle CRM and will foster the development of gadgets leveraging Oracle CRM, providing customers and partners an opportunity to build new mobile or gadget applications and quickly get new features out to customers.
As I read this, Oracle customers can use various Google functions to boost Oracle’s utility. I suppose that includes the Google Search Appliance as well. I wonder where SES10g fits into this picture.
Stephen Arnold, April 9, 2009
Google: A Helpful Critique UK Style
April 9, 2009
I enjoy poking fun at the GOOG, but I recognize the important shift it represents. Not surprisingly those who want to keep the Newtonian universe intact are not too thrilled with Googzilla. One of my two or three readers sent me a link to “Google is Just an Amoral Menace” by the wordsmith Henry Porter. You can read this essay here. The write up does a good job of hooking verbal electrodes to various parts of the Google and cranking the voltage. I don’t feel comfortable capturing the verbal pyrotechnics but I would like to call attention to one that I found amusing:
Despite the aura of heroic young enterprise that still miraculously attaches to the web, what we are seeing is a much older and toxic capitalist model – the classic monopoly that destroys industries and individual enterprise in its bid for ever greater profits. Despite its diversification, Google is in the final analysis a parasite that creates nothing, merely offering little aggregation, lists and the ordering of information generated by people who have invested their capital, skill and time. On the back of the labour of others it makes vast advertising revenues – in the final quarter of last year its revenues were $5.7bn, and it currently sits on a cash pile of $8.6bn. Its monopolistic tendencies took an extra twist this weekend with rumours that it may buy the micro-blogging site Twitter and its plans – contested by academics – to scan a vast library of books that are out of print but still in copyright.
I recall Mr. Porter turning down an invitation to review my Google studies. These make clear that the GOOG has been chugging away for a decade. Over the past 360 plus months, Google engineers have applied math and technology to information processes. The result is a new type of information system. Google has not done a particularly good job of explaining how MapReduce works, what a container is, or providing a coherent explanation of its semantic methods. I don’t think the GOOG is a secret outfit. I think it is a haven for mathematicians and technologists who are more comfortable with equations and birds of a feather than journalist, public relations, or marketing types.
The world of Newton.
Even more interesting is that my research revealed that Google has not been an innovator in the sense of the guy who ran naked shouting Eureka! centuries ago. Nope. The GOOG amalgamates chunks of tech that deliver results. Because Google focused on scale (necessary to index the dross on the Internet), Google ended up with a machine built to do Web search that quite surprisingly had other uses. My mom did this trick all the time. A milk carton was converted to a flower pot or a clothes pin to a child’s doll. Math folks are clever. Google has lots of math folks. So what’s the big surprise that Google is clever. Remember how most students hated the kid who said, “Train A arrives five minutes before Train B” and then can’t explain how she got the answer. Not only that, the girl of whom I am thinking never worked any steps in any math problem and I was in an advanced class in high school. The teachers were forgiving and let her work on physics while the rest of the class laboriously followed the rules. She’s now a doctor in Colorado and still can’t explain how she “knows” answers. Live with it. That’s what I did. I got an A, but she was in another league.
The world of Google.
I think it is interesting to read the howls against the wind. The problem is that the GOOG is more than a decade old and has become the 21st century equivalent of Stanford-Morgan-Rockefeller-Carnegie. My suggestion. Learn how to surf on Google.
Where were these critics for the last eight or nine years? I wonder if they were using Google Web search and ignoring the company’s surround and seep strategy in publishing and six other business sectors. My research revealed that the GOOG has been running straight and true for a long time in the online world.
Stephen Arnold, April 9, 2009
A New Direction for Yahoo: Social Networking
April 8, 2009
Okay, Yahoo is a portal. Yahoo is a Web search company. Yahoo is a tools company. Yahoo is an advertising system. Now Yahoo is on the scent of social networking. Will this new direction, reported by Alexei Oreskovic here make a difference in the company’s fortunes? You will have to read the full text story “Yahoo to Beef Up Social Networking Features” to find out. The social networking buzz has been building. I recall doing a project for a large and somewhat confused company in 2003. The purpose of the project was to dig through Yahoo’s patents and technical papers for clues about the Yahooligans’ social network capabilities. There was not much to see. Now social networking is all the rage and Yahoo is ready to jump on the bandwagon. In my opinion the move is better late than never, but late is late.
Mr. Oreskovic wrote:
Developing the social transformation on a large scale won’t be easy, particularly given Yahoo’s spotty product development track record in recent years, analysts say, though Bartz’s recent internal management reorganization should help. Yahoo still needs to figure out how to turn on the new social features without triggering an avalanche of information onto its users, many of whom already receive frequent updates about their friends’ activities on services like Facebook and Twitter and may not necessarily want another such feed.
In my opinion, the digital opportunities permit quite a few players. Then one or two emerge as black holes that suck users and money into them. The secondary and tertiary players, in effect, go nowhere. The PR machines keep grinding which helps to some extent, but the big money goes to into those black holes. Right now, Yahoo is a red dwarf. If it becomes a black hole, it may remain a small one.
If Yahoo focused on search, I think there are a number of opportunities to do a better job making certain types of real time content more accessible. Who wants another Facebook.com page to manage? Not this goose.
Stephen Arnold, April 8, 2009
Exclusive Interview with David Pogue
April 8, 2009
This year’s most exciting conference for online professionals in Philadelphia is now only four weeks away. In addition to top notch speakers like David Pogue, the networking opportunities at a J. Boye conference are excellent.
One attendee said, “What I like about the J. Boye Conferences is that they bring together industry experts and practitioners over high-quality content that seems to push participants’ professional limits and gets everyone talking. So if you want to learn – but participate as well – consider joining us in Philadelphia this May.”
Instead of product pitches, the speakers at a J. Boye conference deliver substance. For example, among the newest confirmed case studies are Abercrombie & Fitch, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, Pan American Health Organization, Hanley Wood and Oxford University (UK).
For a preview of what you will experience. Here’s an exclusive with David Pogue, technology expert and New York Times’s journalist. Sign up here and secure one of the remaining seats.
Why is Google so much more used than its competitors?
Mostly because it’s better. Fast, good, idiotproof, uncluttered, ubiquitous. There’s also, at this point, a “McDonald’s factor” happening. That is, people know the experience, it’s the same everywhere they go, there’s no risk. They use Google because they’ve always used Google. It would be very hard, therefore, for any rival to gain traction.
David Pogue, one of the featured speakers at JBoye 09 in Philadelphia May 5 to 7, 2009.
When will Gmail become the preferred email solution for organizations?
August 3, 2014. But seriously, folks. Nobody can predict the future of technology. Also, I’m sure plenty of organizations use it already, and it’s only picking up steam. Gmail is becoming truly amazing.
Will Google buy Twitter – and what will it mean if they do?
I don’t know if they’ll buy it; nobody does. It would probably mean very little except a guaranteed survival for Twitter, perhaps with enhancements along the way. That’s been Google’s pattern (for example, when it bought GrandCentral.)
Why is it so hard for organizations to get a grip on user experience design?
The problems include lack of expertise, limited budget (there’s an incentive to do things cheaply rather than properly), and lack of vision. In other words, anything done by committee generally winds up less elegant than something done by a single, focused person who knows what he’s doing.
Why are you speaking at a Philadelphia web conference organized by a Denmark-based company?
Because they obviously have excellent taste. 🙂
Stephen Arnold, April 8, 2009
Associated Press: Tech Media Snaps Back
April 7, 2009
I enjoyed Larry Dignan’s “AP Eyes News Aggregators; Risks Exposing Its Lack of Value Add” here. The article made a good point: “Be careful what you wish for AP.” I don’t think the Associated Press thinks too much about folks who write Web logs. I agree with Mr. Dignan’s assertion that the AP may not deliver the value add that its owners perceive it does. The examples of the non news that the AP distributes tickled my funny bone. But I know the AP senior managers know quite well the content that flows to its owners and licensees.
What Mr. Dignan did not point out (and to be fair most of the articles I scanned did not point out either) is this item. The high value part of the AP is its coverage of state capitals. Here in the Bluegrass State, the AP files stories about the state government’s activities. Multiply this by 50, and you have the real money maker for the Associated Press. The bulk of the info flowing “down the wire” is recycled information. Prior to the advent, companies as diverse as Halliburton’s Nuclear Utility Services to the Bureau of National Affairs recycled government information and packaged it for resale. The revenue streams were solid because who wanted the hassle of aggregating memos from the Department of Energy or the latest from the Railway Retirement Board. The AP’s money maker is its coverage of the state capital scene. Individual papers have long relied on the AP’s coverage of state news because it was cheaper than putting expensive staff in a state bureau.
My view is that this hassle could be resolved pretty quickly if one of the younger, more energetic readers of this Web log would do a mash up of the state and major city information, update it in near real time, and slap Google AdSense on the service. Deprived of its advantage in this information channel, the AP would be put on notice that reasonable behavior is highly desirable.
If the coding is not comfy for some former journalists, why not form an informal group via a social network and cover the state news via a pool. The bylined stories would open doors for freelance jobs and maybe come political strategy / analysis work. I might even look at a state tech news feed so I could keep track of what Kentucky spends for technology services provided by Unisys.
Either approach sends a much clearer message about the power of the “digital Gutenberg” than the interesting but anecdotal chatter about a service firm dependent on the dead tree crowd for survival. But I am an addled goose. What do I know? Nothing. Just my opinion. Honk.
Stephen Arnold, April 7, 2009
Google Twitter Combo Search
April 7, 2009
Short honk: Search Engine Journal has a good write up by Ann Smarty here. ” How to Combine Google Search with Twitter Search” provides a helpful summary of a method to create a blended results list. Read it, save it, use it.
Stephen Arnold, April 7, 2009
Consumer Watchdog Chasing Google
April 7, 2009
I just received a news release with the title “Consumer Group Calls on Justice Department to Intervene In Google Book Settlement; “Orphan Works” provision and “Most Favored Nation” Clause Raise Antitrust Concerns”. The news release points to a letter here that raises concerns about the Google deal with The Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers. I’m no lawyer, but this is one more indication of growing interest in the GOOG. My question: Isn’t this concern a bit like the farmer who complains that his barn burned, his horses ran off, and a real estate developer built a Costco on the vacant lot? The GOOG has been chugging along for a decade and not doing much different year to year. Now folks realize that Google is more than search and want to change reality. My thought: find a way to surf on Google and live with the 21st century version of Ma Bell. Google is not a cause. Google is a manifestation of a change that has already taken place.
Stephen Arnold, April 7, 2009
Newspapers Are Goners: Lawyers Will Not Save the Day
April 7, 2009
The patricians at the big name media companies are busy dissing the GOOG. I don’t think Googzilla has much to do with the sorry state of newspaper publishing. Check out Eric Savitz’ One Classified Ad Web Site to Rule Them All” here. Note: Barron’s is a dead tree outfit owned by News Corp., an enterprise that finds little room in its heart for Google love. Mr. Savitz reported that Craigslist.org is a de facto classified ad monopoly. As he stated the matter:
According to new data from Hitwise, traffic to online classified advertising sites increased 84% in February from a year ago. The sector has seen positive growth in all but one month over the last three years. And while hardly the only player in the game, the single biggest beneficiary of the trend is Craigslist. According to Hitwise, of the top 100 classified ad Web sites, all but 3 were localized versions of Craigslist.
Mr. Savitz’ employer may want to put the evil on the owners of Craigslist.org. The GOOG is innocent when it comes to sucking classified ad revenue sweets from the dying trees supporting the newspaper industry. Keep in mind that if the dead tree patricians have children under the age of 24, the progeny are users of Craigslist.org. How else does one find an apartment in Alphabet City? Newspaper killers are using the vertical search provided by Craigslist.org. Even the Googlers use Craigslist.org from what I hear.
Stephen Arnold, April 7, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
