Google TV Fail Predicted
October 28, 2010
I am not sure I agree with MSNBC. I mean how objective can anything with either a hint of Microsoft or Comcast, but “Google Tamed Text, but Video Is Biting Back” is a must read. The author explains why the text-meister is having some problems with video. The write up even drags the dead fish of YouTube’s past through one paragraph. Nice touch.
Here’s a passage that caught my attention:
Now, with a new set-top box called Google TV, the company is trying to circumvent the usual channels again, and getting caught in the act. Ideally, Google sees the box’s software as a video equivalent of the Google Reader news program — you just tell it what you like, and all the freshest content will be there when you fire it up. But already, NBC, CBS and ABC have formally blocked Google TV’s Web browser from accessing the video content on their websites. This means that anyone who hopes to enjoy “everything … you’re accustomed to doing online” via Google TV will have to go without the lion’s share of popular TV content — even the full shows that are indeed available “free” online. Informally, other blocks are in place: Google TV includes a link to HBO GO in its “Spotlight” section, but when any Comcast customer visits that link, they are told to go to Fancast, Comcast’s own streaming service. Hop over to Fancast, and you’re told that the browser is not supported. Will Comcast ever let Google TV’s browser stream its content? I suppose that depends on who pays what to whom.
I am no TV or rich media goose. When I want to watch a sports program and my wife is recording one of her faves, I have to ask her how to make the weird switch channels or cancel recording message go away. But the MSNBC post speaks about those who are TV savvy. The argument advanced sounds reasonable.
Stephen E Arnold, October 28, 2010
Freebie
SDL Real Time Automated Translation
October 27, 2010
UK-based SDL has moved real time, automated translation to the cloud. The translation system complements the firms publishing system. According to “SDL Unveils Cloud Platform for Real-Time Automated Translation,” Through an easy-to-use web-based portal, SDL BeGlobal instantly enables users to manage global, trusted communications with customers in real-time, through one central interface for multiple types of content, communication and social media. SDL BeGlobal is an intuitive cloud platform that can turn any business user into a multilingual publisher, delivering content faster than ever before.” SDL asserts that it…
is the leader in Global Information Management solutions. SDL’s solutions increase business agility to enterprises by accelerating the delivery of high-quality multilingual content to global markets. The company’s integrated Web Content Management, eCommerce, Structured Content and Language Technologies, combined with its Language Services drive down the cost of content creation, management, translation and publishing. SDL solutions increase conversion ratios and customer satisfaction through targeted information that reaches multiple audiences around the world through different channels.
Our view is that there is a growing interest in on-the-fly translation. With the shift to mobile computing, making seamless, near real time translation available for text and spoken content is a hot area. We keep thinking about Google’s “free” translation service. Specialists will have to content with Google if the company gets serious about moving translation to the world once described in science fiction novels. For more information about SDL, navigate to the firm’s Web site at www.sdl.com.
Stephen E Arnold, October 27, 2010
Freebie
NARA Wants US Government Social Media Content Tamed
October 26, 2010
If you are a firm believer in records management nuclear power plants and aircraft, you may find “NARA: Federal Social Media Requires Archiving Attention” interesting. NARA is shorthand for the National Archives. For more information about NARA, navigate to www.archives.gov. The idea is that the tweets, Facebook wall posts, and other social content should be archived. There is a bulletin that explains what social content should be archived. But the interesting item in the write up is a flow chart to help the Federal professional figure out what to do with social, webby two oh content.
If you can’t read the text, click here for the big version.
Social content is like lots of still living anchovies. The content is often small and slippery. Out of context social content can, like fish, become pretty interesting unless preserved promptly and with considerable care.
My hunch is that figuring out how to suck content from cloud services, organize it, and make it findable is a pretty challenging task. My earlier reference to the records management work for nuclear power plants and aircraft was not an idle reference. The complexity of US government social content may be as complex and costly.
Stephen E Arnold, October 26, 2010
Freebie
How to Cope with Google: Change Your Name, Just Move
October 26, 2010
I find Math Club folks darned entertaining. I recall learning from someone that Google’s top dog suggested that one could deal with privacy issues by changing one’s name. No problem, but not exactly practical. Today (October 25, 2010) several people mentioned to me Dr. Schmidt’s suggestion regarding Street View’s imaging one’s home. The recommendation was, according to “Schmidt: Don’t Like Google Street View Photographing Your House? Then Move,” even more impractical than changing one’s name. In today’s real estate market, most folks struggle to make payments. The cost of moving is out of reach even if there were a compelling reason to uproot oneself. The idea of moving because Google is making snaps of one’s domicile is either pretty funny (my view) or pretty crazy (the view of one of the people in my office).
So which is it? Colbert Report material or an answer that could get you stuck in a hospital’s psychiatric ward for observation?
I side with the Math Club. Dr. Schmidt was just joking.
What’s not so funny is the mounting legal friction that Google faces. My concern is that the push back could impair Google’s ability to do deals. The issue is partially trust and partially mind share. With lawyers wanting discovery and depositions, the two Ds can get even the A student in Math Club in academic hot water. That’s bad for Google, its partners, and its stakeholders. Competitors know Google has lots of cash, but with Apple and Facebook surging, Google can no longer rely on controlled chaos to converge on a solution. Lawyers are into procedures and often lack a sense of humor.
Just move. Man, that’s a hoot. Getting a cow on top of a university bell tower will not elicit a chuckle from me. But “just move.” I am in stitches. Absolutely hilarious. But there is that other point of view… the hospital… the observation thing. Hmmm.
Stephen E Arnold, October 26, 2010
Walled Gardens: A Blast from the Dark Ages
October 26, 2010
No self respecting war lord would have a garden and leave it open to the folks who did grunt work. The powerful family wanted a place to chill without the annoyances some people generate. Flash forward to 2010. The war lord at Apple wants to keep the orchard free of pests. Farewell Flash. Java is getting its walking papers soon too. Microsoft likes to keep its SharePoint kids clean and neat. Fees, training, and some sales leads do the job. Get too frisky in a Microsoft centric company, and you and your Linux box get a chance to find your future elsewhere. The Google jaws about open, but I don’t think the Google wants to let Facebook poach Orkut users. In fact, Google does not want a competitor in search or anywhere else for that matter. Great war lords think similar thoughts.
“Facebook Disconnect” may be a third party extension today, but my hunch is that open gates may be equipped with the spike gizmos that rental car companies use to keep me from sneaking out the “In” gate. With the Internet making consolidation an inevitable consequence of the utilization and commoditization of online services, architects and builders of walled gardens are likely to enjoy a business boom.
Stephen E Arnold, October 26, 2010
Freebie
Recommind Estimated 2010 Revenues: Fact or Fiction?
October 25, 2010
Last week I heard that Recommind disclosed its revenues. The information I saw surfaced on the e-discovery 2.0 blog in “Recommind Publicly Discloses Its Revenue—and It’s Less than You Might Think.” The write up contained some interesting information, but I don’t know if the figures and factoids are spot on. Nevertheless, I did find the information interesting and in line with what my Overflight model spits out for a privately-held company in the search and content processing business.
Smash cut to the death of the fox in the jaws of the search hounds: Recommind’s estimated 2010 revenue is $23 to $28 million. That’s nothing to sneeze at. Most of the companies chugging along in the search and content processing rendering yard generate less revenue. And even with the outfits with great visibility and a strong client list, the need for cash is growing. Endeca accepted an intravenous drip from Intel and SAP Ventures. High flying Palantir sucked on a $90 million money milk shake this summer. And BA-Insight—a vendor of Microsoft SharePoint snap in systems—palmed $6 million.
The challenge with numbers from privately held companies is that the data are difficult to verify. Heck, try and figure out what publicly traded Amazon spends on R&D and makes on its widely publicized Amazon Web Services product line. Impossible task in my opinion. Move those finances into a private company and figuring out what’s what is tough. Google allegedly used some fancy dancing to trim its tax bill and that arabesque is only now being evaluated.
With regard to finances, a top line revenue figure or a growth rate are handy hand holds for the arm chair analyst or the azure chip consultant. In the real world, some financial types are interest in the company’s long term expenditures for R&D, the debt, the structure of deals’ payouts, executive compensation, etc. Without more numerical grit, who really knows. I recall looking at financial data for one high profile search system and learned that a number of debts had been rolled together, refinanced repeatedly, and the burden was little more than an annoying payment. The approach was similar to the person who buys a new vehicle by looking at the monthly payment, not the cost of the debt. In the Enron and Tyco world, these were old tricks. In the BearStearns Lehman Brothers world, magic accounting is what makes MBA men men and MBA women get a zest for living.
There were some factoids in the write up. Here are ones I noted:
- Recommind is placed on a par with Exterro and kCura. Fascinating to me because Exterro and kCura are what I consider next generation systems.
- Recommind is chasing three markets and according to the write up, Recommind’s revenue from the legal sector is “less than many other companies in the space.” No support but I found this an interesting observation.
- Recommind had a lousy 2009. No big surprise there.
I am not so quick to chastise Recommind for the alleged revenue. Compared to some of the search and content processing vendors I track, that $20 million or so looks pretty good compared to $1.5 to $3.0 million. We don’t know the cost structure or the net, but at least Recommind is still in business. It is, therefore, doing something right which is more than I can say for the search vendors listed on my Death Watch list. I recall I tried to visit the company, but it was too busy to make time for the addled goose. I suppose that’s a marketing ploy of sorts. I still want to understand the difference between the Recommind approach and the Autonomy IDOL approach. But now I am pretty busy and will content myself with recycling the Recommind revenue figures. And as for the “smaller than you might think”, I don’t think too much about Recommind or its revenues. I am a busy goose indeed. For more information about Recommends, navigate to www.recommind.com.
Stephen E Arnold, October 25, 2010
Freebie
Google TV: A New Spin on the Vast Wasteland
October 23, 2010
My hero was Newton Minow, one “n” thus differentiating him from the Leuciscinae, surely one of my favorite fish. My hero coined the phrase “vast wasteland” in a speech given in 1961. My dirt poor family got a television in 1958, so I had only three years of American Bandstand before the wasteland bon mot. I have never been hooked on TV. Lots of folks are, including one of my two friends and at least one member of my immediate family. For me, snap on the boob tube, and my eyes drift shut. The flickers and audio knock me out cold.
I have a fancy TV in my office. If I did not, the tech folks suck up bandwidth watching soccer on their workstations. Clever I solved this bandwidth problem with the big flat screen and a cable connection. I have been reading about the battle for the couch potato. Unlike Hannibal at Cannae, the Google TV phalanx seems to have marched into a thicket of troubles. Keep in mind that I know zero about the Google TV and my information comes from secondary sources. As a result, my writing this blog post is a reflection of what’s flitting around the World Wide Web news sites.
I noted two write ups that struck me as potentially problematic for the Google and for the lucky consumers who have snagged one of the gizmos that deliver the Google experience to the couch spuds.
Yahoo, probably an authority on rich media after the Semel years, posted “24 hours with Logitech’s Google TV-Enabled Revue.” Mouse maker Logitech has created a box that allows the lucky consumer to access the Google TV service.
For me, the key passage was:
As many have reported, several of the biggest TV networks — think ABC, CBS, and NBC —have blocked Google TV users from watching their online videos; needless to say, Hulu access has been blocked as well. (Online videos at Fox.com still seem to be working, at least for now.) Reuters reports that Google is in negotiations with the networks to restore access, but my guess is that the networks will hold out for the inevitable arrival of Hulu Plus — for which you’ll have to pay $10 a month (at least for now) — on Google TV.
Okay, the Google TV is available but the networks are not playing ball. Google’s Math Club team can dominate the TV executives while sending tweets and eating pizza. But when it comes to double dating with the Google, the TV executives are shy indeed. Fear? Money? Who knows.
The second write up that caught my attention was the Electronista write up “Sony’s Google TV Booted into Recovery, Opens Door to Hacks.” I can understand some rough edges with the interface and the need to update the gizmos before the lucky consumer can tap into Google’s search festivity. But a system that can allow the user to install updates and take control of the device seems to be a curious oversight. Maybe the Math Club team that worked on Buzz and Wave contributed to the Google TV? If you want to see how to hack the just released device, Electronista provides a couple of helpful YouTube videos. Left hand, right hand knowing what’s up? Go figure.
Keep in mind I don’t worship TV. I have not played with the Google TV. I can’t attest that the two cited write ups are accurate. Against this bleak factual background, my observations are:
- I wonder if the Google TV is the equivalent of the Microsoft Kin?
- Google is now moving into consumer territory. Does the Math Club understand the couch russet?
- Looking at the screenshots, some interface work seems to be in order. Someone told me that the Google TV browser lacks a browser bar. Well, the fix methinks is to know the key combination Control L. Intuitive for the Math Club, not so much for a soap opera fan.
The Apple TV is $99 and seems pretty easy to use. Yep, Apple and Google are chasing consumers. I don’t want to place a wager. I do like fireside apples, a book, and a TV on mute. Will apples take root in the vast wasteland?
Stephen E Arnold, October 23, 2010
Freebie
Click Fraud: Sucking Your Recession Bucks?
October 23, 2010
I don’t do online advertising. I don’t do sales. I don’t do marketing except this opinion-charged blog in the persona of an addled goose. But if you do online advertising, you will want to read about the alleged click fraud reported in “Click Fraud Rate Jumps in Q3 Behind Botnets.” Sports fans, put on your protective gear. You will find a real helmet to helmet collision. Here’s one passage that will make online advertisers see red, red ink that is.
Click fraud is a scheme where a person, automated script or computer program mimics a legitimate user clicking on an online ad to make money from a pay-per-click arrangement. According to a new report by Click Forensics, the click fraud rate was 22.3 percent in the third quarter of 2010, up from 18.6 percent in the previous quarter and 14.1 percent in the third quarter of 2009.
In case you did not get the point, here’s another allegation:
“While most third-party ad networks and all major search engines typically apply filters before charging advertisers, we have seen some advertisers waste as much as 10 percent of their monthly spend on invalid traffic and fraud.”
Yankee Doodle Dandy! In a lousy economic climate that’s some serious money. Now we ask, “Are these allegations accurate?” Don’t know. Or we ask, “What’s the method behind the shocking numbers?” Don’t know. And we ask, “Who else has these data?” Snap. No info.
If true, what are the online ad outfits who are rolling in dough doing to control this alleged issue? Now don’t give me Buffy the PR lady from Reed College. How about some info? The goose is thankful he has no need to hustle folks for money. The ads in this blog come from myself and the Google. Would the Google tolerate click fraud? Does a bear…?
Stephen E Arnold, October 22, 2010
Freebie which is definitely different from an online ad.
Search Engine History
October 22, 2010
Joe Stalin would love this infographic. Point your browser thingy with an Evercookie at “Search Engine History.” for the azurini, the infographic is gold. For the goose in Harrod’s Creek, the information is close—not 100 percent on the money—but horseshoe close. Were I younger, I would make some corrections. But with the testosterone charged MBAs and Amazonian females, I don’t need the push back. With Google’s market share reported as a monopoly invoking 84.73 percent, the Google will be working over time to make that market share look like a more acceptable 65 percent. Reality? Nah. Just the way the present world likes to operate. Sigh.
Stephen E Arnold, October 22, 2010
Freebie
Upgrade SharePoint, Know the Cost Maybe
October 20, 2010
A reader sent me a link to “Announcing the SharePoint 2010 Price Calculator, a Free Tool to Estimate SharePoint 2010 Licensing Costs.” If you are have a Microsoft logo tattooed on your arm, you will need this calculator. Bamboo Solutions’ engineers have created a tool that makes it possible to estimated the licensing costs for SharePoint or a SharePoint upgrade. Of particular interest to me was this passage:
Of particular note for existing SharePoint customers is that there have been a few changes to the license types available with SharePoint 2010 from the WSS/MOSS model of 2007. Of the three license types available for SharePoint 2010 (defined by Microsoft as Foundation, Standard, and Enterprise), here’s the quick ‘n’ dirty lowdown: Foundation is a free download, though companies using it must be properly licensed for Microsoft SharePoint Server; Standard and Enterprise both require the purchase of SharePoint Server 2010 and licensing of the requisite feature set; the Enterprise CAL is additive (i.e., you must already have the Standard CAL), and the Enterprise license also provides the opportunity to add on a license for FAST Search Server 2010 for SharePoint. Microsoft makes available a handy feature-comparison list between the three license types, allowing you to compare at a glance just which features are available (or unavailable, as the case may be) with each license type.
Several observations.
First, the calculator will provide “rough cut” numbers. I have heard that Microsoft has been increasingly aggressive in its pricing when Alfresco has been under consideration.
Second, Microsoft’s own pricing approach continues to confuse me. The notion of client access licenses and bundles is difficult for a goose to deconstruct.
Third, the inclusion of the Fast ESP technology makes pricing particularly difficult. The reason is that the Fast technology must be tailored, tuned, and configured. In most cases, this work requires patience, engineering expertise, and a solid knowledge of the “dark side” of precision and recall.
I recommend the pricing calculator. I would use the numbers as part of a negotiation process. You may find other uses for the tool. Whatever happened to a basic price list? Access the Bamboo widget gizmo here.
Stephen E Arnold, October 20, 2010
Freebie
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
