Big Bandits? Apple, Google, or Microsoft
January 16, 2011
I feel enervated when an azure chip consultant forces me to decide which company is not just a bandit, the biggest bandit. Navigate to “WebM vs. H.264: Google Bets Big on Itself.” The write up does a good job of explaining how these large monopolies are trying to become even larger and exert more control over things digital. I am not a video hound, but the goslings and many other folks in Harrod’s Creek cannot get through a day without large doses of kick back, couch potato action. The addled goose? Not so much.
The story quotes a poobah from the azure chip consulting firm, Yankee Group. Here’s the quote I liked:
“The question is, who are you going to trust to not hold standards licensees to ransom? Little MPEG or giant Google?” Howe [Yankee Group expert] asked. “At this point, I don’t think we know who is the bigger bandit.”
Wow. Apple, Google, and Microsoft described as alleged bandits. Exciting.
Stephen E Arnold, January 17, 2011
Freebie, unlike the advice of azure chip consultants commenting about banditry.
Google Compound Documents
January 12, 2011
Short honk: Just when you thought you could search the content in a word processing document, life becomes more exciting. “You Can Play Videos in Google Docs Now” reported that “Google has introduced support for video playback.” The write up said:
Google’s YouTube remains the destination of choice for anyone wanting to share a video with the world. But you can host and share videos on other Google products, Picasa expanded support, also via the YouTube player, last year and Docs now followed.
No word about one’s ability to search for a word or phrase within an embedded video in a Google Document. This feature is available from Exalead in Paris, however. See this Exalead Labs’s description.
Stephen E Arnold, January 12, 2011
Freebie
Living Google, Loving It
January 8, 2011
I don’t know much about Mark Cuban. I am familiar with his name, and I think he owns an outfit doing metasearch called Ice Rocket. Don’t bet on my memory, however. I read an interesting write up that was part fact, part jab at the Google. Navigate to “Am I Living the Google Lifestyle? You will find some interesting comments about Google’s products and services, but one passage struck me as quite interesting. Here it is:
YouTube’s fundamental business problem is that they are in business of subsidizing ALL/100pct of the bandwidth and hosting costs of consumer and small to medium size business video. That is a huge problem. Our ability to capture ever-increasing amounts of video at ever-increasing bit rates is growing exponentially. How happy are companies like Cisco knowing that the better they make their FLip cameras , with more storage and better resolution, the more money Google/YouTube has to spend as people host it on their servers and use their bandwidth to show to their friends and family. Of course it’s also costing Facebook more and more money. Which has created an interesting dynamic as both compete to host video.
I think this is ambiguous. On the surface, it is a useful insight into Google’s attracting customers with free (subsidized) services. However, the other angle suggests to me that Google can enjoy the steady increase in costs required to make video free.
My view is that Google has lots of cash coming in. Subsidizing works. Just ask Mr. Cuban.
Stephen E Arnold, January 8, 2011
Freebie
Facebook Gouges Google TV
January 4, 2011
The basic information about Facebook’s TV service is set forth in “Reality TV for the Rest of Us.” The idea is that TV listings recommended by friends is better than slogging through lots of channels or, even worse, recommendations generated by a numerical recipe with thresholds that may or may not deliver what you expect.
This service is a fresh approach to finding. The method ignores the brute force indexing of some companies and relies on recommendations. The significance is that brute force search is not in the leadership position in terms of a social walled garden like Facebook’s.
The shift is going to be dismissed by Google. Google will attempt to slot social content recommendations into its services. Who knows? Maybe Facebook will implode. Google would then have a shot to get back in the game. I think that this “reality TV” thing is going to be as painful and damaging to Google as a world champion fighter getting a thumb in the eye and then losing vision in that eye.
Why?
First, lightweight. Recommendations are just less hassle than brute force search. Humans do the work. Volunteer work.
Second, relevance. What are friends for? People trust referrals from friends. Word of mouth works. Different and better than a numerical recipe. (Go ahead. Disagree.)
Third, fits core demographics’ established behavior. For those hooked on Facebook, having Facebook spit out TV shows when one is listening to music, texting, and doing homework is a really nifty attention deficit disorder service. I might be driven crazy. For Facebook’s users, the new service is likely to be a must use function. Habitual behavior means a big win for Facebook.
Google may have to go through its social life with one eye operating at 50 percent. Upside? Maybe Google won’t see all those Android devices using Facebook to find content on the vast wasteland?
Stephen E Arnold, January 4, 2010
Freebie
Google TV and the Omitted Reasons for Doubt
December 29, 2010
Point your browser to the eWeek story “Google TV Is Failing: 10 Reasons Why.” The reasons seem okay. I don’t want to recite the list, but I can highlight two of the 10 reasons and invite you to navigate to the original write up.
This reason struck me as interesting. “The studios aren’t happy.” Or this one: Consumers don’t know about Google TV or aren’t ready.
Plausible? Sure. Related to Google TV? Nope. Consumers are buying content from studios via Apple, Netflix, and other vendors. These consumers represent a tiny fraction of the rich media guzzlers in the US. So “consumers” does not mean Joe and Janet Six-pack. Consumers mean those in the know and armed with dough. Those consumers are not gaga over Google TV.
Are these the “real” reasons for the rumors about Google TV looking a little anemic? Nope.
Our research into Google’s technology reveals a number of items, but I want to highlight two of them in this free blog posting. (If you want more, use the info on the About page to contact us.)
Real Reason 1: Google lacks nuts and bolts consumer savvy. How do we know? Check out the writings from Googlers about rich media. The world referenced in patent applications for rich media are oddly disconnected from the down and dirty market place. The “background” sections of Google patent applications provide some interesting reading. Also, there are public comments from Googlers about rich media. Google is not a consumer product company any more than your local water or electric company is consumer oriented. Different viewpoints ensure that the world of consumers and utility functions are miles apart. The scary part? The local utility monopolies will answer the phone when I call. Google, not so much.
Real Reason 2: Google engineers for engineers. Engineers love Google. My dad, not so much. Examples range from the Google Chrome browser which lacks the silly common user interface buttons for File operations. Or, Google’s Android phones that allow endless customization but allow some partners to slap a non Google interface on the phone so an average Six-pack family can make a call.
Why aren’t these points about Google more widely discussed? My hunch is that most folks want to get free Google mouse pads or get invited to the Google campus for free Odwallas. I also think that some folks hope that Google will hire them. The result is that analysis of Google is peculiar. The truth is right there to see, but no one wants to pull together the facts.
One example is Google an rich media. The company has been chugging along in the weird world of patent applications for years. Rich media starts popping up five or six years ago. The inventions sound great on paper, but the reality of the delivered services impress because hugely expensive YouTube.com content is delivered in ever increasing streams. The consumer wants some of that YouTube info, but the mass TV market is sticking with other methods and more importantly, other vendors.
Facebook is a giant photo outfit. In the next few months, rich media is going to play a larger role. Our team is watching what Facebook will do with “real” content and with the YouTube-type content. Unless Google figures out how to woo the consumers, Apple and other rich media purveyors may be joined by Facebook. In short, Facebook may be part of the reason why Google put into the market a product that appears to be out of step with where the rich media action is. We think a social spin on traditional movie and TV content may be a significant disruptor in the world beyond Google.
Just our opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, December 29, 2010
Freebie, of course.
Google TV: Two Views
December 27, 2010
“First Impressions: Google TV Delights” is a positive discussion of Google TV. The story states: “I’m dumbfounded by how good Google TV is right now.” You must read the original write up in Beta News.
For Beta News, Set up did not pose a problem. Integration with various digital content services such as “AT&T U-verse features, the TV and Google TV” worked fine. The interface was fine. The Google search was excellent, and there was content available from Netflix. In short, no problemo.
That is in sharp contrast to the implications about the success and usability of the device in “Google TV Forces Logitech to Delay Revue Set-Top”. The article asserted:
Delays are hitting Logitech’s Revue, a set-top box that some have called an active competitor to the Apple TV. But it’s not Logitech’s fault – rumors are circulating that Google itself has stepped in and asked the company to suspend production, in the hopes that the company can finish tweaking its Google TV software by the time the new expected shipping date of January 2011 rolls around.
Conflicting opinions abut technology products are nothing new. What is interesting is that Google seems to be pushing products into the marketplace and then scrambling to address issues or “explain” that there is no problem.
If there are glitches in the product, search functionality may not be enough to position Google TV as a better option than a competitor’s solution. Assume Google “gets it right” on the second or third try. Does this approach to product development make it even more clear that Google has become more like Microsoft?
I hope that 2011 returns Google to the NASCAR winners’ circle. Ads continue to be Google’s main business and missing out on the rich media revolution may concede time, mind share, and ad revenue to other firms. Apple comes to mind as one competitor who has an ecosystem advantage. But the Netflix momentum cannot be ignored. Then there are dozens of other “real” media companies chasing the pot of gold that seems to be anchored in motion pictures, user created videos, and the avalanche of rich media in digital form.
Will Google TV be another sector in which the assumptions that worked in Web search are not applicable? What happens if Facebook gets into rich media?
I am not a TV oriented person. The success or failure of Google TV means little to me. But TV may be a content domain where Google cannot afford to take a back seat to certain competitors. In my opinion, the methods that worked in Web search may have less traction in the rich media space. Google may have to start January 2011 with a new set of studded snow tires.
Stephen E Arnold, December 27, 2010
Freebie.
Two Interesting Signs for Google in 2011
December 20, 2010
I am perched in an airport ready to head south. Way south for some work and relaxation. In the secure area of the terminal, I noted two news stories that the poobahs see as unrelated events. Some pundits may sense these events which I shall document are connected but “real” journalists often leave dots as Donne-like islands. I am enjoy connecting dots, a privilege for those over 65 and mostly unemployed and ignored like other senior citizens.
Dot one: “Mark Zuckerberg’s Beijing Adventure.” The story in Gawker points out that Facebook’s wizard is going to visit Baidu, the number one search system in China. My take: If these two outfits find common ground, the relationship will have some repercussions for the Google. A Facebook – Baidu chat is interesting to me.
Dot two: “Google TV Faces Delays as CES Turns into a No-Show for New Products.” This story makes clear that Google’s TV play is not ready for prime time. Great dot, and you can see one possible reason by reading the draft chapter for a monograph I am sitting on until the TV dust settles. Google needed technology from a company with pretty good tie ups in the media world. The deal did not happen, and it is one reason why other services are scoring lay ups and the Google is tossing in shots from the parking lot. Here’s the link and the info is offered as is in rough draft form. Google has made a series of significant investments in rich media and, well, the linked story provides some color on the “no show” angle.
How does a 66 year old connect these two. Straightedge, pencil and an infinitely Euclidean long line pointing to Trouble Lane in Orangeburg, SC, not a place many Googlers want to be in 2011. I don’t recall Orangeburg as a hot bed of social and rich media activity for Google. Maybe I am wrong? Heading out.
Stephen E Arnold, December 20, 2010
Freebie unlike this airplane ticket
How Americans Spend Their Time
December 18, 2010
Slurp, slurp. ”
That is the sound of “real journalists” gobbling the latest Forrester confection. I read “Forrester: Americans Spend Equal time Online and Watching TV.” Great headline, but I am not sure I know what “time” means. Also, the pairing of online and watching TV is ambiguous.
I get the point. Web activity is now as popular as watching the boob tube. Great.
But what happens to the data if a person watches TV when online?
I think I know what the mid tier outfit is trying to accomplish: make sales for its consulting business. The “data” are the bait for the canny Forrester fishermen and fisherwomen.
Here’s the main idea. People are spending as much time watching TV as the people are fiddling with their computers, which I think means devices that are computers just hauled around or tucked in a pocket.
Several observations:
- What’s the sample size? What was the sampling method? Is the n=xxx such a big deal? Omit that from the stats homework in the lousy liberal college I attended as a dull normal and the prof awarded an automatic F. Guess that doesn’t apply to mid tier consulting outfits.
- Online usage is growing. Okay, great to know since devices have been proliferating for several years. It makes sense that if there are more devices, usage would go up.
- TV sucks. Well, the write up did not document that, but the TV crowd, like the newspaper and other publishers, are in a tizzy as people use their laptops and gizmos like the Apple TV to get the programming each user wants. With control, TV sucks less. If you want only shows you love, TV does not suck at all.
- The features used by those online mirror the same Alexis-Charles-Henri Clérel de Tocqueville “average” that his travels in America documented. The only difference is that the stuff that pleases is pretty well know; for example, email, buying stuff, and socializing.
What’s not in the write up may be in the “real” study available from Forrester? Facebook. My hunch is that the demographics of a statistically-valid sample rigorously surveyed would reveal some nuances not in the article and maybe in the “real” study. Here’s a list:
- In each demographic, which activity is growing more rapidly, which is decreasing more rapidly?
- In the demographic with the heaviest TV usage, what’s the group doing? Using the TV as background, a way to feel loved, or as a primary activity?
- In the demographic with the heaviest online usage, what amount of time is spent on Facebook versus any other social system.
- Across the sample, what is the lean back versus lean forward behavior? How many in each sector use one mode as a primary and the other mode as a secondary?
- Across demographics, who does the most buying? Under what conditions?
Our work in this field suggests some surprising behavioral shifts. The multitasking characteristic is covered in a Forrester blog post. Presumably that activity is documented rigorously in the “real” report.
But what about that sample? What confidence should I have in the oh-so-precise data? Without data about the mechanics of the study, not much I fear.
Stephen E Arnold, December 18, 2010
Freebie unlike the full reports from mid tier consulting firms
Quote to Note: Netflix Is Albania
December 16, 2010
I saw this quote in my hard copy of the dear old New York Times. The reference page is Section B1 (National Edition) Business page. The article with the alleged statement is “time Warner Views Netflix As a Fading Star.”
Here’s the alleged quote, attributed to Jeffrey Bewkes, Time Warner executive:
“It’s a little bit like, is the Albanian army going to take over the world. I don’t think so.”
The mystery pronoun “it” refers to the success of Netflix, the streaming video service that recently put its goodies in the hands of Amazon’s cloud system. Yep, that’s the company whose cloud service went offline recently. The “take over the world” is ambiguous, but I interpreted the phrase to mean that Netflix (Albania) would not be able to control the real media industry.
I didn’t see a reference to Apple in the story whose online system embodied in hardware, software, and iTunes has had a reasonably significant impact on the music sector.
I really admire the metaphor. Netflix as Albania. That’s one place where I found the immigration procedure quite interesting. Lovely yard care in the smaller cities’ residential neighborhood as well.
Stephen E Arnold, December 16, 2010
Freebie
Arnold Guest on Land SDS Podcast
December 9, 2010
Stephen E Arnold, ArnoldIT.com, was a guest on Dr. Tyra Oldham’s Land SDS podcast. The interview covered the contribution of computer technology to “green” initiatives. In the interview, Arnold said, “Significant gains in energy efficiency can be obtained using real time micro adjustments. Computers and smart software can dynamically adjust systems to reduce energy costs and minimize ecological impact.”
You can listen to the complete interview at www.landsds.com
Ken Toth, December 9, 2010
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
