Microsoft and Video Search
July 22, 2009
Bing.com received kudos for showing frames of videos on a search results page. Google does not provide this feature. For a short time, I thought Microsoft was gearing up to deal with Google on a service-by-service basis. I was wrong. I learned from Cnet’s “Microsoft Closing YouTube Rival” that Soapbox would be reinvented in nano scale. What about video search at Microsoft? I am confident that it will be positioned at the cat’s pajamas. Oh, cats don’t wear pajamas. YouTube.com may be a money loser and controversial, but the Google has oodles of patent applications for monetizing video. If the Googlers crack the code, Microsoft may be forced to play catch up. Traffic is the issue. Monetizing is an interesting problem but one which may have a solution. Just my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, July 22, 2009
Google and UPnP Functions
July 15, 2009
UPnP is a standard that enables devices to be plugged into a network and automatically know about each other. Most people don’t worry too much about standards for networked devices behaving and doing what their owners expect.
My thought is that savvy readers of this Web log might want to take a gander at four patent documents filed on December 7 and December 8, 2008, and published on June 11, 2009. Please, dear reader, do not remind me of these points:
- Patent applications may mean nothing; in fact, for one former Microsoft person, patent documents are often red herrings
- Patent applications may be little more than management keeping some engineers happy or giving their parents something to show the neighbors to help explain what their progeny does for a living
- Patent applications may not contain anything new, existing to recycle other, more prescient innovators ideas because the patent system is broken.
I think these four patent documents are reasonably interesting. You can get your very own copy from the ever snappy USPTO service or by paying one of the commercial outfits who will do the retrieving for those with better things to do than fool with mere busy work.
The four documents that caught my attention were:
- 20090150480, Publishing Assets Of Dynamic Nature In UPnP Networks
- 20090150481, Organizing And Publishing Assets In UPnP Networks
- 20090150520, Transmitting Assets In UPnP Networks To Remote Servers
- 20090150570, Sharing Assets Between UPnP Networks
I am reluctant to ignore these because the Google revealed that the inventors form what looks to me like an innovation team; to wit:
The italics show the three Googlers who played a part in all four patents. One can conclude that this group of seven individuals forms a core of UPnP knowledge at the Google.
So what can one do with the Google inventions disclosed in these four documents?
I will be discussing these in detail in my client briefings, so I will highlight one of the documents and offer some observations. For more, you can find out the method by looking at the About page for this Web log.
Let’s look at 20090150481. The title provides a clue: “Organizing and Publishing Assets in UPnP Networks”. The first order of business is to get up to speed on UPnP because the Google doesn’t provide the basic information needed for a person not skilled in the art to figure out what’s going on. You can start with this Wikipedia page. The information is useful but not 100 percent of the picture. I think it is a useful place to begin, however. The write up explains that connections in the home are one place where UPnP plays a role. Good clue that, particularly the reference to entertainment.
Now let’s look at what Google says the patent document 20090150481 is about:
System and computer program products for allowing a renderer in a UPnP network the capability of being able to render general Internet content of static or dynamic nature, which the renderer was not designed to render in the contents original data format and file type. The system queries all devices on the local network, queries specific remote servers over the Internet, and retrieves data feeds from remote sources. The queried and retrieved data that is not in a format and file type that can be rendered by the renderer is loaded into a template and turned into a format and file type acceptable by the renderer. The queried and retrieved data in the proper format and file type is organized in a custom format and made available for rendering to the renderer. The system has the capability of transmitting content or the metadata of the content within the devices on the local network to a hosting service over the Internet. Additionally, a second local network has the capability of accessing the content stored on the first local network.
The invention points to a more sophisticated media system, involving devices, content, and metadata. Strikes me as germane to Google’s interest in online games and other rich content.
Stephen Arnold, July 15, 2009
UFC 2010: HTML 5, Air, and Silverlight
July 3, 2009
Mary Jo Foley opened my eyes to a new unlimited online fighting battle in 2010. Her story with a lamentably cryptic headline appeared on June 11, 2009 as “Microsoft .Net RIA Services: Not until 2010.” You can find the article here. He story revealed that Microsoft will try to push its Rich Internet Application technology into the market in 2010. She wrote:
.Net RIA Services is designed to allow coders to bring together the .Net programming model with Microsoft’s Silverlight competitor to Adobe Flash. Microsoft made a Community Technology Preview (CTP) of the technology available in March, but didn’t provide any final availability information.
The RIA acronym means stuff like Adobe Flash and Google’s HTML 5 methods. The idea is that a computing device with an Internet connection can look and feel like a traditional application, a DVD player, or an immersive game. The end of shrink-wrap software and the money machine that made Microsoft and Adobe the big dogs each is today is likely to whine and stumble to a limp along, not a footrace.
I want to capture my thoughts about the dust up:
- I think Adobe is the weakest of the three combatants in the UFC 2010 digital slugfest. Adobe’s pushing the envelope with its license fees now. The sudden spate of security problems coupled with the balky nature of some Adobe Air implementations means that whatever cash Adobe has will not be enough to cope with the GOOG and the Softies.
- The Google team has a quasi-open source angle. The Microsoft team wants everyone to get with the Windows agenda, memorize it, and live it. This is a toss up because Google has been stumbling of late with regard to security, government regulations, and that old annoyance copyright. Microsoft is Microsoft, so it is a force no matter how wacky the Silverlight code may be.
- The financial climate, despite the sunny news from TV commentators, looks bleak to me. As a result, each of these UFC 2010 fighters will be ready to rumble. I think fingers in the eyes, low blows, and blows to the back of the neck will be entertaining tactics to watch.
In short, Ms. Foley reminded me to make time in 2010 for this traveling road show.
Stephen Arnold, July 3, 2009
Google Offers a Digital Olive Branch July 1
July 1, 2009
In my Google: The Digital Gutenberg, I describe an invention disclosed in a Google patent document for a “partner” to use Google like an integrated motion picture studio. The invention, in effect, allows a partner to create content, post it, control access to the content, run an ad campaign using Google tools, and essential operate like those fun loving moguls Sammy (I am a lamb) Goldwyn and Louis (I am a cupcake) Mayer. Google, according to Reuters, is promoting this “run your own business” service to newspapers. You can read Joseph Tartakoff’s “Google Wants Newspaper to Post Their Videos to YouTube” to get the Thomson Reuters’ slant on this story. For me, the most intriguing comment was:
That [the new offer from Google] contrasts with Google News, where publishers do not get a cut of any of the revenue from the ads that are placed around their headlines. Still, it’s unlikely that many publishers will want to abandon other video platforms, like Brightcove, which also allow them to sell their own ads against their video content—and to link up with several ad networks. Google had already begun to slowly integrate YouTube news videos with Google News last month, when it added videos for the first time to Google News, and the new push should further that. For Google, it’s also a free way to add more professional content to YouTube, and thus attract more premium advertisers.
Will newspapers grab the digital olive branch? Good question. I think that some publishers may do the math and conclude that Google has tipped the odds in favor of the house. I think that’s a wrong way to look at the Google offer, but that’s why I am a fat, addled goose, paddling in the pond with mine drainage run off. I don’t sit in an office tower with air conditioning cooling my pin feathers.
Stephen Arnold, July 1, 2009
Search Sucks: A Mini Case
June 30, 2009
I listened occasionally to the Gillmor Gang when it was available on iTunes. I noticed that the program disappeared, and I lost track of it. My RSS reader snagged a story about a verbal shoot out between the one man TV network Leo LaPorte and one of the participants in the Gilmore Gang. To make a long and somewhat confused story short, the show disappeared. I figured this would be a good topic to use to test Bing.com and Google.com. My premise was that neither service would be indexing the type of information about flaps in the wobbly world of real time content on the rich media Web.
I ran the query Gilmore Gang on Google and finally found a link to a story published on June 13, 2009, called “Hanging on for Dear Life.” The problem with the Google results was that the top rated links were just plain wrong in terms of answering my query. Granted I used a two word query and I was purposely testing the Google system to see if it was sufficiently “smart” to figure out that I wanted current and accurate information. Well, in my opinion, it was like a promising student who stayed up late and did not do his home work. Here is the result list Google generated for me on June 28, 2009:
The result I wanted I found using other tools.
YouTube Searching
June 20, 2009
Web Pro News published “New Ways to Search on YouTube” on June 19, 2009. The Google seems to be making an effort to introduce mild search tweaks. Chris Crum has a good run down of changes to YouTube.com search. Among the more interesting features is the introduction of an advanced search function. Advanced search features are used by a small percentage of Web search users. Google offers a range of parametric options, including when a video was pumped into the Google and its duration.
Stephen Arnold, July 20, 2009
YouTube.com Economics
June 19, 2009
Google won’t say. So in an absence of data, pundits, mavens, and azure chip consultants guess-timate. Boy, didn’t that worked well for Long Term Capital Management and the MBAs who traded in NINJA paper.
Two views on the question, “What’s YouTube.com cost the Google?”
What I find interesting is that both views reference a study by Ramp Rate, a San Francisco based strategic research company.In “Guessing Game: How Much Money Is YoutTube Losing?” Google loses money. The 3News.co.nz story said:
Technology consultants at RampRate project YouTube’s operating losses this year at US$174.2 million – far below the US$470.6 million estimated by Credit Suisse analysts Spencer Wang and Kenneth Sena in an April research report that became a hot topic on Wall Street and the internet.
The Business Week write up about the Ramp Rate analysis carried the headline “Maybe Google Isn’t Losing Big Bucks on YouTube after All”.
My view is that analyses by banks and financial analysts are less interesting since the financial meltdown. If the lads and lassies were mostly correct, the present business environment would be different. Just my opinion.
Google isn’t too forthcoming about the cost of YouTube.com. What I recall is that Microsoft was going to tackle this sector. Microsoft pulled out. Yahoo continues to dabble. Start ups abound. Video is expensive and it takes deep pockets to play the game.
Beyond that, sheer speculation.
Stephen Arnold, June 19, 2009
TV Business Will Follow Newspapers Says Analyst
June 18, 2009
Henry Blodget has written another ulcer maker. His “Sorry, There’s No Way To Save The TV Business” provided a nice complement to my write up about CNN’s coming cost crisis. If there were any doubt, just think about how traditional media performed over the weekend when Iranians expressed their discontent with election results.
Mr. Blodget asserted:
As with print-based media, Internet-based distribution generates only a tiny fraction of the revenue and profit that today’s incumbent cable, broadcast, and satellite distribution models do. As Internet-based distribution gains steam, therefore, most TV industry incumbents will no longer be able to support their existing cost structures.
He then provided a run down of the changes that are taking place. Good list and worth tucking away for future reference.
The one observation I would make is the Google. The Google Channel, the Vatican Channel, and the specter of a business that media giants of old could not have imagined.
Stephen Arnold, June 18, 2009
Microsoft and Video
June 17, 2009
Dark days in Redmond for its YouTube.com killer Soapbox. Ina Fried’s “Microsoft Gives Up YouTube Chase” alerted me to this development. Ms. Fried wrote:
In an interview on Tuesday, Microsoft Vice President Erik Jorgensen said Soapbox is one of the areas that Microsoft is pulling back on in the wake of a tough economic environment. His unit also recently pulled the plug on Microsoft Money, the company’s personal finance software product.
Maybe the video preview function on Bing.com will carry the freight. Ms. Fried noted:
While Microsoft will focus on such content, it’s still unclear whether it will continue to allow users to freely upload their videos or if it will require some sort of editorial selection of the movies before they make it onto the site.
With HTML 5 nosing into view, Silverlight may have another Google probe pushing in as well. Keep in mind that the Google has rolled out a client side Exchange escape trick. Interesting.
Stephen Arnold, June 17, 2009
CNN: The Coming Cost Cataclysm
June 8, 2009
I found myself in Atlanta, stranded because of modern air travel. What to do with a few spare hours? The Atlanta Dot Net Web site had one suggestion. Tour CNN Headquarters. I navigated to this link and read here:
Ever wondered what the inside of a news studio looks like? Take the Inside CNN Studio Tour in Atlanta and view for yourself. Guests can take a 50-minute CNN studio tour featuring the Control Room Theater, Special Effects studio and Interactive News Desk section.
As a senior, I qualified for a $12 admission. My impressions:
- The CNN studios in Atlanta occupied a building that once housed an amusement park. The cavernous atrium was a reminder of wasted money. The area sucked energy, heat in the winter and A/C in the summer. I tried to calculate the cost per square foot but I got a headache and the tour guide did not know how to respond to my question, “What is the total cubic feet of this atrium?” He smiled a lot and pointed out that CNN was the first 24 hour video news outlet.
- There were a lot of people in the usable space in the gargantuan structure. There were security guards at every stairwell. There were security guards at the metal detector which I set off thus triggering a pat down. I had no contraband, and I did enjoy the frisk, quite up close and personal.
- The guide pointed out that 20 percent of the staff were engaged in information technology. He pointed out cameras that were run from a control room, obviating the need for a human to keep the red eye in front of the talent. There were dozens of people performing work flow functions like research, writing, editing, and directing. The talent read stories that floated in front of their eyes so “eye contact was intimate”.
Stepping back after the tour, I reflected on my impressions and the three observations I summarized in the dot points above. I thought about the Google Wave technology. At some point in the future, I envisioned moving the CNN news process to the Wave system. I also thought about the one person television network that Leo LaPorte has built in Petaluma, California. I thought about the number of people on the tour who took pictures and made videos with mobile phones. I thought about the billboard ad I saw whilst riding Atlanta’s truncated mass transit system for high speed wireless networks. I through about the young man on the tour who sent SMS messages to his pals who were apparently interested in what he had to say about the inner sanctum of CNN.
Bottom-line: CNN is on track for a cost cataclysm. In my opinion, software can reduce the friction in the CNN process. By pushing news down to those with mobile devices and out to the fringes of civilization, a software based company can offer good enough video news without the punishing cost burden CNN as well as Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters must bear.
CNN sits on a San Andreas fault of costs. The earthquake can come at any time.
If this analysis sounds familiar, it is the same theme that has been running through some of the business commentaries about the problems traditional newspapers face. Upstarts using technology have sucked ad revenue and content from the custodial embrace of traditional publishing companies. The result has been a divorce of information methods and revenue. The traditional approach finds itself bleeding from many tiny wounds which sap its ability to leapfrog from where the organizations are today and where they have to be tomorrow.
The young people whom I know (few in number and quite strange to me) love video info. In fact, I note with some horror the dependence Google has upon videos to explain complex processes. I think the trend is locked in because when one writes, there is a formalism imposed. Even an addled goose like me has to plan what’s up. With a video, the rhetoric is that of the demo, a conversation, or a YouTube.com “insider” video. If the message is garbled, just do another video. Easy and without boundaries. The approach is just right for those decades younger than I.
How does this create trouble for a “too big too fail” television news operation?
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
