Yahoo Signals a Turn Inward
June 8, 2009
The Times of Oman reported here that Yahoo wants to build traffic and may not need a life saver from Redmond to thrive. “Yahoo! Doesn’t Need Microsoft Deal: CEO” reported:
“Yahoo! doesn’t have to do anything with Microsoft about anything,” Bartz said at a conference here of technology analysts. “Yahoo! actually has a bright, bright future, probably cleaner and simpler future without thinking there’s any Microsoft connection,” she said. “We’d be better off if we’d never heard the word Microsoft. “Forget about the Microsoft stuff, it’s honestly not that relevant,” she said.
With the release of Bing.com and the PR blitz, Microsoft may want to paddle up the search rapids without the Yahoo technical anchor snagging rocks and limbs. On the other hand, Yahoo is long in the tooth. Search is so-so, but until Bing.com what were the alternatives? My thought is that one should not spurn money when the costs of the present operation threaten to be tough to control.
Negotiating ploy or bold new vision? Clarity by the end of the year in my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, June 7, 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
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
Yahoo: Chasing Google with Semantic Intent
May 20, 2009
Information Week’s story “Yahoo Aims to Redefine What It Means to Search” which you must read here brought a tear to the eye of the addled goose. Yahoo aimed its former IBM and Verity “big gun” at Googzilla and fired a shot into the buttocks of their Mountain View neighbors. Mr. Cliburn, the author of the Information Week story, offered:
As described by Raghavan, Yahoo is directing its search efforts toward assessing user intent. When a user types “Star Trek,” Raghavan said, he doesn’t want 10 million documents, he wants actors and show times.
Information Week approaches the yawning gap between Google and Yahoo in a kinder, gentler way. Thomas Claburn wrote:
it’s perhaps understandable why Yahoo might want to re-frame the debate. Given its lack of success challenging Google directly — Google’s April search share in the U.S. reached 64.2%, a 0.5 point gain, while Yahoo’s search share fell to 20.4%, a 0.1 point decline, according to ComScore — Yahoo wants to change the game.
How will Yahoo deliver its better mousetrap?
Yahoo is relying on its partners to feed it with structured data.
Google’s approach includes algorithmic methods, the programmable search engine methods (Ramanathan Guha), and user intent (Alon Halevy). Yahoo, on the other hand, wants Web site operators and other humans to do the heavy lifting.
Yahoo’s focus on user intent could lead to happier users, if Yahoo Search can guess user intent accurately. It could also help Yahoo make more money from advertising. “If we can divine the user’s intent, that’s obviously of great interest to advertisers,” said Raghavan.
Advertisers want eyeballs of buyers. Google delivers eyeballs in droves. One percent of two billion is a useful segment. Yahoo has struggled to: [a] deliver segments that make advertisers abandon Google’s big data method for the flawed Panama system, [b] monetize its hot, high traffic services like Flickr in an effective manner, and [c] put real flamethrowers on the GOOG’s hindquarters, which is what Yahoo has seen since mid 2003.
Yahoo will need divine intervention to close the gap with Google. More importantly, neither Google nor Yahoo have an answer to the surging popularity of Twitter, Facebook, and other real time search systems. I am watching the sky for an omen that Woden is arriving to help the Yahooligans. So far, no portents, just PR.
Stephen Arnold, May 20, 2009
Google Hadoop de Yahoo
May 7, 2009
The Register has another interesting write up about Google. This story — “Hadoop – Why Is Google Juicing Yahoo Search?” here – struck me as having two excellent points. The first is that Google’s arrogance is served with the uptake of its approach to data management. Second, Yahoo grabbed on to the Google solution and so far has not narrowed the gap between it and its rival Google. For me the most interesting comment in the article was:
…the old Google arrogance is also at play. In sharing its distributed-computing genius with the rest of the world, Bisciglia says, Google “showed the world that they were right.”
Yep, seems as if Google has been more right than its Web search, online advertising, and rich media search rivals so far.
Stephen Arnold, June 7, 2009
Alternatives to Google Web Search
May 7, 2009
Abhijeet Mukherjee wrote “Ditch Google For A Day: 10 Amazing Search Engines to Try Out” here. This article provides a list of search engines that may be useful. The premised of the essay is to assert that a reader may want to set Google aside for a day or two and use these systems. I don’t want to reproduce the list. Please, visit the original write up. I would like to mention three of the systems and offer a brief comment.
First, Docjax is a metasearch system. I have noticed that Google’s coverage of PowerPoint files has been changing over the last year. There are fewer PowerPoints available and Google does not do a particularly stellar job of indexing the contents of presentations on services such as Scribd. Docjax may be useful to you. I find it helpful for certain queries.
Second, Yahoo Glue is one of those Yahoo search experiments that deliver some useful search features. I used Mindset, now removed from the Yahoo Labs’s site, for certain types of technical queries. I don’t like Yahoo Glue as well, but you may find that Yahoo is more useful with the Glue service. When I first saw Glue, I thought it was a variation on Google’s universal search.
Third, Freshbargains is a useful bargain search engine. I would classify this as a vertical search system. Some results are spot on, others less useful. Worth a shot when looking for deals.
In my opinion, none of these is a leap frog service, and I don’t any of these systems can scale like Google for a couple of reasons. First, the cost would be high and the economy is not too good in my view. Second, Google has a magnetic brand. Trucks of ad dollars would be needed to catch user’s attention.
Marginally better won’t close the gap between these systems’ market share and Google’s. That 10 year lead looks more formidable each day.
Stephen Arnold, May 8, 2009
Inside Microsoft Search
May 7, 2009
The Register ran an intriguing article called “Microsoft’s New Search – Built on Open-Source” here by Cade Metz. The article stated:
In July of last year, Microsoft acquired Powerset, a San Francisco startup intent on bringing natural language processing to web search. And like the original Hotmail, the startup’s semantic search engine leans heavily on open source code.
Ms. Cade asserted that:
Powerset generates its search index via Hadoop, the same open-source distributed computing platform that juices Yahoo!’s search engine. Based on Google’s MapReduce distributed computing platform and GFS file system, Hadoop was originally developed by open-source maven Doug Cutting, now on the Yahoo! payroll. But it was Powerset that originated Hadoop’s HBase project, an effort to mimic Google’s famous distributed storage system, BigTable.
You will want to read the original story to get the full analysis. I want to highlight a scintillating sentence: “And it’s [Hadoop] the bastard child of the Google Chocolate Factory.”
My thoughts swirled when I read this write up. I recalled hearing that open source had been used in the Fast Search & Transfer system too. I don’t know what to think about this article. Quite a challenging story.
Stephen Arnold, June 8, 2009
Microsoft Has a Top Search Term. Google.
May 1, 2009
The Guardian dropped its Google voodoo doll and pins and picked up a story about Microsoft’s Live.com and the service’s most popular search term. The story ran in the dead tree outfit’s Web log, called PDA The Digital Blog, which is quite trendy and quite a mouthful. The title of the story is “Most Search Term on Microsoft’s Live Search is … Google”. You can read it here. The story, which I found somewhat hard to follow with odd comments such as “More after the jump” inserted in paragraphs in the middle of the text, provides a smattering of statistics and a reference to “a Live Search overhaul” later this spring also puzzled me. I found the write up interesting for two reasons:
First, many people use a default search engine as a portal. It is easier I have been told to type the name of the service in a search box than keying the full location in the browser’s address bar. With lots of Internet Explorers in front of people, it makes sense that a widely used search service like Google would be one of the top terms in any browser.
Second, the data displayed in the write up show (if indeed they are accurate) that only Microsoft is not a top destination on either Google or Yahoo top search listings. I would conclude that people will use Microsoft to go run their queries on other services. Not good news for Microsoft in my part of the goose pond.
Stephen Arnold, May 1, 2009
The Beeb and Alpha
April 30, 2009
I am delighted that the BBC, the once non commercial entity, has a new horse to ride. I must admit that when I think of the UK and horse to ride, my mind echoes with the sound of Ms. Sperling saying, “Into the valley of death rode the 600”. The story (article) here carries a title worthy of the Google-phobic Guardian newspaper: “Web Tool As Important as Google.” The subject is the Wolfram Alpha information system which is “the brainchild of British-born physicist Stephen Wolfram”.
Wolfram Alpha is a new content processing and information system that uses a “computational knowledge engine”. There are quite a few new search and information processing systems. In fact, I mentioned two of these in recent Web log posts: NetBase here and Veratect here.
Can Wolfram Alpha or another search start up Taser the Google? Image source:
In my reading of the BBC story includes a hint that Wolfram Alpha may have a bit of “fluff” sticking to its ones and zeros. Nevertheless, I sensed a bit of glee that Google is likely to face a challenge from a math-centric system.
Now let’s step back:
First, I have no doubt that the Wolfram Alpha system will deliver useful results. Not only does Dr. Wolfram have impeccable credentials, he is letting math do the heavy lifting. The problem with most NLP and semantic systems is that humans are usually needed to figure out certain things regarding “meaning” of and in information. Like Google, Dr. Wolfram lets the software machines grind away.
Second, in order to pull of an upset of Google, Wolfram Alpha will need some ramp up momentum. Think of the search system as a big airplane. The commercial version of the big airplane has to be built, made reliable, and then supported. Once that’s done, the beast has to taxi down a big runway, build up speed, and then get aloft. Once aloft, the airplane must operate and then get back to ground for fuel, upgrades, etc. The Wolfram Alpha system is in it early stages.
Third, Google poses a practical problem to Wolfram Alpha and to Microsoft, Yahoo, and the others in the public search space. Google keeps doing new things. In fact, Google doesn’t have to do big things. Incremental changes are fine. Cumulatively these increase Google’s lead or its “magnetism”, if you will. So competitors are going to have to find a way to leapfrog Google. I don’t think any of the present systems have the legs for this jump, including Wolfram Alpha because it is not yet a commercial grade offering. When it is, I will reassess my present view. What competitors are doing is repositioning themselves away from Google. Instead of getting sand kicked in one face on the beach, the competitors are swimming in the pool at the country club. Specialization makes it easier to avoid Googzilla’s hot breath.
To wrap up, I hope Wolfram Alpha goes commercial quickly. I want to have access to its functions and features. Before that happens, I think that the Beeb and other publishing outfits will be rooting for the next big thing in the hopes that once of these wizards can Taser the Google. For now, the Tasers are running on a partial charge. The GOOG does not feel them.
Stephen Arnold, May 1, 2009
Yahooligans Losing Ground
April 28, 2009
Short honk: A small item in Barron’s caught my attention. The article “What’s Up with Yahoo?” here notices a softening of Yahoo’s already mushy shares. Eric Savitz points out the drop in values. The real action in the post appears in the comments here. One item in particular caught my attention; to wit:
Look at their traffic patterns 40% of traffic is derived from the sub-domain mail.yahoo.com, and Bartz is cutting all their other services. Yahoo is becoming nothing more than the largest free email provider in the world, and that reality is starting to come up over and over in analysts discussions of the company.
Not a peep about search. Think it’s marginalized?
Stephen Arnold, April 28, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
