The Jab-Google Bandwagon Rolls On
June 30, 2008
Phil Wainewright, whose writing I enjoy, wrote “Google’s Culture Not Fit for Enterprise Apps.” The essay appeared on June 30, 2008. You can find the full text here. Xooglers have been picking on the search dominator, and I posted a link to a story that I thought might be a spoof here. Apparently it wasn’t based on some email feedback I received this weekend, but I remain skeptical. What I am sure about is that criticism about Google seems to be on the uptick, and I am not sure why. The company has been consistent in its behavior for years. The biggest change is the company’s increased “transparency”. Googlers are everywhere: at conferences, in the news, on Web casts. Everywhere I look, there’s the GOOG.
Now, to Mr. Wainewright. He is actually picking up on the theme that Xooglers–that is, employees who cash out, quit, or get fired–are revealing that Mother Google has some idiosyncrasies. The key paragraph for me in Mr. Wainewright’s well-written essay was:
It’s a damning indictment, and one that casts a long shadow over Google’s attempts to replace Microsoft’s pre-eminence in the office collaboration software market with its Google Apps suite. As a disruptive competitor, it doesn’t have to match Microsoft Office feature-for-feature. But if it really is unreliable and buggy as Solyanik claims — and the current outage of Feedburner’s Web analytics service lends further weight to this view — then Google doesn’t even make the grade as a business-class SaaS provider.
Let me offer three observations.
First, demographics will help Google. As Google’s push in the educational institutions increases, future graduates will be comfortable with Google and its characteristics. When these graduates enter the work force, I think some of them will continue using Google or take steps to get Google products and services into the organization. I am not sure quality will have much to do with this sell through. I think habit, loyalty, and the notion that Google is pretty good will have some impact. Ergo, the short term and today’s expectations don’t matter so much.
Second, existing enterprise applications are clunky, disappointing, and costly to deploy, customize and maintain. I think that in a deteriorating economy, Google’s approach or that of its surrogates like Salesforce.com will be good enough. If the price is right, Google has a great opportunity to be pulled into an organization. Sure, traditional outfits and information technology departments may balk. But when money is tight, Google can cut a great deal, and maybe some of those “old fashioned IT professionals” could be rationalized. The systems associated with that crowd may strike some youthful chief financial officers as problems, not solutions.
Third, the competitors in the enterprise space are struggling. Oracle is boosting prices. Microsoft is betting the farm on a polymorphic software solution that is really complicated. (If you have not seen the SharePoint placemat, take a gander. You can find it here.) IBM is a consulting firm with loyal customers who so far have been content to write huge checks for solutions, but in a lousy quarter, IBM could face some pressure from upstarts like Google and its partners.
In short, Google can be baffling. I think that as people learn more about Google, more warts and blotches will become visible. Nevertheless, the GOOG is following its own path. By definition, those who are not Googley cannot be expected to understand how the company works, what it is doing, and when it will take certain actions. The “why” is clear: To make money. The “how” is a baffler, but I think the approach the firm is taking is interesting and more disruptive than many think.
Agree? Disagree? Let me know.
Stephen Arnold, June 30, 2008
Update: July 1, 2008, 9 50 pm Eastern; A round up of Google’s woes is here.
Gilbane Chats Up a Silly Goose: The Arnold Interview
June 18, 2008
On Wednesday, June 18, 2008, I will be interviewed in front of an audience completely unaware of why a fellow from Harrod’s Creek, Kentucky, is sitting on a stage answering questions. No one is more baffled than I. Based on my knowledge of the big city, I anticipate confusion, torpor, and indifference to my comments.
In this essay, which will become available on June 18, 2008, the curious will have a reference document that summarizes my thoughts on issues about which I may be asked. There has been no dry run for this interview. The last one in which I participated–the Associated Press’s invitation-only gathering last year–left the audience with little appetite for food. Some found the beverage table a more welcome destination.
Anticipated Question 1: What’s “beyond search” mean?
In research conducted by me and others, about two-thirds of the users of an enterprise search system are dissatisfied with that system. “Beyond search” implies that we have to move to another approach because what is now available in organizations with which I and the other researchers have investigated is not well liked. Due to the cost of some systems, annoying two-thirds of the users is tantamount to getting a D or an F on a report card.
Anticipated Question 2: What’s “behind the firewall search” mean?
I wrote about the search elephant here. Many different functions involving information access are made available to an employee, contractor, or authorized user. The idea is that “behind the firewall search” is not public and made available by an organization to a select group of users. The “search elephant” refers to the many different ways in which search is understood and perceived within an organization.
Anticipated Question 3: Why are there so many search vendors and more coming each day?
There is a belief that existing systems are not tapping into what I have estimated to be a $2.5 billion market for information access in the enterprise. Entrepreneurs and people with money look at Google and think, “We should be able to make gains like that in the enterprise market.” I also think that the market itself is trying to figure out the search elephant. Buyers don’t know what is needed. When entrepreneurs, money, and confused customers with severe information access problems come together, we have the type of market place that exists today.
Anticipated Question 4: What about Microsoft and Fast Search & Transfer?
I understand that it is business as usual at Microsoft and Fast Search. For Microsoft, this means trying to get 10,000 motorboats to go in roughly the same direction. For Fast Search, the company continues to license its Enterprise Search Platform and service customers. There are many bits of grit in the working parts where Microsoft and Fast Search mesh. It is too soon to tell if these inhibitors are trivial or whether the machine will sputter, maybe stop. What I tell people is to ignore the Microsoft-Fast Search tie up, and get a solution for a SharePoint environment that works. There are good choices ranging from a lower cost solution like dtSearch to a competitively priced system from Coveo, Exalead, ISYS Search Software, or another Microsoft Certified vendor.
Anticipated Question 5: What’s the impact of the Google Search Appliance?
Many vendors will tell you that Google has delivered a second-class system. That’s not exactly true. With the OneBox API, Google has a very solid solution. The impact is that Google has about 10,000 enterprise customers. These are sales made, in many cases, under the noses of incumbent vendors. Google’s a player in the enterprise market and a serious one. I have uncovered one impactful bit of research at Google that could–note, I said, could–change the search landscape. I have tried to ask Google about this development, but the GOOG thinks I am do not merit their attention. Too bad for me, I guess.
Anticipated Question 6: What’s the impact of text processing, semantic search, and other new technologies on enterprise search?
These are hot terms that will open doors. Some vendors will make sales because of their ability to mesh trendy concepts with more traditional search.
Stephen Arnold, June 18, 2008
Microsoft’s Web Search Strategy Revealed: The Scoble Goldberg Interview
June 16, 2008
Online video does not match my mode of learning. Robert Scoble, a laurel leaf wwearerin the new world of video and text Web logs, conducted an interview with Brad Goldberg.
The interview is part of the Fast Company videos, and it is available here. The interview is remarkable, and I urge you to spend 31 minutes and listen to Brad Goldberg, General Manager of Microsoft Search Business Group.
The interview reveals useful information about the time line for Microsoft to capture market share fro9m Google and Microsoft’s ideas for differentiating itself from Google in Web search.
Surprisingly, there were no references that I could pick up to enterprise search, nor was there any indication that Mr. Goldberg was aware of the Fast Search & Transfer Web search technology which was quite good. As you may know, Fast Search withdrew from Web search in 2003, selling its AllTheWeb.com Web index to Overture. Yahoo gobbled Overture and used bits and pieces of the Fast Search technology recently. The “auto suggest” feature is still available from Yahoo’s AllTheWeb.com site. My tests suggest that today’s AllTheWeb.com uses the Yahoo Search index built by the Slurp crawler and the Fast Search technology for some of the bells and whistles on the site. The news search function is actually quite useful. If you are not familiar with it, you can try it here.
During the interview, Mr. Goldberg uses some sample queries to illustrate his claims about Live.com’s search performance, precision, and recall. I ran the “Paris” query on each of these systems, and I ran comparative queries on this Web log as well. After the interview, I took a look at the 2005 analysis of mainstream Web search systems here so I could gauge how much change has taken place in the last three years. Quick impression: Not much. You may want to perform similar as-you-listen tests. It is easy to see what search system responds most quickly, how the search results differ, and the features that each system makes available.
Three points in Mr. Goldberg’s remarks stuck in my mind. I want to mention each of these and then offer a few observations. Judging from the edgy comments to some my essays, I want you to know that you may not agree with me. That’s okay with me. Please, use the comments section to set me straight. Providing some facts to go along with your push back is helpful to me.
Key Points for Me
1. Parity or Microsoft’s Relevancy Is As Good as Google’s
Mr. Goldberg asserted that the major search services were at parity in terms of relevance and coverage. I found this notion somewhat difficult to comprehend. The data about Web search market share undermines any argument about parity which means, according to my understanding of the word “equality” or “equivalence”. I have had difficulty interpreting comments by whiz kids before, so I may be off base. My thought was that Google continues to gain market share at the expense of both Microsoft and Yahoo. The dis-parity is significant because Google, according to data mavens, accounts for 60 percent of more of user queries in the US. In Europe, the market share is higher. US search systems do not hold commanding leads in China, Korea, and other Eastern markets.
Should parity mean visual appearance, yes, Microsoft is looking more like Google. Here is the result of one of my test queries: “real estate baltimore maryland”.
 |
 |
On the surface these look alike. Closer inspection reveals that Google includes a canned form so I can narrow my result by location and property type. Google eliminates a step in looking for real estate in Baltimore. Microsoft’s result does not offer this feature, preferring to show “related searches”. I like the Google approach. I don’t make much use of machine-generated related queries. I have specialized tools to discern relationships in result sets.
Enterprise Information’s Missing Pieces
June 5, 2008
In 2001, I found myself on a panel talking about electronic information and enterprise search. The venue was Internet World. That’s right the once dominant trade show for the brave new world of online.
I’m not sure how I ended up on the program, but I recall I was there, facing an audience of 250 people. Put the word “Internet” on a hand lettered sign in a diner’s window and a crowd would gather. The Internet has evolved but the missing pieces in the information puzzle are still with us.
Here’s an image from my PowerPoint deck.
Web log graphics are “crunched” and the result is difficult for me to read. Let me highlight each of these nine pieces of the enterprise information puzzle.
- Graphical editor
- Database engine
- Version controls
- Site manipulation tools (that is, publishing tools)
- Personalization tools
- Search engine
- Administrative interface
- Usage tracking
- Security services
Nothing is missing. The nine elements are identified in the graphic, and in your own organization you have each of these functions up and running. Some puzzle pieces work better than others. These are complex sub systems and functions. Variability and unevenness are to be expected.
My point in 2001 was that each of these pieces was not fitted to the others. The parts are there, but until integration across different sub systems and functions, the puzzle is incomplete. In fact, you don’t even have a decent picture of what the integrated results will look like.
Microsoft to ‘Innovate and Disrupt in Search’–Again
May 19, 2008
My newsreader popped this info tart in front of me this morning: “Kevin Johnson’s Memo On Yahoo & Their Strategy”. The focus of Gigaom’s Web log post is a memo, allegedly by Kevin Johnson. By the time you read this, my pathetic posting will be very old news. You need to read the memo and determine for yourself it it’s the real deal.
I’m commenting because of a series of emails I exchanged this morning about Microsoft’s search strategy. Among the points I made to the eager journalist who was, as my mother used to say, an empty vessel:
- Microsoft is implementing reactions, not a strategy. The cause of these knee-jerk reactions: mostly the Google and a business model challenge. Cloud services are coming round the mountain, and Microsoft can hear the whistle blowing.
- Yahoo has some sharp people and a truck load of search systems–Inktomi, Stata Labs, AllTheWeb.com (provided by Fast Search & Transfer), Flickr’s system, Overture’s search, and more). I’ve been told the company is rushing to be more like Google, which is not perfect, obviously. But Yahoo is grossly heterogeneous, and Google is more homogeneous in architecture.
- Google keeps on grinding forward. In Israel a day ago, Mr. Brin referenced Google’s multi dimensional database progress. My sources tell me that it is not progress; it is a leap frog play.
So “innovate and disrupt in search” is going to boil down to tackling these problems, forcefully, squarely, and well.
First, how many search platforms will Microsoft support? SharePoint, whizzy technology from Microsoft Research, Fast Search & Transfer’s ESP, and the legacy systems that just won’t die. Each search platform is a money hog. Get too many of these critters chomping on the cash, and you will be one poor data farmer.
Second, if–and this is a big if–Microsoft cuts a deal with Yahoo, exactly how will two shot up World War I biplanes contend with Google’s F-35? Time is running out because the GOOG keeps gobbling market and mind share. It is the number one site on the Internet and the world’s top brand. Quite a one-two punch for piston powered aircraft to shoot down.
Third, Google’s business model is based on advertising. Google wants to diversify, and Mr. Brin’s comments in Israel a day ago suggest that he wants to put a rocket booster on Google Apps. Interest in cloud-based services continues to creep up, and Google is in a good position to innovate and disrupt in that sector. The company already is innovating and disrupting in search.
We’re watching a clash of cultures and business models. When Microsoft swizzled IBM in the 1980s, it was clever. Google’s not just clever; Google has the technical platform to redefine search and enterprise applications.
Mr. Johnson’s memo does little to convince me that Microsoft–with or without Yahoo–can do much to stop Googzilla from doing Googzilla-type things.
Stephen Arnold, May 19, 2008
Enterprise Search and Train Wrecks
May 7, 2008
After I completed my interview with the Intelligenx executives, I thought about one of their comments. Iqbal Talib said, “We have many clients who want a point solution, not an enterprise solution”. An executive at Avalon Consulting wrote me today and echoed the Intelligenx comment.
Enterprise search may be a train wreck for more than half of the people who use today’s most popular systems. The Big Name vendors can grouse, stomp, and sneer at this assertion. Reality: Most of these systems disappoint their licensees. When a search system “goes off the rails”, the consequences can be unexpected.
When an enterprise system goes off the rails, the damage is considerable. Even worse, moving the wreckage out of the way is real work. But even more difficult is earning back the confidence of the passengers.
A Case Example
A major European news organization licensed a Big Name system. The company ponied up a down payment and asked for a fast-cycle installation. After six months of dithering, the Big Name admitted that it did not have an engineer available who could perform the installation and customization the paying customer wanted.
The news organization pulled the plug. The company then licensed one of the up-and-coming systems profiled in Beyond Search. The revamped system was available in less than three weeks at a fraction of the cost for the Big Name system.
The new system works, and it has become a showcase for the news organization. For the Big Name, the loss of the account eroded already shaky finances and became the talk of cocktail parties at industry functions.
Ever wonder how much churn Big Name enterprise search vendors experience in a year? You can get a good idea by comparing the customer lists of the best-known enterprise search vendors. The overlap is remarkable because large companies work their way through the systems. Now more are turning to up-and-coming vendors’ systems. The Big Names are facing some sales push back. Take a look at the financials for publicly traded search vendors. Look for days-sales-outstanding data. Look at the cash reserves. Look at the footnotes about restating financials.
What you may find is that fancy dancing is endemic.
How Many Search Systems Does One Company Need?
What haunts me is the overlap among vendors. Early in 2003, I conducted a poll of Fortune 1000 companies. The methodology was simple: I sent an email with several basic questions to people whom I knew at 150 different large organizations. I received a response rate of about 70 percent, which was remarkable. One question I asked five years ago was, “How many enterprise search systems do you have?”
Searchenstein: Pensée d’escalier
May 1, 2008
At the Boston Search Engine Meeting, I spoke with a certified search wizard-ette. As you know, my legal eagle discourages me from proper noun extraction in my Web log essay. This means I can’t name the person, nor can I provide you with the name of her employer. You will have to conjure a face less wizard-ette from your imagination. But she’s real, very real.
Set up: the wizard-ette wanted to ask me about Lucene as an enterprise search system. But that was a nerd gambit. The real question was, “Will I be able to graft an add on to perform semantic processing or text mining system on top of Lucene and make the hybrid work?”
The answer is, “Yes but”. Most search and content processing systems are monsters. Some are tame; others are fierce. Only a handful of enterprise search systems have been engineered to be homogeneous.
I knew this wizard-ette wasn’t enthralled with a “yes but”. She wanted a definitive, simple answer. I stumbled and fumbled. Off she drifted. This short essay, then, contains my belated pensée d’escalier.
What Is a Searchenstein?
A searchenstein is a content processing or information access system that contains a great many separate pieces. These different systems, functions, and sub systems are held together with scripts; that is, digital glue or what the code jockeys call middleware. The word middleware sounds more patrician than scripts. (In my experience, a big part of the search and retrieval business reduces to word smithing.)
Searchenstein is a search and content processing system cobbled together from different parts. There are several degrees of searchensteinism. There’s a core system built to a strict engineering plan and then swaddled in bastard code. Instead of working to the original engineering plan, the MBAs running the company take the easier, cheaper, and faster path. Systems from the Big Three of enterprise search are made up of different parts, often from sources that have little knowledge or interest in the system onto which the extras will be bolted. Other vendors have an engineering plan, and the third-party components are more tastefully integrated. This is the difference between a car customization by a cash-strapped teen and the work of Los Angeles after market specialists who build specialized automobiles for the super rich.
This illustration shows the body parts of a searchenstein. In this type of system, it’s easy to get lost in the finger pointing when a problem occurs. Not only are the dependencies tough to figure out, it’s almost impossible to get one’s hand on the single throat to choke.
Another variant is to use many different components from the moment the company gets in the search and content processing business. The complexities of the system are carefully hidden, often in a “black box” or beneath a zippy interface. You can’t fiddle with the innards of the “black box.” The reason, according to the vendor, may be to protect intellectual property. Another reason is that the “black box” is easily destabilized by tinkering.
Coveo: Pushing Beyond Search
April 26, 2008
I’ve been briefed on the Coveo technology. I also labor for cash for the owners of CRM Magazine. Nevertheless, I want to point out that the “Rising Star” Award underscores an interesting shift in search and retrieval. You can read about the award here.
Coveo, one of the companies known for its “snap in” solution to the woes of Microsoft SharePoint’s built in search system has been recognized for its customer relationship management services. CRM is the god father of the self-service customer support movement. The idea is that customers can help themselves solve problems if the customer can find the information. Coveo’s system does that well. On the flip side, the people manning the customer support toll free lines and digging through the email need technology to find answers as well. CRM Magazine’s award underscores Coveo’s ability to deliver on that front as well.
Coveo has been successful in moving “beyond search” with its interface and assisted-search interface. But the company has also won key accounts where vendors such as RightNow, Oracle, and others have long held sway. Coveo, based in frosty Québec City, Québec, continues to innovate despite the long winters and endless hockey season.
Stephen Arnold, April 25, 2008
Microsoft Chomps and Swallows Fast
April 26, 2008
It’s official. On April 24, 2008, Fast Search & Transfer became part of the Microsoft operation. You can read the details at Digital Trends here, the InfoWorld version here, or Examiner.com’s take here.
John Lervik, the Fast Search CEO, will become a corporate vice president at Microsoft. He will report to Jeff Teper, the corporate vice president for the Office Business Platform at Microsoft. The idea–based on my understanding of the set up–is that Dr. Lervik will develop a comprehensive group of search products and services. The offerings will involve Microsoft Search Sever 2008 Express, search for the Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007, and the Fast Enterprise Search Platform. Despite my age, I think the idea is to create a single enterprise search platform. Lucky licensees of Fast Search’s technology prior to the buy out will not be orphaned. Good news indeed, assuming the transition verbiage sets like hydrated lime, pozzolana, and aggregate. Some Roman concrete has been solid for two thousand years.
This is an example of Roman concrete. The idea of “set in stone” means that change is difficult. Microsoft has some management procedures that resist change.
A Big Job
The job is going to be a complicated one for Microsoft’s and Fast Search’s wizards.
First, Microsoft has encouraged partners to develop search solutions for its operating system, servers, and applications. The effort has been wildly successful. For example, if you are one of the more than 80 million SharePoint users, you can use search solutions from specialists like Interse in Denmark to add zip to the metadata functions of SharePoint, dtSearch to deliver lightning-fast performance with a natural language procession option, Coveo for clustering and seamless integration. You can dial into SurfRay’s snap in replacement for the native SharePoint search. You can turn to the ISYS Search System which delivers fast performance, entity extraction, and other other “beyond search” features. In short, there are dozens of companies who have developed solutions to address some of the native search weaknesses in SharePoint. So, one job will be handling the increased competition as the Fast Search team digs in while keeping “certified gold partners” reasonably happy.
This is a ceramic rendering of two of the “10,000 Immortals”. The idea is that when one Immortal is killed, another one takes his place. Microsoft’s certified gold partners–if shut out of the lucrative SharePoint aftermarket for search–may fight to keep their customers like the “10,000 Immortals”. The competitors will just keep coming until Microsoft emerges victorious.
Search Turbocharging: A Boost for Search Company Valuations?
January 13, 2008
PCWorld’s January 12, 2008, story “Micrsoft’s FAST Bid Signals a Shift in Search.” The story is important because it puts “behind the firewall” search in the high beams.
A Bit of History
Fast Search & Tansfer got out of the online Web search and advertising business in early 2003. CNet covered the story thoroughly. Shortly after the deal either John Lervik or Bjorn Laukli, both Fast Search senior executives, told me, “Fast Search will become the principal provider of enterprise search.” In 2003, there was little reason to doubt this assertion. Fast Search was making progress with lucrative U.S. government contracts via its partner AT&T. Google’s behind-the-firewall search efforts were modest. Autonomy and Endeca each had specific functionality that generlly allowed the companies to compete in a gentlemanly way, often selling the same Forture 1000 company their search systems. Autonomy was automatic and able to process large volumes of unstructured content; Endeca at that time was more adept at handling structured information and work flow applications. Fast Search was betting that it could attack the enterprise market and win big.
Now slightly more than four years later, the bold bet on the enterprise market has created an interesting story. The decision to get out of Web search and advertising may prove to be one of the most interesting decisions in search and retrieval. Most of the coverage of the Microsoft offer to buy Fast Search focuses on the here and now, not the history. Fast Search suffered some financial set backs in 2006 and 2007, but the real setback from my point of view is in the broader enterprise market.
Some Rough Numbers for Context
Specifically, after four years of playing out its enterprise strategy, Fast Search has fallen behind Autonomy. That company’s revenues are likely to be about 30 percent higher than Fast Search’s on an annualized basis, roughly $300 million to $200 million over the last 12 months. (I’m rounding gross revenues for illustrative purposes.) Endeca is likely to hit the $90 to $100 million target in 2008, so these three companies generate collectively gross revenues of about $600 million. Now here’s the kicker. Google’s often maligned Google Search Appliance has more than 8,000 licensees. I estimate that the gross revenue from the GSA is about $350 million per year. Even if I am off in my estimates (Google refuses to answer my questions or acknowledge my existence), my research suggests that as of December 31, 2007, Google was the largest vendor of “behind the firewall” search. This estimate excludes the bundled search in the 65 million SharePoint installations and the inclusion of search in other enterprise applications.
One more data point, and again I am going to round off the numbers to make a larger point. Google’s GSA revenue is a fraction of Google’s projected $14 billion gross revenue in calendar 2007. Recall that at the time Fast Search got out of Web search and advertising, Google was generating somewhere in the $50 to $100 million per year and Fast Search was reporting revenue of about $40 million. Since 2003, Google has caught up with Fast Search and bypassed it in revenue generated revenue from the enterprise search market sector.
The Fast Search bet bought the high octane performance Microsoft bid. However, revenue issues, employee rationalization, and eroding days sales outstanding figures suggest that the Fast Search vehicle has some mechanical problems. Perhaps technology is the issue? Maybe management lacked the MBA skills to keep the pit crew working at its peak? Could the market itself changed in a fundamental way, looking for a something that was simpler and required less tinkering? I certainly don’t know.
What’s Important in a Search Acquisition?
Now back to the PCWorld story by IDG’s Chris Kanaracus. We learn that Microsoft got a deal at $1.2 billion and solid technology. Furthermore, various pundits and industry executives focus on the “importance” of search. One type of “importance” is financial because $1.2 billion for a company with $200 million in revenue translates to six times annual revenue. Another type of importance is environmental because the underperforming “behind the firewall” search sector got some much-needed publicity.
What we learn from this article is that “behind the firewall” search is still a highly uncertain. There’s nothing in the Micrsoft offer that clarifies the specifics of Micrsoft’s use of the Fast Search technology. The larger market remains equally murky. Search is not one thing. Search is key word indexing, text mining, classifying, and metatagging. Each of these components is complicated and tricky to set up and maintain. Furthermore, the vendors in the “behind the firewall” space can change their positioning as easily as a n F-1 team switches the decals on its race car.
Another factor is that no one outside of Google knows what Google, arguably the largest vendor of “behind the firewall” search will or will not do. Ignoring Google in the enterprise market is easy and convenient. A large number of “behind the firewall” search systems skirt Google or dismiss the company’s technology by commenting about it in an unflattering manner.
I think it’s a mistake. Before the pundits and the vendors start calculating their big paydays from Microsoft’s interest in Fast Search & Technology, Google cannot be ignored; otherwise, the dip in Microsoft shares cited in the PCWorld article might like a flashing engine warning light. Shifting into high gear is useless if the engine blows up.
Stephen E. Arnold
January 14, 2008
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
