Autonomy Business Details: Are These Relevant to Search- and Content Processing Type Outfits Today?
May 31, 2022
I read “Judge Details Lynch’s $700k Signoff via iPhone Text in Full Autonomy Judgement.” The main idea is that Autonomy — an early entrant in the smart software for search and content processing — engaged in some business practices which a British judge finds suggestive. How suggestive? I am not sure, but the idea of using resellers and transactions to amp up revenues is interesting.
Another search and content processing outfit called Fast Search & Transfer (which Microsoft acquired more than a decade ago) found itself subject to some scrutiny for financial fancy dancing. One of the firm’s founders was found guilty and may have spent some time in the custody of a government. Maybe the fellow was cross country skiing and shooting a rifle at snow bunnies.
The relevance of the cited story and the reference to skis and weapons reminds me that the financial reports of high-flying search and content processing companies have to be scrutinized. I mention this because some of the more interesting search and content processing centric companies are publicly traded. Palantir Technologies comes to mind because I have seen a couple of semi-optimistic write ups about the company.
If I were a more youthful 77 year old, I would muster the energy to:
- Investigate the US government and UK government contracts for term, sunset dates, and contracting officers (what’s the background of these individuals)
- Research the question, “What’s bundled into the basic commercial and the basic government deal?”
- Explore the question, “How is cost of sales reacting to the economic climate since Palantir went public?”
- Try to determine answers to these questions: “What’s the ratio of sales people to programmers? The ratio of full time equivalents to contractors? How has the ratio changed since the firm went public?”
- Interview some people at LE and intel conferences to get a sense of the chatter related to this question: “Is Palantir bundling Amazon cloud services or doe the licensee have a choice?” and “Has there been talk of Palantir providing a “system in a box” to licensees with this requirement?
Why think about these types of questions? Oh, I am just curious about search and content processing outfits.
Stephen E Arnold, May 31, 2022
The Business Intelligence Blind Spot: Everyone Needs These Systems
May 30, 2022
I recall that a booth called “Business Blind Spots” identified a number of behaviors which contribute to business missteps. Staff, preconceived notions, market receptivity, etc. were among the points I recall.
I want to toss one more blind spot into the raging fire of burned cash, torched reputations, and incinerated opportunities. I call this bling spot, “Everybody needs these systems.” Plug in your own “systems”; for example, software that manages several cloud accounts which are guaranteed to blow through budget assumptions with no easy way to control the rising expenses.
I read “Palantir Stock: Getting Desperate.” I think the write up has been riding the well-worn fire trail to a burning coal mine.
Palantir Technologies is when the charities, the razzle dazzle, and the jargon are stripped away, is a search and retrieval company. The idea is that a person looking for information about a bad actor, for instance, can plug in the name and see results.
Now this seems like a function which is readily available from many vendors. The twist for Palantir is that it positioned its search as one that would meet the needs of intelligence officers. The US government entity embracing Palantir’s software influenced the add-ons; for example, the ability to ingest certain types of content that only government agencies could acquire.
In order to make sales, the marketing engine of Palantir came up with the same type of “latest and greatest” verbiage that characterizes intelware (that’s software built around the specific needs of intelligence analysts). One example is importing proprietary file types. Another is keeping track of where a dataset came from, who fiddled with it, and what an authorized user did with the data when in search mode.
Over time, companies which serve government agencies have to choose one of three paths:
- Path 1 is to just do commercial work. Forget the intelligence market. A company which has moved in this direction is one you may not know anything about. It is LifeRaft. Look them up. Now the company does market and ad intelligence for commercial companies, ad agencies, and probably some non profit outfits.
- Path 2 is to just focus on government sales. An example of this type of outfit is BAE Systems which has software able to do Palantir type functions. I am not sure BAE Systems returns phone calls from a bank or real estate agency wanting some Detica goodness.
- Path 3 is to do both. The best example of this is Voyager Labs which does the LifeRaft type work and the intelligence and law enforcement work of outfits like Palantir.
Which is the right path?
From my point of view, a company selling intelware should stick to government clients, maintain a low profile, and keep systems and methods secret. LifeRaft told me, “Don’t even mention our firm at the 2022 National Cyber Crime Conference.” Why? Doing work for certain government agencies gives some commercial firms and their go-go decision makers the heebie jeebies. The fear comes from folks who are interacting with investigators, intelligence operatives, and analysts could say something that will create big time thunderstorms for the commercial company. Some businesses are not exactly paragons of behavior. This means that the purchase cycle is drawn out, excuses are made, concerns about confidentiality raised, and weirdness about the amount of training, customizing, and optimizing the intelware system requires. The result? Some pretty crazy attempts to sell the product and the resulting disconnect from promises of reality from the commercial sector and the inevitable gap. This type of “gap” created some interesting situations in the decade or so.
What about government sales? Unless a company is selling hardware, software, spare parts, training, and services governments a fickle. Sure, an intelware outfit like Palantir will get initial contracts. But the government agencies have roving eyes and will keep licensing, looking for the perfect solution to intel needs. What happens is that the software only vendor runs out of customers. Once a number of big agencies sign up, the US General Services Administration or the Defense Services Administration will start angling for a deal. Cut the fees or lose the contracts. This is bad news because expensive software takes time to sell to government customers who want a demo or a year of free or discounted use in order to figure out if the system actually works. The problem is that There are not that many government agencies in the free world to support the intelware companies hungry for allocated budget dollars. Stated another way, the intelware company has to get some contracts, make the software work, and forget about the hockey stick financial projections. The intelware vendors chase US allies, but there are vendors in those countries, and it may make more sense to license Trendalyze or Verint, not the Silicon Valley type outfit. Bad financial news? Yep.
Path three is to sell to anyone who wants the system. This is very, very difficult because the intelware system has to be fiddled with in order to meet the specific requirements of an organization. Chasing bad actors is one thing; figuring out what type of beverage a college student wants is another thing. Hanging over the commercial sales call is the concern about the government work, the government customers, and the government processes, which — once started — are tough to turn off.
This means that companies crafted for intelware users find that government sales slow down, commercial sales cycles take a long time and often end up at a dead end, and non government organizations don’t want or can’t pay big bucks for what is search software.
The market itself is changing. If you want to analyze tweets, hire a marketing agency and get rid of them once they have completed a project. Clean, tidy, easy. If a client has some Google grade programmers, download Maltego, license the $100 Hunchly, and spend some time looking at tools on GitHub. (Thank you, Microsoft, but do you know what’s on that service? I thought so.)
The cited article makes this point:
…the company must expand internationally. What better way to get new sales than to start fires and be the person to sell the smoke detectors? That is what Palantir’s software does, assess and analyze data for threats. It is a loose analogy but fitting. But why is Palantir in such desperate need of expansion to new governments and industries? It is because the only thing keeping the stock going is the revenue growth rate which has been so strong. The company has incurred losses every year of operation. It expects operating expenses to increase.
And what about international sales? Three points:
- There are vendors offering comparable or better systems so buying non-US may make economic and political sense
- The cost of closing deals internationally is — the last time I checked — two to three times the cost of selling from Chicago to US based customers
- The number of purchasers is not as large as one thinks? The US is the living embodiment of Parkinson’s Law and the Peter Principle. Other countries are not much better and they have less disposable cash.
Net net: The word desperate may be appropriate for Palantir Technologies. I don’t have a good set of options for the company: Too much hype, too much development cost, too much customizing and tuning and training, and too much nuke talk. Not helpful.
Stephen E Arnold, May 30, 2022
On Mitigating Open-Source Vulnerabilities
May 16, 2022
Open-source software has saved countless developers from reinventing the proverbial wheel so they can instead spend their time creating new ways to use existing code. That’s great! Except for one thing: Now that open-source components make up about 90% of most applications, they pose tempting opportunities for hackers. Perhaps the juiciest targets lie in the military and intelligence communities. US counter-terrorism ops rely heavily on the likes of Palantir Technologies, a heavy user of and contributor to open-source software. Another example is the F-35 stealth fighter, which operates using millions of lines of code. A team of writers at War on the Rocks explores “Dependency Issues: Solving the World’s Open-Source Software Security Problem.” Solve it? Completely? Right, and there really is a tooth fairy. The article relates:
“The problem is that the open-source software supply chain can introduce unknown, possibly intentional, security weaknesses. One previous analysis of all publicly reported software supply chain compromises revealed that the majority of malicious attacks targeted open-source software. In other words, headline-grabbing software supply-chain attacks on proprietary software, like SolarWinds, actually constitute the minority of cases. As a result, stopping attacks is now difficult because of the immense complexity of the modern software dependency tree: components that depend on other components that depend on other components ad infinitum. Knowing what vulnerabilities are in your software is a full-time and nearly impossible job for software developers.”
So true. Still, writers John Speed Meyers, Zack Newman, Tom Pike, and Jacqueline Kazil sound optimistic as they continue:
“Fortunately, there is hope. We recommend three steps that software producers and government regulators can take to make open-source software more secure. First, producers and consumers should embrace software transparency, creating an auditable ecosystem where software is not simply mysterious blobs passed over a network connection. Second, software builders and consumers ought to adopt software integrity and analysis tools to enable informed supply chain risk management. Third, government reforms can help reduce the number and impact of open-source software compromises.”
The article describes each part of this plan in detail. It also does a good job explaining how we got so dependent on open-source software and describes ways hackers are able to leverage it. The writers submits that, by following these suggestions, entities both public and private can safely continue to benefit from open-source collaboration. If the ecosystem is made even a bit safer, we suppose that is better than nothing. After all, ditching open-source altogether seems nigh impossible at this point.
Cynthia Murrell, May 16, 2022
Voyager Labs Exposed: Another NSO Group?
May 10, 2022
I read “Voyager Labs: L’Arma spuntata dell’intelienza artificiale.” I was expecting some high-flying smart software. What the article delivers is some juicy detail about intelware, conferences where quite non-public stories are told, and an alleged tie up between those fine folks at Palantir Technologies and the shadowy Israeli company. One caveat: One has to be able to read Italian or have a way to work around the limitations of online translation systems. (Good luck with finding a free to use system. I just asked my local Pizza Hut delivery person, who speaks and reads Italian like a Roma fan.)
Here are some allegedly spot on factoids from the write up:
- One of the directors of the company has a remarkably unusual career at a US government agency. The individual presided over specialized interrogation activities and allowing a person with a bomb to enter a government facility. There were a handful of deaths.
- The Voyager Labs’ cloud services are allegedly “managed globally by Palantir’s Gotham platform.
- Voyager’s Labs’ content was described at an intelligence conference owned and managed by an American in this way: “usable and previously unattainable information by analyzing and understanding huge amounts of open, deep and obscure Web data.”
- Allegations about the use of Voyager Labs’ system to influence an Italian election.
- Voyager Labs identifies for licensees people with red, orange, and green icons. Green is good; red is bad; orange is in the middle?
Interesting stuff. But the zinger is the assertion that Voyager Labs’ smart software can output either dumb or aberrant results. The whiz kids at Gartner Group concluded in 2017 that Voyager Labs was a “cool vendor.” That’s good to know. Gartner likes intelware that sort of works. Cool.
Interesting profile and there are more than 100 footnotes. I assume that the founder of Voyager Labs, the conference organizer, and assorted clients were not will to participate in an interview. This is an understandable position, particularly when an Israeli outfit could be the next in the NSO Group spotlight.
Stephen E Arnold, May 10, 2022
Google: Nosing into US Government Consulting
April 4, 2022
I spotted an item on Reddit called “Google x Palantir.” Let’s assume there’s a smidgen of truth in the post. The factoid is in a comment about Google’s naming Stephen Elliott as its head of artificial intelligence solutions for the Google public sector unit. (What happened to the wizard once involved in this type of work? Oh, well.)
The interesting item for me is that Mr. Elliott will have a particular focus on “leveraging the Palantir Foundry platform.” I thought that outfits like Praetorian Digital (now Lexipol) handled this type of specialist consulting and engineering.
What strikes me as intriguing about this announcement is that Palantir Foundry will work on the Google Cloud. Amazon is likely to be an interested party in this type of Google initiative.
Amazon has sucked up a significant number of product-centric searches. Now the Google wants to get into the “make Palantir work” business.
Plus, Google will have an opportunity to demonstrate its people management expertise, its ability to attract and retain a diverse employee group, and its ability to put some pressure on the Amazon brachial nerve.
How will Microsoft respond?
The forthcoming Netflix mockumentary “Mr. Elliot Goes to Washington” will fill someone’s hunger for a reality thriller.
And what if the Reddit post is off base. Hey, mockumentaries can be winners. Remember “This Is Spinal Tap”?
Stephen E Arnold, April 4, 2022
Anduril Victorious with SOCOM Contract
February 25, 2022
Tech startups, and the venture capitalists that back them, have been trying valiantly to break the chains of traditional government procurements. Pointing to a recent nearly billion-dollar deal, Breaking Defense ponders, “Anduril Nets Biggest DoD Contract to Date: Signifier or Outlier for Defense Start-Ups?” Anduril is based in Irvine, California, and was founded in 2017. The surveillance and military tech company beat out 11 others competing for the lucrative contract with Special Operations Command (SOCOM). Reporter Andrew Eversden writes:
“Anduril will serve as a systems integrator partner on SOCOM’s counter-unmanned systems efforts. The contract is worth a maximum of $967,599,957 over the next the decade. Under the contract, SOCOM will be able to purchase Anduril’s systems through traditional means, in addition to buying Anduril’s products as a service, meaning the command can configure the system ‘based on mission profiles and ensuring SOCOM can rapidly adapt to new and evolving threat profiles.’ According to the company press release, the company will ‘deliver, advance, and sustain CUxS capabilities for special operations forces wherever they operate.’ It will provide counter-drone capability through its Lattice AI platform, which is designed to autonomously identify and classify threats. The system will be deployed both domestically and overseas, the Jan. 20 announcement stated. Anduril has made major strides in the last year positioning itself to win major defense contracts and augment its technology portfolio. Last year, it acquired Area-I, a tube-launched unmanned aerial system maker. Last summer, the company won a five-year, $99 million production other transaction agreement with the Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Unit for its counter-drone tech. In September, it bought Copious Imaging, whose technology added another layer of threat detection to Anduril’s air defense portfolio.”
We also note the firm had the honor of collaborating with Palantir on the Army’s Tactical Intelligence Targeting Access Node (TITAN) prototype last year. Tech executives and investors have expressed frustration at the challenges of doing business with our military, but this latest contract may be a signal that startups and other non-giant companies can make their way in the federal marketplace after all. On the other hand, we are told, SOCOM has long been the DoD division most likely to embrace innovative, non-traditional partners. If this contract goes well, perhaps SOCOM’s forward-thinking perspective will spread to other agencies. No pressure, Anduril.
Cynthia Murrell, February 25, 2022
Darktrace: He Said, She Said, and Probably They Said Too
January 20, 2022
The high flying cyber security sector suffered a headache when the SolarWinds’ misstep was disclosed. Since that time, the mass media have started paying attention to what a year or two ago was the content discussed at cyber security conferences and workshops. Now, everyone including most US government agencies, hundreds of start ups, and probably a grandmother or two in a Golden Years Long Term Care facility are talking about cyber security, ransomware, bad actors, the Dark Web, the Deep Web, bots, smart malware, and the equivalent of Crime as a Service or CaaS, the on demand resource for stealing financial data.
I read “Short Seller says Darktrace Targets Are a Pipe Dream”. The back and forth between the UK financial firm and the Darktrace cyber services firm is interesting.(Keep in mind that years ago I did some small project for Autonomy, but my experience was pretty good. Nevertheless, before some research-minded 20 something tweets about my consulting, you have been alerted.)
The write up hits three interesting points. I am not interested in Darktrace, however. I think these points apply to a large number of the companies closing deals, often for Palantir-scale invoices, for threat intelligence, cyber defenses, digital canaries, smart perimeters, yada yada.
What are those points?
- Projections are extremely optimistic. What cyber security firm thinks about running out of clients for six and seven figure license fees? Hint: Think of a number between minus one and one.
- Headcounts move around, change, and are disconnected from an old school GraybaR (circa 1869) organization chart
- Customers sign on and then bail out. Does this sound like a Theranos-type observation.
The write up states:
ShadowFall says Darktrace’s business is driven by “an aggressive, promotional, sales focus” and is unlikely to stand the test of time. British hedge fund ShadowFall has taken a short position against cybersecurity specialist Darktrace, calling its business “watery-thin”. The hedge fund is known in the City as the ‘dark destroyer’ for its practices of unpicking corporate reports and devaluing shares. While the fund paints its work as a public service, as a short seller its own business model relies on driving down the prices of companies it bets against.
What’s up here? I think Darktrace is like many cyber security vendors. Consequently, ShadowFall is probably getting the curling stone close to the scoring circle in the game of full body contact investment curling. However, the specific issues like the three I identified above are part of the Silicon Valley territory. I call this phenomenon of overstatement, misdirection, and management management magical misdirection part of the behavior I described a decade ago in my monograph “The Google Legacy.”
The cyber security sector is not doing a Tom Brady grade job protecting an organization’s data. Why? Breaches occur because careless or indifferent employees click on links which invite bad actors to come in and have a seat in the engineering meeting. Bad actors prowl message boards for an unhappy employee, pay that employee to insert a USB stick into a laptop, or exfiltrate log on credentials. Finally, giant companies don’t build software with security as Job One. Every day I learn about another flaw in either commercial software or open source libraries. Bad actors don’t have to worry too much. There are quite a few bright bad actors and an expanding pool of oligarchs responding to a business opportunity.
No cyber vendor can keep up. In fact, best of class outfits are selling to those outside of the cyber security National Honor Society and Phi Beta Kappa stratum. (Example: Recorded Future to a general service outfit.) There are too few top flight cyber security engineers to staff the companies building or needing these specialists. Yep, a people shortage exists.
The net net is that ShadowFall has diagnosed an industry wide problem. The write up, however, focuses on ShadowFall’s analysis of a single company. A more useful and fair analysis would take a good, hard look at other cyber security firms. A spectrum or league table of behaviors can be generated. Then a company in the cyber security business can be put into a performance context. I understand that in the UK Darktrace is news. That’s okay with me. There is a far more significant analysis job to do. Darktrace becomes a data point, and my experience suggests there are outfits which warrant a similar analysis and commercial enterprises for which there is more data available.
Where is this type of analysis? I have not seen one. The reason may be, “Who wants to kill the gold goose laying cyber threat eggs filled with money?”
Stephen E Arnold, January 20, 2022
NSO Group: How about That Debt?
December 14, 2021
The NSO Group continues to make headlines and chisel worry lines in the faces of the many companies in Israel which create specialized software and systems for law enforcement and intelligence professionals. You can read the somewhat unpleasant news in Bloomberg’s report, the Financial Times’ article, and Gizmodo’s Silicon Valley-esque write up. Gizmodo said:
the company’s cumbersome mixture of unpaid debts and growing international scrutiny have made NSO a bloated pariah and is forcing its leadership to consider shutting down its Pegasus spyware unit. Selling the entire company is also reportedly on the table.
First, the reports suggest, without much back up, that NSO Group has about a half a billion US in debt. This is important because it underscores what is the number one flaw in the jazzy business plans of companies making sense of data and providing specialized services to law enforcement, intelligence, and war fighting entities. Here’s my take:
Point 1. What was secret is now open and easily available information.
Since Snowden, the systems and methods informing NSO Group and dozens of similar firms are easy to grasp. Former intelligence professionals can blend what Snowden revealed with whatever these individuals picked up in their service to their country, create a “baby” or “similar” solution and market it. This means that there are more surveillance, penetration, intercept, and analysis options available than at any other time in my 50 year career in online information and systems. Toss in what’s in the wild from dumps of FinFisher and Hacking Team techniques and the gold mine of open source code, and it should be no surprise that the NSO Group’s problem is just the tip of an iceberg, a favorite metaphor in the world of surveillance. None of the newsy reports grasp the magnitude of the NSO Group problem.
Point 2. There’s a lot of “smart” money chasing a big pay day from software purpose built for law enforcement, intelligence, and military operations. VC cows in herds, however, are not that smart or full of wisdom.
There are many investors who buy the line “cyber crime and terrorism” drive big, lucrative sales of specialized software and systems. That’s partially correct. But what’s happened is that the flood of cash has generated a number of commercial enterprisers trying to covert those dollars into highly reliable, easy to use systems. The presentations at off the radar trade shows promise functionality that is almost science fiction. The situation today is that there is a lot of hyper marketing going on because there’s money to apply some very expensive computational methods to what used to be largely secret and manual work. A good case for the travails of selling and keeping customers is the Palantir Technologies’ journey which is more than a decade long and still underway. The marketing is seeping from conferences open only to government agencies and those with clearances to advertising trade shows. I think you can see the risk of moving from low profile or secret government solutions to services for Madison Avenue. I sure can.
Point 3. Too few customers to go around.
There are not enough government customers with deep pockets for the abundant specialized services and systems which are on offer. In this week’s DarkCyber at this link, you can learn about the vendors at conferences where surveillance and applied information collection and analysis explain their products and services. You can also learn that the Brennan Center has revealed documents obtained via FOIA about Voyager Labs, a company which is also engaged in the specialized software and services business. Our DarkCyber report makes clear that license fees are in six figures and include more special add ins than a deal from a flea market vendor selling at the Clignancourt flea market. Competition means prices are falling, and quite effective systems are available for as little as a few hundred dollars per month and sometimes even less. Plus, commercial enterprises are often nervous when the potential customer realizes the power of specialized software and services. Stalking made easy? Yep. Spying on competitors facilitated? Yep. Open source intelligence makes it possible to perform specialized work at a quite attractive price point: Free or a few hundred a month.
What’s next?
Financial wizards may be able to swizzle the NSO Group’s financial pickles into a sweet relish for a ball park frank. There will be other companies in this sector which will face comparable money challenges in the future. From my perspective, it is not possible to put the spilled oil back in the tanker and clean the gunk off the birds now coated in crude.
Policeware and intelware vendors have operated out of sight and out of mind in their bubble since i2 Ltd. in the late 19909s rolled out the Analysts Notebook solution and launched the market for specialized software. The NSO Group’s situation could be or has already shoved a hat pin in that big, fat balloon.
More significantly, formerly blind and indifferent news organizations, government agencies, and potential investors can see what issues specialized software and services pose. More reporting will be forthcoming, including books that purport to reveal how data aggregators are spying on hapless Instagram and TikTok users. Like most of the downstream consequences of the so called digital revolution, NSO Group’s troubles are the tip of an information iceberg drifting into equatorial waters.
Stephen E Arnold, December 14, 2021
Silicon Valley: Fraud or Fake Is an Incorrect Characterization
September 10, 2021
I read “Elizabeth Holmes: Has the Theranos Scandal Changed Silicon Valley?” The write up contains a passage I found interesting; to wit:
In Silicon Valley, hyping up your product – over-promising – isn’t unusual…
Marketing is more important than the technology sold by the cash hype artists. Notice that I don’t use the word “entrepreneur,” “innovator,” “programmer,” or the new moniker “AIOps” (that’s artificial intelligence operations).
The Theranos story went wrong because there was not a “good enough” method provided. The fact that Theranos could not cook up a marginally better way of testing blood is less interesting than the fact about the money. She had plenty of money, and her failure is what I call the transition from PowerPoint to “good enough.”
Why not pull a me-too and change the packaging? Why not license a method from Eastern Europe or Thailand and rebrand it? Why not white label a system known to work, offer a discount, and convince the almost clueless Walgreen’s-type operation that the Zirconia was dug out of a hole in a far-off country.
Each of these methods has been used to allow an exit strategy with honor and not a career-ending Tesla-like electric battery fire which burns for days.
The write up explains:
Particularly at an early stage, when a start-up is in its infancy, investors are often looking at people and ideas rather than substantive technology anyway. General wisdom holds that the technology will come with the right concept – and the right people to make it work. Ms Holmes was brilliant at selling that dream, exercising a very Silicon Valley practice: ‘fake it until you make it’. Her problem was she couldn’t make it work.
The transgression, in my opinion, was a failure to use a me-too model. That points to what I call a denial of reality.
Here are some examples of how a not-so-good solution has delivered to users a disappointing product or service yet flourished. How many of these have entered your personal ionosphere?
- Proprietary app stores which offer mobile software which is malware? The purpose of the proprietary app store is to prevent malfeasance, right?
- Operating systems which cannot provide security? My newsfeed is stuffed full of breaches, intrusions, phishing scams, and cloud vulnerabilities. How about that Microsoft Exchange and Azure security or the booming business of NSO Group-types of surveillance functionality?
- Self-driving vehicles anyone? Sorry, not for me.
- Smart software which is tuned to deliver irrelevant advertising despite a service’s access to browser history, user location, and email mail? If I see one more ad for Grammarly or Ke Chava when I watch a Thomas Gast French Foreign Legion video in German, I may have a stroke. (Smart software is great, isn’t it? Just like ad-supported Web search results!)
- Palantir-type systems are the business intelligence solutions for everyone with a question and deep pockets.
The article is interesting, but it sidesteps the principal reason why Theranos has become a touchstone for some people. The primum movens from my vantage point is:
There are no meaningful consequences: For the funders. For the educational institutions. For the “innovators.”
The people who get hurt are not part of the technology club. Maybe Ms. Holmes, the “face” of Theranos will go to jail, be slapped with a digital scarlet A, and end up begging in Berkeley?
I can’t predict the future, but I can visualize a Michael Milkin-type or Kevin Mitnick-type of phoenixing after walking out of jail.
Theranos is a consequence of the have and have not technology social construct. Technology is a tool. Ms. Holmes cut off her finger in woodworking class. That’s sort of embarrassing. Repurposing is so darned obvious and easy.
More adept pioneers have done the marketing thing and made a me-too approach to innovation work. But it does not matter. This year has been a good one for start ups. Get your digital currency. Embrace AIOps. Lease a self driving vehicle. Use TikTok. No problem.
Stephen E Arnold, September 10. 2021
Recorded Future: Poking Googzilla?
May 26, 2021
Google and In-Q-Tel were among the first to embrace the start up Recorded Future. Over the years, Recorded Future beavered away in specialist markets. There were some important successes; for example, helpful insights about the Paris Terrorist bombing. But Recorded Future was not a headline grabber. Predictive analytics is not the sort of thing that inflames the real journalists at many “real news” publications. The Googley part of Recorded Future faded over time, and it seems to me that most of the analysts forgot it was around in the first place. Then came the sale of Recorded Future to Insight Partners for about $800 million. From start up to exit in 12 years and another home run for the founders. Now the work begins. The company has to generate more revenue, which has been a challenge for similar companies.
Recorded Future does do search, but it does not do online advertising as a revenue generator. The company has a broad array of services, and it is finding that established competitors like IBM i2, Palantir Technologies, and Verint are also chasing available projects for specialized software. To add a twist to the story, start ups like Trendalyze (an outfit focused on real time analytics) and DataWalk (a better Palantir in my opinion) are snagging work in some rarified niches.
What’s the non Googley Recorded Future doing?
After reading “Thousands of Chrome Extensions Are Tampering with Security Headers,” I think the Insight owned outfit is poking a stick into the zoological park in which Googzilla hunts. My hunch is that Google continues taking off-the-radar actions to ensure that its revenues flow and glow. (No, that’s not on any Google T shirt I possess.) The new Recorded Future is revealing a Google method, and I think some in the Googleplex will not be happy.
The write up does not get into Google’s business strategy. But someone will read the Recorded Future post and do a bit of digging.
Several thoughts:
- Has Recorded Future broken an unwritten rule regarding the explanation of Google’s more interesting methods?
- Will the Google respond in a way that tweaks the nose of the Recorded Future team?
- Will Recorded Future escalate its revelations about the GOOG to get clicks, generate traffic, and possibly make sales?
I have no answers. I think the write up is interesting and probably long overdue. I think this is an important shift which has taken place with a new owner overseeing the once Googley predictive analytics company. Insight probably used the Recorded Future methods to predict the probabilities for upsides and downsides of this type of article. There are margins of error, however.
Stephen E Arnold, May 26, 2021
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
