Inmagic Presto
July 10, 2009
A happy quack to the reader who told me about Inmagic’s upgrade to its social knowledge management platform. I read a story in CIOL.com, a developer oriented publication. Years ago I was on the Board of Directors of Inmagic, and I thought highly of their product. The company has evolved over the years, and now offers an interesting range of products. You can get the full scoop from the company’s Web site.
The Presto product connects content management, knowledge management, and social technologies. Inmagic has a search service that operates within a Presto environment too. Support for Microsoft SharePoint is quite good. With more than 100 million SharePoint licenses “in the wild”, Inmagic’s Presto adds useful functions to SharePoint installations.
Presto 3.1 uses Web Parts technology that allows the search parts on the Presto homepage to be embedded and used in a SharePoint deployment. A new Web Services API lets SharePoint communicate with Presto to create, replace, update, and delete records seamlessly.
Phil Green, CTO of Inmagic said:
With Inmagic Presto 3.1, companies can enhance their SharePoint environment with a cost-effective, off-the-shelf solution suited to their needs. They can create internal, secure knowledge communities around enterprise content, with sophisticated social, search, security, and library workflow capabilities not found in SharePoint. The use of Web Parts, Presto, and SharePoint together can deliver tremendous value to an organization’s bottom line.
Based on the research I have been doing for a major SharePoint installation, a software such as Presto can save many hours of fiddling. Recommended by the Beyond Search goslings.
Stephen Arnold, July 10, 2009
Search 2010: Five Game Changers
May 7, 2009
Editor’s Note: This is the outline of Stephen Arnold’s comments at the “debate”session of the Boye 09 Conference in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on May 6, 2009. The actual talk will be informal, and these notes are part of the preparation for that talk.
Introduction
Thank you for inviting me to share my ideas with you. I remember that WC Fields had a love hate relationship with Philadelphia. Approaching the Curtis Building, where we are meeting, I realized that much of the old way of doing business has changed. I don’t have time to dig too deeply into the many content challenges organizations face. If the publisher of the Saturday Evening Post were with us this afternoon, I think Mr. Curtis would have a difficult time explaining why his successful business was marginalized; that is, pushed aside, made into an artifact like the Liberty Bell down the street.
I have been asked to do a “Search 2010” talk twice this year. Predicting the future in today’s troubled economic environment is difficult. Nevertheless, I want to identify five trends in the next 20 minutes. I will try to take a position on each trend to challenge the panelists’ thinking and stimulate questions from you in the audience.
Let’s dive right in. Here are the five trends:
- Darwinism and search
- Real time search
- Google’s enterprise push
- Microsoft’s enterprise search
- Open source
I want to comment on each, offer a couple of examples, and try to come at these subjects in a way that highlights what my research for Google: The Digital Gutenberg revealed as substantive actions in search.
Search and Darwin
The search sector is in a terrible position. The term “search” has been devalued. Few people know what the word means, yet most people say, “I am pretty good at search.” That confidence is an illusion. The search sector is a tough nut to crack. Well known companies such as Mondosoft and Ontolica found themselves purchased by an entrepreneur. That company restructured, and now the “old” Mondosoft has been reincarnated but it is not clear that the new owners will make a success of the business. Delphes, a specialist vendor in Québec, failed. Attensity orchestrated a roll up with two German firms to become more of a force in marketing. A promising system in the Netherlands called Teezir was closed when I visited the office in November 2009. I hear rumors about search vendors who are chasing funding frequently, but I don’t want to mention the names of some of these well known firms in this forum. Not long ago, the high profile Endeca sought support in the form of investments from Intel and SAP’s venture arm. At Oracle, the Secure Enterpriser Search 10g product has largely disappeared. The strong survive, which means big players like Google and Microsoft are going to fighting for the available revenue.
Real Time Search
What is it? The first thing to say is that real time search is a terrible phrase. Riches await the person who crafts a more appropriate buzzword. The notion is that messages from a service like Twitter fly around in their 140 character glory. The Twitter search system at http://search.twitter.com or the developers who use the Twitter API make it easy to find or see information. A good example is the service at http://www.twitturly.com or http://www.tweetmeme.com. You look at Tweets (the name for Twitter messages) and you scan the listings on these services. Real time search blends geospatial and mobile operations. Push, not key word search, complements scanning a list of suggested hits. The mode of user interaction is not keyword search. This is an important distinction.
“Search” means look at or scan. “Search” does not mean type key words and hunt through results list. It is possible to send a Tweet to everyone on Twitter or to those who follow you and ask a question. You may get an answer, but the point is that the word “search” does not explain the value of this type of system for business intelligence or marketing, for example. If you run a search with the keyword of a company like Google or Yahoo, you can get information which may or may not be accurate or useful. You will see what’s happening “now”, which is the meaning of “real time”.
Microsoft and Spain: Open Source Challenge
May 6, 2009
I saw an interesting write up in Open … called “The Shame in Spain” here. I don’t know much about Spain, so you may have a different view of how software sales work in that country. According to the Open … article, Microsoft has made significant progress in halting the use of open source software in that country. The Web log reported:
Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero’s government is finalizing a plan that would supply all children who attend state schools with personal computers with touch-screens so to “promote awareness within families of the usefulness of information and communication technologies and encourage their use.” Specifically, we’re talking about Microsoft technologies.
The Web log asserted:
This is really scandalous on so many levels. It’s clearly born of ignorance about what is really being offered – lock-in to Microsoft’s systems – in the naive belief that touch-screens are somehow the future, probably just because the iPhone has one. It is born of arrogance that the government knows better, and therefore needn’t consult with others that might have a view or – heaven forfend [sic] – knowledge on the subject. And it’s born of sheer stupidity, throwing away the huge lead that Spain had in this area, forcing local governments that had saved money by opting for GNU/Linux to waste money on an unnecessary and doubtless insecure solution from Microsoft, and as a result making the country dependent on a foreign supplier when it could have nurtured its own domestic software industry.
Assume this has some truth in these statements. When one thinks about enterprise search, Microsoft has a number of options to exercise as it works to build the uptake for the Fast Search ESP system:
First, Microsoft can offer a Windows 7 type of one year free to use trial. This could have the effect of putting other vendors on ice until users decide to license Fast ESP or seek a third party solution.
Second, Microsoft can bundle Fast ESP with SharePoint. I have heard there are 199 million licenses at this time with more coming on line each week. This tactic would have a significant impact on the big vendors like Google as well as the smaller Certified Partners who thrive because Microsoft allows SharePoint customers to use approved solutions.
Third, Microsoft can cut the cost of an enterprise system like Fast ESP. This tactic could spark an old fashioned price war. Only competitors with deep pockets and appetite for this type of marketing battle would be likely to survive. Today’s economic climate may make it difficult for smaller firms to get much-needed financing to stay alive.
I think the Spain case is an interesting one. As it unfolds, there may be some hints about Microsoft’s broader enterprise search strategy.
Stephen Arnold, May 6, 2009
Simplexo: Single Click Enterprise Search
April 11, 2009
I wrote about Simplexo in September 2008. You can read that article here. I received a question about open source search vendors last week. As a result, I updated my files. Here’s summary of the information I added to my database.
Simplexo is a privately held company in the UK. The company says here that it “is focused on delivering a new experience in enterprise search.” The product is available in two versions:
- An open source version. This version can be used used in-house by developers without charge under the Open Source GPL2 licence
- A commercial version 9.x. This is a Windows Service application fully-supported via an annual subscription.
The company’s licensing statement is here. The 2008 Butler Group write up is here.
The company supplied one of the first applications to BSkyB for secure online voting.
The features of the product are interesting. The system can acquire and index structure and unstructured information. The approach is to maintain two indexes. One allows access to the structured data from Oracle, SAP or other enterprise applications. The second index handles the unstructured information. One nice feature is the system’s ability to search other indexes, including Microsoft Search Server and Autonomy’s indexes. The company asserts that throughput is can hit 10 million documents in 24 hours. I don’t have the basic server configuration for this throughput rate, but most organizations running SharePoint environments will have to look for a solution once the documents in the SharePoint environment hit 50 million.
A user can specify parameters, use Boolean, or run free text queries. The system supports phrase searching. The system can be integrated into Lotus Notes and Microsoft Office. Security features include encryption, single sign on, and user authentication.
Simplexo says that the system can support more than 600,000 simultaneous users. Another interesting claim is that queries execute six times faster than queries run on Google’s enterprise system. Queries are processed in parallel to the two indexes.
A desktop version for Outlook will be available later in 2009. You can register to download the software when it becomes available. The desktop information page is here. The news release about the desktop version is here.
Stephen Arnold, April 11, 2009
Adhere Solutions: Sticky Solutions and Connectors
March 31, 2009
I like Adhere Solutions’ software. I should. The company was conceived by my son, Erik S. Arnold. He once worked with the goslings, but he flew the coop to Chicago and services clients worldwide with his sticky solutions and connectors technology. Stuart Schram IV, one of ArnoldIT’s top geese, interviewed Erik Arnold. The full text of the conversation appears below. After the interview, you can read the full text of the Adhere Solutions news release about its newest product
Erik S. Arnold, Adhere Solutions. Quite Googley and reliable I wish to add.
What’s an Adhere?
Adhere Solutions is a Google Enterprise Partner providing products and services that help businesses create solutions based on Google and other cloud computing technologies. We have an experienced team of consultants to help our customers leverage Google’s Enterprise products (Search, Maps, Apps) to create business applications that improve access to information, communication and collaboration. Adhere will compliment Google’s enterprise products with other software and services to meet clients’ needs. Using Google as a foundation delivers applications faster and cheaper than traditional enterprise software approaches, while making end users happy. Few managers understand how they can create high-end solutions leveraging Google technologies.
Why are you providing connectors?
Connectors are an important piece of the puzzle to take advantage of Google technologies. For the GSA, it allows users to search across different sources of information inside an enterprise. I call the the Google Search Appliance a “SaaS in the Box,” because you can do sophisticated things with it if you leverage its APIs. However, you do have to have a good deal of search expertise to use the advanced capabilities.
Adhere Solutions wants to make it easy for GSA customers to index their enterprise data, and our connectors bridge the gap between the GSA and internal content stored in databases, document management systems, etc. This approach is the same as other enterprise software solutions, but customers are shielded through expensive professional services and setup fees. We want to educate the marketplace that they can use the GSA to perform these functions with connectors for a lower cost.
What’s a typical use case for your software?
Good question. I think that connectors in a search environment are easier to understand. We have a customer at a government agency that wishes to index a Documentum system with Google. Our connector extracts the data from Documentation, processes the data, and feeds it to the GSA. This process takes place on a server that outside of the GSA.
Image source: http://homepages.ius.edu/USTEWART/super_glue.jpg
A major reason for our investment in connectors, though, has to do with improvements to Google Apps. Google recently announced its visualization tools (http://googleenterprise.blogspot.com/2009/03/charts-charts-charts.html), so it is now possible to send selected enterprise data into Google Apps and have access to real-time visualization of your enterprise data. This to me is groundbreaking, I think that it is very cost efficient way to create business intelligence applications in a Google interface.
Can you deliver custom connectors?
We can build custom connectors, but we tend to license our connectors from established software vendors. Connecting into enterprise systems is not new, it is just that until now, no one has packaged a high end connector suite for the GSA. For lack of a better term, Adhere Solutions is more of an integrator than a software company. We use existing high quality products whenever we can.
How does a connector differentiate you from other GSA specialists?
Adhere Solutions is unique in that everyone involved has many years of enterprise search experience. Our goal as a company is to introduce Google into higher end search procurements. While Google Search Appliance is easy to get up and running, it is not uncommon to need help with basic search tasks. What is easy to Google is not easy for everyone. There are many fine GSA specialists who can help with basic setups, but we see ourselves as unique in delivering Google for high end solutions.
How do people reach you?
Write me: erik at adheresolutions dot com or call. Our number is 800 799 0520.
Here’s the full text of the Adhere Solutions news release:
Adhere Solutions Expands Its All Access Connector Suite For the Google Search Appliance to Include Enterprise Content Management Systems
Businesses now can provide employees greater access to enterprise data through the Google Search Appliance’s popular interface
Chicago, IL — March 31, 2009 — Today, Adhere Solutions, a certified Google Enterprise Partner, announced that its All Access Connector for the Google Search Appliance includes instant connectivity to over 30 popular enterprise content management systems, including EMC, Documentum, eRoom, IBM FileNet, and Lotus Notes, Interwoven’s TeamSite and Work Site, Microsoft SharePoint, Open Text, Oracle Stellent, Xerox Docushare and many more.
Adhere Solutions’ connector suite for the Google Search Appliance allows users to find information stored in disparate data sources and applications with Google’s user interface. This relieves users from having to separately search within each application and information repository. The Google Search Appliance combined with the All Access Connector empowers companies to efficiently unify information access and help users quickly find information to effectively perform their job.
“Users don’t particularly know or care about the subtleties of universal search vs. federated search – their mission is not to search, but rather to find. They are also not terribly interested in knowing WHY they cannot search for certain information,” said Dan Keldsen, noted Findability expert, Co-founder and Principal at Information Architect (www.InformationArchitected.com). “If factors in their findability frustrations have been because Google ‘couldn’t get there from here’ – the odds just significantly improved that the Google Search Appliance will be able to search across ALL of your information, rather than the ‘web native’ content Google is known for.”
Indexing connectors for enterprise content management systems are the newest addition to Adhere Solutions’ All Access Connector for the Google Search Appliance, which already includes federated search access to over 5,400 internal and external databases, repositories, subscription content sources, data feeds and business intelligence applications. With this addition Adhere Solutions delivers a suite of secure connectors to reduce the complexity and cost of searching across enterprise data repositories.
“Many organizations struggle with how to unlock their data when they have multiple content and document management solutions dispersed throughout their organization.” said Erik Arnold, Co-founder and President of Adhere Solutions. “We want every manager, IT or otherwise, to know that we enable the Google Search Appliance to provide enterprise search better, cheaper, and faster than other approaches.”
About Adhere Solutions
Adhere Solutions is a Google Enterprise Partner providing products and services that help businesses increase productivity through the accelerated adoption of Google and other technologies. Adhere’s experienced team of consultants help customers leverage Google’s Enterprise Search products, Google Maps, and Google Apps to create business applications that improve access to information, communication and collaboration.
For more information on Adhere Solutions products or services visit the company’s Web site at www.adheresolutions.com or write info@adheresolutions.com.
###
If you would like more information on this topic, or to schedule an interview with Erik Arnold, please contact Amy DiNorscio at (312) 380-5772 or write to pr@adheresolutions.com
Stuart Schram IV, March 31, 2009
Oracle: Soccer Mom Strategy
October 1, 2008
I have been thinking about the low profile Secure Enterprise Search 10g has had since May 2008. Oracle bought my lunch, gave a dog-and-pony show, and commented on my addled goose Web log. That was it. At the Oracle shin dig last week near the old Sea World, Oracle revealed its strategy for maintaining its grip on the enterprise database market. Oracle is implementing what I call the “soccer mom strategy.” Here’s how it works:
- Get a big vehicle. An SUV or a Cadillac Escalade will do
- Stuff it full of kids, soccer balls, cleats, coolers, and maybe a big friendly dog or two
- Drive it to a destination
- Unleash the goodies within
- Load up again and repeat.
Here’s how Oracle implements this procedure. Click here to read the news release about Oracle Business Intelligence Suite Enterprise Edition Plus 10.1.3.4 (Oracle BI Suite EE Plus). Now this is a stuffed minivan, and you can get options. These range from Oracle’s security server to a platoon of Oracle engineers to customized your OBISEEP to your heart’s content.
A soccer mom implementing her “pack it in” strategy before picking up the team, delivering the kids, and then ferrying the little ones back to their homes. Whew.
What’s going on?
In addition to data management and support you get
- The Oracle EPM Workspace. “EPM” is Oracle speak for enterprise performance management, which is utilities and an interface to make Oracle go faster without adding CPUs and clusters right out of the box. The Workspace allows a database administrator with knowledge of business intelligence to make it easier for end-users, and I quote, “to access and interact with Oracle BI data alongside Oracle EPM System data through a single, thin-client Web interface”
Enterprise Search Top Vendors: But Who Is the Judge?
July 3, 2008
My jaw dropped when I saw “The Top Enterprise Search Vendors,” an essay by Jon Brodkin, a writer affiliated with Network World. You can read the two-part document here. (Note: The url is one of those wacky jobs with percent signs and random characters, the product of a misbegotten content management system. So, if you can’t get the link to work after I write this [July 3, 2008, 2 pm Eastern time], you are on your own.)
Let’s cut to the chase.
Mr. Brodkin is using a consulting firm’s report as the backbone of his analysis. There is nothing wrong with that approach, and I use it myself for some documents. He picks up assertions in the consultant report and identifies some companies as “best” or “top” in the “enterprise search” market. We need a definition of “enterprise search”. A definition, in my view, is an essential first step. Why? I wrote a 300-page study about moving beyond search for Gilbane Group. A large part of my argument was that no one knows what enterprise search so dissatisfaction runs high, in the 50 to 75 percent. Picking the “best” or “top” vendor when the majority of system users are unhappy is an issue with me.
He writes:
The best enterprise search products on the market come from Autonomy, Endeca, the Microsoft subsidiary Fast and Vivisimo, but Google’s Search Appliance continues to dominate the market in terms of brand awareness and sheer number of customers, Forrester Research says in a new report.
Ah, yes, the Forrester “wave” report. Now we know the origin of the adjectives “top” and “best”. Other vendors to note include:
- Coveo
- IBM
- Microsoft’s own MOSS and MSS search systems (distinct from the Fast Search & Transfer ESP system). This is in too much flux to warrant discussion by me. I handle this in Beyond Search by saying, “Wait and see.” I know this is not what 65 million SharePoint users want to hear, but “wait and see”.
- Oracle
- Recommind.
Let’s do a reality check here, not for Mr. Brodkin’s sake or that of the Forrester “wave” team. Just in case an individual wants to license a search system, some basic information may be useful.
First, there are more than 300 vendors offering search, content processing, and text analytics systems at this time. There is no leader for several reasons:
- Autonomy has diversified aggressively and much of their market impact comes from systems in which search is a comparatively modest part in a far larger system; for example, fraud detection. So, revenues alone or total customer count are not key indicators of search.
- Fast Search & Transfer has been struggling with a modest challenge; namely, the investigation of its finances over an alleged loss of FY2007 $122 million in the fiscal year prior to Microsoft’s buying the company for $1.2 billion. Somehow “best” and “top” are in conflict with this alleged short fall. So, “best” and “top” mean one thing to me and definitely another to the Mr. Brodkin and the Forrester “wave” team. If an outfit is the best, I assume the firm’s financial health is part of its being “top” or “best”. I guess I am old fashioned or an addled goose.
- Endeca works hard to explain that it is an information access company. Sure, search functions work in an Endeca implementation, but I think lumping this company with Autonomy (diversified information services) and Fast Search & Transfer (murky financial picture) clarifies little and confuses more.
- Vivisimo is a relative newcomer to enterprise search. The company has some nifty de-duplication technology and it can federate results from different engines. The company is making sales in the enterprise arena. I categorize it as an up-and-coming vendor. I wonder if Vivisimo was surprised by its being labeled as a firm nosing around in Autonomy and Endeca territory. Great publicity. But Autonomy is about $300 million in revenue. Endeca is in the $110 million in revenue range. Vivisimo is far smaller, maybe one tenth Endeca’s size, but growing. A set to my way of thinking should contain like objects. $300 million, $100 million, $10 million–not the type of set I would craft to explain “enterprise search”.
Second, have vendors been miscategorized. I am okay with mentioning Coveo and Recommind. Both companies seem to have a solid value proposition and a clear sense of who their prospects are. Coveo, in particular, has some extremely tasty technology for mobile search. Recommind, despite its efforts to break out of the legal market, continues to make sales to lawyer-types. I am not sure the word “search” covers what these two firms are offering their customers. I think of both vendors offering “search plus other services and functions.”
Third, identifying IBM and Oracle as key players in search baffles me. Both buy consulting and advertising, but in “enterprise search”, neither figures prominently in my analyses. IBM is not a search company; it is a consulting firm using advice to push hardware, software, and services. Search at IBM can mean Lucene with an IBM T shirt. IBM also sells DB2, FileNet, iPhrase, and assorted text processing tools whose names I cannot keep straight. IBM also has an industry “openness” initiative called UIMA, a gasping swan right now in my opinion.
And, Oracle has been beating the secure search drum to deaf ears for a couple of years. Oracle SES 10g sells more Oracle servers, but Oracle is moving a lot of Google Search Appliances. So, what’s Oracle search? Is it the PL/SQL stuff that fuels more Oracle database installations, the SES 10g, or the Google Search Appliance? My sources indicate that Oracle sells more Google Search Appliances than SES 10g. Why? Well, it works and has a nifty API that allows Oracle consultants to hook the GSA into other enterprise systems. Forrester says Oracle is a search vendor, which is accurate. Forrester and Mr. Brodkin don’t mention the importance of the GSA in Oracle’s information access efforts.
Then there is Google or the GOOG. Google rates inclusion in the list of search leaders. The surprise is that Google is THE leader in enterprise search. The company doesn’t provide much information, but based on my research, Google has more than 11,000 Google Search Appliance licensees and more coming every day. When you add up the revenue from various enterprise activities, Google is not generating the paltry $188 million reported in its FY2007 financials. Nope. The GOOG is in the $400 million range. If my data are correct, Google, not Autonomy, is number one in gross revenue related to search.
What’s this all mean?
Let me boil out the waste products for you:
- Enterprise search is a non-starter in organizations. People don’t like the “search” experience, so the market is shifting. The change is coming quickly, and the established vendors are trying to reposition themselves by adding social search, business analytics, and discovery functions. The problem is that other companies are moving more quickly and delivering these much needed options quicker.
- There are some very significant vendors in the information access market, and these must be included on any procurement team’s “look at” list; specifically, Exalead (Paris) and Isys Search Software (Sydney and Denver). Both companies serve slightly different sectors of the information access market, but omitting them underscores a lack of knowledge of what’s hot and what’s not.
- Specialist vendors are having a significant impact in niche markets, and these vendors could make leaps into other segments as well. Examples that come to my mind are Attensity and Clearwell Systems.
- New players are poised to disrupt existing information access markets. Examples range from Silobreaker (Stockholm) to companies such as Attivio and Connotate. In fact, there is an ecosystem of new and interesting approaches that have search and retrieval functions but are definitely distancing themselves from the train wreck that is “enterprise search”.
I urge you to read the Forrester report. Just be sure of your facts before you base your decision on a single firm’s analysis. There is a reason that a pecking order in consulting exists. At the top are Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Boston Consulting Group, Bain, and McKinsey. Then there is a vast middle tier. Below the middle tier are firms that offers boutique services. Instead of accepting a firm’s view of the “top” or the “best”, make sure the advice you take comes from a firm that has a blue-chip recommendation.
The growing dissatisfaction with enterprise search can come back and bite hard.
Stephen Arnold, July 3, 2008
dtSearch Goes 64 Bit
May 7, 2008
dtSearch, long a staple for developers wanting to embed a full-featured search system in an application, announced its line of 64-bit developer products. Based in Bethesda, Maryland, dtSearch offers a wide range of search solutions.
The company’s technology–profiled in the first three editions of my Enterprise Search Report–offered a solid combination of speedy indexing, fast query processing, and a number of useful features for users, system administrators, and developers. You can add natural language processing functionality to the dtSearch system with technology from Bitext in Madrid, Spain.
The new 64-bit developer edition can support larger indexes, although dtSearch’s engineers had figured out how to crunch large amounts of text in its 32-bit version. The terabyte indexer complements dtSearch’s other functions, including remote data spidering, handling static and dynamic data on publicly-accessible and secure sites, and hit highlighting.
dtSearch has been in business since 1991, and it offers a robust search and retrieval system at competitive prices. You can learn more about the company and its products at the dtSearch Web site.
You can use dtSearch for enterprise search, and you can also license a version of the system to make a CD or DVD stuffed with data searchable. Beyond Search’s experience with this product, particularly in troublesome Microsoft Windows and SharePoint environments, has been positive.
Stephen Arnold, May 7, 2008
Sinequa’s Jean Ferré Interviewed
April 21, 2008
Sinequa, based in Paris, provides search and content processing systems that straddle traditional search, business intelligent, and data management. The company has a strong customer base, primarily outside the United States. I reacquainted myself with the company at the International Online Meeting in London, England, in December 2007. Curious about the new features in the system, I was successful in getting the firm’s managing director to speak with me.
The positioning of the company is different from some search vendor’s approach. Mr. Ferré said:
We are a search-and-retrieval system focused on the enterprise promoting our “Connect to Knowledge™” approach. What’s different is that our technology is a self-contained packaged delivered in two formats: First, we offer a flagship solution called Sinequa CS. I’m delighted to say that our sales doubled in 2007. Sinequa CS consists of a full fledged packaged platform including connectivity, navigation and obviously the core engine deployed in a large number of enterprises such as Bouygues, Arkema, MBDA, the French Army, EADS, Eurocopter, LCF Rothschild, the French Police, etc. Second, we have what we call the OEM offer (original equipment manufacture license). Another software company licenses our technology an uses it in their enterprise system. Some OEMs embed our technology in enterprise applications, Web sites, or inside Intranets.
The complexity of search systems has been the subject of some discussion. Mr. Ferré told Beyond Search:
I think Sinequa falls in between a “search toaster” and a box of technical parts you assemble. We resolve the complexity of exhaustive secured connectivity, profile based interface and yet best in class relevancy but delivers much faster at a much lower cost and complexity…. We are now offering a turnkey deployment for enterprise content. If the client wants to search and process information in file systems, relational databases, Microsoft SharePoint, the Web crawling, RSS and enterprise content management–no problem. We can have the company up and running in four days. As an example; we recently were chosen in replacement of Autonomy by one of the largest global IT integrator for its worldwide internal search. We had to compete with what the IT director wanted–Google. We won this important contract…
You can read the complete interview on the ArnoldIT.com Web site. This interview is part of the exclusive series “Search Wizards Speak”, which allows you to learn first hand about some of the most interesting companies in the behind-the-firewall (enterprise search or Intranet search) market.
Stephen Arnold, April 21, 2008
Autonomy: Right but for the Wrong Reasons
January 30, 2008
I try to turn a blind eye to the PR chaff wafted by software companies. An Ovum story caught my eye on January 30, 2008, as I waited for another dose of red-eye airline abuse. As I sat in Seattle’s airport, I started to think about the Ovum article “Sub-Prime Will Provide Two-Year Boost for Autonomy.” I realized that Autonomy would have a strong 2008, but I did not agree that the “sub-prime issue” would be the driver of Autonomy’s juicy 2008 revenue.
As I shivered in the empty departure hall, I replayed in my aging mind some of the conversations I had in the previous 36 hours. Let me be clear: I think Ovum does good work. As a former consultant at a blue-chip firm, I do understand the currents and eddies of maintaining client relationships, seeming “smart” on crucial issues, and surfing on big, intellectual waves.
I think Autonomy is a very good information platform. But as readers of this Web log know, I think search and content processing is a tough business, so everyone can and should improve. So, I’m okay with Autonomy IDOL and its various moving parts.
Autonomy’s Reasoning for a Great 2008
What I want to do is quote a snippet of the Ovum essay. Please, read the original. I cannot do justice to the Ovum wordsmithing. Here’s a portion that I found interesting, almost like a melody that keeps rattling around my mind when I’m trying to relax:
“After declaring record earnings for the quarter and the year, Mike Lynch CEO of Cambridge, UK-based Autonomy said in addition to a good pipeline for 2008 he is expecting a positive bounce resulting from the US sub-prime debacle through banks adopting Autonomy’s technology.”
Then a few sentences further on in the Ovum essay, I read:
“When describing the year ahead Lynch highlighted that the fall-out of the sub-prime issue in the US is that banks were having to secure and analyse very large amounts of disparate information in a very short timescale, exactly where Autonomy positions its Meaning Based Computing message, and reflected in the recently announced $70m deal … with a global bank. To illustrate how significant the demand being seen by Autonomy was, [Sir Michael] Lynch stated that the cycle time for that deal was two months, and that the company was in the first instance moving people across to support the sales and deployment activity, and it would be supporting its partners to undertake the work in the near future.”
I think I follow this line of reasoning, but it doesn’t strike to the heart of what may well be Autonomy’s best revenue-generating year in the firm’s history. Let me tell you what I think I heard, and you judge what’s more important: financial crises or the information you are about to read.
Alternate Reasoning for a Great 2008
In my chit-chats — all off the record and without attribution — in Seattle I picked up two pieces of what may be reliable information. I urge you to verify my information before concluding that I know what I am talking about. I invite you to provide corrections, additions, or emendations to these points. I had not heard these two ideas expressed before, and I find them thought provoking. I find looking at events from different viewpoints helpful. Here are the two pieces of information. Proceed at your own risk.
First point: the Microsoft deal was done by the firm’s Office group’s senior leadership. That unit concluded that it needed to take a bold step. The Fast Search & Transfer acquisition made sense because it delivered revenue (~$150 – $200 million), 2,000 customers, lots of technology, and smart people. The deal was pushed forward in the period between Thanksgiving and the New Year. When the news broke, some inside Microsoft were surprised. I thought I heard something along the lines: “What? We own Fast Search & Transfer”.
Second point: When other units of Microsoft started pooling their knowledge of Fast Search & Transfer, there was concern that the guts of Fast Search did not share Microsoft’s DNA or the Microsoft “agenda”. Fast Search has a SharePoint adaptor, but the rest of the technology looked like Amazon, Google, or Yahoo “stuff”. I thought I heard: “That is going to be an interesting integration chore for the Office group.”
When I hear to word interesting, my ears quiver just like my dog Tyson’s when he hears me open the treat jar. Interesting can mean good things or bad things, but rarely dull things. I have some experience with Microsoft frameworks and some with Fast Search’s ESP (Enterprise Search Platform). Integrating these two frameworks is not something I could do. I’m too old and slug-like for super-wizardary.
Back to 2008
How do these two unsubstantiated pieces of information relate to Autonomy?
What I think is that think Autonomy will win in those head-to-head competitions where Autonomy must sell against Fast Search & Transfer (maybe Micro-Fast?). I think that in large account face-offs, procurement teams will not know how the merger will play out. Uncertainty about the future may tip the scales in favor of Autonomy. The company is stable, not at this moment being acquired, and has oodles of mostly happy customers. Its has name recognition. The Microsoft – Fast team can only offer assurances that everything will be okay. In my view, Autonomy can go beyond okay and will, therefore, win most deals.
But many search procurements involve three or more vendors. In those situations, Autonomy will win some and lose some. So their win rate won’t be much different from what it was in 2007, which as I understand the financial reports, continued to nose upwards. With or without the Microsoft – Fast deal, Autonomy has been charging forward.
Financial factors seem tangentially significant, but Autonomy’s golden goose 2008 is going to be attributable to the Microsoft – Fast merger.
The Microsoft – Fast Options (Hypothetical, Speculative, Thought Exercise)
Let’s assume that I am right and consider as a thought experiment what Microsoft can do to win sales from Autonomy and keep Fast Search’s revenues on the trail to financial health. Here are three possible scenarios that seem insightful to me in the Seattle airport at 12:15 am Pacific time. I invite you to weigh in. Attorneys, consultants, and share churners can climb too. This is an essay, an attempt, not much more than my opinion based on the aforementioned, unsubstantiated chit-chat. Okay? Now the options to consider:
- Microsoft – Fast leaves the two platforms separate. Microsoft provides management expertise, leadership, and marketing horsepower and goes flat out to wrest business from Autonomy in its key accounts. Microsoft ignores Autonomy’s response (price cutting, PR chaff, etc.,) and uses Microsoft billions to neuter Autonomy, Virage, and any other search technology Autonomy offers.
- Microsoft – Fast hunkers down, integrates the two platforms. Using its reseller and Certified Partner network, Microsoft – Fast combines a better search solution plus slick technology plus high-powered marketing. Although Microsoft concedes some battles, when the company hits the street with its offering, it executes a Netscape-type (think free or really low license fees) strategy and becomes the dominant player in the behind-the-firewall search market.
- Microsoft – Fast does the integration work well. Instead of fighting Autonomy, Microsoft uses a variation of its customer relationship management strategy. Free trials and low cost introductory rates are used to get existing Microsoft-centric customers to remain loyal to Microsoft. Applied globally for a year or more, Autonomy may be slowly deprived of oxygen. Autonomy loses its agility, becomes weaker, and fades into a distant second place behind the Microsoft super-platform.
As I think about these hypothetical scenarios, I see a win for Microsoft in any of these paths. If the company were to mix and match strategies — for example, all-out assault and long-term oxygen deprivation — Autonomy would have its cash reserves depleted. The end game, of course, is that another super-platform steps forward to acquire Autonomy. Then two super-platforms would fight for the behind-the-firewall search customers.
Who are candidate super-platforms at a time when the US economy is teetering toward a recession? Here’s my shortlist, and may I ask, “Who are your candidates in this high-stakes poker game?
- Oracle. This company already inked a deal with Google to hawk the Google Search Appliance. Oracle bought Triple Hop, but so far has not been able to leverage that technology. Mr. Ellison is a buyer, and I hear that Oracle has looked closely at Autonomy in the past.
- SAP. This company has the TREX search system. A shiny new search system is on the horizon. Buying Autonomy brings several thousand customers, revenue, and engineers. Microsoft tried to buy SAP, and SAP fought back. Maybe this is the next step for SAP?
- An investment bank — maybe Carlyle Group, an outstanding outfit. Carlyle could work a deal to convert Autonomy into several companies and start selling various units off to the higher bidder. There’s real money in buy outs and break ups.
- IBM. IBM has more search solutions than any other vendor I track. Buying Autonomy brings customers and revenue. IBM then implements one of the Microsoft options and goes after Microsoft. IBM still remembers the great business relationship IBM enjoyed with Microsoft in the DOS and OS/2 era.
Note that none of these hypotheticals is greatly influenced by the sub-prime tempest. The stakes are now sufficiently high in behind-the-firewall search to make secondary forces — well — secondary. I don’t want to disagree with Ovum, but I think my analysis may add some useful “color” as the financial analysts like to say, to their look at Autonomy.
Stephen Arnold, January 31, 2008
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
