Fast Search at PDC 2008
November 10, 2008
A happy quack to the reader who alerted me to a Web log post by Philippe Sentenac here. The 45 minute session was to cover a number of topics. Mr. Sentenac’s opinion was that most of these topics had been covered elsewhere. However, he did snag several interesting points about Fast Search, a unit of Microsoft that is the subject of a police investigation. First, he notes that FAST ESP integration is underway by Fast engineers. Fast ESP will be focused on indexing Web sites. Prior to the Microsoft acquisition, ESP was a system used to index enterprise content. A version of ESP for SharePoint will be developed to handle SharePoint installations with more than 50 million documents. Here’s the screen shot reproduced by Mr. Sentenac showing this two-part approach to Fast Search’s technology:
I don’t have a back up source for this information. My recommendation is that you view this as an interesting possibility, not a formal program. If I were working at the Microsoft Fast office in Oslo, Norway, I would be thinking about the police investigation, not the integration of ESP with SharePoint. But that’s just my opinion. I am sure that none of the Microsoft Fast executives or engineers are troubled by the possibly unwarranted investigation allegedly related to financial dealings.
Stephen Arnold, November 10, 2008
Microsoft Fast’s Web Log High Fives Autonomy
November 10, 2008
I am fuzzy about the ownership and compensation for contributors to the FastForward Web log. I was not fuzzy when I read here a summary of Autonomy’s relatively new governance system for SharePoint. What was quite interesting was that in the guise of summarizing a consulting firm’s seminar about SharePoint, Autonomy got top billing in this Microsoft Fast centric Web log. The focus was not on Microsoft Fast. The spot light was aimed on Autonomy. The article “The SharePoint Sessions Revisited. Part Four. Enhancing SharePoint Information Governance” by Bill Ives.
Autonomy Information Governance Architecture integrates with SharePoint to help with this issue, see their site on Record Management, Information Governance and Disposition. This is consistent with Microsoft’s strategy of integration with best of breed players.
So, FastForward identifies Autonomy as a best of breed vendor. What’s more interesting is that Mr. Ives devotes a full four paragraphs to the Autonomy SharePoint governance system. Does Microsoft Fast criticize Autonomy? No. Does Microsoft Fast offer an alternative to Autonomy’s system? No. Does Microsoft Fast assert that SharePoint can be tweaked to deliver Autonomy type services? No.
In short, Autonomy gets a huge marketing push. I am delighted that Microsoft Fast is showing such support for its partners. I wonder if this is a new page in the Microsoft Fast marketing play book. Quite a change in my opinion. I am certain I will be informed that this type of vendor praise is standard operating procedure. If so, that’s good news in a market sector where carping and sniping are sometimes evident.
Stephen Arnold, November 10, 2008
Microsoft’s Vision for Mass Transit
November 10, 2008
I don’t know if this is a spoof or a real innovation. The addled goose does not ride a bus or any vehicle. The goose flies. You will want to take a gander at Newlaunches.com here to see a Microsoft Office equipped bus. The idea is that a standard bus is set up with tables and computers. The commuter can work while riding the bus to the office. If the bus is stuck in a traffic jam, the lucky riders will not waste valuable working time. Here’s a snap of the alleged interior of the bus. If I were not tired from flapping my wings, I would estimate how many of these Windows vehicles a transit company would require to replace a standard bus. The cost of more buses that hold fewer passengers is likely to make this idea a loser for cash strapped transit operators. But it’s one of those ideas, if the story is accurate, that could catch the attention of some elected officials. I am delighted I have wings.
Stephen Arnold, November 10, 2008
Onyomo Mobile Search
November 9, 2008
A happy quack to the reader who alerted me to Onyomo.com. Onyomo is a mobile search service. You can try it from your browser here or you can from your mobile device enter the number 53456 and text “find”. T Mobile would not place the call for me, but you may have better luck than I if you live in Delhi, Bangladore, Mumbai, or one of the other cities Onyomo supports. Harrods Creek, Kentucky, is out of the running at this time.
Reliance Communications, a telecommunications service provider, has launched its Quick Search service. The Quick Search engine is provided by Onyomo.com. You can read more about Quick Search here.
Onyomo says here:
Onyomo has made its mission to enhance the overall quality of our everyday life by swiftly serving actionable information that is of any consequence. The Onyomo team is committed to its mission of providing easy to access and easy to use quality information on every product and service of interest. The team is determined to eliminate any information bias/deficit that Onyomo users face and is equipped to do so through technology and processes driven innovation. In all this, Onyomo will firmly adhere to sound business ethics while managing any aspect of its partnership with its users or business partners. … The Onyomo team comprises of highly talented people with stellar background in business and technology. The team’s major strength lies in, among other technical and business skills, its focus on simplicity and practicality, its boldness and totality of vision and its tenacity.
Here’s the splash page for the search system:
My query for software in Delhi returned two hits, both to colleges. The service is in beta. So it is early days for Onyomo.com.
Stephen Arnold, November 10, 2008
New York Times: Online Can’t Save Her Now
November 9, 2008
My indifference to the plight of traditional media companies is documented elsewhere in the addled goose’s articles and essays. I would like to call your attention to Henry Blodget’s analysis of the the New York Times’s most recent financial challenge. You can read his “Cash Crunch at the New York Times: $400 Million Due in May” here. I liked the write up and I particularly liked the thumbnail of the Times’s headline on the occasion of the sinking of the Titanic. Mr. Blodget outlines some of the options the Times’s management team, aided no doubt by the wizards who run the online service that I a print subscriber simply don’t use. Mr. Blodget identifies such maneuvers as:
- Selling assets
- Borrowing more dough
- Cutting costs.
To this list, I would add sell the company to a media mogul in another country. I can name a couple of prospects in China and Thailand right off the top of my head. The company could contact a highly reliable and sensitive, loving investment banker in the hopes of identifying and marrying a white knight. Robert Maxwell is no longer with us. Conrad Black is temporarily indisposed. Rupert Murdoch may find it tough to own another major newspaper in New York City. Sam Zell seems to have his hands full with the Chicago Tribune. Perhaps Thomson Reuters, Bloomberg, or another professional publishing company will jump into the fray. I wonder if the spurned LexisNexis operation will come forward with a billion dollar deal. Maybe not? Reed Elsevier has its own financial demons to calm.
In my opinion, making the gray lady dance the two step is going to take some serious investment, effort, and maybe a bee pollen treatment in Switzerland. Never say never, so I think the old gal and its business and tech savvy team will find a way to make lemonade from today’s lemons. Lemons, however, don’t have a long shelf life. In my opinion, as goes the New York Times, other traditional publishing companies will follow.
Watch for my Google and Publishing monograph from Infonortics. I attempt to explain why the GOOG is a partial cause and a potential beneficiary of these publishing disruptions.
Stephen Arnold, November 9, 2008
Verizon: Battleground for Google and Microsoft
November 9, 2008
Verizon has become a battleground for Google and Microsoft. You can read Channel Web’s take on this dust up here. Michele Masterson’s “Microsoft Horning in on Google-Verizon Deal” does a good job of explaining of the fire fight. Google did not nail the deal in August. Apparently there were concerns about the sharing of advertising revenue. The result was that Microsoft stepped forward with a counter offer. Now Verizon finds itself the belle of ball with two handsome suitors vying for Verizon’s charms. My take on this is that Verizon will craft the best deal it can get. I don’t think Verizon knows what business Google is really in, nor do I think Verizon looks beyond the numbers on Microsoft’s proposal. What is certain is that Google and Microsoft will find themselves in more fire fights of this type. When will all out war break out? I think it has. Google’s too circumspect to say it. Microsoft is too distracted with its many other challenges to recognize it. A new era has begun. This Verizon issue may be the equivalent of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914.
Stephen Arnold, November 9, 2008
Free and Bundles: The Future of Information Access
November 9, 2008
In Denmark I last week. I had a number of interesting conversations. One person was explaining the open source approach to content management. In this context, “content management” or CMS is limited to authoring systems for Web pages. The number of vendors in this market sector underscores the need that appears to exist in organizations for software for Web content. Personally I think that most of the CMS systems were home grown. Now entrepreneurs want to take one off solutions and commercialize them. I am not convinced that there is much of a future for most CMS vendors, but I will be long gone before this software segment stabilizes and consolidates to a handful of players.
Accenture offers a new white paper that noses into these topic areas as well. You can read it here. Note: you will have to either complete an annoying survey or find a way to display the summary by Susan Campbell called “Accenture Whitewater Tackles Software Pricing Challenges.”
One interesting trend I noticed at the JBoye conference was the use of for fee services as part of the open source business model. Let me give you two quick examples and then offer a general comment.
First, navigate here to Phil Wainewright’s November 6, 2008, “Funding Software from Add On Services.” This article explains how a company can give away software and then charge those downloading the software for services. The idea is to give away software as a service, then monetize it through what one of Mr. Wainewright’s sources called “alternative channels.” In effect, the software is the loss leader. Less delicately, this is a bait-and-switch method with the edges sanded and nicely finished. A number of search and content processing vendors use this model; for example, Tesuji.eu, among others.
Second, take a look at Vinnie Mirchandani’s “IBM Tries the GE Approach to Complex Bundling” here. The article explains that IBM trying to emulate the GE approach to sales; that is, “bundles of complex systems and projects covering power plants, aircraft engines, their maintenance and other large infrastructure items.” IBM’s approach is to apply this type of thinking to “smart infrastructure” sales. The goal is increased revenue.
I think these two examples make clear that the traditional business model for some types of software needs updating. On one hand, the vendor gives away one thing in order to sell another; specifically, the software is free, but the knowledge required to customize and maintain that software is not. Companies think the vendor is giving them a deal when the price tag is probably comparable to what the software license fee would have been under the old pricing model. In short, the price list is gone. Replacing it is a series of fees that are variable and often tough to predict. A tight license goes out the window once a request that is out of scope is agreed upon. The “old license” fee is gone; the new and higher risk variable model is in.
The bundle is more interesting. The notion is that a big system can be delivered by a vendor with end to end capabilities. Instead of buying components from multiple vendors, the bundle turns the job over to a single firm. The approach is comparable to building a house using a general contractor. In high technology, the idea is even more appealing when the general contracto0r makes some if not all of the components and has the technical expertise to put them together and make the system work. The result is perceived savings, and the vendor gets a much larger fee. The client gets a deal.
But in each of these two business models for information access, there are some issues that don’t often take center stage when building a house, when looking for a one stop shop, or trying to pare down costs. Let’s look at three:
- Information is not easy to define. It has some slippery characteristics. Regardless of the cleverness of the vendors’ business models, costs are often difficult to control.
- Requirements for information can change due to exogenous forces; therefore, the mercurial nature of information is made more volatile by events or needs that cannot be anticipated. The technology to deal with these issues may not be affordable by the vendor or the client. In effect, the system can’t and won’t work in the “new” environment.
- The moon launch scale of a mega project does not work in organizations where information needs are distinct to operating groups, departments, and possibly individual knowledge workers. As a result, the big system forces some units of the organization to go in a different direction. This increases system duplication, costs, and situations in which no one knows which information is the “right’ information.
The new business models appear to give customers more options. That is true, but these are options for charging internal accounts. The costs and risks remain unchanged. In some situations, the new business models guarantee cost overruns. Mangers who understood traditional licensing agreements may be exploring new cost territory without a base of information on which to make management decisions.
New business models are in vogue. Customers want these options. My hunch is that the cost and management issues will increase. The net net is that the new business models do not reduce the costs for an information centric system. Search, CMS, and text processing will remain “problems” no matter how the customer pays the bills.
Stephen Arnold, November 9 2008
Search System Administrators: Read This
November 9, 2008
A happy quack to the reader who sent me the link to this free IEEE article “Frequently Forgotten Fundamental Facts about Software Engineering.” You can find the article here. After listening to consultants at a conference opine about search and findability, I had fallen into deep despair about enterprise search. I heard customers explain the cartwheels they had to turn to get content management systems to work. I heard vendors–one of which is the object of a police investigation–talk nonsense. When I read the Forgotten Facts, I realized that there were people who were trying to explain the challenges of software in today’s hurry-up, I-know-it-all world. Let me highlight three items from this well written IEEE article:
- “Most software tool and technique improvements account for about a 5- to 30-percent increase in productivity and quality. But at one time or another, most of these improvements have been claimed by someone to have “order of magnitude” (factor of 10) benefits. Hype is the plague on the house of software.”
- “Maintenance typically consumes about 40 to 80 percent (60 percent average) of software costs.”
- “One of the two most common causes of runaway projects is optimistic estimation.”
Enough said? No, you will need to ponder the compendium prepared by Elsevier’s Robert Glass. It will be time well spent.
Stephen Arnold, November 9, 2008
Apple Google Salesforce: Attack Incumbent Market Leaders
November 9, 2008
The flight from central Europe to the autumnal hills of Kentucky was a delight. The flights were filled with happy, loud children. Considerate coach travelers talked loudly and without stop for 8.5 hours. The Delta flight crew served wonderful meals, and the food. Ah, the food–to die for. With so much right with major corporations using their business acumen to acquire Northwest Airlines, I was shocked to read that Apple was resisting IBM’s legal attempt to prevent an executive from quitting Big Blue and falling into the Steve Jobs’s reality distortion field. On one side, Apple a purveyor of expensive gadgets challenging the $100 billion mega-enterprise. Goodness. Then Google with its black eye from its run in with US Federal regulators suggesting that Microsoft and Oracle were off base about cloud computing. You can read about the Apple IBM dust up here. You can learn more about the Google and Salesforce.com criticism of Microsoft and Oracle here. If these links, go 404ing into oblivion, you will be able to find numerous posts about these two unrelated incidents.
I have a different take on these actions, and my view is influenced by my analysis of Delta and its buy out of Northwest Airlines. You probably wonder, “What’s the relationship? Airlines haven’t treated passengers well in a decade or more. Northwest Airlines is a turkey made of aluminum and fiberglass composite. This addled goose has suffered a meltdown.”
 |
 |
Apple, Google, and Salesforce.com assert that IBM, Microsoft and Oracle are little more than early 20th century thinkers when it comes to cloud computing. The Apple, Google, and Salesforce.com approach is more modern, zippier, and more “right” for the times.
I beg to differ.
The old order is represented by the Delta-Northwest business decision. Two losers don’t often make a financial winner. The investment bankers and consultants make a killing, but the Delta-Northwest tie up underscores the folly of dinosaur businesses trying to cope with a financial climate that almost guarantees that dinosaurs will die. At best, offspring will end up as birds, tiny birds struggling for survival. In Kentucky, a crow and a shotgun are not evenly matched. The shotgun wins unless my neighbor is juiced on white lightning.
IBM, Microsoft, and Oracle are dinosaurs. All three are on the evolutionary path that leads to becoming a bird, maybe bigger than a crow but smaller than a dinosaur. Your reaction to my suggesting that these three companies are in decline is probably, “You are definitely an addled goose.”
SAP and Customer Value
November 8, 2008
When a company turns to its customers to help explain customer value, my pin feathers twitch. I read this news release, which appeared on a Forbes Magazine Web site here. The wording of the news release struck me as peculiar. I did not find a reference to search, which is not surprising. TREX is not given much visibility in my opinion. What SAP said was:
- Nine years of support
- 5-1-2 support to five years
- A 7-2 offering, which is in my opinion babble.
Translating this to value, in my opinion, is more support without charging the customer any more money, maybe. My recollection is that SAP raised its prices and customers complained. So instead of lower prices, a customer gets more support, in one case nine years.
Will SAP be an independent company in nine years? Will these customers be in business in nine years? No one knows, so extending service terms does not deliver customer value. This type of word smithing does not change the fact that expensive, complex, and customized on premises solutions are starting to show stress fractures.
SAP strikes me as an enterprise software company that has caught the Yahoo flu?
Stephen Arnold, November 8, 2008
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
