What’s 70% of 70%
November 6, 2008
You do not have to be a math whiz to figure out the reach of Google. ZDNet makes a service available called ITFacts. You can find the service here. A fact that caught my attention carried the headline ‘73% of Americans Go Online in 2008.’ If we figure 300 million Americans, that works out to a couple hundred million people who go online. You can see the original data set here. How does this pertain to search?
First, the Internet has become the equivalent of the printing press with a dollop of TV and telephony tossed in to add zest to the utility. Second, the company able to reach the most people via this medium has a grip on the throttle. If we accept the estimate that Google controls 70% of the search market in the US, that translates to Google’s having more influence than almost any other single company since the days of Ma Bell.
I am in Europe and just left a meeting during which several references were made to the breadth of Google’s services. What is 70% of 70%? I think it looks like a phase change in some markets toward Google. Regulators are not likely to find themselves able to keep pace with either Google or the growing doubt about what Google represents and is no longer able to keep under wraps.
My stance in these situations is, ‘After the company’s decade of rapid growth, there is nothing new to me in this grousing.’ I say, ‘You folks are worrying about nine years too late.’ With search as essential as email, Google is no longer a search and advertising company. It is a different construct. I am gratified that a few more people are perceiving Google more clearly at this time.
Stephen Arnold, November 5, 2008
Fierce Pierce for Google Search Appliance
November 6, 2008
Fierce Media ran an interview conducted by Ron Miller called “Google Search Appliance Product Manager Responds to Critics” here. The trigger for the interview was an advertorial authored by Nitin Mangtani. The content of the advertorial in Forbes Magazine was a good restatement of the Google game plan for enterprise search. I wrote about the essay here in Beyond Search, not really taking issue with the content or its assertions. I remain baffled why an advertorial is needed when most analysts and reporters drool and quiver at an invitation to visit a real Googler and get the straight talk in the light of a lava lamp and with a cold Odwalla strawberry banana drink in hand.
My newsreader served up Mr. Miller’s interview with Mr. Mangtani. I scanned the interview and noted several items of interest to me:
- Google spoke with Fierce Media, an organization which I thought was an aggregator of content, not a high impact Web property like TechCrunch or Gizmodo. If Google talks with Fierce Media, perhaps I should reassess my views of this outfit?
- The Google Search Appliance has a couple of secret sauces. Prior to reading this interview, I thought that
Silicon Valley usage generally was for a hot company to have one secret sauce. Google has PageRank and engineers. Google is so powerful it can have as many secret sauces as its chefs want to craft. - Google uses universal search. I recognized that catchy phrase from the Google invention by Marissa Mayer and a couple of colleagues. Other companies federate as well, but Google universally federates with a USPTO seal of approval. Mr. Mangtani does not address the topic of protecting its intellectual property, which is an unfortunate omission from my point of view.
- The old chestnuts of Kimberly Clark and Honeywell make their appearance. I have come to expect these case studies, but with more than 20,000 licensees, I learn that these are the cases that really matter. My thought is that these are the cases that must be a bit like the advertorial in Forbes, known and predictable.
- The best is yet to come with regards to Google and enterprise search. I liked this line because it combined a dash of Delphic oracle, a pinch of confidence, and a heaping dose of Mother Google knows best.
A happy quack to Fierce Media for getting the GOOG to reveal some of the ingredients for its enterprise search secret sauces. Herewith, “Quack.”
Stephen Arnold, November 5, 2008
The Post Google, Post Microsoft Yahoo
November 6, 2008
I learned a short time ago that the GOOG disconnected the Googlemobile from the Yahoo caravan. You can read a summary of the farewell statement here. (This is a Yahoo News link so click before the content disappears. Is this a possible preview of Yahoo’s own fate?)
The Yahoo news story ‘Google Pulls Out of Yahoo Advertising Partnership’ contains an outstanding quotation in my opinion:
“We’re of course disappointed that this deal won’t be moving ahead,” David Drummond, Google’s chief legal officer, wrote on a company blog. “But we’re not going to let the prospect of a lengthy legal battle distract us from our core mission. That would be like trying to drive down the road of innovation with the parking brake on.”
I know Mr. Drummond, a Googler to the core, is talking about the legal process, but it is hard for me to keep the metaphor of Yahoo as an engaged parking brake out of my addled goose brain.
Now what for Yahoo? A quick recap is that Yahoo managed to kill the Microsoft deal at $33 a share. Microsoft is not likely to pay that much if a deal can be rekindled. Now the machinations of the US regulatory process have made the Google tie up untenable it seems. The talks with the–please, forgive this metaphor–wounded duck America Online seem to be continuing. Yahoo itself is cranking out new initiatives, shutting dead duck services, and delivering papers about its world class research break throughs at what seems to me a record setting pace.
But what is the outlook? I think Yahoo is the Chrysler of the online Web search world. Without a sugar daddy, I think we will see a high traffic site move forward without any turbo charged revenue growth in the foreseeable future. Over time, Yahoo will just drift. Yahoo can turn around, but it will need at least three changes.
First, new management. I don’t think this needs much explanation. Yahoo has struck out the last few times it went to bat. Get new hitters. Simple enough.
Second, new technology management. Yahoo is busy convincing other researchers that it is innovating. Fix the cost issues associated with the present infrastructure and development methods. I am less interested in a new break through and more interested in cost control, then service integration. I do not need Yahoo invention. Yahoo buys stuff. Yahoo does not invent stuff.
Third, operations excellence. A new president is not going to know what to cut, what to streamline, and what to put on life support. The operations leadership at Yahoo has dropped its bat, ball glove, and socks. Get a boss and an operations team able to show up for the game and make sure that the team wins.
Just my opinion, folks. Just my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, November 7, 2008
Google Log Data
November 5, 2008
Robin Bal’s ‘Why Does Google Log Details of Search Queries’ is an interesting post. You can find the November 4, 2008, write up here. Robin Bal’s approach is to summarize Google’s statements about log data. If you are unfamiliar with these, I recommend reading this article. For me, the most important point in the post was this comment:
One of Consumer Watchdog’s complaints surrounds Chrome’s navigation bar, which can be used to enter a Web site address or a search query. The Google Suggest feature built into the browser relays searches back to Google as you type, in hopes of anticipating your desires. Brian Rakowski, product manager for Chrome, said queries sent to Google through autosuggest feature do include data like a user’s IP address. But Google logs just 2 percent of the data brought in through Google Suggest to improve the feature, Rakowski said, and anonymizes the data within 24 hours.You’re flying blind without that information, so we have to collect a little bit,’ he said.
Robin Bal does not reference any of the Google patent documents. A number of these provide more detail on the data model used to house usage data and the methods employed to convert individual clicks into useful values for other system processes. Nevertheless, the round up is helpful and depicts Google in a generally positive manner.
Stephen Arnold, November 5, 2008
Yakabod’s Knowledge Appliance
November 5, 2008
What do you think about having search, content management, social networking, and collaboration all in one secure software package appliance that deploys really quickly and is super-intuitive? Impossible, you say? Yakabod Inc. says otherwise. Its new appliance, Yakabox, is a knowledge management system (housed in a striking purple box, no less) that not only sorts, stores, and searched hard copy information, but also more ephemeral data such as opinions, experience, and brainstorming so you don’t have to rebuild the wheel. A graphic on the Yakabod site says: “Did you know that 40% of the documents U.S. workers create every day already exist?” Frightening. Yakabod markets Yakabox to fight these stumbling blocks: deployment time; security difficulties; integration problems; redundancy; and employee resistance. You can download several white papers here, and there’s a list of comparative options here.
Jessica Bratcher, November 5, 2008
Microsoft and Security
November 5, 2008
Not long ago, I gave a briefing to a group of people involved in operational intelligence. One of the people at this briefing made a comment about Microsoft’s increasing support of law enforcement. I can’t go into detail, but the company makes tools, information, and professional resources available to some of the operational intelligence community.
I did not take a stand on this Microsoft initiative. The reason was that it was not my role in this briefing to address the subject. My personal thoughts on this matter were that paying attention to security in 2008 is not exactly a timely response to risk. I have heard some of my contacts assert that Microsoft created much of the security hassle because the company rolled out products that made it trivial to exploit careless users or inattentive information technology professionals. I kept quiet.
A story in Good Morning Silicon Valley caught my attention on November 4, 2008. The author gave voice to some of my thoughts. I urge you to read ‘Windows Security Excellent as Long as You Don’t Run Apps’ here. The article includes links to some information about Microsoft’s security work, and it makes one key point. Users constitute the major threat to Windows security.
Keep in mind that any security system’s weakest link is a human who can either make a bad decision, be compromised, or be careless. Nevertheless, I think it is important to remember that widely used software has a security obligation. Responding to a fire after the building has been mostly destroyed makes a fine display and attracts public relations attention. The late response does not save the building.
Stephen Arnold, November 5, 2008
SharePoint: A Digital Fever Spreads
November 5, 2008
On November 1, 2008, Information Week ran a thoughtful article called ‘Can Microsoft Keep SharePoint Rolling’. You can read the full text article by J. Nicholas Hoover here. The article points out that there are 100 million SharePoint licenses now and the product will generate more than one billion dollars in revenue this year. Organizations large and small have embraced SharePoint as what Mr. Hoover calls a ‘Swiss Army Knife’. SharePoint can do collaboration, portal functions, content management, and more. The article cites a number of big name companies that have pushed SharePoint in new directions; for example, a wiki system.
For me the most important point in the article is that Mr. Hoover describes a bait-and-switch aspect of SharePoint that had not occurred to me. As I understand the argument, it is easy and economical to get started with SharePoint, then the for fee versions kick in. Mr. Hoover points out that there are several premium versions of the product. He also points out the concern for lock in; that is, getting out of the SharePoint handcuffs may be more difficult than slipping them on. The notion that SharePoint requires customization before it becomes essential was interesting as well.
Not surprisingly, enterprise software has an upside and downside. Mr. Hoover does a good job of pointing out these aspects of SharePoint. However, after I read the story, I came away with several different thoughts:
- With customization essential to getting full value from SharePoint, how will these tailored experiences be transferred to the cloud computing version of SharePoint?
- Are information technology professionals sufficiently expert to handle a single product that performs such a wide range of functions?
- Will users be able to access services and features without latency that forces some to create time consuming work arounds so an alternative exists when SharePoint experiences a glitch?
For me, these are important questions, and I am baffled how SharePoint training sessions hop over such key considerations. I poked my head into one tutorial about SharePoint, and I thought I was listening to a sales pitch by a Microsoft employee. The presenter was a respected consultant who has what I call SharePoint fever. Microsoft has patiently created a hunger for information about a server platform that I think is one third content management, one third missing, and one third customization. In order to convert vanilla SharePoint into a robust search and content processing system, third party technology is required. The basics in the system are neither easy to configure nor particularly robust. In order to get SharePoint to perform a bandwidth intensive operation such as permit collaboration on a large PowerPoint file, a significant computing infrastructure is required.
Some of the SharePoint fever infected remind me of those people who suddenly understood information because of the graphical browser. Instantly anyone could navigate and explore information. No training or expertise were required. What some people have learned is that a Web experience today is not much different from creating any other software. SharePoint is similar. Behind the sizzle and the snazzy demos is a great deal of technical work.
Personally I don’t see any slow down in SharePoint’s ability to infect users and procurement teams. If Google wants to make headway in the enterprise, it will have to find an answer to SharePoint. Right now, Microsoft is eating Google’s lunch in conference rooms across the world. Score one for Microsoft.
Stephen Arnold, November 5, 2008
Google Universal Search Disclosed
November 4, 2008
It’s official as of November 4, 2008. Google has a patent for universal search. You can download and read US7,447,678 here. The inventors were Marissa Mayer, Bret Taylor, and Orkut Buyukkokten. The abstract for the invention said:
A search engine may perform a search for a user search query over a number of possible search categories. For example, the search query may be performed for general web documents, images, and news documents. The search engine ranks categories based on the search query and/or the documents returned for each category and presents the search results to the user by category. Higher ranking categories may be presented more prominently than lower ranking categories.
The idea is that a user’s query is passed across separate content domains. The Google interface displays the most relevant results from each collection in separate containers. Some vendors deliver federated search with content from different sources in a single list, deduplicated, and relevance ranked. Even Google offers an integrated list of results with text, news and video displayed in a single list type view. The key point is that Google has a patent, which gives the universal search “invention” some heft and edge.
Now some Googlers are eager to point out that a patent by Google doesn’t mean anything except that an engineer had a good idea. No use may be made of the invention. Furthermore some Google inventions have zero connection with what Google actually does. I dismiss these assertions as baloney. Google files and pursues fewer patent applications than other intellectual property hot houses. Google knows what it is doing and what it is patenting.
For patent enthusiasts such as my friend Cyrus, the intrepid Googler who has much marketing sizzle but the merest hint of patent savvy, I want to reproduce Google’s official patent diagram showing how the universal search results appear in tidy rectangular boxes. Each container houses a separate results list, making it dead easy for a user to spot a video or a link to a news item.
Why is this important? Google could make life difficult for vendors with federated search systems by rattling its saber. The vendors will rattle sabers back at Google. The fact is that Google’s dominance is so great that smaller vendors may turn and run when it sees the shadow of Google fall across their office door and when the tinkling sounds of a sword’s unsheathing is heard.
Stephen Arnold, November 6, 2008
Google TV: Not to Worry NY and LA, Not to Worry
November 4, 2008
Update: November 7, 2008 More about Google’s programming activities here. Streaming programs seems like TV to me. If Google sponsors the streamed event, that seems like TV production to me.
Original Post
I don’t want to make a big deal about the business sectors that Google is disrupting. A number of people have independently discovered a decade into watching Google that the company is playing a game of chess with many businesses and business sectors. For the most recent insights about what Google is doing, check out this Silicon Valley insight. A librarian could point out that these tactics were spelled out in a 2005 publication from an outfit in Tetbury, England, but who uses a professional to do research these days. The Internet is the great equalizer for some.
The GOOG has its sights set on television. Now I know the New York and LA TV pros will hoot at this suggestion. To make my assertion even more silly, Google will refuse comment. Unfortunately, Google and TV are pretty easy to calibrate. I am not going to go into detail about the contents of several recent Google patent documents. People tell me that patents are meaningless, describe science fiction technology, and are pretty much a waste of time. No problem. I agree with these assertions. But I’m an addled goose, so I will point out for my own odd brand of amusement the following recent Google patent documents which you can download here:
- US20080270449, Program Guide User Interface
- US20080270886, Hiding Portions of Display Content
- US20080271078, Momentary Electronic Program Guide
- US20080271080, Customizable Media Channels
Yep, obviously just a couple of Google engineers casually developing a programming interface to a television service. Add to these inventions some of Google’s other science fiction patent documents such as matching an entity wanting a production service and a production service available to create a program and you have little more than coincidence.
The telephony industry dismissed the Google quality of service, I’m feeling doubly lucky, and other Google telephony inventions as meaningless as well. I wonder if the telco executives at the five companies I briefed about a year ago are so confident that Google was unable to have an impact on telephony?
My hunch is that the TV crowd may want to pay a bit more attention to the GOOG. Patents are not casual, nor are they always the output of engineers with too much time on their hands.
Stephen Arnold, November 4, 2008
Clouds Merge, Search Challenge Emerges
November 4, 2008
Ben Worthen’s Web log post for the Wall Street Journal describes the “clouds aligning” for Salesforce.com, Amazon.com, and Facebook.com. You can read the November 3, 2008, post here. For me the most interesting point in the write up was this statement, “But once you cut past the hype there’s something pretty interesting taking place. Businesses that write software that runs on Salesforce.com’s “platform” can now have the same software run on Facebook. And they can use Amazon’s services to support this software.”
ZDNet’s Michael Krigsman here also commented on the announcement. The point he made that I noted was: “Salesforce customers not serving a large consumer segment may find the announcement somewhat confusing and irrelevant, since suddenly their business vendor is proudly involved with a decidedly consumer partner.”
The post Web 2.0 marketing wizards at Salesforce.com have shifted their message weapons to blast me with cloud computing speak. Three issues crossed my mind:
- Which of these companies will offer a search service that will make the appropriate information available to users? The lead dog will have some tough technical issues to resolve.
- Amazon.com’s cloud computing infrastructure comes closest to being a potential competitor to Salesforce.com. Salesforce.com may see Amazon.com as a bookseller. Does Salesforce.com see itself as a cloud computing bookseller with the ability to encroach on Salesforce.com’s customers?
- WWGD or what will Google do? Google has dated Salesforce. com, often acting as a cheerleader who refuses to go steady.
The announcement is interesting because it puts in play several forces that were undirected in the enterprise sector or sitting on the bench waiting for a reason to show what each can do. In short, I think this is a the official turbo charging of the buzzword “cloud computing” and it sets in motion some interesting market interactions.
Stephen Arnold, November 4, 2008
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
