The Pompeii Effect: Google Books
December 22, 2008
I can hear in my addled goose brain two residents of Pompeii on the day of the eruption, “What’s that vibration?”
The second Pompeiian replies, “Nothing really. It will be okay tomorrow.”
I was thinking about the residents of Pompeii who remained in their town as Vesuvius sent signal after signal that a change was coming. Pompeiians adapted to the here and now, blocking the warning signs. Visit the ruins. What do you see? Plaster casts of those who denied reality frozen in time. The only problem is that these grim reminders are history, not the here and now. So, history in some ways repeats itself.
Pompeii today. Source: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/74/199825971_2a6133cff7_b.jpg
What triggered thoughts of a giant volcano stirring to life? I read “A guide for the Perplexed: Libraries and the Google Library Project Settlement” by Jonathan Band here. The article appeared on December 14, 2008, but I was too busy to read it. I regret the delay. The write up did a good job of walking me through the deal between Google, the Authors Guild, and the bastion of dead tree outfits, the Association of American Publishers. The settlement document consumes about 200 pages of dead tree output, which provides a hint of what’s inside. Lots of words to explain what I perceived as the end of traditional publishing. Like the eruption of Vesuvius, the event has occurred and publishers are now frozen in time just like these plaster casts of those who were not prescient enough to get out of town. Here is a figure described as a crying person. The individual just realized that tomorrow would be different.
Source: http://glutter.typepad.com/photos/italian_sculptures/pompei.jpg
You will need to work through Mr. Band’s write up. I want to highlight three comments that struck me as particularly significant. Remember: when you read the settlement and Mr. Band’s synopsis, you may reach a different conclusion. I am giving my opinion, which is a reminder to the dudes and dudettes who write to me as if I were creating something more than a free Web log recording my thoughts. Spare me the parental comments “You should” or “You need.” No, I won’t and I don’t.
Point 1: Who Controls Distribution?
Mr. Band does not address this point. The elephant in the settlement is that Google is the distribution mechanism. The deal “wraps” traditio0nal publishing in a package and puts that package within the GOOG. Control, therefore, is abrogated by the publishers. Mr. Band noted:
The settlement explicitly “neither authorizes nor prohibits, nor releases any Claims with respect to … any Participating Library’s Digitization of Books if the resulting Digitized Books are neither provided to Google pursuant to this Settlement Agreement nor included in any LDC, or the use of any such Digitized Books that are neither provided to Google pursuant to this Settlement Agreement nor included in any LDC.” (p. 20-21) In other words, the settlement does not restrict fully participating, cooperating, public domain, or other libraries from engaging in other digitization projects outside of the settlement.
With Google touching two thirds of the queries, who is going to go where? As budgets get more severely squeezed, who’s going to offer another access path? The Gates Foundation? More access means more traffic for Google.
The ash is now settling in my opinion.
Point 2: Term in “Google’s Obligations”
Mr. Band summarizes Google’s obligations to do something in five years. When I reflect on what’s happened to the economics of America and traditional publishing in the last 12 months, are you going to predict what will happen in five years? I will. The GOOG becomes the 21st century of the type of monopoly for which Andrew Carnegie and J.P. Morgan prayed. Who has the money, the regulatory clout, and the influence to slow the GOOG? Amazon? Microsoft? Yahoo? I have thought about a wizard emerging from Croatia to rework online information, but as I said in The Google Legacy, the hoped for alternative to Google will just build on the Google. Salvation then becomes another Google, right?
Point 3: Arbitration
Okay, you are going out of business. Your savings are gone. Inflation is rampant. If you worked for a dead tree publisher, that outfit has sucked the pension money months ago. Google offers to wheel and deal for your writings. What will you do? Tough question for you. Not for me. As a writer of really lousy stuff, I will take Googzilla’s deal. I get the promise of ad revenue. I may get a cash payment. I may get free access to information so I can write more so-so reports. In short, as Google’s economic power grows via its business model and superior infrastructure, Google can morph from distributor to full-service end-to-end information River Rouge. Yep, arbitration is really going to work in this hypothetical environment. Arbitration works pretty well when each party has skin in the game and the balance of power is reasonable. In today’s economy with the deterioration of globalization and the emergence of Google as a nation state, arbitration is an interesting notion.
To sum up, I think the deal with publishers and the Authors Guild is a digital eruption of Vesuvius. The landscape has been changed. Okay, now marshal your facts and disagree. I enjoy the assertions of modern day Pompeii residents saying, “Nah, Nothing to worry about.” Check out the image below.
No big deal. Wrong. Big deal.
Stephen Arnold, December 22, 2008
Microsoft SharePoint and the Law Firm
December 22, 2008
Lawyers are, in general, similar to Scrooge McDuck. If you are too young to remember, the Donald Duck funny papers, Scrooge McDuck was tight with a penny. Lawyers eschew capital expenditures if possible. When a client foots the bill, the legal eagles will become slightly less abstemious, but in my experience, not too profligate with money.
Microsoft SharePoint offers an unbeatable combination for some law firms. Because the operating system is Microsoft’s, lawyers know that programmers, technical assistance, and even the junior college introductory computer class can be a source of expertise. And, Microsoft includes with SharePoint a search system. Go with Microsoft and visions of lower initial costs, bundles, and a competitive market from which to select the technical expertise you need. What could be better? Well, maybe a big pharma outfit struggling with a government agency? Most attorneys would drool with anticipation to work for either the company or the US government. A new client is more exciting than software.
Several people sent me links to Mark Gerow’s article “Elements of a Successful SharePoint Search.” You can read the full text of his article at Law.com here. The article does a good job of walking through a SharePoint installation for a law firm. You will also find passing references to other vendors’ systems. The focus is SharePoint.
Could this be a metaphor for a SharePoint installation?
I found several points interesting. First, Mr. Gerow explains why search in a law firm is not like running a query on Microsoft’s Web search or any other Web indexing system. There is a reference to Google’s assertion that it has indexed one trillion Web pages and an accurate comment about the inadequacy of Federal government information in public search systems. I am not certain that attorneys will understand why Google has been able to land some law firms and a number of Federal agencies as customers with its search appliance. I know from experience that many professionals have a difficult time differentiating the content that’s available via the Web, content on the organization’s Web site, content on an Intranet, and content that may be available behind a firewall yet pulled from various sources. Also, I don’t think one can ignore the need for specialized systems to handle information obtained during the discovery process. Those systems do search, but law firms often pay hundreds of thousands of dollars because “traditional” search systems don’t do what attorneys need to do when preparing their documentation for litigation. These topics are referenced but not in a way that makes much sense for SharePoint, a singularly tricky collaborative, content management, search, and Swiss Army Knife collection of software packages as “one big thing”.
Exalead Unseats Microsoft Fast
December 22, 2008
Exalead, the French search and information access company, is gaining clients, specifically from sources like Microsoft FAST, which has seen some upheaval in 2008. Case in point: A recent article in Information Age found here reports that online listings business Fish 4’s IT director described their experience with FAST as “leaving a sour taste in our mouth.” Enter Exalead. After proving their product in action, they’re now powering Fish4’s jobs site search, with more sites to come. You can read the full news release here. As the search industry is seeing more demand for quicker, more comprehensive, and more accurate enterprise applications, companies are scrambling to prove themselves to clients. Exalead is doing well by letting companies take their enterprise search products for a test drive. The French are invading the enterprise search sphere and winning. Maybe it is 1066 again?
Jessica Bratcher, December 22, 2008
Gates Foundation Indirectly Aids Google, Hurts Microsoft
December 21, 2008
When I saw the story about the Gates Foundation pumping money into libraries to boost their free Internet access, I wondered if Google was quietly celebrating. You can get the details about the $7 million grant here. The intent was admirable. The indirect impact, in my opinion, will be a boost to the Google. PBS’s take on the story shows that the Gates Foundation dug into data:
The Gates Foundation noted that a recent study by the ALA found that nearly three out of four libraries – 73% – are the only source of free public Internet access in their communities.
The problem is that Google’s dominance of search is growing in America’s garbage can, inflationary economy. With more than 60 to 75 percent of the search market in Google’s paws, the Gates Foundation money is creating more Google traffic. I wonder if the Gates Foundation considered hard wiring the browsers to use only Live.com’s search system. If the trial program works out, the Gates Foundation may provide more cash so Google gets even more traffic. For those who doubt that Google has won the search wars, why not explain to me what’s wrong with my hypothesis? Bring some facts, please. Assertions by angry 30 year olds don’t move me.
Stephen Arnold, December 21, 2008
.
Google Saves Dilbert
December 21, 2008
There are skeptics about Google’s impact, potential, and domination of search. Well, there’s one more believer. Scott Adams. The story appeared in the London Times here. “Google Was My Doctor” tells an interesting story. The creator of the popular comic strip Dilbert had a worsening medical problem. His doc was not optimistic and uninformed.
Mr. Adams created a Google alert and received useful information. The Google made it possible for Mr. Adams to resolve his health issue. For me, the most important comment in the article was:
I never would have found that path without Google alerts. It makes me wonder how far the Dr Google trend can go and what impact that can have on society’s medical costs.
The reason I mention this article is that the Google is slowly becoming a force in medical information. I know that librarians will point to the wonders of commercial medical information services. Heck, 20 years ago I was involved in Pharmaceutical News Index, and Google blows that system out of the water by accident. Are the commercial medical information companies aware of the Google. Sure, but I don’t most of these outfits think Google is savvy enough to master the mysteries of MeSH. The low profile health records test in Ohio is off the radar.
Just keep in mind that the Google saved Dilbert, and I think that in a year or so those pundits who ignore Google’s impact in medical information will regret their confidence that the Google has only a tiny role to play. The Web search market has lost its battle. Google in the enterprise is effectively over because Google need only sit back and let its demographic strategy play out. Now medical information. Do you know about Google’s patent document that makes the mobile phone a medical monitoring gizmo? Might be worth checking out before you write me and tell me that I am an addled goose ready for the oven. Conference organizers take note. Are you getting the “game plan” talk or are you getting solid insight into what the GOOG has in store for online information? My hunch is that dead tree publishers who run conferences have zero idea about this notion. Sigh.
Stephen Arnold, December 21, 2008
The Google CRM Grinch
December 21, 2008
I read Garett Rogers’ “Google Apps Adds Shared Contacts and a New Contact Manager” here. Mr. Rogers reported that Google boosted its Google Apps Premier service. Although not a NetSuite or a Salesforce.com, the GOOG is moving in that direction. For me the most interesting comment in the article was:
In addition to this new API, administrators can enable a new stand-alone contact manager feature that gives users access to their contacts outside of Gmail.
So what? Two points: a crafty Google wise developer can whip up a quasi Salesforce.com app without too many cartwheels. Second, Google makes nice to Salesforce.com and then comes back with a lump of coal for the company’s holiday gift. Tell me again that the Google is not serious about the enterprise. Oh, search is baked in and that puts more pressure on traditional enterprise search vendors. Tell me again that Google has not won the search wars. Just bring facts, not cheerleader skirts and jumpers. The Google seeps in and sucks up oxygen. The “starvation” takes time to become evident, but the air supply is being depleted.
Stephen Arnold, December 21, 2008
Social Search in the Enterprise Gotcha
December 21, 2008
The cheerleaders for social search in the enterprise will want to read ComputerWorld UK’s “Firms Struggle with Access Management for New Systems” here. Leo King does a good job of explaining what has to be done to deal with the nifty new systems that Web 2.0 baloney artists are pushing into organizations. Most top brass managers don’t have a clue about the risks and costs associated with largely marketing hyperbole based systems. One reality check is related to the problem of identify and access management for these webby wonders. You can read the story here. If this link 404s, take it up with ComputerWorld’s Web master, not me. For me the most important comment in the very good article was:
…Organizations were having to make large changes to existing identity and access management software, in order to keep pace with what the business was doing… IAM product suites now have to deal with new requirements,
The article recycles information from the consulting firm Butler Group. A happy quack to this outfit for generating a finding that matches my own research from the hollow in the hills of Kentucky. I am still skeptical of the azure-tinted consulting firms, however, as a matter of principle.
A word to the enthusiastic but not too wise should be enough. This goose hopes so–before the discovery process begins or before the police seize an organization’s computers and data.
Stephen Arnold, December 21, 2008
ChunkIt’s Evolution of Search
December 21, 2008
Happy quacks to the readers of this Web log for sending me links and snippets from “The Evolution of Search” by Admin here. I tried to answer the questions two people sent me about statements in this article. I wanted to offer some broad comments before these ideas get lost in the lumber room of my small goose brain. Keep in mind that this little goose brain of mine has concluded that Google has “won” the search wars. With an expanding market share in a down economy, its competitors have yet to demonstrate that they can kill the GOOG or leapfrog the beast. This, I hope, will be a controversial assertion and whip some of my readers into a crazed frenzy. I have learned that this type of open discussion does wonders for Web log traffic. Honk, honk.
ChunkIt is savvy enough to play the same game. So, the first point about “The Evolution of Search” is that the information is designed to promote ChunkIt, and there is nothing wrong with that. Second, the notion of evolution allows the author to create a narrative. In some places, the story line is a bit stretched, but in its broad outlines, a reader comes away from the article with an understanding of the unpredictability of search. Finally, the conclusion is also okay with me because the write up is clearly labeled as a ChunkIt effort. I don’t find anything wrong with tooting one’s own horn. Click here to buy a copy of Martin White’s and my new study Successful Enterprise Search Management. Monkey see, monkey do. That’s the story of the webby world, both digital and goose varieties I must say.
I want to comment on three points in the ChunkIt evolution article. I am not out to win friends and influence people, so stop reading if my penchant for looking at issues from a different perspective gives you a migraine. Cyrus, Martin, Bye Barry. Yes. I mean you.
First, the whole search revolution was a fluke. Search is actually old, much older than today’s 20-somethings think. There were corollaries for today’s neatest systems in the 1960s and 1970s. The systems sucked because of the limitations of hardware and programming tools. As the hardware became cheaper and more robust, programming tools hip hopped right along. Now, three decades later, whiz kids are dipping into their copy of Numerical Recipes and reinventing the past. So, the explosion of information, the shift to more users and a broader market, and the emergence of more capable, smarter software blundered forward in a two steps forward and one step back mode. By the mid 1990s, the avalanche had shifted from potential to real energy. I don’t do much history in my analyses of search because the same old stuff keeps getting recycled. History is a mass of cheap spaghetti, not a tidy box of pasta. ChunkIt falls into the trap of making a mess fit into a box. That does not work for me. You may find the approach useful. I don’t.
My view of the evolution of search. This image is from the Joe-KS Web site. What a wonderful illustration of the evolution of search technology. Source: http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_apr2006/EvolutionOfMan.jpg
Digg: A Case Study in Cost Control
December 20, 2008
In 1993, Chris Kitze and I created The Point (Top 5% of the Internet). Most people don’t know about this Web site. We sold it to Lycos a few years after opening for business. Now Lycos has gone out of business. Chris and I learned about Internet costs, and we were able to remain unstained by the red ink that many companies find ruining their sneakers. Flash forward 15 years, and the Digg story that carries such enticing headlines as “Digg’s Miserable business” and “Digg’s Sorry Revenue Stream” made me realize how little knowledge there is about Internet costs and the challenge of scaling a business in line with revenue or available capital. Digg, I want to point out, has venture backing and can operate at a loss for a while. But the news stories and the way the writers have addressed the fundamental issue–cost control–shows how some basic fundamentals can drag down an operation. My hope is that the losses or negative cash flow that Digg is experiencing will focus more attention on the challenge of Internet economics. Chris and I learned that traditional business school cost assumptions don’t work in some Internet centric functions. For example, one expects that over time, costs for hardware, software, and maintenance would stabilize and chug along with a reasonable and predictable annual growth rate. Wrong. Exogenous factors like a crash have to be fixed at once, which is expensive. Environmental changes such as a operating system software upgrade or an innovation have to be accommodated. Again the costs spike. Another example is what I call the burden of success. We started The Point, agreed to a specific amount of bandwidth, and then watched as our traffic surged on a daily basis. When the bandwidth bill came, we had to cover it. We did not expect that success translated into predatory pricing from our friendly service provider. Digg’s financial situation is instructive. I hope that its economics influence some of the budgeting that other young companies are doing as I write this post. In a meeting on Friday, December 19, 2008, one of my clients discussed financial assumptions with my team. The Digg example was instructive, and I think the business plan costs section will be reworked. Internet economics, not technology, tolls a death knell for many promising operations. Traditional MBA thinking has demonstrated it does not work in the broader economy, and it does not work for many individual operations.
Stephen Arnold, December 20, 2008
Google Chrome Stripped
December 20, 2008
Lifehacker has a useful x-ray of Google’s Chrome. You can read the article here. The write up provides short cuts and set up options. For me the most interesting segment was “Chrome’s secret Diagnostic Info”. A happy quack to Lifehacker’s Gina Trapani for a quite useful compilation. Highly recommended.
Stephen Arnold, December 20, 2008
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
