Search Market Stabilizing: Beam Me Up, Scotty
February 27, 2009
A happy quack to the reader in the UK who sent me a link to a quite remarkable story by Phil Muncaster. The title? “Enterprise Search Market Stabilising” here. The article is a rewrite of a news release about another wizardly view of the market for search in an organization. You will want to read the write up yourself to see how public relations and dead tree media interact to create what in my opinion is a silly view of the market for search and content processing systems. The article asserted:
As part of our Cross-Check analysis, we noted that enterprise search vendors have spent much of the past year digesting acquisitions and stabilising their offerings,” wrote CMS Watch … in a blog post. It is perhaps a sign of the times that vendors are debuting fewer new features, and focused more on stabilising their current offering, selling smarter, and keeping customers happy.
Whoa, Nelly! Google sales professionals assert, “Search is easy.” Now the Google Search Appliance does make deployment and basic searching as easy as 1-2-3. Customizing, hardening, and deploying a redundant system is closer to working through Zeta function math, not counting kindergarten operations.
Yep, search is stable. Search vendors are no longer introducing new features. Wrong. Search is volatile and vendors are pushing new features and functions into the market in order to build sizzle and keep customers from defecting to “the other guy”. Image source: http://gallery.art4heart.info/data/media/1/Time_confusion.jpg
What’s going on in this write up is a misreading of the present search sector. Twitter search is the sector leader in real time search. Google has been unwilling or unable to respond. Now organizations are getting interested in real time search. New? Yes. Destabilizing? You bet. Volatile? Absolutely. And new players are coming on the scene with the regularity of box cars clanking down the tracks down by the mine run off ditch.
As an addled goose, I will tell you that I don’t know what a cross check analysis is. Cross check how? Cross check what? This sounds like an azure chip consultant play to simplify a complex situation that is only partially understood. In my opinion, simplification of search is a task only one unfamiliar with search, content processing, and text analysis would undertake. How complicated is search right now? Consider these factoids:
- IBM has multiple search initiatives as well as partners. The company has a non presence in search yet search is a key component from DB2 to the WebSphere system. What’s this mean? Beats me. I know one thing. IBM has something afoot, and based on my long experience with Big Blue, the company is convoluted in its approach to hot solution sectors. Yep, this is a simple approach to search.
- Autonomy has acquired Interwoven for $770 million. The deal disrupts the eDiscovery market which is already spinning with the Guidance fumble. That company used its own system and failed to “find” documents in its own eDiscovery process. With a search vendor spending the equivalent of its annual turnover for a content management company in the eDiscovery business is exciting. But add to that fact that eDiscovery systems flopped when Guidance couldn’t make its own system work and you have a bit of wobbly in my opinion. Seems complicated to me in terms of what Autonomy will do with Interwoven. Seems complicated to me in terms of the relationship of general search with more specialized stuff like eDiscovery. Muff the bunny. Do the perp walk. High stakes I would assert.
- Oracle has gone missing in enterprise search. What’s up? The answer is that Oracle is playing its cards close to its vest. What does Oracle’s low profile mean? Oracle is a big player in the database world and search is a key issue. Oracle’s intent will become clearer in 2009, but until then, the Oracle situation complicates the lives of Oracle licensees, partners, and third partner vendors. The big question is, “What will Oracle do in the enterprise search space?” What if Oracle snags a big player and chokes down the high valuation and debt? Does this type of big play stabilize? Not in my opinion. The hypothetical moves adds to the uncertainty for customers and licensees.
- Life is pretty darn complicated for the SurfRay customers. That company is in financial limbo. The users of Mondosoft, Speed of Mind, and Ontolica are in a tough spot. Maybe complicated is not the correct word? Maybe uncertainty? Both notions connote discomfort to me. I have a list of seven search vendors who are in a tough financial bind. More uncertainty. More turmoil. Potential energy waiting to be released without much warning.
Simplification is useful as long as reality is part of the cross check. Simplification that is wrong can be risky. Simplify as a consultant and the result could be litigation.
The pithy article included this assertion: Vendors are “debuting fewer new features” [sic] doesn’t jibe with the information that flows to the duck pond here in Harrod’s Creek, Kentucky; to wit:
- In the series “Search Wizards Speak” each of the more than two dozen people have identified new features in their systems and software. These range from connectors to sophisticated “beyond search” functions such as mash ups
- Individual vendors have been aggressive in expanding into non search sectors such as business intelligence. A quick read of the interview with Attivio’s Sid Probstein in this Web log provides a glimpse of this dynamism
- Open source vendors continue to innovate, including Lemur Consulting and its FLAX product. The Lucid Imagination system is stuffed full of new Lucene- and Solr-centric features.
So, we have some first person interview data that suggests the feature assertion is addled, even more addled than this goose I assert.
Second, what’s this stabilizing assertion? Baloney in my opinion. Plain baloney or more properly bologna. Again, the evidence is that enterprise search if far from stable. Facts, in short supply in this write up, may be as thick as fleas on a stray dog in the referenced study, but consider these items:
ITEM: Siderean Software, Delphes, TeezIR, EZ2Find.com, and other vendors have pulled in their horns to the extent that I am not certain the companies are still taking orders. I have indications that other vendors have been constrained by the economic downturn and may be retreating as well. Do the customers know about these retrenchments? Maybe? Maybe not. But I can tell you that this introduces considerable instability within individual companies and among the financial backers of these firms.
ITEM: New companies are cropping up with surprising frequency. I received email from an old pal Ramana Rao about his new venture. There’s Kosmix. I can point to other important search upstarts like Sprylogics in Toronto, or Evri in Seattle, the search less, understand more folks. I have documented some of the more interesting new features in this Web log. Read the articles and draw your own conclusions about flow of new entrants and the features these companies are offering.
ITEM: The Microsoft roadmap for FAST and its enterprise search platform does little to address the flux resulting from [a] the police matter regarding Microsoft FAST in Oslo; [b] the cost of integrating certain FAST ESP functions into existing SharePoint installations; [c] the cost of licensing the appropriate FAST modules; and [d] the availability of trained engineers to make the SharePoint – ESP hook up work in a client environment. Seems unstable to me, but you may have another view.
ITEM: The Google is disrupting enterprise search by allowing to pull for its mapping and applications to suck the Google Search Appliance and other Google search technology into organizations. Vendors are quick to point out that the Google Search Appliance is not the “final” solution, but the Google is having a disruptive effect. Asserting stability when Googzilla is getting sucked into companies is like explaining quantum theory with Newton’s math. Won’t work.
To wrap up, buy the study referenced in this assertion filled news story. Dig in. Enjoy.
My view is that search is in flux. Search is complex. Search is pivotal to an enterprise’s survival. Buzzwordology strikes me as inappropriate for this particular moment in time. Facts, experience, knowledge, and a willingness to work through complexities–that’s what’s needed in my opinion. Honk.
Stephen Arnold, February 27, 2009
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
