The Pirate Bay Issue: Google Gets in Front
April 28, 2009
I don’t want to make a big deal out of this, but I saw on one of Google’s blogs this morning a comment about why Google is not the Pirate Bay. You can read the post in Italian here. The translated version is here. I think I follow Google’s line of reasoning. I am no lawyer, and I sure don’t understand public relations. I wonder if this story will have legs.
Stephen Arnold, April 28, 2009
Ask.com Is the No. 2 German Search Engine
April 28, 2009
SearchCowboys.com wrote “Ask.com Becomes Germany’s Search Engine No.2 by Arbitrage” here. Now I was not exactly sure what arbitrage has to do with a consumer’s decision to run a query on Ask.com as opposed to Google.com. Evert Veldhuijzen wrote:
Now what did Ask.com do to become Germany’s second largest search engine? They bought a lot of Adwords traffic! Showing up to 10 sponsored results above the organic results this model, also known as arbitrage, not only repays itself, but is also very profitable…
The trick is buying advertising on Google to drive traffic to Ask.com. Sounds like a plan to me.
Stephen Arnold, April 28, 2009
Microsoft Search Center and Search Center Lite
April 28, 2009
I read a remarkable article by Robert Bogue of Thor Projects. The piece was “Search Center vs. Search Center Lite” here. I am quite tired after a day of meetings, and I thought “lite” was one of those marketing buzzwords reserved for beer and dietary foods. Wrong. In SharePoint there are two search centers: regular and light. I either did not know or did not remember there were two functions with almost the same name. Mr. Bogue set me straight:
One search center, Search Center Lite — which shows up in the user interface as Search Center, is created by default for you if create a Collaboration Portal. (It’s on /search.) The other search center, Search Center with Tabs, only shows up if you activate the Office SharePoint Server Standard Site Collection features.
I thought about this comment and the plunged deeper into the article. I arrived at the moment of truth:
Who cares? Well if you have a set of complex customizations and want people to be able to search in different ways — then you care. Search Center with Tabs uses the publishing features (WCM) in SharePoint to allow you to create your own pages with different search configurations on them.
I think I understand. Depending on choices, one sees different options with the distinction identified as Search Center or Search Center Light. I wonder if there were other user interface options considered? Nifty, eh?
Stephen Arnold, April 28, 2009
The Microsoft Enterprise Search Vision
April 27, 2009
I read Fran Foo’s “Microsoft Chooses R&D over Buyouts” here. What fascinated me was this statement in the AustraliaIT.news.com.au report of a top Microsoft executive’s view of preparing for the future. Kevin Turner, Microsoft’s global COO, allegedly said:
“In the consumer area we aren’t the market leader but we’re investing in search, MSN, Windows Live and Office Live to become a world-class digital advertising company,” he said. “The landscape is fluid and you have to keep innovating and growing faster than your competition or you’re going to become obsolete.”
Acquisitions can pump up revenue. R&D is often less certain. Google has relied on formal and personal innovation tactics, along with fast cycle live-die cycles, and acquisitions. Balance seems important to the GOOG. Furthermore, applied research can be difficult to make work in certain technical contexts. A good case example is Yahoo’s Panama ad system. In fact, R&D dollars can be blown away with an unexpected twitch in the datasphere.
Ms. Foo wrote,
“Globally, Microsoft registered a 32 per cent drop in profit and the first decline in quarterly revenue in its 23-year history as a publicly listed company.”
What I found interesting was that I scanned Ms. Foo’s article during a “game plan” keynote by Bjorn Olstad, a senior executive in the Microsoft enterprise search unit. At the Boston Search Engine Meeting, Mr. Olstad focused on the future and few tech specifics about enterprise search. The future described by Microsoft reminded me of a Steve Jobs‘s presentation a couple of years ago just without fungible products. I was impressed with iPhone like mobile devices and large touch screen surfaces in Mr. Olstad’s PowerPoint. Even more interesting was the vocabulary he used to Microsoft’s vision of the future in enterprise search; for example:
- On-the-fly computing
- Algorithmic orchestration of the user experience
- Consumption enhanced modes of discovery.
Now Microsoft has to take Mr. Turner’s R&D money and Mr. Olstad’s description of the future and deliver products and services. I hasten to add that that the enterprise search products ideally will be stable, scalable, documented, compatible, feature complete, and affordable by organizations under the same revenue pressure as Microsoft itself. I think that is an interesting task with an uncertain timeline and an unknowable payoff. Oracle sees acquisition, although risky, as a path that may yield more concrete benefits. Shares in the value stock category may need more performance-oriented tactics for stakeholders. R&D or strategic acquisition? Time will tell.
Stephen Arnold, April 27, 2009
Holographic Storage from GE
April 27, 2009
The New York Times’s Steve Lohr wrote “G.E.’s Breakthrough Can Put 100 DVDs on a Disc” here. The technology, said Mr. Lohr, is holography:
an optical process that stores not only three-dimensional images like the ones placed on many credit cards for security purposes, but the 1’s and 0’s of digital data as well.
The GE innovation increases the amount of information that can be stored in a medium that extends the capacity of the traditional optical disc.
In the late 1980s, I was given a tour of a Bell Labs research facility and saw a demonstration of an early holographic storage experiment. The device was a cubic object that was impressively small yet capable of holding a large amount of data compared to magnetic media. I asked the researcher, “When will holographic storage be available?” The Bell Lab whiz said, pushing aside a curtain to reveal a 10 foot x 10 foot array of equipment, “When we can miniaturized the hardware.”
Now it seems that GE has made strides in miniaturization, power consumption, hardware, and compatibility. I think the innovation is promising but magnetic storage density continues to increase and the high capacity solid state discs the goslings and I have tested suggest that SSD technology may have an advantage at this time and for the foreseeable future in seek, read, and write speeds; cost; and size.
The early laser disc technology rolled out by RCA promised similar benefits to GE’s holographic innovation. Will super dense holographic storage gain traction? It’s too soon to tell, of course, but the idea is interesting. I wonder how long it will take a movie executive’s child to burn a holo of 100 motion pictures?
Storage has long been the wallflower at the high technology prom. Is this the year that optical density becomes the queen?
Stephen Arnold, April 27, 2009
Mobile Versus Netbooks as Google Goes Slow
April 27, 2009
In my Google tutorial today (April 26, 2009), I ran through some of Google’s innovations in mobile search and services. One person in the session pointed out that Android 1.5 was immature. I agreed. Nevertheless, Google is plodding forward slowly. The slow motion approach of Google is not an indication of technical ineptitude. My research suggests that Google uses slow movement as a tactic. Android 1.5 will be improved, just not quickly or as quickly as some want a giant software company to react.
I ran through my newsreader items when I returned to my hotel room and spotted an article from New Zealand with this title: “Are Kids Becoming Phone Addicts?” here. For me, the important comment in the write up was:
“There are certainly teenagers who we are seeing that have an over-reliance on their mobiles and who become anxious at the prospect of going without their phone. “They worry that they’ll run out of battery or credit and they’ll be forced to go without this way of communicating with their network of friends. It’s a big fear for them and it illustrates just how important they see the phone as being to their lives.”
I was thinking about my observation that Google was not in a particular hurry with some of its mobile initiatives. This article triggered in my mind the idea of Google’s patience. The company is improving Android and other of its mobile services fast enough. The idea is that as young mobile users grow older, Google will improve a ratchet click at a time. When today’s middle school and high school student are ready, Google’s mobile services will be ready as well.
Will the competitors see Google improving? Yes, but the incremental approach makes it difficult to discern what Google is doing on a larger scale. When the pieces click into place, the customers will be ready.
There’s a risk with this strategy of slow but sure improvement, which is different from Microsoft’s set a ship date and start the death march. The GOOG wanders forward. The approach opens the door for some competitors to move into sectors and capture them as Amazon and Twitter have done in the last six to 12 months. On the other hand, Google has the advantage of deciding what differentiators to release and when.
Will Google’s slow time strategy work? Judging from the “addiction” rate among young mobile users, the Google will have a product that will tempt younger cohorts. If Google fails, it still has mobile services to offer to users through third parties. I am not sure how much of this analysis will play out in reality, but the idea of fast cycle versus slow cycle seems ideal for Google to target specific demographics and then let the aging process carry Google into some markets where mobile will be the primary computing platform, not a netbook or other large form factor device.
Stephen Arnold, April 27, 2009
Twitter: The No Fear System
April 27, 2009
I like Twitter, and I like to read what others says about the system. I even enjoy looking at the different applications built around Twitter. Unless a challenger enters the list soon, Twitter.com may become a winner due to a lack of competition, indifference, or relevance to those in the know. The article “Twitter’s Real Edge: It’s Not Scary” here. I have to admit that I have not been frightened of online services. I may have to take a different point of view since the alleged Craigslist.com stalker has emerged from the Internet underworld. I think “scary” as used by the TechCrunch writer Sarah Lacy connotes “easy” or “not technical”. I agree. Pervasive computing flows on operations that can be handled without much effort or thought. Call home. Push a button. The more users Twitter.com attracts, the more difficult it will be to get a hooked sender of Tweets to try another system. Google is easy and the company, until recently, hid much of its rocket science technology. Google’s approach was to give the user training wheels with his or her searches. Twitter.com does much the same thing for text broadcasting. For me, the most interesting part of Ms. Lacy’s write up was this passage:
But that’s only part of it. I think the key to Twitter’s mainstream celeb success has been the asynchronous, non-committal nature of the site. As Facebook and MySpace grew, we all experienced that social pressure akin to seeing someone on the street that you know, but don’t want to talk to and wondering how you can politely avoid them. Most people who indiscriminately add “friends” just because they asked don’t wind up really using Facebook to connect with actual friends, because they don’t want to over-share photos, contact information, or videos with “friends” who are essentially strangers.
Now Twitter is easy and an intelligence resource.
Stephen Arnold, April 27, 2009
Twitter Power
April 27, 2009
I was going to ignore the article “The Beginner’s Guide to Twitter” but I thought, “I may as well take a look.” The story appeared in TechRadar.com here. the article provides the reader with the basics of signing up and sending Tweets. But deep in the write up was a gem. For me, the most interesting comment about Twitter’s horsepower was this passage:
Google’s recent outage is a good example of this. For about an hour back in January, its malware detector started claiming that every website ‘may harm your computer’. Before Google had a chance to respond, before blogs had a chance to write posts, Twitter users had already done the important investigation – that yes, it was a problem on Google’s end, that no, it wasn’t spyware at fault – and broadcast it.
I found this a good example of the importance of real time messaging.
Stephen Arnold, April 26, 2009
Repositioning Looms for Microsoft Web Search
April 27, 2009
I think Microsoft’s approach to Web search is intriguing. The company has been working to close the gap between its Web search system and Google’s. The effort has been underway for a number of years. The article “Microsoft Preparing to Launch Kumo on June 2nd?” here suggested a major repositioning is coming down the trail. The article said:
Despite the fact that we still don’t know what the actual rebrand name is going to be, there is going to be something big happening on June 2nd at SMX Advanced 2009 in Seattle. One of our forum members recently visited Microsoft’s campus and noted that there were LCD TV’s displaying a countdown with a preview of codename Kumo. From what we’ve calculated the countdown is right on target with the keynote session at SMX Advanced 2009 featuring Microsoft’s Online Services Division, Dr. Qi Lu. This is the first time that Dr. Qi Lu has given a presentation to the search marketing community since joining Microsoft, and given the fact that Microsoft is counting down to his keynote there is surely going to be a big announcement.
My poking around revealed that a change is indeed coming. The information I have seen suggested that the new approach is * away * from Web search toward the more challenging delivery of an * experience *. I am not sure what this means, but my thought is that if you can’t win at Web search, just reposition your service, declare a victory, and move on.
Stephen Arnold, April 27, 2009
Migrating SharePoint Objects
April 27, 2009
I like the notion of federating; that is, leaving information where it is and then pulling what’s needed without crating a duplicated source store. I was interested in this Web log post “Migrating SharePoint Content between Different Site Templates and Preserving all the Necessary Metadata” because the approach ran counter to my method. Migration is sometimes necessary; for instance, a merger requires that the acquired firm’s information be placed under the control of the purchaser’s information technology department. If you need a method to migrate SharePoint, you will want to navigate to Boris Gomiunik’s article here and download the steps. There are eight steps, and I did not see a quick and easy way to automate this set of procedures. Like much in the SharePoint environment, a human must enter values and make decisions. The approach is great for the billable SharePoint consultant and makes a SharePoint administrator a must-have headcount. But for the senior manager, the costs associated with this somewhat tedious procedures are likely to be an issue. In my experience, the more manual intervention in a method, the greater the chance for mistakes. SharePoint may be a candidate for the cloud because in today’s financial climate eliminating headaches, errors, and expenses may reduce on premises software installations magnetic appeal. There was no reference to what fixes had to be made to get the SharePoint search system to rebuild its index and point to the correct instance of the migrated and potentially duplicate content. I wonder if that requires another multi step process involving lots of human fiddling?
Stephen Arnold, April 26, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
