Yahoo Search Goes Bing, Bing, Bing
July 29, 2009
Short honk: My trusty news reader and Overflight tool are choked with write ups about the Microsoft and Yahoo search deal. The mothership story is the write up “Microsoft, Yahoo Change Search Landscape.” I think that Web search now has room for a strong number three. I don’t think that “search” will change, but advertising is now a a direct face off between Google and Microsoft. My view is that Google will respond with another series of nudges at Microsoft’s enterprise pain points. The guff I heard about Yahoo’s ability to outdo Google in semantic technology is now obviously baloney. My BearStearns’ report on Ramanathan Guha’s programmable search engine has stood in the wind, and the Yahoo chatter has be blown away. Maybe Microsoft can leverage these Yahoo innovation? Yahoo is officially the free America Online clone. America Online is going to have to scramble. None of the write ups I scanned mentioned Yahoo’s email search, Flickr search, and other types of search that Yahoo continues to support. As a result, not all of the Yahoo search costs get resolved in this deal. Yahoo has to demonstrate that it can rationalize its secondary search systems and control those costs. I am not sure that this is going to be an easy task for Yahooligans. in my opinion. Wired’s headline might have more truth than some of the other write ups. The story is “Yahoo Gives Up, turns Search over to Bing.” The “give up” phrase is telling. Lots of excitement, just not exactly the “search landscape”.
Stephen Arnold, July 30, 2009
Bing.com Nuked with Extreme Prejudice
July 29, 2009
Taranfx.com posted this inflammatory list at http://www.taranfx.com/blog/?p=1016 back in June: “Why Bing Sucks. Top 5 Reasons.” Pretty harsh words. The post runs through the normal gamut of complaints: speed (“The Bing stuff feels sluggish to me.”), relevancy (“I did a search on Bing for “Bing Blog” Microsoft. What comes up? Lots of less than relevant stuff.”), layout and design (“Bing buries news search off the main page”), and content (“technical search results like “binomial theorem” will never end up in what you were actually looking for.”).
Some of those comments (the news search) have already been resolved through Microsoft updates, and just like anything else online, Bing is a work in progress. As Microsoft’s new search engine, we think Bing is relatively good and actually much better than its forerunners.
Jessica Bratcher, July 29, 2009
Microsoft and PR Innovation
July 29, 2009
I liked Bing.com. I must admit I had some trouble getting the low cost airfare predictor thingy to do much useful, but Bing.com is better than the previous Google killer. I had high hopes for more innovation when I read Ina Fried’s “Microsoft Names New PR Chief (Again)”. I was hoping for a Googler. In my opinion Google has managed the media in a masterful way for more than a decade. I spoke with a French journalist this morning, and the image of Google in that professional’s mind was of a search engine and Web advertising company. That is great public relations. The notion of Google as the next global monopoly was a fresh idea. Google has created one image whilst building a heck of a digital nation state in my view.
Who did Microsoft hire? The expert is from Microsoft’s favorite public relations firm, Waggener Edstrom PR. My view of innovation is clearly at variance with Microsoft’s. I know I will be reading about the Microsoft Fast ESP search system. Will those write ups provide dates and license fees? I hope.
Stephen Arnold, July 29, 2009
Google: Really Smart Outfit
July 29, 2009
I saw this short item in Industry Standard. The title? “Google Sells AOL Stake after Writing Down More than $700 Million”. With thousands of wizards, I suppose buying something for $1 billion and selling it for $283 million is really savvy. I think Google’s wizards are far more money smart than this addled goose. I thought an investment was to grow, not shrink. Shows what little I know.
Stephen Arnold, July 28, 2009
Sparse Data Locality Invention from the Google
July 29, 2009
Google has been lighting up my Overflight patent watch in the last couple of days. The USPTO seems to be pushing work out the door this week. Vacation may be luring the intrepid examiners. One Google patent caught my eye. The title is certainly exciting: “Storing a Sparse Table Using Locality Groups”. You can locate the document at the USPTO searching for US patent 7,567,973. The abstract is as clearly written as the lawyers, mathematicians, and physicists at Google can make it:
Each of a plurality of data items is stored in a table data structure. The table structure includes a plurality of columns. Each of the columns is associated with one of a plurality of locality groups. Each locality group is stored as one or more corresponding locality group files that include the data items in the columns associated with the respective locality group. In some embodiments, the columns of the table data structure may be grouped into groups of columns and each group of columns is associated with one of a plurality of locality groups. Each locality group is stored as one or more corresponding locality group files that include the data items in the group of columns associated with the respective locality group.
The addled goose interprets this invention, filed in August 2005, as an important component of the BigTable technology. A blue-collar version of some of this data management wizardry is available as Hadoop. The good stuff, however, has not yet made it into the wild and wonderful world of open source.
The schematic for Logical Table Data Structure
Why is this an important invention?
In my opinion, this technology performs three modest tricks. Think of trained dogs at an animal circus who can perform a small number of tricks very, very quickly with little or no intervention by the ring master.
First, the invention tackles the problem of storing large amounts of data in distributed computer systems. To make this approach even feasible, an “efficient manner” is needed to represent the data. The “locality group” is one of the key notions that the USPTO has blessed.
Second, the invention has to handle Google’s multi dimensional data. For Google to perform clever tricks with time, the company has to have a way to handle x, y, and z axes. The invention explains some of engineering for this important twist.
Finally, squishing the data tables to minimize storage, transfer, look up and other size-sensitive functions, the inventors have a method for compressing locality groups and metadata for each group.
If you want to get a look at Google circa 2005, the document is a useful one.
The question is, “What’s up for 2010?”
Stephen Arnold, July 29, 2009
IBM Snags SPSS, May Be Bad Timing
July 29, 2009
IBM bought SPSS. Most third and fourth year statistics majors learn to love either SPSS or arch-rival SAS. MicrostAT just does not paddle fast enough for the serious stats whiz. You can read about the deal on the IBM Web site or on TechCrunch.
I liked the “Monster Merger” story. The guts of the deal are presented. For me the most interesting comment was:
IBM says it will continue to support and enhance SPSS technologies while allowing customers to take advantage of its own product portfolio. SPSS will become part of the Information Management division within the Software Group business unit, led by Ambuj Goyal, General Manager, IBM Information Management.
Right.
What I have not seen is a discussion of the SPSS text processing functions. IBM has its OmniFind and a legion of partners to deliver text processing functions. Then there is the Web Fountain system. You do remember Web Fountain, don’t you. The brainiacs at Almaden continue to labor away in text processing.
Now IBM gets PASW which counts, categorizes, and performs other content processing operations. SPSS bought Lexiquest and has added functionality since that deal in 2002.
The plumbing for SPSS text processing has these components:
© SPSS, 2007
SPSS, like IBM, requires a commitment from a licensee. IBM may be joining the party a bit late. The shift to lighter weight analytic tools is underway. Newcomers like Clarabridge have been holding their own. SAS’s purchase of Teragram and its open sourcing some of Teragram’s software makes it clear that the good old days may be receding in the rear view mirror. SPSS can be a real resource hog. That should make IBM happy. IBM loves to sell consulting but a close second is selling hardware and engineering support. SPSS has not made the leap to Web services.
In short, I think the text processing components of SPSS may get lost and quickly within the massive IBM organization. Furthermore, this deal may have been made at the right time for SPSS and maybe the wrong time for IBM. Just my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, July 29, 2009
Google Health
July 28, 2009
My column for KMWorld this month talked about the UK’s waltz with Google and Microsoft for citizen medical information. I pointed out that Google was the best looking system at the ball but Microsoft was a close second. The Guardian has tackled this topic as well. An editorial “Medical Privacy: Dr Google Will See You Now” takes a whack at the Google. For me the most interesting passage was:
But for individuals to be empowered, they must first be protected. Data is only guarded by the promises of the organisations that hold it. Users can protest if the terms of their contracts are changed, but there are no central rules around no central control. For some, that is the attraction. But do not mistake this for a right to privacy.
The Guardian’s anonymous editorial writer poked a finger in the privacy pie. My thought was that the Guardian should have pointed out that the British government tried to create a health information system but could not make it work. Google and Microsoft have systems that work. Privacy is a nice issue, but that issue can be addressed. Making the shift to digital information is likely to have other benefits such as saving a life or two. A system that does not work costs money, risks lives, and makes clear that commercial ventures may be better equipped to develop complex systems. I understand that it is fun to pick on Googzilla. But jesting aside, the UK government tried to create a system and created a giant cost sinkhole. I think that failure is reason enough to give the Google and Microsoft a chance.
Stephen Arnold, July 28, 2009
Open Source Destined to Be a Loser
July 28, 2009
I found the Business Week story “The Failure of Commercial Open Source Software” a bit of a surprise. I suppose snappy headlines are important, but open source is a relatively new trendlet. I don’t think trends can be failures until they have had a chance to run around the barn several times. Rachael King thinks open source is a flop. Well, maybe not Rachael King. Maybe the author is Peter Yared. Whatever? Business Week is provenance enough for this addled goose.
The argument is that open source has not really gone anywhere. For me the most interesting comment is this one:
It’s been over six years, and no commercial open source companies other than Red Hat, MySQL, and JBoss have had liquidity events. So what happened? Oracle and IBM, which derive the vast majority of their software revenue from proprietary software, have an increasing share of the software market. And there’s a bunch of commercial open source companies still trudging along.
The conclusion is a zinger as well:
The point of open source was for people to share the costs of developing, debugging, and deploying common infrastructure. That does not mean that every successful open source project can sustain a commercial company, especially when they are delivering complicated applications rather than simple plumbing.
With Lemur Consulting holding an open source meet up soon, that company believes its open source search system and its service business model is a good model. Lemur, according to Charlie Hull, is profitable. So we have an example of an open source success.
Some other thoughts:
- The Google is making an open source play. Some think the Google’s heart is not in open source. I think the Google sees open source as a nifty way to antagonize Microsoft.
- Open source search may have a better chance than other types of open source technology. With narrow scope, open source search has a role to play in certain situations.
- Open source seems ripe for entrepreneurs who can market.
In short, open source has made a lap around the barn. Two or three laps to go.
Stephen Arnold, July 28, 2009
YouTube Upload Volume
July 28, 2009
Short honk: I saw this factoid in TechCrunch a while ago. I neglected to pull it out. In May 2009, MG Siegler reported that “every minute just about a day’s worth of video is … uploaded to YouTube.” You can read the story on TechCrunch. The metrics are, according to TechCrunch:
Think about that for a minute. In that minute, nearly a days worth of footage will have been uploaded. And the pace is quickening. Back in 2007, shortly after Google bought the service, it was 6 hours of footage being uploaded every minute. As recently as January of this year, that number had grown to 15 hours, according to the YouTube blog
. Now it’s 20 — soon it will be 24. That’s insane.
Bottomline: lots of video with more coming. iPhone users are videographers with black belts. Now when will the Google unleash its automated video findability technology?
Stephen Arnold, July 27, 2009
Google and Education
July 28, 2009
I have mentioned to a number of people that Google is moving slowly but surely into the education sector. The few people who have asked me about this view have suggested that I am stating the obvious. Maybe? Maybe not? I don’t think educational publishers, the producers of instructional media, the trade associations focused on education, and most teachers understand what’s underway. That is not my concern.
I want to capture one small item of Google information before it slips off my goosely brain. On Friday, Google published a brief item in the Google Sketch Up Blow with the tough to index title, “Calling All Teachers: Help!” The Google wants to know what teachers are doing with the AutoCAD killer SketchUp.
One small rock for the educational aggregate that the Google is mixing.
Stephen Arnold, July 27, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
