Obama Transparency Does Not Include Tweets
July 26, 2009
Short honk: The more things change, the more the Potomac remains the same. Read “Twitter Banned from White House”. I am assuming that the story is accurate. Furthermore, I suppose one of the hundreds of staffers and thousands of consultants can drift over to Cosi’s or President Clinton’s McDonald’s to fire off a Tweet. Will offenders be tasered? Arrested? Fired? For sure, the real time information flow is now having to fight like a spawning salmon.
Stephen Arnold, July 26, 2009
FDA: Going Against the Obama Open Source Push
July 26, 2009
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has contracted to with ISYS Search Software, http://www.isys-search.com/, to provide ISYS Anywhere enterprise software for FDA staff to have secure mobile access to organizational content. ISYS Anywhere is a universal enterprise search solution that provides secure access across multiple repositories to web-enabled mobile devices.
This is quite a surprise for the Beyond Search goslings. The new administration wants to go open source, but the FDA is licensing proprietary software from a company based in Australia. We’re wondering if this is a reflection of where the federal government is going on enterprise software, or if the FDA is striking out on its own.
Stephen Arnold, July 26, 2009
Microsoft Destabilized by Google
July 26, 2009
I enjoy John Dvorak’s “crankiness.” When I worked at Ziff Communications in the hay day of computer magazine publishing, he was a home run hitter. If I turned up on his door step, he wouldn’t recognize me, but I would recognize him. He’s ubiquitous, and I think he is close to the “truth” about Microsoft.
I want to piggyback on his “Is the Party over for Microsoft?” that ran as a “second opinion” essay on July 24, 2009. He provides a good run down of the distractions to which Microsoft succumbed. But in my opinion, these distractions gained greater urgency when Microsoft realized that Google was a really big problem.
Here’s my take on the Google factor:
First, Google was a champion of open source. I don’t think Google woke up one sunny day in 1998 and said, “We are all for open source.” I think the company, once it got some cash, realized that open source could bleed Microsoft’s attention and revenue. There was only an upside for the Google because it didn’t have the legacy problem and the established base’s need for backwards compatibility. So, the Google rotated about 10 degrees and became an open source engine. Microsoft’s various executives have pointed out that open source was a problem. I will leave it to others to provide the history of Microsoft’s open source, Unix, and community initiatives. While Microsoft thrashed with open source, the Google chugged along.
Second, Apple has been a thorn in Microsoft’s side for a long time. When Apple realized that Google had Mac power connectors in its conference rooms and no Microsoft compatible power connectors, the love bond between Apple and Google grew in intensity. With Eric Schmidt on the Board and Googlers dropping to the Unix command line in their ubiquitous Mac notebooks, the folks at Microsoft had a new problem. Google and Apple found common ground in their desire to give Microsoft a digital (see the illustration below for nerd humor), the two companies cooperated to annoy Microsoft. My hunch is that the annoy Microsoft aspect of the Google Apple tie up is the driving force. Yep, I don’t pay much attention to the “competition” between the iPhone and Google’s telephonic dreams. Google is building the 21st century AT&T. Apple is the “new Sony”. I see symbiosis.
With two outfits with lots of smart nerds, Microsoft had its hands full because together Google and Apple make Microsoft’s technology look pretty lame. Enterprise search is just one example. Microsoft has no product that is industrial strength that can be deployed quickly. Google offers a search toaster which is good enough. Vaporware is not a box shipped overnight from Dell Computer, another outfit squabbling with Microsoft. So Google and Apple doubled Microsoft’s pain. Google with enterprise initiatives and Apple with killer ads that made fun in a nice way of the Microsoft technologies.
Third, Google has proved hugely disruptive to Microsoft’s internal teams. Bing.com, for example, is a response to what Google was in 2007, not what Google is today or even more telling what Google is becoming. Where is a Microsoft dataspace initiative? Google’s Wave is rolling toward a broader developer shoreline and Microsoft’s dataspace row boat is still docked.
Add this up, and I see that Microsoft’s woes have been given a couple of twists of the thumbscrews because of Google.
Mr. Dvorak is right. Don’t get me wrong. I just think the Google is a much bigger factor than most of the pundits, mavens, azure chip consultants, and analysts have recognized. Now Google is on the path to be the next Microsoft. As I wrote in 2004 or 2005, Microsoft is now the next IBM. IBM is now a consulting company.
Looks like I was spot on when I pointed out that Google was moving to “check mate” mode in its relationship with Microsoft. Zune, Xbox, Codd based SQL Server, and ribbons won’t do much to stop the decline.
Stephen Arnold, July 26, 2009
Relegence Relegated
July 25, 2009
B to B Online ran an interesting story with the headline “AOL Shuts Down B-to-B Portion of Relegence”. I liked Relegence’s real time news service. AOL sort of likes it. According to B to B Online:
“We will continue to own and operate the Relegence business, focusing solely on its consumer offering by leveraging its real-time headlines, news, financial and consumer information on MediaGlow sites such as AOL Money & Finance and WalletPop, in addition to implementing Relegence across the AOL network of sites,” an AOL spokesperson said in a statement.
Looks like some shake and bake is in the future of the Relegence team. The Google will have to look for a replacement for some of Relegence’s services that are linked to Google Finance.
Stephen Arnold, July 25, 2009
Twitter and Business
July 25, 2009
Short honk: “Twitter Offers Clues to the Puzzled” in Silicon Valley Blog provided an interesting tidbit to the goose’s bill. The comment that caught my attention was:
We need to do a better job of explaining ourselves to people who hear about us and then have no idea what do to.” Part of that effort is Twitter 101, a guide aimed at the business users the company may try to monetize some day.
Another monetization prognostication. In today’s economy, make money and take money. Promising revenues is easy. Generating revenues is tough. I just learned that SearchMe is a gone goose. A niche publisher has told staff that it is a four day week, folks. Twitter needs to crank the dough meter in my opinion. Businesses may not be the place to look for cash. Too much work to make the system pay off unless the businesses like the newly unemployed or the riffed folks in New Jersey have extra time on their hands.
Stephen Arnold, July 25, 2009
Analyzing the Web Consulting Game
July 25, 2009
Darned interesting article “Joel Spolsky: The Day My Industry Died” in Inc Magazine, a publication I have not looked at for years. I don’t read many magazines now so this is not a criticism of Inc. I am commenting on my changed information acquisition habits. I do not know Joel Spolsky. He mentions that he is a programmer. The write up explains that Web consulting is a tough way to earn a living. For me one of the most interesting comments was:
My theory was that if I could start a company and be only partially incompetent instead of entirely incompetent, I would be ahead of the game.
Yep, consulting looks easy. Just tell people you are an expert and wait for the phone to ring. Mr. Spolsky revealed:
We started late, and we hadn’t had a chance to hire very many people yet, so we didn’t burn through cash as quickly as others. And we were fortunate enough to have a software product under development, so that when the Web consulting industry disappeared, we still had money coming in. Because if you can survive the death of your industry, well, you can survive just about anything. In the next issue, I’ll tell you how Fog Creek pulled it off.
What we have is a case study recast as a 1950s’ movie cliff hanger. My hunch is that this is a good news set up. What’s this have to do with search? Ah, try and find case studies of successful Web consulting companies. Neither Bing.com nor Google.com shed much light on this topic. The reason? Lousy indexing and a dearth of information. One needs a consultant to assemble meaning case analyses in my view.
Stephen Arnold, July 25, 2009
Microsoft Financials for Quarter Ending June 30, 2009
July 25, 2009
I don’t have much to add to the hundreds of comments about Microsoft’s financial performance. You can look at the Wall Street Journal’s graphic that shows five red arrows pointing south. You can find this on Page B 1 of the June 24, 2009, Marketplace section. The most interesting comment I saw was on ZDNet UK which was referencing a story on Cnet by Ina Fried. (How is that for provenance?) The story said:
Search revenue was flat compared to last year, despite the launch of Bing.com during the quarter, Microsoft said. However, the company said it has seen a double-digit increase in unique users.
I have not seen any detail about the Fast ESP search system. My hunch is that this will remain a black hole for a while longer. The costs of delivering on the wild and wooly promises of the Fast ESP vision are going to creep out at some point. So, in terms of online and search, Microsoft has more cost sink holes ahead in my opinion.
Promises, prognostications, and public relations have to yield real revenues at some point. Just not now it appears. Maybe Microsoft should take a look at Autonomy’s business model.
Stephen Arnold, July 25, 2009
AP News Registry
July 25, 2009
Important initiative from the Associated Press. A news registry. You must read the official announcement with the killer title “Associated Press to Build News Registry to Protect Content”. Because I am fearful of legal reprisals against me, I won’t quote from this “news release.” I do have some questions:
- What’s news?
- When news in in a public news release, what is protected?
- What happens if some addled goose cites an AP story and includes a sentence or two in a blog post?
Will this initiative protect content? I only know that if I was cautious about AP before reading this announcement, the addled goose wants to steer clear of underpaid stringers, constantly changing stories sent down the wire, and the general made AP’s intellectual property because a publi9c announcement from a state government office in Illinois finds its way into the AP state feed. Honk if you are afraid of change.
Stephen Arnold, July 24, 2009
Wake Up Call for Smaller Scale Digital Initiatives
July 24, 2009
Thank goodness I am not trying to get a small scale archiving or abstracting project off the ground. The story “Japanese E-library Project Could Lose Out to Google Book Search without Government Flex” in the Mainichi Daily News caused a number of thoughts to flap through the addled goose’s brain. The story asserted:
It is hoped that the Japanese government will flexibly proceed with legal revisions so as to facilitate online distribution of books’ content in Japan, including the e-library project.
I took a look at the Japanese original and could not make sense of Google’s transformation. Despite the prose in the Mainichi version, I concluded that Google operates at a government or nation state level. A library scale project is a non starter unless a motivated government jumps in to pay the cost of dig9itzation, transformation, and indexing. The commercial database publishers will the next group of entities to find themselves in Google’s pressure cooker. Commercial database publishers have been forced to innovate in pricing, packaging, and placement. Once these dinosaurs run out of wiggle room, the Google pressure cooker will infuse some excitement into these low profile operations.
Stephen Arnold, July 24, 2009
Media Mavens Face Generational Threat
July 24, 2009
You are a publisher. Maybe you are in the media business. Perhaps you fancy yourself a band promoter. Pick your pigeonhole and then read “How Teenagers Consume Media: The Report that Shook the City”. I point to this summary of teen wonder Matthew Robson, Morgan Stanley’s secret weapon in the analysis wars. Why the synopsis? Most people don’t read. Among the points that I wrote down in my dinosaur skin notebook were:
- On demand TV is of interest
- Newspapers are dead ducks or geese
- Stolen music is common
- Mobile gizmos are in vogue
Books don’t make the loser list. For me, the key point was that these kids may have traditional media contexts. Yet despite what parents and schools say, the teens march to a different synthesized drum beat. Mom and Dad at work try to stop the shift, but I think the generational threat is here and now.
Stephen Arnold, July 24, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
