Stealing Open Source
August 28, 2009
The open source horses are galloping through the organizational arroyo. You can steal a horse when it is branded. You can capture a wild horse in Altai Mountains of Mongolia. Now the question of ownership of a horse can be a tricky issue. If you think stealing a horse is problematic, consider the question, “Can you steal open source software?” I have to admit that I have never considered the question. ComputerWorld, however, has turned its considerable capabilities to this question and concluded, “Yep, you can steal open source and find yourself in a world of legal excitement.” The story “Question in Goldman Sachs Case: Can Open-Source Software Be Stolen?” explains what happens when a big outfit uses open source and an employee downloads that software and takes it home. Several thoughts flapped through the addled goose’s brain when he thought about Eric Lai’s story:
- What is really different between open source software used inside an organization and proprietary software licensed from IBM or some other outfit which contains open source components?
- Is open source really “open”?
- Will organizations use their legal eagles to redefine open source to make it by definition closed?
I don’t have answers to these questions which are probably superficial, ill advised, and not worthy of legal brain cycles. I wonder if the folks contributing to open source know that their efforts may morph into a state that is similar to the proprietary software that we know and love.
Stephen Arnold, August 28, 2009
Google and Nokia: Two Mobile Flotillas to Sink
August 28, 2009
I have been involved in meetings where Google is a search engine and Microsoft is a vendor of Word software. Imagine my surprise when I surfaced this evening to read “Little Can Save Google and Nokia from Mobile Failure”. The write up is another spin on the Slate article that asserts that Google and Nokia will fail and fail big in the mobile sector. I am not certain that I am prepared to accept anyone’s fortune telling about mobile. Mobile is a complicated beastie, and it is going to get more complicated before the dust settles. What I find interesting is that Apple has emerged as the innovator in the mobile space. I am not certain that Apple itself anticipated the unintended consequences of morphing the iPod into the iPhone. The App store problems are the tip of the ice berg in my opinion. There are some wild cards not well scoped in hot markets. Africa comes to mind. The notion that mobile devices will remain candy bars in size and shape is off base. In my meetings today, the discussion focused on implants. If the implant crowd wins, the mobile device becomes a different type of system. The likely winner will be the company with the network services that make these new types of devices useful to their users. There is nothing like a write up that nukes both Google and Nokia (ties to Microsoft included). The only problem is that if the folks writing these articles knew the future, these pundits would be enjoying the wealth their super powers delivered. Since the folks are writing, I conclude that their ability to prognosticate is not firing on all cylinders.
Stephen Arnold, August 27, 2009
Image to ASCII Conversion
August 27, 2009
A happy quack to the reader who sent me a link to a useful list of image file to ASCII conversion software. The list appeared in Make Use Of. You can find the list in the write up called “Top 5 Free OCR Software Tools To Convert Images Into Text”. Two Microsoft software products made the list. The goslings at Beyond Search have not tested these products, but we thought the list might be useful.
Stephen Arnold, August 27, 2009
Autonomy … De Facto Standard for Global Law Firms
August 27, 2009
My hunch is that when you read “Autonomy Strengthens Position as the De Facto Standard for Global Law Firms,” you may ask, “What? Who? How?” Don’t be alarmed. Autonomy is the premier marketer in the search and content processing space. The firm is claiming the high ground, allowing the other companies in this space to try and find purchase on the Autonomy-crafted mountain top. Autonomy practices what every high school debater learns. Define the terms. Control the argument. Hard on the heels of LexisNexis and Recommind teaming for knowledge management, Autonomy reshapes the landscape by pointing out:
Autonomy Corporation plc, a global leader in infrastructure software for the enterprise, today announced that it has recently won a series of competitive conversions and new deals with some of the most prestigious law firms in the world, including Akin Gump, CMS Cameron McKenna, DLA, Freshfields, Linklaters, Manatt, Phelps & Philips, Ropes & Gray, White & Case, among many others. Autonomy has become the de facto standard for global law firms, powering the world’s largest law firms including 75 of the Global 100 law firms and 10 of 10 top US law firms.
Clever stuff.
Stephen Arnold, August 27, 2009
Google Behind in Cloud Plays
August 27, 2009
I am sitting in my government influenced hotel room in Washington, DC. I don’t have access to my research material. I do remember analyzing an invention disclosed by Google sometime in 2004 or 2005 that offered some interesting functions. A client could use a computer running some Google software could hook into the Google infrastructure to perform some work. I am going to refresh my memory when I return to the saner world of the goose pond in rural Kentucky.
In the meantime, two news items caused me to wonder, “Has Google fallen further behind in the race to cloud computing?” Let me highlight the two news items and then capture the tickle at the back of my addled goose brain.
First, the world’s smartest man has engineered another cloud move that seems to leave Google flat pawed. Amazon has announced a veepeesee in its Web log. You can dig into some of the details in “Introducing Amazon Virtual Private Cloud (VPC)”. As I understand the announcement, Amazon wants to make its multiple cloud services enterprise satisfying. That translates to control. This development reminds me of some Google technology.
Source: Amazon.com
What I find interesting is that Amazon seems to be in the mind space of Google. And more importantly, Amazon seems able to move more quickly than the Google. Speed and agility are often important in the high stakes world which Amazon inhabits. Has Google become to large and burdened to move like a lithe Amazonian?
Second, Salesforce.com has announced a reseller program. You will want to read “Deals & More” by Anthony Ha in Venture Beat. The announcement reminded me that Salesforce.com, a company that Google has supported with some cheerleading, now seems to be moving on its own trajectory. I thought that a tie up between Google and Salesforce.com might have had some charm a couple of years ago. Now I have a working hypothesis that Google perceives a different view of the future. Salesforce.com was among the first companies to get traction with cloud services for the enterprise. I ask myself, “What does Google see as its future in cloud centric enterprise services?” The reseller deal seems to put Salesforce.com at an acute angle with regard to Google. Does Google “get” the Salesforce.com model? How many cloud resellers will want to jump on the Salesforce.com bandwagon? Will some Google partners jump ship? No answers from the addled goose at this time.
Is Salesforce.com becoming the shadow warrior in sales as Amazon has become a ninja in cloud computing technology?
One can interpret these two events in several ways:
- Amazon and Salesforce.com are uninterested in Google. Each company moves independently of Google. Each is doing quite well as Google disrupts other business sectors. In short, Google has no material impact on either of these firms.
- Amazon and Salesforce.com have figured out that each can move more quickly than the sluggish Google. The telcos might see Google as a race car but Amazon and Salesforce.com have found ways to move more quickly than Google, thus neutralizing Google’s potential in certain “spaces”.
- Amazon and Salesforce.com are working in the “here and now”. Google either operates in another space time dimension or perceives the “here and now” markets as uninteresting. If this is accurate, the question becomes, “What is Google’s broader play in the cloud market?”
The addled goose has no answers. Just questions.
Stephen Arnold, August 27, 2009
Azure Chip Consultant Seems to Take Steps to Reduce Its Visibility
August 27, 2009
When I labored in the vineyards of Booz, Allen & Hamilton, visibility for the firm and certain consultants was an important part of the firm’s marketing. Here is how it worked at a blue chip consulting company. A consultant had a sales goal. In order to meet the goal, the consultant had to find a way to pull inquiries to the firm and the issue area. One way was to write an article in the Harvard Business Review. This did not have to be a great work of non fiction, but it had to get through the editorial process. Once the article appeared, the consultant would work like the Dickens to get interviewed, land speaking engagements, do briefings at certain organizations, and perform like a hard working Cirque du Soleil performer to land business. The whole sequence of events had to executed with a low profile, aw shucks approach that made the brilliance of the firm’s consultants appropriate and compelling. Booz, Allen had an effective marketing machine, and the “we are thought leaders” approach worked like a champ. Of course, the other blue chip outfits like McKinsey, BCG, Bain, the “old” AT Kearney, and a couple of others knew the drill too. With top consultants almost inter changeable among these firms, the method of making seven figure sales was not a secret.
In a phrase, the technique was to use knowledge to make the firm into a magnet for business.
Imagine my surprise when I read Network World’s “When Censorship Goes Too Far, We Cannot Say Gar-ner Anymore”. The key point to the write up in my opinion was this passage:
I received a really nice email (if you want to call it that) from Gar-ner on Friday. If you are asking who is Gar-ner, well it’s this company that put companies in a square divided into four sections. I received an email asking me to take down my blogs that contained this companies name by them telling the following:
“Per our Copyright and Quote Policy, available at the link below and at any time from Gartner’s home page, other companies may only externally quote, mention, reference or display the Gartner name or Gartner research after first obtaining approval in writing, in advance, from my department. In violation of this restriction, your organization has been using Gartner’s name and research as shown in your blog entry at this link”.
Several thoughts went through my mind:
First, the consulting firm in question, Gartner Group (“the world’s leading information technology research and advisory company”) has a very good reason for informing the person writing the Network World article of its policy. If I were younger, I might look into this but frankly the internal machinations of a consulting firm do not interest me.
Second, the consulting firm is on the rebound after cancelling at least one of its pay-to-play conferences. In the positive financial climate, the executives at Gartner may not have time to field inbound calls or deal with those who visit the firm’s public Web site and tap into the rich vein of information. Success does that. When the cash register rings, logic often shifts into a different gear.
Third, the firm and possibly its attorneys and public relations experts perceive some risk to the firm when outsiders comment, question, analyze, cite, compare, or dissect the firm’s reports. When I see a consulting firm’s white papers and news releases, I know that I have ample opportunity to comment. There is a reason why Booz, Allen & Hamilton had a method for getting appropriate publicity. The idea was that when multiple BAH consultants reviewed information, the chance for saying something that was ill conceived, poorly crafted or just downright stupid would drop to almost zero. Smart people working cooperatively can produce some very intelligent work. That method is shared among the blue chip firms. An azure chip consulting firm lacks this commitment to “being smart.” The quick fix, in my limited view, may be to choke off exposure. The “don’t mention us” approach may work some of the time, but I am not sure it is appropriate for today’s consulting environment.
Finally, the Gartner analysts have examined the upsides and downsides of having their firm indexed by Google, Microsoft Bing, and any other search system. The assessment may be that appearing at the top of a results list offers no material value. My research suggests that appearing in an index like Google’s is pretty important. I am confused about the ban on mentioning a firm’s name, citing its research, or taking any of the blue chip marketing steps with which I am familiar. This Web log is a marketing tactic. It is not news. I use it to stimulate traffic, conversations, and the occasional project. I even put links to my for fee reports in the Web log and I describe some of the research that the goslings and I work on. My view is that anyone can cite, recycle, criticize, or comment on its content. It is public. I just don’t charge for access nor do I spam people like the Wall Street Journal, magazines, consultants, and Viagra sales professionals.
I am pretty careful about citing the Associated Press. I do point out the silliness of trying to enforce a business model from the early 20th century on today’s Web user. I will continue to comment on the public information that becomes available to me. I understand that the azure chip consultants are not too happy when one of their azure chip consultants finds himself or herself on the receiving end of a goose beak’s peck. But in the larger world of critical thinking, getting pecked by an addled goose is not exactly the end of the world.
No wonder that outfits like Gerson Lehrman Group are sucking revenue from mid tier consulting firms.
To close, let me urge you to read this item from the Gartner “press room”: “Gartner Says Worldwide Semiconductor Revenue on Pace to Decline 17 Percent in 2009”. Now ask yourself, “With the economic storm clouds disrupting businesses worldwide, how big a surprise is it that semiconductor sales are deteriorating?” My answer to this question was, “No surprise.” But then ask yourself, “How can Gartner’s analysts nail the decline at 17 percent?” This number suggests considerable precision. But what math method yielded 17 percent, not 15 percent or 19 percent. In fact, why not round up the number to 20 percent? Why not round down the number to 15 percent?” I am not going to cite these data because I think the approach underscores why some consulting firms have one color chip and other consulting firms have another color chip.
Oh, for more useful data about global semiconductor sales, I turn to the trade associations’ reports, the financial filings of semiconductor companies, and similar types of information.
Stephen Arnold, August 27, 2009
Why Magazine Mavens Are Not Likely to Create Googles
August 27, 2009
I did a double take when I read “Apples, Oranges And Journalism Revenue Print And Online.” I assumed that the publishers referenced in the TechDirt article were on to a fresh angle with regard to revenue. After a moment’s reflection, I realized that TechDirt was closer to right than publishers. I also had a nano epiphany. A publisher or a group of publishers are not likely to create a Google or a semi Google. TechDirt’s analysis nails it:
Rather than looking at revenue per user, the real goal should be looking at maximizing revenue, period. And to do that you look at the overall trends of where revenue is growing and where it’s shrinking — not on the average revenue per user. Focusing on ARPU simply makes you ripe for disintermediation from someone who focuses on where the market is heading, rather than how to squeeze the most out of each user.
A Google-like innovator figures out revenue without worrying if the money fits the “old” or largely discredited business school thinking. A secondary thought is that magazine publishers who don’t get the revenue idea are likely to have a tough time coping with some of the new information services coming down the information superhighway. Old term “road kill” but a candidate for currency once again.
Stephen Arnold, August 27, 2009
The Google Bank Gains a Service
August 27, 2009
I remember giving a talk at a Bear Stearns conference before the firm failed and the whiz kids turned to other pursuits such as Wal*Mart stockers and pizza hustlers on Lexington Avenue. In 2006, I showed a diagram with GGB and a dollar sign. The idea was that Google’s platform would permit the company to become a global financial services firm. I got a Jay Leno scale laugh. I was not joking but the whiz kids and Ivy League MBAs thought I was a hoot. Off base, wrong, but a hoot. I refer those shelf stockers and pizza peddlers to this article “LendingTree says Google to Compete on Loan Referrals.” The article could be addled as I am. If it is true, another granite block in Google’s financial services line up is getting moved from the trailer truck to the Googleplex.
Stephen Arnold, August 27, 2009
Yahoo Mail Search Broken
August 26, 2009
I have a for fee Yahoo email account. I tested the search system this morning. The queries returned a null set. The result message I received appears below:
I was unable to locate a way to query Yahoo about this problem. As a paying customer, I expect a system to work and to have an Apple style “report a problem” button available to me. At this point, I don’t know if the search issue is one specific to me or if it is an indication that a larger, more severe problem exists within the Yahoo mail search function.
Stephen Arnold, August 26, 2009
Who Is Who in the Chase for US Govt Information Work
August 26, 2009
I was poking around for information on the Teradata technology and I read “An Important Benchmark for Federal Knowledge Management”. The most important items in the write up were this check list of vendors chasing Federal projects. Here’s the list, “Cognos [now IBM], Business Objects [now SAP], MicroStrategy Autonomy, Blackboard, Vivisimo [a search vendor], Hummingbird [a unit of Open Text], Informatica, Tomoye [social software], Concept Searching, Elsevier [sci tech publisher], SER [Brainware?], Interwoven [now Autonomy], Fig Leaf Software [training company], Mark Logic, TIBCO [plumbing and infrastructure], Vignette [now Open Text], Convera, Factiva [now Dow Jones], Inxight [same as Business Objects now], Ascential, First Logic, Stratify, MetaCarta [mapping with In-Q-Tel backing], Trillium, Hyperion, Teradata, [and] Attensity.” Several of the names surprised me. For example, Covera. Another was Concept Searching, a company not in my files. Quite a list for a knowledge centric conference. Seems redundant and out of date yet the article published on BeyeNetwork has an August 18, 2009, date stamp. Explicit, accurate company identification is useful to me. Dr. Ramon Barquin and BeyeNetwork may have an alternative view.
Stephen Arnold, August 26, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
