Autonomy IDOL Is the Infrastructure Product of the Year
November 18, 2009
A happy quack to the Autonomy follower who sent me a link to “IDOL Named IT Infrastructure Product of the Year 2009”. The recognition was part of the UK IT Industry Awards 2009 activity. The news story reported:
Autonomy Corporation plc (LSE: AU. or AU.L), a global leader in infrastructure software for the enterprise, today announced that its core infrastructure software, the Intelligent Data Operating Layer (IDOL), has been named IT Infrastructure Product of the Year at the UK IT Industry Awards 2009. Autonomy’s revolutionary meaning-based infrastructure software was selected after a rigorous assessment process. The coveted accolade recognizes IDOL as the biggest contribution to business technology over the last 12 months, commending it for its innovation, significant commercial success and customer satisfaction. Autonomy was founded upon a vision to dramatically change the way in which we interact with information and computers, ensuring that computers map to our world, rather than the other way around. Autonomy is revolutionizing the IT industry through its unique IDOL technology which is able to form an understanding of all data, including structured, semi-structured and unstructured content, regardless of where it resides or what format it is in, and automatically process it. By identifying the patterns in data and acting upon that knowledge, IDOL enables organizations to penetrate their information silos, derive maximum value from their corporate assets and automate a raft of operations. This represents substantial savings for every type of organization and industry and is driving the accelerated adoption of Autonomy’s technology across a diverse range of vertical markets.
You can learn more about the Infrastructure Product of Year at www.autonomy.com. I noted the words “biggest”, “dramatically”, “all data”, and “maximum value”. Interesting word choice.
Stephen Arnold, November 18, 2009
Another UK story so I must report that I am not receiving any love, respect, or money from any UK entity, including Autonomy. I cannot derive maximum value from my biggest article even though it includes all data and is dramatically potent. Note that Charity Commission for England and Wales. I am glad I disclosed this fact “regardless of where it resides” in the global goose pond.
Microsoft and Its Multidimensional Search Strategy
November 18, 2009
I tried 3D chess once. I lack the mental equipment to keep track of checkers. My mind is pretty simple because I am an addled goose. Search is morphing from key words to embedded findability and access applications. To get from here (low search market share) to there (big search market share), search and content processing vendors have to find a way to leap over the incumbents. A good leap changes the game, but there are other obstacles to overcome; for example, making sales. Giving away findability or bundling findability with other applications and saying, “Game over” is a marketing play. Revenue, market share, and pre-tax profits—these are ways to measure findability success.
When I read “Microsoft Outlines Three Dimensional Search Strategy”, I flashed back to practice briefings in the Booz, Allen & Hamilton “charm school” in the late 1970s. The article reported:
The whole point of search is to find something you don’t know about, so why do we expect you to know it? We should help you on that journey,” Weitz [Microsoft search wizard] said. He said this means not just presenting search results as links but as knowledge. “That we’ve either licensed from a provider or knowledge we’ve calculated from our huge computer resource.” According to Weitz, the Bing Twitter Search product had been another dimension of the three dimensional search strategy. The tool gives access to all public tweets in real time.Weitz acknowledged Google had already brought the concept of “3D searching” into the mainstream with its StreetView mapping tool.
What? Google?
Stephen Arnold, November 18, 2009
Okay, listen up, Jefferson County Animal Control Officer, I was not paid to write this dog.
Convera Corporation Liquidated
November 18, 2009
Convera, according to Guru Focus is in liquidation mode. You can get the gory details and a link to the SEC filed 14c statement in “Liquidation Play: Convera Corporation (CNVR).” I wrote about Convera in one of the early editions of the Enterprise Search Report. The write up summarized the assertions about the Convera system. Few people in the enterprise search game recall Excalibur’s origin as a document scanning outfit or the meshing of the ConQuest system with Excalibur technology. I bet, however, that the NBA and Intel remember. The Intel deal apparently hit a small pot hole.
Source: http://www.picturesfromjamaica.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/pothole-garelli-02.jpg
Both of those firms found the blandishments of Convera most compelling. Both NBA and Intel moved away from Convera, setting off a financial chain of events that seems to be reaching another pivotal point in its history. There will be a distribution, but it certainly looks as though Convera may be following in the footsteps of other search and content processing companies that could not survive in an increasingly tough market. Convera morphed into a vertical search company, but Google gives that function away in a couple of different services. On the bright side, if you are a financial player, maybe there’s an opportunity in the liquidation. I recall the hours I spent manually updating the controlled terms lists that Convera used to know that a “truck” was a “pick up” and a “semi”. Good consulting money there once upon a time.
Stephen Arnold, November 18, 2009
I wish to disclose to the Department of Defense that I was not paid by any firm, including Allen & Co., to write this short item. I would wager a dime that someone in the DoD remembers Convera’s search system. Is that a fond remembrance? Probably.
Buy a Daily Newspaper by the Day
November 18, 2009
I read the Guardian’s report about the London Times’s method of monetizing the information in the newspaper. The idea is an interesting one if I understand “Times Editor James Harding Outlines Plans for Online Charging”. The idea is to sell a 24 hour access token to the day’s content. I chortled when I read the alleged quote made by a Times’s executive; to wit: “rewrite the economics of newspapers”. A rewrite is needed. The article made this point I found memorable:
“We think it’s good for us and good for business to stop encouraging the trickery and fakery of the ABCs. We want real sales to real customers – that’s what our advertisers want too.” He said the Times would also enhance its relationship with its most loyal readers through home delivery and a reward programme through the recently launched Times+ membership venture. “Historically, newspapers have treated their best customers worst and their worst customers best,” he said.
Yep, now newspapers are going to start treating me better. And because I am encouraged by the Times’s bold move, I won’t mention that Google gets another knock on the nose in the write. That’s a standard poetic touch in some literary circles.
There are some interesting swirls of hope percolating in the reported pricing method; for example:
- Some people will pay for a one day pass or an annual subscription. The assumption is that a lot of people will pay. In the online world, the impact of a for-fee approach can be severe. A site can lose a big chunk of traffic once a price tag is attached. This is the difference between “nice to have content” and “must have content”. The Times is in the warmth of the “must have content” sauna. I think that the Times will discover that it is in the “nice to have content” ice house.
- The early online content vendors went with the per item charge. Users could select what was needed from the information warehouse, check the cost of the item, and buy or not. Bundles make a lot of sense in MBA class, but in the grimy world of online, the per item approach has some appeal based on my experience.
- The revenue models for online content generate less bang than a traditional print business model. The notion of commodity content is a potent one. When content becomes a commodity, that content requires a different business model. Google has cracked that problem using the learnings of Overture to add some boost to the company’s approach. The Times’s pricing mavens are not innovating, and I think the revenue reports will make clear how right or wrong the approach is.
The pricing, not surprisingly, is not set in stone. That’s a good idea, because I think the Times’s financial wizards will be holding some chats around the chuck wagon to figure out how to generate substantial, sustainable revenue. How quick? I hear the dinner gong ringing now.
Stephen Arnold, November 18, 2009
Since I will be in the UK in 12 days, I must notify the UK Trade & Investment entity that I was not paid by either an Australian or UK entity to write this article. the UKTI oversight unit will have some work ahead as certain publishing entities begin to adjust their business models. That will have a cost, but the goose is not involved.
Google and Hollywood in the 1920s
November 17, 2009
Short honk: In Google: The Digital Gutenberg I discuss the way in which those sharp pencil, strong handshake fellows Louis Burt Mayer and Samuel Goldwyn ran their businesses. If your knowledge of Hollywood lore is murky, think “control” and “vertical integration”. You can get a glimpse of the challenges rich media faces when you read “YouTube Unveils Tool to Connect News Organizations with Citizen Journalists”. I have scanned a number of write ups about this digital “train roundhouse” but none of them focuses on the point that struck me when I read Google’s patent documents and technical papers about the firm’s “matching” innovations. Think in terms of having an “individualized Google” generate your own programming line up. Not enough? Envision your wanting to hire a person to make your video. No problem because Google can connect a person looking for rich media talent with that buyer. Distribution? Google’s own system. Search? Already in place. Monetization? Two choices: you do it yourself or allow Google to pump ads into your space. Either way you get money. I could go on, but I think the folks obsessing about traditional publishing may want to cast their eyes at the future of rich media. Books are a pleasant diversion but another disruption is building momentum. Don’t think Google can be like Louis and Sam? Ask your local telco wizard about Google and telephony. Same strategy. Different theater, and the show will be playing on the computing devices of the children of today’s TV, studio, and cable executives. Just my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, November 17, 2009
Oyez, oyez, National Endowment for the Arts, I was not paid to point out that the Google is moving to disrupt and reshape another information sector.
Information Overload Summit Identifies Overload As a Challenge
November 17, 2009
is it my imagination or are there lots of summits? Conferences are a big business. I liked the word “conferences”, but it has fallen into disfavor. I read about the Information Overload Summit in “Top 10 Issues Overloading IT Managers”. When I saw the connection to the Information Overload Summit, I was curious if this problem was related to the information superhighway. If so, hit overload brake. Budgets and managing humans contribute to IT crashes. There is a New Age touch too. Cloud computing, Web stuff, and security make life interesting as well.
What struck me as I worked through these issues is that information technology professionals are not overloaded. These folks are under siege. I do not see a light at the end of the two-lane tunnel. Without resources, information technology simply becomes a bigger and bigger traffic jam.
In terms of information access, information technology professionals are becoming less and less informed about the whizzier technologies. The here and now is more important than the tomorrow and beyond. I participated in a series of meetings last week in which IT professionals made it clear that change was not of much interest. I did not disagree. These folks were certified and knew one vendor’s system reasonably well. There was neither time nor energy to look for alternatives.
If there is an information overload summit next year, I would wager one dime that the list of challenges will be almost the same. In fact, these challenges are persistent. Talking about overload won’t resolve overload.
Stephen Arnold, November 15, 2009
I wish to disclose to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics that I was not paid in truck stop goodies to write this article about overload on the information superhighway. That admission lightens my load, good buddy.
Bing Captures Yahoo Search Share
November 17, 2009
The Google seems to be chugging along, indifferent and unscathed by Bing.com. You can get market share data from “Microsoft Search Share Continues Its Slow Upward Crawl.” The article has a particularly sharp observation in my opinion:
If Microsoft’s search game plan is built on the idea of growing share substantially by combining forces with Yahoo, Yahoo’s continuing share loss is looking less and less likely to shore up that plan.
More trouble for Yahoo. Once Bing.com buries Yahoo, what’s next for Microsoft search? Will the UX play chew into Google’s share of the Web search market? If these usage data are correct, Bing.com will nibble away like the mouse in my garage working on a chunk of rodent poison.
Stephen Arnold, November 17, 2009
I want be upfront in my report to the Fish & Wildlife Commission that I was not paid by anyone to write about Bing.com’s market share, mice, or Bill’s Pest Control’s tasty poison pellets.
Google, the Deaf-and-Dumb Larcenist
November 17, 2009
You may want to read “Google Books Deal: Don’t Expect a Library Utopia, but Bring It On”. The write up describes the new Google Books deal. I found it useful, not so much for the analysis. The write up contains a wonderful Argumentum ad Hominem. The phrase that delighted my rhetorical sensitivity appears in this passage:
The resuscitation of out-of-print books is more like a thick burglar taking that ragged flea-bitten sofa left behind by your ex, putting it in the back of his white van, selling it to a sucker on eBay and splitting the profits with you. Bring it on, I say. Bring on Google, the deaf-and-dumb larcenist.
Google has been working away on books for a decade. Publishers have been asleep at the switch, so now the Google is a “deaf-and-dumb larcenist”. A calculating predator based on my research but not a larcenist. A larcenist is a criminal who takes property belonging to someone else with the intention of keeping it or selling it. Google is an opportunist and a construct that must consume information to survive. My wonderful Tess is a predator. She ate a baby rabbit but I still find her a loyal pet and my favorite girl. Maybe the Times’s editorial team should rethink the Google and look at the bright side of the Google knowledge base?
Stephen Arnold, November 17, 2009
Because of the fragile state of some publishers, I will report to Endangered Species Committee that I was not compensated with a crust of bread for this write up by the addled goose. Geese are filthy stupid animals. What’s the Latin phrase for an attack on an addled goose?
MBAs and Search
November 17, 2009
“10 Things Most MBA Schools Won’t Teach You about Startups” has some relevance to companies involved in search and content processing. The author addresses the broad universe of startups, but the observations capture some of the missteps that I have seen in the information retrieval space. Search and content processing have been around for decades, but many of the companies I track are in what I would characterize as “startup mode.” The gap between the expense of keeping search and content processing systems competitive and the amount of revenue generates means the everyone from the board to the newest hire hustling for sales. Search at Microsoft has been one continuous startup. Google tries to keep its startup spirit with its free time ploy. I am inundated with news releases (many of which are meaningless) that describe wonderful new innovations. The average search company is a permanent start up.
Three of the comments in the OnStartups’ article struck a chord for me.
First, managing cash flow. I shake my head in disbelief as search and content processing vendors spend big bucks on trade show exhibits in the hope that qualified customers will appear. Traditional trade shows are in a bit of sticky mess. The costs of these shows is going up and budgets for attendees is constrained. Search trade shows have lots of exhibitors but not that money prospects. My view is that cash is king. Husbanding cash is easier if critical thinking is applied to what to buy and do.
Second, pricing and products. Search and content processing companies offer complex products. I have a very tough time figuring out which unit of certain companies delivers a specific technology. I prepared a diagram that listed a dozen hot markets. I then listed vendors and checked off the hot markets the vendors said they were in. A number of search and content processing vendors are playing Bingo, intent on covering every possible market with different products and different price points. Impossible in my book and confusing to procurement teams.
Finally, marketing. Earlier this year I chopped paragraphs from different vendors’ marketing collateral. I made one new marketing brochure with these paragraphs. Know what? The group to which I showed the faux document believed that it described a major vendor’s product. Search and content marketing collateral does not describe products accurately. But the vendors’ marketing collateral asserts real differences at the same time the me-too pitch is set forth.
Search and content processing vendors have a challenge ahead in 2010. MBA thinking may not be particularly helpful in my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, November 17, 2009
I want to disclose to the Bankruptcy Courts that I was not paid to write this article. Unless someone pays me, I may be in Bankruptcy Court. I am old, but I suppose I can get Tess, a tin cup, and beg for search vendors’ marketing collateral, which is uniformly valuable.
Hotel Search from Roomatlas
November 17, 2009
I had a conversation today (November 16, 2009) about augmentation and mash ups. The idea is that a map can display overlays. Combined with interactivity, not much searching is necessary to locate information on a specific topic. In the good old days, this type of narrow content focus would be a variant of “vertical search”. I received a link from one of the people with whom I spoke with a suggestion to look at the service.
Navigate to Roomatlas, and enter a city. The system displays a map with hotel rooms and their cost per night displayed. Here’s a screen shot of the results for my query “Washington DC”.
I liked this service.
Stephen Arnold, November 17, 2009
The Housing Office (HUD) will hear from me that I was not paid for this article. I have to pay for DC hotels, however.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
