Lexalytics Pushes into Pharma
May 26, 2010
Once a search and content processing vendors finds success in a niche market, other vendors are going to follow. I remember listening to Temis executives explaining how that firm’s technology benefited organizations engaged in the type of content processing favored by big pharma.
As the market for basic search continues to face challenges, specialty vendors are looking for ways to pump up their growth. The pharmaceutical industry is one of a handful of business sectors that understand the value that can be derived from structured and unstructured data.
I received a link to a PRWeb item title “Lexalytics Continues Growth Trend with Expansion into Pharmaceutical Search Solution and PR Management and Media Intelligence Markets”. For the life of a may fly, you can read the item on the Web. Once the PR may fly goes to the big picnic in the sky, you will have to hunt for a copy of this document. The company has made a concerted effort to move into advertising and marketing niches. So the push into big pharma is not a surprise to the Beyond Search goslings.
Lexalytics has become a “go to” partner for companies who need to get a Microsoft Fast search implementation off the ground and then into orbit. Now Lexalytics has teamed with another search integration company – Raritan Technologies – to get Lexalytics’ functions into Raritan’s pharmaceutical clients.
Here at the goose pond, the most interesting passage in the news release was:
Raritan Technologies is implementing Lexalytics’ text analytics into its PharmaLytics platform, geared at providing fast, efficient and smart search of the fire hose of medical information available to practitioners, research and development and medical affairs professionals.
Our view is that blurring of search and content processing vendors with consulting businesses is a path that may lead to a treasure chest. However, that path can also lead into a digital everglades. Who is responsible for what feature and function? becomes an important question.
If Lexalytics implements functions within Microsoft Fast, who has to work on the details? Who pays? If Raritan blends Lexalytics with Raritan functions, who works out the glitches? And, of course, who pays?
The easy answer is, “The customer.” Now the tricky bit, “Who is the customer?” With search and content processing becoming more important and, in some cases, more frustrating to licensees, the blurring of product and service presents management challenges to each party in the transaction. I remember a call to Verizon last week about its high speed Wide Area Network service. One customer support engineer told me that Verizon’s Novatel modem was working. Verizon’s network was working. Therefore, the laptop with Windows XP was at fault. It is so easy to absolve oneself of responsibility unless the statement of work and contract are in sync. Then the lawyers get to decide.
Stephen E Arnold, May 26, 2010
Freebie
Guardian Goes Open
May 26, 2010
Darned interesting write up this: “What We Can Learn From the Guardian’s New Open Platform”. Some of the GigaOM analysis roils the water in the goose pond. This particular article makes several good points. The key for us in Harrod’s Creek was this comment:
The vehicle for this change is its “Open Platform,” which launched last week and involves an open application programming interface (API) that developers can use to integrate Guardian content into services and applications. The newspaper company has been running a beta version of the platform for a little over a year now, but took the experimental label off the project on Thursday and announced that it’s “open for business.” By that The Guardian means it’s looking for partners that want to use its content in return for licensing fees or to enter into a revenue-sharing agreement of some kind related to advertising.
The write up wants the Guardian to do more. My hunch is that the Guardian will do more. Prudence is not a virtue in Silicon Valley. It is in Manchester. What can one learn from British reserve? Quite a lot I think.
Stephen E Arnold, May 26, 2010
Freebie
Yahoo Bafflement
May 26, 2010
Yahoo fired up its purple rainstorm in 1995. As Internet ventures go, Yahoo is the example of what happens when a technology company goes consumer. The next phase of Yahoo’s evolution took place when the Google ad system débuted and Yahoo settled out of court regarding an alleged action by Google related to Yahoo’s ad system. At that point, the company, a technical Australopitecus afarensis, watched the emergence of a ripped Homo sapiens.
I read “Carol Bartz to Mike Arrignton” article and found it quite revealing and a source of useful information about corporate development. Mr. Arrington has a knack for getting high profile people to provide useful information. The venue was a “disrupt” conference and I expected fireworks. I was not disappointed.
For me, the key passage was this exchange between Mr. Arrington and Ms. Bartz:
MA: Are you a search company or not?
CB: Half of our revenue is from search. The fact that you can crawl the web is a commodity. We’re about search, but we’re not a search company. We do a lot of things.
“A lot of things” is the key point. In the beginning, Yahoo was a directory. In the intervening years, the company has become a lot of things. The trajectory in business school would be one of those nifty –ism’s: entrepreneurialism, opportunism, etc. In reality, Yahoo has become America Online, and we see the perils that that case example illustrates.
Is Yahoo a search company? No. It never was a search company. It was a directory company. Somehow the baloney about search has morphed into interesting and sometimes horrific forms that confuse and frighten me. The whole privacy, conversation, and collaboration thing has been the “buzz” (no pun intended for several years). The ad thing is not new, but technology permits monopolization in a way that would have made the marketing fellow for Pears’ Soap fall to his knees stupefied.
Yahoo is a company with traffic. That traffic is the point, and the actions the company is taking are dependent upon and related to traffic. In short, whether Yahoo cuts a deal with a flickering candle like Nokia or buys a content mill, Yahoo is doing what leverages its traffic.
So, forget the generalizations about search. Yahoo is following the trajectory of AOL which followed the trajectory of the Source before it. The recent announcements from Google suggest that its management team is packing the station wagon and getting the camping gear together to take a similar trip.
The notion of a commodity is an important one, but I don’t think a Web index is a commodity. The overall diffusion of the technology for what the phrase “the Internet” refers is seeping into other methods. The boundaries are exciting, but once the boundary has been passed, the new world is like a three day camping adventure—fun for a day and then agony until everyone heads back to home. The discomfort, work, and insects are not worth the “adventure”.
Yahoo, therefore, is not going to find it slow going as the company tries to make changes that really matter. From my vantage point, Yahoo is following its predecessors in the consumer online space.
Stephen E Arnold, May 26, 2010
Freebie
Google Viacom: What Money Cannot Buy
May 26, 2010
When egos collide, interesting events emerge. “Google Offered Viacom $592 Million for Content” reveals that big money was alleged offered prior to the incendiary litigation between Google and Viacom. That’s a big number and suggests that someone at Google saw some value in having a monetized relationship with Viacom.
But the really fascinating part of the write up, if accurate, is that the co-president of the Math Club has a bad memory. Here’s the passage I found most revealing:
In three hours of questioning by Viacom lawyers, Page couldn’t remember a single significant detail about Google’s acquisition of YouTube. Consider that Page has earned a Ph.D in computer science from Stanford, helped build one of the most powerful advertising vehicles of all time, and is one of the top three executives in a company that generated $23 billion in revenue last year. Yet, he can’t remember important and basic facts about his company’s biggest acquisition or even some about his own company. Page was asked whether he remembered discussing YouTube’s potential copyright problems prior to the acquisition. He was asked whether he discussed with other company leaders and advisers the $1.65 billion price Google eventually paid for YouTube. He was asked whether the video-sharing service created by his own company, Google Video, ever filtered for pirated content prior to the acquisition (It did). Page answered dozens and dozens of these and similar questions the exact same way: “I can’t recall.”
Fascinating example of recollection. Now where did I leave my feather preening cream? I don’t recall.
Stephen E Arnold, May 26, 2010
Freebie
Oracle Updates Its Enterprise Publishing System
May 25, 2010
I know that the world outside of Harrod’s Creek, Kentucky, believes that Oracle is a database company. I have pointed out that the company has done its best to baffle geese like me, particularly with its search technology.
I wanted to call your attention to a news item that has not been picked up and bruited far and wide. The write up’s title is “Oracle Introduces Oracle Documaker 11.5.” The upgrade pushes Oracle into the rarified air breathed by Hewlett Packard, StreamServe, Mark Logic, and a handful of other companies.
Forget desktop publishing and Web content management. These systems and Oracle’s deliver industrial strength document generation from repositories, business logic, and assorted bells and whistles unheard by the InDesign crowd.
Among the new release’s features are:
- Support for Microsoft Word as an authoring tool
- A rules-based system so content can be repurposed
- Multiple output options, including hard copy and Web pages.
Will Exstream Software, InfoPrint (a brand new identify is coming and new features from what I hear), and Mark Logic roll over and die? Not likely, but Oracle seems to recognize that unless it defends this important segment, the company can lose and lose big.
Stephen E Arnold, May 25, 2010
Freebie
Google and the AdSense Kimono
May 25, 2010
On a trip to Japan, my hosts entertained me at a restaurant featuring geishas. I learned that much of the training involved schooling in specific behaviors. Nothing was left to chance. The article “Google Reveals Revenue Splits with Websites”, I thought of the phrase “open kimono.” Or is it a artifice, a contrivance?
Source: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ZW0IF4CQIhU/SNip1ahEkWI/AAAAAAAAAOQ/avlTFbHCXmw/s1600-h/07071358PD.JPG
In my opinion, the most interesting passage in the story was:
Google’s AdSense for Search partners get 51 percent of the revenue brought in by advertising put next to results of Internet searches at their Web sites. Google explained that its share of revenue reflects the company’s costs, including research and development of search and AdWords technologies. “Of course, we cant guarantee that the revenue share will never change (our costs may change significantly, for example), but we don’t have any current plans to do so for any AdSense product,” Mohan said. “Over the next few months well begin showing the revenue shares for AdSense for content and AdSense for search right in the AdSense interface.”
I was hoping for more information about the movement of payouts, but apparently that is not material. I hope more information becomes available. Right now I am reminded of artifice:
‘….Fragrance rose from the cushions and from her robes as she moved.’
Stephen E Arnold, May 25, 2010
Freebie.
Sites That Are Cooler Than Google
May 25, 2010
In the aftermath of Google I/O, the headline surprised me. Google is into TV, mobile, and just about everything the magnetic word “open” attracts. Yet, the Jakarta Post’s headline “Just Like Google Only Cooler” pushed against the tide. You may have some trouble accessing the original. The site was up, then returned a blank page. I did locate an instance of the story in the Google’s cache no less. I thought that was “cool”, but, hey, that’s the addled goose.
Headline aside, I like the write up which was about a number of interesting Web sites. The two points in the write up that I noted were:
First, I was not aware of googlegooglegooglegoogle.com.br. You can run four separate Google searches.
Second, three sites referenced in the article return search results with some added “humor”. Check these out: thatsloco.com, toobigtouse.com and elgoog.rb-hosting.de. (for ElGoog, the query “otto” works like a champ.)
Ah, youth. I just want results sets that evidence high precision and recall scores.
Stephen E Arnold, May 25, 2010
Freebie
Huddle the Next UK Software Success?
May 25, 2010
I learned last week that collaboration is a booming market. It is not search per se, but search systems are including collaborative features. My thought is that an outfit like Huddle will probably hook up with one or more search systems, so I wanted to document the existence of the company. I received a link within a Tweet. After some clicking around, I located “Group Collab Service Huddle Raises $10.2 Million for US Drive.” I am not sure if search is going to be embedded in collaboration or collaboration will be embedded in search. What I have as an hypothesis is that the boundary between these two functions—collaboration and search—will be defined by customers, not marketing bunnies and azure chip consultants.
Three points:
First, Huddle has received an infusion of cash with Matrix Partners as the lead dog. The news is that the money pile is about $10.0 million.
Second, Huddle is headed to the US to make life more difficult for WebEx, GoToMeeting, Microsoft, Google, and the numerous collaborative players. Huddle, like the ambitious Wave and the Byzantine SharePoint 2010, may be forced to manage “information objects”, not just do VoiP and display screens for conference participants. The “storage” option for registered users may indicate that the Huddle team has bigger ideas in mind. The pricing plan is here.
Third, according to the write up and PR video, the company is in deep clover. The notion of a start up as “cash flow positive” is quite interesting.
Matrix obviously believes that the $10.0 million with become $100 million or more. With oil in the spotlight and airplanes falling off cliffs, the bet may make sense.
Stephen E Arnold, May 25, 2010
Freebie.
IBM Search Technology
May 25, 2010
Before I headed West last week, I participated in a discussion about IBM search technology. No one at the lunch meeting worked at IBM, but, hey, IBM is a giant in software and services and each person had a viewpoint.
One surprising factoid emerged from chatter, and I wanted to snag it before it flew away like my first female goose friend. (She left for New York, abandoning the joys of rural Illinois for the bright lights in the big city. She probably ended up working at IBM in Armonk.)
IBM has a mini Web site embedded within its sprawling IBM digital Uzbekistan. The page is “Enterprise Search Technology.” The subtitle is “Innovation Matters”. You can navigate directly to this page by clicking this link. Finding the page took some work, but you are welcome to experience the thrill of hunt via IBM.com if you have some spare time.
IBM describes Trevi, which is an Intranet search system. The system incorporates six technologies, illustrated in the diagram below:
Source: IBM 2010.
The factoid: The page seems to be an island in time. The featured researcher – Marcus Fontoura – offers some comments about problems in searching. A click returns a 404 error.
Interesting.
Stephen E Arnold, May 25, 2010
Freebie.
Autonomy Summary Appears Online
May 24, 2010
Last week I fielded a question from a coding wizard. The question was about a specific Autonomy “service”. I sent along a few items from my Overflight file on the company. I came across a blog post that may be useful to others who have questions about the Cambridge, UK-based firm. And, let’s face it. With azure chip consultants recycling information in their for fee reports from various public information sources like this blog, why not go for some free stuff yourself. Leave the azure chip crowd to their “simplification” of the notion of what’s right among “real” boys and girls.
You can get a useful write up in Disastertools, a post on HitekHelp. Forget the title, and scroll down to the comments section. You will see that some text is chopped off, which is a problem that bedevils the addled goose. The fix is to copy the text and paste it in a word processing support. You will be good to go. And if you are one of the “simplifiers”, you too can edit the write up and sell it for several thousand dollars. PT Barnum’s spirit is alive and well in my opinion.
I scanned the write up and thought it was useful. Some of the prose reminded me of Autonomy’s own prose, but with blog posts and comments, I have given up trying to figure out who wrote what for whom. Maybe that’s why the Associated Content outfit sold for $90 million and bylined Business Week went for a fraction of that amount.
Enjoy.
Stephen E Arnold, May 24, 2010
Freebie. Wait. Someone from Autonomy was nice to me a couple of years ago. Does that count, dear regulator?
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
