Business Intelligence: Optimism and Palantir
June 28, 2010
Business intelligence is in the news. Memex, the low profile UK outfit, sold to SAS. Kroll, another low profile operation, became part of Altegrity, anther organization with modest visibility among the vast sea of online experts. Now Palantir snags $90 million, which I learned in “Palantir: the Next Billion Dollar Company Raises $90 Million.” In the post financial meltdown world, there is a lot of money looking for a place that can grow more money. The information systems developed for serious intelligence analysis seem to be a better bet than funding another Web search company.
Palantir has some ardent fans in the US defense and intelligence communities. I like the system as well. What is fascinating to me is that smart money believes that there is gold in them there analytics and visualizations. I don’t doubt for a New York minute that some large commercial organizations can do a better job of figuring out the nuances in their petabytes of data with Palantir-type tools. But Palantir is not exactly Word or Excel.
The system requires an understanding of such nettlesome points as source data, analytic methods, and – yikes – programmatic thinking. The outputs from Palantir are almost good enough for General Stanley McChrystal to get another job. I have seen snippets of some really stunning presentations featuring Palantir outputs. You can see some examples at the Palantir Web site or take a gander (no pun intended by the addled goose) at the image below:
Palantir is an open platform; that is, a licensee with some hefty coinage in their knapsack can use Palantir to tackle the messy problem of data transformation and federation. The approach features dynamic ontologies, which means that humans don’t have to do as much heavy lifting as required by some of the other vendors’ systems. A licensee will want to have a tame rocket scientist around to deal with the internals of pXML, the XML variant used to make Palantir walk and talk.
You can poke around at these links which may go dark in a nonce, of course: https://devzone.palantirtech.com/ and https://www.palantirtech.com/.
Several observations:
- The system is expensive and requires headcount to operate in a way that will deliver satisfactory results under real world conditions
- Extensibility is excellent, but this work is not for a desk jockey no matter how confident that person in his undergraduate history degree and Harvard MBA
- The approach is industrial strength which means that appropriate resources must be available to deal with data acquisition, system tuning, and programming the nifty little extras that are required to make next generation business intelligence systems smarter than a grizzled sergeant with a purple heart.
Can Palantir become a billion dollar outfit? Well, there is always the opportunity to pump in money, increase the marketing, and sell the company to a larger organization with Stone Age business intelligence systems. If Oracle wanted to get serious about XML, Palantir might be worth a look. I can name some other candidates for making the investors day, but I will leave those to your imagination. Will you run your business on a Palantir system in the next month or two? Probably not.
Stephen E Arnold, June 27, 2010
Freebie
OpenText Nstein: Confusing Information Surfaces
June 28, 2010
Update, June 29, 2010:
Quite a flurry of comments from OpenText about this post. This citation turned up in my newsreader and I could not figure it out. In fact, I pointed out that the article was confusing and probably an error in a content management system. Nevertheless, I think that vendors of content management systems need to make certain that their date and time stamp functions are operating correctly. If a crash forces a system restore, I think it is useful to put clear date markers on restored documents. If this tagging is not applied or in some way flawed, newsreaders snap up content and happily shovel it to people like me with a current date and time stamp. My suggestion is to work with the source of the write up. I don’t do “news”; I point to sources that are available in open source. My opinions are clearly marked. In this particularly article, I point out that when glitches like this occur, competitors can point to the write up and raise questions about clarity. I reproduced the content and provided a link to the source. I did not create the 2003 gobbledegook; I just alerted my two or three readers to the issue. The problem originated with an outfit doing publishing as Asset Management Software. No date but BuddyPress, identified with the source article, might be the outfit with which OpenText wishes to speak. Or, in the language of the source article I used: “New guided navigation module: navigation NretrieverNretriever is a powerful tool for research, which brings a direct connection with the search experience for end users.” Confusing in my opinion. Also, note the date in the url, gentle reader: http://asset-management-software.bloghubpage.com/2010/06/12/asset-management-software-nstein-introduces-version-3-0-of-its-award-winning-content-management-platform-nserver-suite/. I put the date in bold.
This sure seems like a current date to me.
The point is that content management vendors deliver products that can be used to generate data that lacks useful metadata and produce pages that spiders and addled geese see as “current.” When a vendor is in the content management business, perhaps looking at the cause and not the effect are useful exercises?
Original Post: June 28, 2010 below:
Two companies that strike me as pioneers in moving beyond search are Autonomy and OpenText. I don’t want to take sides. In the last two or three years, the firms have been pursuing somewhat similar strategies. Both have pushed from search into specialized markets such as eDiscovery. Both have information retrieval technologies gathered from acquisitions. Both are no longer properly classified in my opinion and search and retrieval specialists. The companies offer a wide range of information services. Both have blown past first Microsoft Fast and then Endeca. OpenText snapped up the gasping Nstein for something like $0.65 on the dollar. Under the broad wing span of OpenText, Nstein has rolled out Version 3.0 of what it calls “its award-winning content management platform.” You can get more details in the write up “Asset Management Software: Nstein Introduces Version 3.0 of Its Award Winning Content Management Platform Nserver Suite.” Quite a title and probably good spider food. But I don’t know what Nstein is * really * delivering. Customers may not know either.
For me I found this passage quite interesting:
nStein Technologies Inc…, a global leader in unstructured content management solutions, today announced at the annual conference of the Special Library Association (SLA) version 3.0 of its award-winning content management platform, September nserver concept nStein extraction, categorization, organization provides production began, seals and restart guided navigation modules.
Must be a glitch in the content management system.
I also noted:
- The use of the phrase “guided navigation”. Endeca has been closely associated with facets and “guided navigation” may catch that company’s attention
- A reference to Nretriever as a “feeding technology.” The word “Nretriever” suggests a query and a results list to me, not a feed or stream of content. Maybe the writer wanted me to think of an alert pushed to me via email?
- A description of Ncategorizer that “includes the improvement of classification.” I am not sure if the product improves a previous Nstein system or improves the performance delivered by a competitor’s system.
The write up includes some links to information for me to read. Two links date from 2002 and 2003 and not from the post acquisition period in which I have an interest. The third link is more current but I did not see any mention of Nstein. The other links are circular; that is, pointing back to the article that caught my attention.
I am baffled. I am not sure if this is a legitimate write up about OpenText / Nstein or an error due to a flawed editorial system or process.
With promotional announcements like this one, Autonomy is almost certain to lick its chops and begin to think about taking a bite out of OpenText / Nstein’s marketing messages.
Stephen E Arnold, June 28, 2010
Freebie
Favitt: Google Custom Search Engine Gone Wild
June 28, 2010
Short honk: If you find metasearch systems useful, check out Favitt. Based in Houston, Favitt tosses in some interesting twists. I liked the stream of real time hits relevant to my query. You can toss in a custom background and create a customized search engine. Run a query and you get YouTube hits, news links, and the real time stuff. I prefer the Kosmix approach, but you will want to take a look. Navigate to www.favitt.com. To get access to the customization page, you must register.
Stephen E Arnold, June 29, 2010
Freebie
Googlers vs Xooglers: Are Smarts the X Factor?
June 28, 2010
There are lots of Xooglers now. Some are at little-known outfits with pals in the Pentagon. Some are now financiers or pundits. And some others are working at Facebook. I have watched how the Xooglers at Facebook have managed to emulate some of Google’s more interesting characteristics such as zigzagging around user security settings and pushing into the uncharted world visible to lesser mortals. I have also found some surprising insights such as skipping the 1998 approach to relevance by embracing the social network’s predilections.
I was interested in The Snitch’s write up about Web rock star Kevin Rose. Mr. Rose, a former business magazine cover personality, and podcast/meet up superstar. The article was “Is Google About to Launch a Facebook Killer? Kevin Rose Says So.” The idea is that there is a rumor, apparently Velcroed to Mr. Rose about Google’s Facebook killer.
Source: http://mark.koli.ch/2009/01/13/google-facebook.png
Let’s think about these “killers”. You know about these digital Ebolas: the Microsoft Word killer, the Oracle killer, the iPod killer, and so on. In my experience, when someone suggests that another company – usually gasping in second place or even farther behind in a market race – a sure fire way to keep the credibility is to get associated with a “killer”.
I am an old, addled goose. I am increasingly amused by the monopolization that occurs in digital markets. Decades ago, I pointed out in a series of columns for Information World Review that information pools and beckons handling in the way power companies and water companies operate. The infrastructure and captured customers eliminate competition because life is easier for the consumer.
Don’t believe me? That’s okay. You, gentle reader, are probably younger, smarter, and more hungry than this goose. But look around. Apple is in a pretty good position when it comes to high margin computers and gizmos that make teens and college students drool. Google owns the Web search and online advertising sector. The much maligned Microsoft owns the enterprise desktop no matter what a Zoho or Google PR person says. Want to buy a book online? You know the place to go: Amazon. There are other examples ranging from IBM in big companies to outfits like AT& and Verizon for “real telephony”.
Podcast Interview with Paul Doscher, Part 3: Exalead and User Experience
June 28, 2010
Exalead’s Paul Doscher talks about Exalead and user experience, sometimes shortened to “UX” on the June 28, 2010, ArnoldIT Beyond Search podcast. Exalead, now part of the large French software and services company Dassault, is entering a new phase of growth. (You can read about this tie up in “Exalead Acquired by Dassault” and “Exalead and Dassault Tie Up, Users Benefit.”
In this podcast, Mr. Doscher talks about Exalead’s technical approach to enabling licensees to use a wide range of graphical user interfaces and display conventions. The Exalead user experience approach makes it possible to support iPhone-type interfaces and presentations tailored to the needs of a particular user or workgroup.
You can listen to the podcast on the ArnoldIT.com Web site. More information about Exalead is available from www.exalead.com. The ArnoldIT podcast series extends the Search Wizards Speak series of interview beyond text into rich media. Watch this blog for announcements about other rich media programs from the professionals who move information retrieval beyond search.
Stephen E Arnold, June 28, 2010
Sponsored by Stephen E. Arnold
Facebook on a Chocolate High
June 27, 2010
Today (Saturday, June 26, 2010) I had a short conversation with a person who argued that the Internet was Google. I would have agreed in 2006, but since that fateful year when Google when ga-ga, the company has lost its magic touch. I know the company is a money machine and ranks among the world’s superpowers in power and influence, but the excitement has shifted. Google is more of a Wal-Mart and is starting to look to me more like a Microsoft-inspired operation. The person with whom I spoke was not happy when I suggested that Facebook was the big gun in the Internet.
I think the reason I was playing like an avid Facebook friend was my recollection of “One Billion Facebook Users: The Road Ahead”, an article that appeared in Online Social Media. The argument in the short item was:
Mark Zuckerberg has been quoted as saying “that Facebook estimates of ($1.14 billion) just in revenue this year 2010 could be achieved”. One of the reasons contributing to this, could be that Facebook have become the top US publisher of display ads on the web. It appears that display ads in the first 3 months of the year captured users, and produced a 16.2% of the market share, double that of the previous year of 7.5%.
If we assume that Mr. Zuckerberg is on the beam, Facebook could mean big trouble for the Google and maybe Apple. The reason is that Microsoft seems to be comfortable with the Zuck’s creation. If Microsoft can find a way to cheerlead Facebook into bleeding ad revenue from the Google, that’s a plus. In fact, a slower Google could find itself pressure by the Cartier advertising approach of Apple on the high end and by the Zuck’s “better Google” approach.
If Facebook’s traffic keeps on growing * and if * the Facebook search system works reasonably well, Facebook may have done something not even the Googlers thought possible.
Stephen E Arnold, June 26, 2010
Freebie
EMC Beefs Up Its Content Processing
June 27, 2010
Data collection agency EMC, http://www.emc.com, has moved to build a platform for expanding business in the future, thanks to a recent partnership inked with low-profile legal discovery company Applied Discovery. Rumor has it that EMC learned about search via a marriage and divorce with the Fast Search & Transfer technology. The most recent move is to create a comprehensive service by blending SourceOne eDiscovery-Kazeon with the case discovery review power of Applied Discovery’s process and review engine. EMC started out as large storage vendor, and they bought Kazeon.Will the result be a complete solution for indexing and searching large data stores? EMC hopes this is the findability fix.
Patrick Roland, June 27, 2010
Freebie
Comcast Gears Up for Combat
June 27, 2010
Comcast, is getting aggressive in the over-the-top video market. With thePlatform, a Seattle-based Comcast subsidiary, the company announced its not-so-subtle intentions to bring the wealth of online video to several different non-computer formats.
Over-the-top means files come via traditional broadband, but do not require any of the business or technology affiliations with the underlying broadband network. “Unlike other video management systems,” the company recently said. “thePlatform’s mpx Beta allows customers to upload multiple media files simultaneously and easily distribute video to websites, mobile phones and other IP-connected devices with a few simple clicks.”
ThePlatform is already compatible with the Apple iPad, and the company also says it will work with Google TV when that launches. Comcast, who has never really been a contender in the digital video world, clearly sees an opportunity and is taking exciting steps to rise to the top, especially by looking at catching the Google wave. Hopefully, consumers will be equally intrigued.
Patrick Roland, June 27, 2010
Freebie
Bing Dinging the Google
June 26, 2010
“Bing’s New Bling: TV, Music from Microsoft Search” does a good job of explaining Microsoft’s consumer search strategy. Microsoft’s angle of attack on Googzilla is to make search solves some specific problems. Here’s the key passage in my opinion:
Microsoft is making a push into entertainment. The company has struck deals with television networks, video Web sites such as Hulu, recording labels, game makers and other content companies. When people search for a show, a song or a casual game on Bing, they’ll often be able to watch, listen or play right from the search results, without having to go to another site.
Google has some formidable rich media capabilities. Microsoft, on the other hand, has some deals in place. If the new services bring smiles to the faces of content partners, Microsoft will be able to get more. Google has not purchased a company to fill in the gaps in its rich media content offerings. Now time may be slipping away. The Google set top box takes a search approach to locating rich media. Microsoft delivers findability and, in some cases, content. Microsoft manages to provide its new service without the sun obscuring flight of legal eagles that now accompany Google wherever the company goes.
Stephen E Arnold, June 26, 2010
Freebie
The Pay Wall Payoff
June 26, 2010
In the early days of this blog, I recycled some information I had in my files from the 1980s. I believe I mentioned that problem that online throws in the path of the uninitiated. The idea is that you can charge for information online, but you must offer “must have” information. Vanilla information will generate some traffic on a fee basis but the take will be a fraction of what is needed to create the content, market the service, and keep the infrastructure alive and well. The “must have” and “nice to have” distinctions are well known to those who have been able to build commercial online products that actually make a profit. Honk. I am in that tiny segment of humanity. No ads needed, thank you. I have a view that ads – through lucrative – are down market. I like the “must have” approach even though I paddled in a goose pond in rural Kentucky. The millions and billions go to the Wal-Mart like folks. “Times Paywall: Initial Data and Analysis” is one of those semi accurate, pundit thingies. The data are cooked up based on whatever log files are available and from traffic sampling methods. Despite these concerns, one has to be in bizarro land not to see the down ward trend in the chart.
What this means is that the pay wall is a traffic inhibitor. That’s okay as long as the online revenue makes up for the downturn. My experience is that traffic will stabilize and revenues will be tough to grow. The fix is to raise the fee which means less traffic. The end game is that there will be a small number of people will to pay whatever the vendor charges. The problem is that costs go up and revenue does not keep pace. Boink. Bad news. On the brightside, some of the cash from the sale of Beliefnet might help out the pay wall play.
Stephen E Arnold, June 26, 2010
Freebie
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
