The Google Commodity Problem
August 23, 2010
Fast Company ran an interesting story after the goose headed for the pond this afternoon. “Google’s Success in Facebook Game: Handicapping the Odds” zipped through some familiar observations about Google and its somewhat tardy response to Facebook. One highlight was pointing out that Google’s senior manager for things social and mobile, Vic Gundotra, presented a Math Club rationalization about Google. Fast Company reported:
Former head of Google’s mobile unit, Vic Gundotra, posted a spicy blog message yesterday to note that over 100 million Google users check places on Google maps, lots use Google’s MyLocation feature (that lets you track your position even in the absence of GPS), many people love Latitude on Android–the Google “checkin” and friend-tracker app, as well as Place Pages which adds extra local info to locations in Latitude, such as photos or reviews. In the immediate aftermath of the roll-out of Facebook’s Places application, it’s obvious what Gundotra was trying to do: He was engaging in a little feisty PR along the lines of “But Google lets you do all that stuff already, and millions of folk have been using it for years!”
Very good. The key passage in the write up was, in my opinion, this statement:
But the biggest problem Gundotra inadvertently highlighted is that (with the admitted exception of Android, which is a strong offering that stands alone) Google’s users tend to think of its services as a commodity.
Bingo.
The addled goose’s thoughts after reading the story were:
- The past may not be a predictor of the future. What Google did when it was in happy face mode does not seem to have the same magic now that the company has made some interesting moves with regard to Verizon, Wi-Fi, child care, China, and acquisitions.
- Oracle may rain on Google’s Android parade. The Sun is not shining on Java at the moment.
- Amazon and Apple keep on moving forward. Amazon is doing a good job in cloud computing and Apple is certainly pumping hardware and hooking folks into the iTunes’ ATM.
Can the Math Club ethos triumph? I am not so sure. Even cheerleaders like Leo LaPorte and his band of Twits are singing different tunes of late. Fast Company nailed it: commodity products and services for free. If ads weaken, the Google may be in a frenzied search for new revenue. That will be exciting. After 11 years, the company has essentially one revenue stream. What are the weaknesses of a monoculture? Shoot. I can’t remember. Something about an inability to resist a fungus or blight. Does not matter. Math is math. Just the addled goose’s opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, August 23, 2010
Freebie
Intel Embraces Security, Ignores Search
August 23, 2010
The pundits and azurini have been happier than a Poland China in a mud puddle. Intel spent $7 billion for McAfee. You can read many analyses of this deal. These include the Business Week “Intel Does Security, US Broadband Not So Fast” and the San Jose Mercury News’s “McAfee Deal Stirs Speculation about Symantec.” Leo LaPorte’s network tackled the subject in a breezy way. I lost track of the number of blog posts that choked my feedreader. In a lousy economy like ours, any big deal is a great deal for those who made it happen. After the commissions are paid, I am not so sure about the upside for Intel.
Let’s step back. McAfee has an interesting past. Recently the company’s update killed XP machines. The price tag seems lofty. There are some cultural differences between the two companies. These range from where money comes from to the markets served. But deal hungry MBAs can concoct some weird and potent bar drinks in today’s less than exciting financial environment.
Intel has many interests but chief among them is generating lots of revenue. The world of expensive silicon is an extremely hostile place. One can imagine the owner of a delivery company in Peanut, California, trying to keep an outfit like Intel humming like a nuclear submarine’s reactor. The skills required are many and varied. Intel is now taking on another country’s fleet. Some nuclear powered, some coal fired, and others wind powered.
In 1999 or 2000, I can’t remember the exact year, I brushed against a project that included an analysis of Intel. At that time, Intel was thinking about what to do with the spare cycles on its future chips. CPUs, particularly the dudes with the skyscraper architecture and multiple cores, have more zoom than the software can exploit. One of the ideas the research project explored was putting content processing or information retrieval functions in silicon. I remember kicking around ideas for various types of on-the-fly processing and even combining online, offline, and near line functions to make it easy for an employee to locate needed information. Great fun, just an above average complexity type of problem.
In the last decade, Intel has nosed into a wide range of businesses. You can get a partial run down in the Wikipedia article “Intel Corporation.” Omitted from the Wikipedia write up was Intel’s experiment with Convera to put search and retrieval in data centers. I have documented some of the features of this interesting move in the first edition of my Enterprise Search Report (2003-2004, now out of print). Here’s the highlight: The effort failed and burned a big pile of greenbacks. Also omitted from the Wikipedia write up was Intel’s stake in Endeca. This amounted to a smaller pile of greenbacks than the Convera adventure, but nothing really came of that step either.
Based on my nosing around, these probes into search were part of Intel’s quest to find something really hot to slap into “little silicon” (a CPU type thing or a small box gizmo) or into “big silicon” (a data center type of thing). Either big or little, Intel would be able to offer more value-added functions and, so the theory goes, charge more. The object of the game is to make money, remember?
Another Future of Search Prognostication
August 22, 2010
I am having a tough time keeping track of the “future of search” prognostications. For years, no one seemed to think much about search. In fact, until I pointed out in 2003 or so that search sucked, did not work, generally annoyed most of those using the systems, and was becoming a commodity—people were indifferent. Google worked. End of story. Commercial search systems were used by one or two percent of online users and the other 98 percent had zero knowledge of industrial-strength information retrieval.
Today, everyone’s an expert.
Navigate to “The Future of Internet Search” by Zurich-born Esther Dyson. Her interests range from investing to health care, private aviation, and space travel. I am happy to catch a flight to Detroit that sort of works. Space travel is a bit of a reach for the goose.
The write up presents a view of the future of search. For me, the main idea is that search has bumbled along. There’s an obligatory nod to Yahoo and some highlights for Google and Bing. The key passage, in my opinion, is:
Medstory has a deep understanding of health care, including the relationships between diseases and treatments, drugs and symptoms, and side effects. Powerset, a tool for creating and defining such relationships in any sphere of interest, is broader but less deep. This all happened a couple of years ago – just before Yahoo! gave up on search entirely and handed that part of its business over to Microsoft. Also around that time, Bill Gates uttered one of the smartest things he has ever said: “The future of search is verbs.” But he said it at a private dinner and it never spread.
Three observations:
- Okay, search is verbs. Are these the nifty “own,” “buy”, “invest,” “crush” and “kill” variety or the fuzzier “seem” “may”, “could-would-should” species. And what does “is” mean? I am still trying to figure that out.
- The semantic understanding “thing” in information retrieval is gaining momentum. Software, by golly, is going to figure out what a user really means and what he really wants.
- The methods for figuring out intent are moving from the specialist conferences to the pow wows among investors and other movers and shakers. I think this is okay, but I am not sure that this type of “push” is going to have the payout that some anticipate.
- The write up underscores that key word search is “yesterday”. Got it.
So the future of search is not the search that I use when conducting my research. No problem. I prefer to formulate queries, filter results, process information, and produce what I think are my value adds the old fashioned way. I don’t need nor do I want training wheels, black boxes, or a kindergarten teacher approach, thank you.
Stephen E Arnold, August 22, 2010
Freebie. Predict that.
Cost Reduction Programs Fail Big Time
August 22, 2010
Ah, gentle reader, you know that I think blue-chip consultants are playing 3-D chess whilst the azurini (the second and third tier consultants) are playing checkers. However, the blue chip outfits can make some big mistakes. Anyone remember International Harvester? The excitement over Guinness? Meh.
The addled goose was surprised with certain statements in “McKinsey Says 90 Percent of Cost Reduction Programs Fail” that suggest that most cost reduction programs fall short. According to the article they describe cost-reduction programs as “illusionary and short lived and at times damaging to long term value creation.” They then release the staggering statistic that “90% of cost reduction programs fail. McKinsey then goes on to explain the fundamentals needed for sustainable business improvement.
However, McKinsey’s statement fails to mention the fact that regardless of the industry especially during the current recession many companies are finding it increasingly difficult to control their overall costs. Companies are focusing more attention on instituting programs and guidelines that help cut costs but it’s a constant battle. Industry leaders such as IGear make this easier for clients because they offer quality monitoring services that offer additional benefits such as cost reduction and cost control. This encourages economic growth and stability and demonstrates that there are always two sides to every story.
The other point not addressed is that McKinsey provides this type of consulting advice. How many of McKinsey’s clients fail in those cost cutting programs? Perhaps McKinsey is so good that the 10 percent success rate is attributable to McKinsey’s work? What about those hefty consulting fees? Do they count in cost cutting?
In a lousy economic climate, I believe that the blue-chips can make noises just like the azurini. The goose is delighted to be on the sidelines when these folks make claims and counter claims. Observing the silliness is more fun that watching the goslings in a race across the mud flats.
Stephen E Arnold, August 22, 2010
Freebie
Google Tweaks Docs Search
August 22, 2010
I noted with interest Jason Kincaid’s TechCrunch article “Now You Can Search For Google Docs From Within Gmail (And It Catches Typos, Too)” with a “Did you mean” suggestion. You can enable “Apps Search” in the Gmail Labs tag in Settings. / Bram Moolenaar, Software Engineer, says in the Gmail Blog,
The paint is still wet and we plan to make further improvements the coming months.
So is there a reason to use this?
There is if the “Did you mean” suggestion can also pick up misspellings and typos in the content being searched and not just mistakes we make or appear to make while searching. This could have enormously significant use in picking out imperfections in PDF (portable document format) document’s ASCII generated by optical character recognition, for instance. Or, what about spotting idiosyncratic typos users make in their emails and documents but not when they search.
For the Google to learn more about what we each want when we search, it would be of interest to see how we find or don’t find stuff in our own sandbox. To each his own sandman?
Ken Toth, August 22, 2010
Google: A Painful Question
August 21, 2010
Wow. In 2006, Google was at the top of its game. The company was unstoppable. Few people criticized the company. I did point out the weaknesses of the Google in my 2005 The Google Legacy, but not too many others saw much other than ad revenue in the Mountain View, California Math Club.
Push the fast forward arrow on your mental DVR or TiVo. Read “Kneale: Why Isn’t Google a $1,000 Stock by Now?” The goose confuses a snipe hunt with a snarky comment. You probably understand the difference. The $1,000 chase is the snipe hunt. The title is the snarky thing.
This headline four years ago would not express how analysts and pundits thought about Google. Today, not only is the headline possible, it’s asking a reasonable question. When BearStearns went down the drain overnight in April 2008, the target was $585 or something in that neighborhood. Today (August 19, 2010) GOOG is down another 14 points to $467. Geese usually possess feathers, not shares in publicly traded companies. But even for an addled goose, the difference between the 2008 target and today’s stock price is interesting.
Here’s what the CNBC story said:
The Dow, soaring off the lows of March 2009, still is down 26 percent from its high in October ’07; Google stubbornly remains 35 percent below the high it reached the same month. Do investors have it wrong—or is Google itself doing something wrong? My answer would be . . . yes. By sheer numbers a higher price should apply to the world’s dominant search engine on a global network that, in a few years, could link a trillion devices. In three years since hitting that high, Google has doubled revenue, almost doubled already-prodigious profits, more than doubled its cash on hand (to $30 billion!) and doubled its total assets. It’s not enough.
What’s this mean for search? My observations:
- Not much. Search is in a transitional condition, and I am not sure that Web search will fare much better than the command line style searching that dominated in the 1980s. Sure, it will be around, but it is for specialists, not the consumer user.
- New competition. I don’t think Google has been able to suppress innovation. In fact, Google caused competitors to find ways to go where Google was not a factor. The best example is the Facebook service. Sure, Facebook might tank, but right now, the Google looks more like an annoyed teenager than a world beater in my opinion.
- New business models. I have a hunch the freneticism of Googlers is directly related to a real need to find major new revenue streams. Online ads are still a good business but that pesky Facebook can deliver targeting. With Microsoft and Yahoo, I can be certain that Google will have to respond to whatever deals this unlikely team will concoct.
Forget these points. Focus on the headline. That say much about what’s happening. Google is not a $1,000 stock and, if the present trends continue, Google may have a tough time getting back its 2006 flash.
Stephen E Arnold, August 21, 2010
Freebie
Research in Motion and Aggressive Mobile BlackPad
August 21, 2010
I struggle to locate emails on my BlackBerry. I struggled to buy a working app on the BlackBerry store. I now struggle with a news story that links Research in Motion to Crusher Tank software and luxury car maker BMW. I rented a BMW once, and I gave up trying to get the radio to work and set the air conditioning. I cannot wait to see a table with a combination of BMW technology and Crusher Tank software.
What do you make of “RIM Said to Plan Crusher Tank Technology for Tablet Computer”? As you can see from the photo on the splash page of this blog, even my Microsoft SharePoint engineer, Tess the Boxer, can use the Apple iPad. Will she be able to handle RIM’s forthcoming tablet?
Will the BlackPad have the durability of this Crusher tank? Source: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_swGyNR8UhGg/SBoduyYjJPI/AAAAAAAAAI8/jBff0KtcnFQ/s1600-h/crusher2.jpg
Here’s the passage from the Bloomberg story which I hope is deadly accurate like the Crusher tank’s armaments:
The yet-to-be-announced tablet will run on software developed by QNX Software Systems, which RIM bought from Harman International Industries Inc. for $200 million in April, said the people, who didn’t want to be named because the plans haven’t been made public. QNX’s software is used in products from companies including Cisco Systems Inc., General Electric Co. and Caterpillar Inc. RIM, based in Waterloo, Ontario, is racing to introduce its tablet as rivals debut similar devices that fill the gap between smartphones and laptops. By using QNX technology, RIM could take advantage of the independent software developers who already create applications for QNX and build on the popularity of its BlackBerry smartphone with corporate customers.
I have no opinion about the issues related to access to BlackBerry email. I would imagine that Crusher tank technology can deal with almost any unpleasantness. If the technology won’t do it, maybe RIM could drive a Crusher tank over the issue, flattening it in no time.
The iDrive control device that baffled this addled goose.
I am more interested in the BMW technology.
My observations:
- The mobile heat is on for RIM from phones to tablets to far off lands which want access to email. I am not sure Apple will relate to the artistic elegance of the Crusher tank. I think the Google Math Club will find the BMW less environmentally pleasing than a Prius but well suited to speeding to meetings with various governmental entities.
- The Apple iPad seems to be a winner, and I wonder if the alleged BlackPad can capture the market segment fascinated by the tablet form factor. Apple is rumored to be readying a Mini Cooper iPad which might rain on the RIM tank parade. A flotilla of Android tablets seems to be making its way across the big blue sea with an ETA in the Fall of 2010.
- The BlackBerry application store is not quite up to Apple’s level and I think it lags the dross-riddled Android app store. BlackBerry has its consumer work cut out for itself. I still find the BlackBerry app I downloaded amusing. It would crash the mobile device. Solitaire is a tough nut to crack or BlackBerry to squish as the case may be.
To sum up, the macho positioning of the Research in Motion BlackPad is interesting. I just want to make phone calls, maybe read a book at the airport, and check some email. Do I need a BMW-infused, smart tank technology for these functions? RIM, if Bloomberg’s story is spot on, seems to hold the belief that I do indeed. (I must admit I secretly admire the Crusher tank.)
Furthermore, the word choice in this Bloomberg BlackBerry BlackPad article strikes me as somewhat ominous. The goose is frightened of the consonantal tintinnabulation.
Stephen E Arnold, August 21, 2010
Freebie
Microsoft Wants MySQL Users to Migrate to SQL Server
August 21, 2010
Microsoft in an attempt to try and broaden its user base has released tools that will help make the transition to Microsoft products easier. “Microsoft sets sights on MySQL with migration tools” describes the new Microsoft tools designed to help make the manual migration of databases easier. Microsoft released the new tool SQL Server Migration Assistant (SSMA) for MySQL and improved on its current SSMA product base, the v4.2 release. The new SSMA for MySQL tool gives consumers the option to migrate to various editions of SQL Server. More importantly it can work with version MySQL 4.1 and above. Both SSMA for MySQL and SSMA v4.2 provide customers with additional features and options. These new tools will be competition for the software world including the very popular MySQL and Microsoft hopes customers will make the switch. Only time will tell if Microsoft can catch up and gain momentum against favorites such as MySQL. We sort of like MySQL and the NoSQL data management systems. This goose won’t chase this water bug.
Stephen E Arnold, August 21, 2010
Freebie
Another Business Sector Resists the Google
August 20, 2010
When it attempts to get into a new industry, Google’s reputation precedes it by long mile. Its latest conquest, the television market, is not going as smoothly as the search giant would like. A recent Broadband Reports article, “Google TV Running into Stubborn Broadcasters,” showcased the problems they are running into. The proposition seems logical, marrying the internet with broadcast and cable television to create a monolithic entertainment giant. But not everyone sees it that way. The LA Times put it best, stating: “The prospect of Google getting into television frightens many in Hollywood, who worry that Silicon Valley will upend the entertainment industry just like the Internet ravaged the music and newspaper industries.”
The world (big shock!) is not here for Google’s cherry picking. We’re going to keep an eye on this battle to see if the search behemoth backs down or just chops down the whole tree.
Pat Roland, August 20, 2010
OpenText: Imitation, Integration or Innovation? Pick Two
August 20, 2010
It’s nothing new to hear about a software company putting its once-hot acquisitions out to pasture, but a possible recent move by enterprise search big dog Open Text has us wondering. The root of this change comes from a recent announcement about the company’s exciting search advances. Detailed in a Red Orbit story, “Open Text Launches Semantic Navigation,” this new program is unquestionably an innovative addition to the search world. Where most search engines just look for words that match a searcher’s input, Semantic Navigation aims to read between the lines in a way that, to our knowledge, hasn’t been done before. Think Endeca and 1998 or so.
“Open Text Semantic Navigation offers a way to improve the user experience,” the article explains. “At the core of the offering is the Open Text Content Analytics engine that intelligently extracts meaning, sentiment and context from content, and in turn marries that content to what a customer or prospect is looking for on a Web site. The result is that audiences more consistently and quickly find helpful, valuable information with much less effort.”
With its implementation, Open Text seems to have put all the necessary pieces together for a success. According to the article, this deeper search option, “is designed to complement any existing Web site, independent of the Web content management system used, either installed on local servers or as an online service provided by Open Text. With the cloud-based offering (currently in beta), organizations can rapidly and inexpensively upgrade their sites’ user experience.”
This sounds like a great option for improving search and, if it catches on, we have no doubt other search programs will follow suit. Some search services we are wondering about, however, include BASIS, BRS, Fulcrum, and SGML. These are four of Open Text’s search systems and all were omitted from the article. This leads us to believe that these four may not benefit from the wonders of Semantic Navigation simultaneously. These services may need some Xzibit-style dressing up in my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, August 20 ,2010
Freebie
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
