Thomson Reuters Pushes Further into Real Time
September 20, 2010
Well, it was only last year that Thomson Reuters revamped their website to provide content that is more intelligent to business professionals. It has since then had a series of launches of Elecktron – “a high-speed data distribution network, and interactive on-demand video platform Insider,” that forms part of the company’s financial markets data subscription business.
The NewMediaAge article, “Thomson Reuters Adds to Market Information Service,” informs about the third component of its revamped market information service – Eikon. The article reports that, “Eikon combines market information, news, analytics, and trading tools into a desktop facility, with social and mobile access.” Describing further it states that Eikon, “links with foreign exchanges, equities, fixed income and trading venues, with easy-click trade capabilities so that traders can act in real-time.”
We wonder if these specialized, real-time high-end services can help the company climb back on the growth roller coaster. Only time will tell.
Harleena Singh, September 20, 2010
Search Industry Spot Changing: Risks and Rewards
September 20, 2010
I want to pick up a theme that has not been discussed from our angle in Harrod’s Creek. Marketers can change the language in news releases, on company blogs, and in PowerPoint pitches with a few keystrokes. For many companies, this is the preferred way to shift from one-size-fits-all search solutions described as a platform or framework into a product vendor. I don’t want to identify any specific companies, but you will be able to recognize them as these firms load up on Google AdWords, do pay-to-play presentations at traditional conferences, and output information about the new products. To see how this works, just turn off Google Instant and run the query “enterprise search”, “customer support”, or “business intelligence.” You can get some interesting clues from this exercise.
Source: http://jason-thomas.tumblr.com/
Enterprise search, as a discipline, is now undergoing the type of transformation that hit suppliers to the US auto industry last year. There is consolidation, outright failure , and downsizing for survival. The auto industry needs suppliers to make cars. But when people don’t buy the US auto makers products, dominoes fall over.
What are the options available to a company with a brand based on the notion of “enterprise search” and wild generalizations such as “all your information at your fingertips”? As it turns out, the options are essentially those of the auto suppliers to the US auto industry:
- The company can close its doors. A good example is Convera.
- The search vendor can sell out, ideally at a very high price. A good example is Fast Search & Transfer SA.
- The search vendor can focus on a specific solution; for example, indexing FAQs and other information for customer support. A good example is Open Text.
- The vendor can dissolve back into an organization and emerge with a new spin on the technology. An example is Google and its Google Search Appliance.
- The search vendor can just go quiet and chase work as a certified integrator to a giant outfit like Microsoft. Good examples are the firms who make “snap ins” for Microsoft SharePoint.
- The search vendor can grab a market’s catchphrase like “business intelligence” and say me too. The search vendor can morph into open source and go for a giant infusion of venture funding. An example is Palantir.
Now there is nothing wrong with any of these approaches. I have worked on some projects and used many of the tactics identified above as rivets in an analysis.
What I learned is that saying enterprise search technology is now a solution has an upside and downside. I want to capture my thoughts about each before they slip away from me. My motivation is the acceleration in repositioning that I have noticed in the last two weeks. Search vendors are kicking into overdrive with some interesting moves, which we will document here. We are thinking about creating a separate news service to deal with some of the non-search aspects of what we think is a key point in the evolution of search, content processing and information retrieval.
The Upside of Repositioning One-Size-Fits-All-Search
Let me run down the facets of this view point.
First, repositioning—as I said above—is easy. No major changes have to be made except for the MBA-style and Madison Avenue type explanation of what the company is doing. I see more and more focused messages. A vendor explains that a solution can deliver an on point solution to a big problem. A good example are the search vendors who are processing blogs and other social content for “meaning” that illuminates how a product or service is perceived. This is existing technology trimmed and focused on a specific body of content, specific outputs from specific inputs, and reports that a non-specialist can understand. No big surprise that search vendors are in the repositioning game as they try to pick up the scent of revenues like my neighbor’s hunting dog.
i2, Inc. and Palantir
September 19, 2010
In a motion filed Monday Aug. 9, 2010, i2 filed a complaint explained in “Media Advisory from i2.” The plaintiff, www.i2.co.uk, makes allegations related to i2’s intellectual property. You can access the legal documents via Scribd. i2 and Palantir are involved in content processing, data management, and various analytics processes. More about i2 is here. More about Palantir is here. Years ago I did some work for i2 and learned that the firm’s technologies were widely used in intelligence, law enforcement, and related market sectors. Palantir is more of a newcomer. Palantir received an infusion of venture funding in 2010.
Stephen E Arnold, September 19, 2010
Freebie
A Fatter Big Brother? Search, Surveillance, and More
September 19, 2010
Big Brother. The Man. Spies. All three of these buzzwords conjures up many things in peoples minds. Who are they? What exactly do they do? Are they watching me and recording every move I make? To most, silly paranoia. But, in an eye opening article “Big Brothers of Multiculturalism,” Ms. Julienne Eden Buši?’s points got me thinking.
Follow along from this excerpt from the article:
The time I got into an argument with a waiter named Tony at a restaurant behind the Votiv Church and was escorted roughly out, never to return. They must have been snickering at my indignation, these omnipresent agents. Who does she think she is? Creating a ruckus, disturbing the other guests? Another time at the Prater amusement park, had they been there, too, when I had….oh the indignity of it all! It was bad enough that I remembered, but to think that others remembered, too, that they had written down all the gory details in a secret report so that others could visualize it as well….that they had then talked about it with still more people, perhaps their wives or colleagues, chuckled again about the “American girl”, her scandalous behavior, her embarrassment, excessiveness…this was unbearable. Who did she think she was, anyway? On the other hand, many of the other dossier allegations, observations, statements, conclusions were total fabrications, less believable than if they had written that I’d suddenly grown a long, hairy tail and sprouted horns, and intended quite obviously to gain praise from one’s boss, or perhaps a raise in position or salary. So how effective, after all, was the notorious spy agency, if its actions were predicated upon some agent’s literary flights of fancy?
The exact time frame of that statement is unknown, and information gathered in that same time is also unknown. The real question then is, What is the quality of the information gathered? Is it from a trusted source? How reliable are the “facts”? Someone gathered it from somewhere, but was that information handled correctly? It would also be a safe bet that some of this information recorded was not at all accurate, but an all out fabrication of a persons mind.
Fast forward to 9-11. After the attacks on America, the Federal Government shifts into ultra high gear. Overdrive is an understatement. The effort and investment are mirrored by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, “We did as we so often do in this country…the attitude was, if it’s worth doing, it’s probably worth overdoing.”
The article is a thought starter if largely unverified. Interesting to consider search, surveillance, and content processing in the context of Eden Buši?’s remarks.
Glenn Black, September 19, 2010
Freebie
Another Google Issue
September 19, 2010
Short honk: I don’t have much to say about this series of news stories and their write ups. I thought Google’s Summer of Anguish was over. Guess not. Why? Check out these titles. You may want to read the stories, but I just skimmed them:
- Google Engineer Fired for Spying on Teenagers
- Ex-Googler Allegedly Spied on User E-Mails, Chats
- Google Fires Engineer for Privacy Breach
Not even a gentle honk from Harrod’s Creek. Maybe this will be an endless summer for the Google?
Stephen E Arnold, September 19, 2010
Freebie
Dynamic Pricing for Content Distribution by Google?
September 18, 2010
We noted an interesting patent application published on September 16, 2010 by the USPTO. The title of US20100235266 is “Determining Charge for Content Distribution.” You may want to download the document at http://www.uspto.com. The abstract for the application said:
A method of determining charge for content presentation includes identifying multiple target criteria that a content provider specifies for distribution of content, the multiple target criteria associated in a hierarchy. The method includes determining, for a presentation of the content to a user, which of the multiple target criteria are met by the presentation. The method includes recording a charge to the content provider for the presentation, the charge determined using the hierarchy and charge values associated with the multiple target criteria. The method can be implemented using a computer program product tangibly embodied in a computer-readable storage medium and comprising instructions that when executed by a processor perform the method.
What struck us about this system and method was:
- Google asserts it has a way to price content distribution dynamically
- The invention touches upon functions that may be germane to the rumored Google music system
- The approach taken echoes other functions but packaged in Google’s “big data” system.
Applications may be red herrings. Google’s rich media patent documents comprise a useful body of information in some circumstances.
Stephen E Arnold, September 19, 2010
Google Faces Push Back in Germany
September 18, 2010
The Wall Street Journal article “German Court Rules Against Google in Copyright Case” brings attention to the question “Should Google do more to prevent illegal content from being uploaded to YouTube?” Recently Google once again made headlines in Germany after a German court found Google responsible for uploaded YouTube videos “that violate German copyright laws.” Court officials feel Google is responsible for proving that users possess certain user rights before allowing them to post videos. This cases stems from three YouTube videos of the popular English singer Sarah Brightman. Google has already announced plans to appeal the ruling and released a statement “This decision results in a substantial legal uncertainty for all providers of video platforms, opinion forums, social communities, blogs and many other Internet services in Germany.” Google argues that when illegal videos are reported to them they are immediately removed. This is not the first copyright battle Google has encountered in Germany and neither side seems to be packing down. As Google’s copyright issues continue to rise the company is being hit from all sides.
April Holmes, September 19, 2010
Foundem and Google Tussle
September 18, 2010
Google is the subject of anti-competition probes due to a number of complaints filed by competitor search engines. Officials are investigating accusations from various US and non US companies that Google is using unfair tactics to hurt smaller rivals. In the PC Pro article “Q&A: Why we’re taking on Google over competition” Shivaun Raff, the founder of the UK based company Foundem and one of the complainants answers a few questions about the case.
Foundem runs a vertical search and price comparison site and is one of the companies lashing out the allegations against Google. The company claims that for three years they were the victim of an automated search penalty issued by Google. Basically during the time the penalty was assessed they disappeared from Google’s search results even if they were actually relevant. In addition the company was also the victim of an AdWords penalty. The price of keyword bids increased substantially and Foundem was unable to compete with the market price. Each of the Google penalties were indirectly aimed at vertical search engine services.
Foundem’s complaint accuses Google of using penalties that were “increasingly aimed at the characteristics of vertical search services.” The second part of the complaint addresses Google’s ranking system and how its services are calculated by a different algorithm that always seems to rank them at the top. “By consistently placing its own services at or near the top, Google is leveraging its dominance in search to help its adjacent markets.”
Google’s explanation is that many of the companies that have filed complaints are supported by Microsoft. They then go a little further and state companies such as Foundem offer “less relevant, lower quality” sites and that’s why their results do not show up. Google defends its decision to include its own services in the search results and refers to it as “blending.” However Google offered no explanation of their ranking system and how they are always at the top. This is a big advantage because according to the article 50% of surfers generally click on the first search result given, therefore clearly giving an advantage.
Foundem is working towards building search engine results that are comprehensive, relevant and impartial. With the penalties and other tactics that Google is accused of the question to be determined is whether Google is really the best search engine or are they finding ways to get rid of the competition.
April Holmes, September 18, 2010
An Open Source Pothole?
September 17, 2010
In the last six months, we have increased our coverage of open source search. There is increasing interest in the use of Lucene/Solr in a number of high profile search deployments. Two examples that come to mind are Cisco Systems and IBM.
On the other hand, there have been stories about Oracle’s Java litigation and write ups like “Code for Open-Source Facebook Littered with Landmines.” This story comes at open source from an interesting angle–security. If there is one hot button in the world of social networking and open source, it is the issue of protecting what should be protected from nefarious activity.
The Register says:
Among the list of reported issues in the code are numerous XSS — or cross-site scripting — attack vulnerabilities, a session token that’s easy to steal, a lack of user input filtering, and repeated errors when a null character is entered into web fields. Encryption features in Diaspora, which runs on the Ruby on Rails software stack, is also susceptible to a recently enhanced “Oracle Padding attack,” being demonstrated this week at the Ekoparty conference in Argentina, but then again, so are many banking apps.
Several questions:
- Does open source code drag along legal eagles regardless of licenses, coder intent, and community advocacy?
- Will other large companies get cold feet due to the actions of certain commercial entities which seem to be increasingly anti-open source when its makes business sense to adopt this position and willing to spend money for legal actions?
- Will the boundary between commercial and proprietary solutions and open source alternatives become a wider, more ambiguous space in which to do business, thus increasing uncertainty about open source options for a business?
With the disruptive nature of open source software in general and open source search in particular becoming evident to us in Harrod’s Creek, we do not have answers to these questions. We are not sure any other party has answers either. We are entering an interesting “tweener” state with regard to open source.
One thing is certain, the issue of security is likely to grab the attention of procurement teams and the media. Identifying security flaws or issues is an emotional and technical issue at this time.
Stephen E Arnold, September 17, 2010
Google Android: Scrambling to Explain the Future
September 17, 2010
As hard as I try, I can’t escape the mobile search world. When you are my age, looking at tiny screens is work. I like big screens, and I like to control the outputs I see. Not surprisingly, I turn a deaf ear and the goose’s tail to the mewlings of those who explain what US telecommunication companies will or won’t do, what the market for a particular fashion item like a smart phone will be in 2013, or why open source forking will screw up the world of tablets.
These are topics that cannot be tamed in a 300 word column by a “real” journalist or “real” consultant. If these topics could, why are the writers at the race track collecting baskets of cash from their prognostications? The answer is that explaining these three topics is backseat driving by looking in a rear view mirror. Great for Platonists, not so useful to those trying to figure out what is going on in the mobile space.
Let me highlight three examples of fortune telling and offer a different view on the mobile revolution.
The first example is “A Massive War Is Approaching as the Table Market Cannot Sustain Six Platforms.” I agree that six consumer centric operating systems is too many, but on the other hand, maybe it is too few. From the US perspective, the ideal number will be one near monopoly with two thirds of the market and two weak sisters who share another 20 percent of the market. The cats and dogs can fight over the remaining share. Why? This is how the auto industry, the airline industry, and the snack industry works in the US. The problem is that the “winner” in the segments are tough to predict due to the vagaries of management, legal actions, and the whims of the consumer. I don’t think there is a war coming. I think there is a lot of activity and then exogenous events will shape what happens. The problem is that I don’t think the US viewpoint is the one that will carry today. Unthinkable, right? Well, only if you view technology and products from the point of view of a person who looks at mobile in a particularly narrow way. War? Baloney.
The second example is the write up “Entelligence: Will Carriers Destroy the Android Vision?” Once again, the viewpoint strikes me as narrow. The other issue I have is the word “vision.” I am not convinced that Google has an Android vision. I think that Google has entered a new phase in its corporate evolution, but for the life of me, I see many possible visions for Android, not one. The notion of a telecommunications carrier destroying Android strikes me as silly. The “carriers” use what’s available for their advantage. The purpose of US telcos is to return to the pre-Judge Green state of AT&T and absorb the other telcos. If it makes sense for a carrier to use Android, carriers will. If not, carriers won’t. Google had an opportunity to outflank the carriers. Now Google is seeing carriers in a new light. I think there are financial reasons behind this shift at Google, but the carriers are the carriers. Keep in mind the phrase “Bell head.” It is an important concept when thinking about carriers.
The third example is found in the story “Is There Really Any Value to 3-Year Smartphone Forecasts?” I know the answer. The value is to the azure chip consulting firm who gets visibility for making predictions. The purpose of the forecast is to sell consulting and services. The numbers are of secondary importance.
What I see in these three write ups is insight into the turmoil the mobile sector finds itself. The players are not sure themselves about what will happen. Consumers are mostly acting with local knowledge, unaware that their aggregated behavior will have a significant impact on what will happen. The lawyers are flipping over rocks and looking beneath bushes for opportunities to litigate. The companies are trying to make money and consolidate their position to avoid the fate of outright failure or an ignominious acquisitions which puts lots of people out of work.
What I see is rapid change with many of the actions difficult to predict. From some decisions will come unintended consequences. One example I relish is Verizon’s use of the Android operating system but tweaked to use Microsoft Bing.com for the search results. Why take this action? Humans enjoy keeping other humans off balance, on the defense. There are other examples, but none of these is “war”, involve the excitement of the verb “destroy”, or lend themselves to fitting into a azure chip consultant’s Excel spreadsheet. Lots of variables at play in this mobile/mobile search space. It is a big world, not just a US centric world, however.
Stephen E Arnold, September 17, 2010
Freebie
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
