Deciding Between SharePoint Online or On Premises Versions
November 17, 2014
Though the relevancy of on-premises installations of SharePoint is dwindling, it might still be the right choice for some organizations. SearchContentManagement.com shares key differences between the two versions in, “SharePoint Online Vs. On-Premises Is Already an Outmoded Question” (registration required.) The write-up cautions that Microsoft is bound to take SharePoint entirely into the cloud, perhaps as early as 2016, but lays out the facts so readers can judge whether a local installation would best suit them in the meantime.
On the subject of Search functionality, the write-up reports:
“Both SharePoint on-premises and Online have search capabilities. The big difference is what their search indexes can include. Typically, when the phrase enterprise search is used, it means that the search engine in question can index multiple, disparate content sources.
“In the case of SharePoint on-premises, this is true. SharePoint has long been capable of indexing SharePoint content, as well as content stored on file shares, Exchange, websites and Lotus Notes databases, among various content sources. Starting in 2007, Microsoft added the capability of indexing structured data from databases and other applications through the then-called Business Data Catalog. That feature has since matured and is now called Business Connectivity Services (BCS), and it allows virtually the same capabilities.
“The same isn’t true of SharePoint Online. The search engine can index all content stored in SharePoint and sources connected through BCS, but not index file shares, other websites or Lotus Notes databases. While the capability is largely constrained based on where SharePoint Online is hosted, the more fundamental difference is the controls available to administrators; the ability to define other content sources, like on-premises implementations, simply doesn’t exist.”
That’s disappointing. The article also contrasts the products in the areas of business data, custom development, and the relationship to its cloud service Azure. It goes on to describe a pattern of Microsoft “deconstructing” its on-premises products into individual services available through Azure, a trend that effectively turns search functionality into a stand-alone product that can be integrated into other applications. Eventually, the piece suggests, Microsoft may completely deconstruct SharePoint into a selection of Azure services. Perhaps. But will companies ever get their access to additional content sources back?
Cynthia Murrell, November 17, 2014
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
Assange Makes Case against Google Overreach
November 17, 2014
True to his values, Julian Assange (of WikiLeaks fame) presents a wealth of facts and connections in his Newsweek article, “Google Is Not What It Seems.” It is a lengthy piece, and my summary can hardly do it justice. Anyone interested in the details of Assange’s assertions should check it out for yourselves. The piece begins with the tale of how Assange met Google CEO Eric Schmidt in 2011, then lays out the evidence that a very close relationship exists between the company and the U.S. government. In fact, he asserts, Schmidt and the Brin/Page-led Google each independently forged these bonds with the feds long before Schmidt joined the company in 2001. Assange writes:
“The company’s reputation is seemingly unassailable. Google’s colorful, playful logo is imprinted on human retinas just under 6 billion times each day, 2.1 trillion times a year—an opportunity for respondent conditioning enjoyed by no other company in history. “Caught red-handed last year making petabytes of personal data available to the U.S. intelligence community through the PRISM program, Google nevertheless continues to coast on the goodwill generated by its ‘don’t be evil’ doublespeak. A few symbolic open letters to the White House later and it seems all is forgiven. Even anti-surveillance campaigners cannot help themselves, at once condemning government spying but trying to alter Google’s invasive surveillance practices using appeasement strategies. “Nobody wants to acknowledge that Google has grown big and bad. But it has. Schmidt’s tenure as CEO saw Google integrate with the shadiest of U.S. power structures as it expanded into a geographically invasive megacorporation.”
The article concludes with Assange’s dire predictions about the repercussions of Google’s current and future exploits on a global scale. It is a picture of a corporate giant merging with government to take over the world, all in the name of security. Is Assange correct?
Cynthia Murrell, November 17, 2014
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
Insights into Selling an Enterprise Search System
November 16, 2014
I find sales and marketing difficult to understand. The reality in which I watch the mine drainage dribble is different from the shiny world of “access to all information.” I was confused. Then I read “7 Secrets That Sales and Marketing Colleagues Should Know about Each Other.”
The segment I found mildly interesting concerns prevarication. You know: Telling your mother a fib about what you did on the sleep over. Check this:
Sales teams lie. This is a reality, and it’s not a bad thing. Whether it’s because they don’t know their product well enough, they’ve been trained to be too empathetic, or they’re only focused on a performance-related bonus, the sales department’s dirty little secret is that their day is awash with lies. These lies may be to colleagues or emerge from the evasive tactics of prospects, but they are something every marketer should be aware of.
Wow. So lying is endemic. Wait. The author shifts the burden to the 20 somethings’ organization, not the individual:
It’s your organization’s responsibility to create a culture of honest communication. It is much easier to get repeat business than it is to land new accounts. Focus on the long term.
If you want to be encouraged in your sales and marketing expertise, you will not want to fail to miss it. Quite a listicle. I have only highlighted one modest tip.
Stephen E Arnold, November 16, 2014
Ah, History and the 20 Somethings
November 16, 2014
I had a conversation last week with a quite assured expert in content processing. I mentioned that I was 70 years old and would not attending a hippy dippy conference in New York. I elicited a chuckle.
I thought of this gentle dismissal of old stuff when I read “Old Scientific Papers Never Die, They Just Fade Away. Or They Used to.” The main idea of the article seems to be that “old” work can provide some useful factoids for the 20 somethings and 35 year old whiz kids who wear shirts with unclothed female on them. Couple a festive shirt with tattoo, and you have a microcosm of the specialists inventing the future.
Here’s a passage I noted:
“Our [Googlers] analysis indicates that, in 2013, 36% of citations were to articles that are at least 10 years old and that this fraction has grown 28% since 1990,” say Verstak and co. What’s more, the increase in the last ten years is twice as big as in the previous ten years, so the trend appears to be accelerating.
Quite an insight considering that much of the math used to deliver whizzy content processing is a couple of centuries old. I looked for a reference to Dr. Gene Garfield and did not notice one. Well, maybe he’s too old to be remembered. Should I send a link to the 20 something with whom I spoke? Nah, waste of time.
Stephen E Arnold, November 16, 2014
Microsoft and Open Source: Exciting Marketing
November 15, 2014
I wonder who the wizards were who crafted the “news” that Microsoft was making Dot Net open source. I read what struck me as a reasonable view of Microsoft’s new open sourciness. Navigate to “.NET is NOT “Open Source”, But Microsoft’s Minions Shamelessly Openwash It Right Now.” Dig in. I noted this passage:
Microsoft is just so desperate to lock in developers, who are rapidly moving away to FOSS and saying goodbye to Windows because Android/Linux is on the rise.
This strikes me as a viewpoint that matches my own perception of the Metro-ized Microsoft. When will Fast Search become open source?
Stephen E Arnold, November 15, 2014
Former Publishing Executive Sentenced
November 15, 2014
Short honk: I read “Thomas MIddlehoff, Ex Chief of Bertelsmann, Gets 3 Year Prison Term over Misuse of Funds.” The story online appeared on November 14, 2014, and it ran in the November 15, 2014, dead tree edition of a real “news” publication on page B3.
Ah, another executive getting caught. Not much to interest me. But tucked deep in the paragraphs of the “real” news story was this passage:
Despite his legal problems, Mr. Middelhoff had remained a director of The New York Times Company until April of this year, departing for reasons neither he nor The Times publicly explained. “We are saddened to learn this news today,” Eileen M. Murphy, vice president for corporate communications at The Times, said in an email. “Thomas was a valued member of our board for 10 years and we wish him well.”\
Real journalists are a loyal bunch. I assume in the rarified stratosphere of the intellectual gatekeepers, overlooking certain signals relating to a person’s behavior can be misinterpreted; for example, misuse of funds is translated as good business thinking.
Stephen E Arnold, November 15, 2014
Hewlett Packard Shuffles Legal Deck Chairs
November 15, 2014
Short honk: I am not an attorney (heaven forbid). I found this somewhat opaque, inside baseball write up interesting: “Baker & McKenzie, Freshfields and Gibson Dunn Cross Fingers as HP Kicks Off Panel Tender.” The write up references HP’s “contentious year.” I would agree. When a football team makes changes, it is usually because the human element is not fitting into the team. I suppose with a new line up, HP will win more legal games. I would be happy if I could get my HP ink jet printer to work when the temperature drops. I wonder if Autonomy’s founder is making changes to his legal team? Dr. Lynch is probably too busy with his new businesses. HP, however, has some reason for making news with a legal shuffle.
Stephen E Arnold, November 15, 2014
Google Glass Cracked
November 14, 2014
Google Glass did not revolutionize my life. I am not sure how many people were affected by the craze in a teapot. I can associate Glass with a shattered life. Think psychiatric ministrations, self harm, and chemicals. Yikes! I read “Google Glass Future Clouded as Some Early Believers Lose Faith.” It appears that “real” journalists at Yahoo have open a case containing Google Glass.
I noted this passage as one of interest:
Several key Google employees instrumental to developing Glass have left the company in the last six months, including lead developer Babak Parviz, electrical engineering chief Adrian Wong, and Ossama Alami, director of developer relations. And a Glass funding consortium created by Google Ventures and two of Silicon Valley’s biggest venture capitalists, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Andreessen Horowitz, quietly deleted its website, routing users to the main Glass site.
The write up paints a picture of a much hyped product that seems to lack magnetism. My hunch is that Google lacked the magic touch required to create a successful retail product. Too bad about the scorched earth the Glass comet created as it ploughed into a bean field in Salinas.
But good news. Giant virtual reality headsets are coming. Really.
Stephen E Arnold, November 14, 2014
Mid Tier Consultants Scratch One Another’s Back
November 14, 2014
I received at my Yahoo email account an email from IDC. That’s the outfit that published content with my name on Amazon’s book store without my permission. Yep, that IDC. Here’s what I received on November 14, 2014:
The key line is “Magic Quadrant: Key Players in the WCM Market.” I clicked that link and was redirected to this page:
So what we have is IDC, employer of the “expert” Dave Schubmehl, pointing to Gartner and one of its fascinating, mostly marketing oriented Magic Quadrants. When I clicked the “Get this now” button, here’s what appeared:
If this url will not resolve, contact the mid tier consultants. Perhaps one of the “experts” will provide you access.
This is one of those tony consultant reports. I recall reading that no one—and I mean no one—is supposed to reproduce, republish, recycle, or reinvent this quadrant thing. After all, it includes really clear information asserting that some companies are niche players, some challengers, some visionaries, and some leaders.
I assume it is really good to be a visionary. In this sort of odd ball collection of vendors, HP and IBM are leaders in content management. Well, that does not square with my perception of either company. IBM is like a waif, wandering from business explanation to Watson application in an almost random way. HP is busy splitting itself in two, explaining to various legal eagles why its purchase of Autonomy has become a two year old’s finger painting, not a work of financial art, and jumping back into mobiles and tablets as it tries to become a leader in cloud computing.
Let’s set aside the arbitrary classification of companies. I have explained numerous times that the original BCG matrix was based on data. The Gartner matrix is based on secondary information, mostly from companies who have some type of relationship with magic.
My point is that IDC, a mid tier outfit, is promoting another mid tier outfit. Does one scratch the back of a stranger on the R train at 11 35 pm Saturday night? Nope, back scratching stakes me as a somewhat personal, connected relationship.
I am getting nervous thinking about this familiarity, particularly when some folks may accept the mid tier firm’s work as objective, independent, and unbiased. Perhaps I am wrong, but this coziness is an indication that marketing may be more important than information.
Stephen E Arnold, November 14, 2014
Amazon and Oracle: The Love Affair Ends
November 14, 2014
I recall turning in a report about Amazon’s use of Oracle as its core database. The client, a bank type operation, was delighted that zippy Amazon had the common sense to use a name brand database. For the bank types, recognizable names used to be indicators of wise technological decisions.
I read “Amazon: DROP DATABASE Oracle; INSERT Our New Fast Cheap MySQL Clone.” Assume the write up is spot on, Amazon and Oracle have fallen out of love or at least beefy payments from Amazon for the sort of old Oracle data management system. This comment becomes quite interesting to me:
“This old-world relational database software is very expensive,” Jassy [Amazon tech VP] said. “They’re proprietary. There’s a high level of lock-in. And they’ve got punitive licensing terms, not just allowing very little flexibility in moving to the cloud the way customers want, but also in the auditing and fining of their customers.”
Several thoughts flitted through my mind as I kept one eye on the Philae gizmo:
- Amazon’s move, if it proves successful, may allow Mr. Bezos to mount a more serious attack on the enterprise market. Bad news for Oracle and possibly good news for those who want to save some Oracle bucks and trim the number of Oracle DBAs on the payroll
- Encourage outfits that offer enterprise cloud solutions. Will Amazon snap up some of the enterprise services and put the squeeze on Google and Microsoft?
- Trigger another round of database wars. Confusion and marketing hype often add a bit of spice to the Codd fest
- Cause concern among the commercial, proprietary NoSQL outfits. Think of MarkLogic and its ilk trying to respond to an Amazon package designed to make a 20 something developer jump up and down.
Interesting move by the digital WalMart.
Stephen E Arnold, November 14, 2014
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
