HP and Accordions
November 10, 2014
I try to avoid reading about marketing and MBAs. Sometimes I slip. For example, this morning I read about the trials and tribulations of “Pizza Hut Reboot: Food Chain To Reinvent Itself For The First Time.”
The write up explains that selling pizza is not easy—when you are part of YUM. Here’s a passage that I found laughable:
They plan to change everything from their topping options to the very logo. One major change includes the addition of 10 more crust flavor toppings. While garlic has always been the general standby, apparently you will now have more options than just removing the garlic if you want to. There will be new toppings as well, including salami and spinach, and more sauces available for the pie itself, such as barbecue and balsamic.
This sounds like the silliness search and content processing vendors foist on the wary prospects. Hey, the problem with pizza from Pizza Hut may be that the company is out of step with pizza eaters. There is a joint in Middletown, Kentucky that offers all you can eat pizza at lunch time for less than $8. That pulls in the hungry pizza cravers.
Almost as intriguing as a Fortune 100 company trying to get hip with pizza is the information in the article “What Do Chief Executives and Accordion Players Have in Common.”
This AdAge.com story includes this passage:
Expand and Contract. Repeat. Except When CEOs Hit a Sour Note, They Blame the Marketing
I like this analogy. The write up is about Hewlett Packard. One passage I highlighted before my trust Ricoh laser ran out of toner was:
“The question I get most often is, ‘What is H-P?'” said Meg Whitman recently and then added “It’s a communication problem.” Sure, blame the marketing people for not solving the company’s communication problem instead of blaming the management people for inflating the company into such a mess it can’t be communicated.
I don’t think marketing can do much to improve the four percent after tax net profit margin.
Perhaps Autonomy Systems as a Service (quite an acronym!) will generate an IBM Watson scale $10 billion payoff. These seems as likely as Pizza Hut crushing the upstarts like Hometown pizza or neutralizing the Peyton Manning love of Papa John’s pizza.
Stephen E Arnold, November 10, 2014
Unicom Global Acquires Cognos
November 10, 2014
Catching up on old news: Just wanted to document that Cognos is no longer part of IBM. “Unicom Global Acquires Cognos Finance Business Analytics Software from IBM Corp.” The write up does not make clear exactly what Unicom acquired nor how much money IBM received in the deal. Presumably Unicom paid cash. Presumably IBM did not pay Unicom to take the Cognos bundle off its hands. For IBM analytics’ fans, you don’t need to worry. IBM owns SPSS and the dozens of systems and methods developed at its various research labs. Anyone remember Web Fountain?
Stephen E Arnold, November 10, 2014
Internet Scale Facial Recognition
November 10, 2014
Whatever the privacy qualms, facial recognition software is here to stay and only getting better. (Or worse, depending on one’s perspective.) We’ve found a resource that provides a useful review of algorithms and accuracy: “Computer Vision and Image Understanding” (pdf) is an Elsevier-published paper by the University of Central Florida’s Enrique G. Ortiz and Carnegie Mellon’s Brian C. Becker. Not surprisingly, Facebook photos played a part in the team’s research. The paper’s Abstract explains:
“With millions of users and billions of photos, web-scale face recognition is a challenging task that demands speed, accuracy, and scalability. Most current approaches do not address and do not scale well to Internet-sized scenarios such as tagging friends or finding celebrities. Focusing on web-scale face identification, we gather an 800,000 face dataset from the Facebook social network that models real-world situations where specific faces must be recognized and unknown identities rejected. We propose a novel Linearly Approximated Sparse Representation-based Classification (LASRC) algorithm that uses linear regression to perform sample selection for 1-minimization, thus harnessing the speed of least-squares and the robustness of sparse solutions such as SRC. Our efficient LASRC algorithm achieves comparable performance to SRC with a 100-250 times speedup and exhibits similar recall to SVMs with much faster training. Extensive tests demonstrate our proposed approach is competitive on pair-matching verification tasks and outperforms current state-of-the-art algorithms on open-universe identification in uncontrolled, web-scale scenarios.”
I’m no software engineer so, to be honest, I only understand about two-thirds of the preceding paragraph. However, I’m advised by someone who does know a smart vector from a hole in the ground that this is a resource folks interested in the field should check out. He also points us here for supplemental information.
Cynthia Murrell, November 10, 2014
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
Brown Dog Chases Answer to Uncurated Data
November 10, 2014
Depending on one’s field, it may seem like every bit of information in existence is now just an Internet search away. However, as researchers well know, there is a wealth of potentially crucial information that is still difficult to access. In fact, GCN tells us that marketing firm IDC estimates up to 90 percent of “big data” falls into this category. GCN also turns our attention to a potential solution in, “Brown Dog Digs Into the Deep, Dark Web.”
Brown Dog is a project out of the National Center for Supercomputing Application [NCSA] at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. In 2013, the team received a $10 million, five-year award from the National Science Foundation for the project. Already, they have developed two services that facilitate access to uncurated data collections. The write-up reports:
“The first, called Data Access Proxy (DAP), transforms unreadable files into readable ones by linking together a series of computing and translational operations behind the scenes. Similar to an Internet gateway, the configuration of the DAP would be entered into a user’s machine settings. Thereafter, data requests over HTTP would first be examined by the proxy to determine if the native file format is readable on the client device.
“The second tool, the Data Tilling Service (DTS), lets individuals search collections of data, using an existing file to discover similar files in the data. For example, while browsing an online image collection, a user could drop an image of three people into the search field, and the DTS would return images in the collection that also contain three people. If the DTS encounters a file format it is unable to parse, it would use the Data Access Proxy to make the file accessible. It also indexes the data and extracts and appends metadata to files to give users a sense of the type of data they are encountering.”
The article notes that Brown Dog’s makers are building on previous software development, and that they hope to “bring together every possible source of automated help already in existence.” That’s some goal! Not surprisingly, the prospective tools have been likened to a time machine of sorts. Kenton McHenry, one of the project’s leaders, reminds us that the world’s first web browser, Mosaic, was also developed at NCSA; his team hopes to leave a similarly significant legacy.
Cynthia Murrell, November 10, 2014
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
Enterprise Search: Essentially Marginalized to Good Enough
November 9, 2014
I use Google Trends to see what’s hot and what’s not in the world of information retrieval. If you want to use the free version of Google Trends, navigate to http://www.google.com/trends/ and explore. That’s some of what Google does to make decisions about how much of Larry Page’s “wood” to put behind the Google Search Appliance eight ball.
I plugged in “enterprise search.” When one allows Google to output its version of the popularity of the term, you get this graph. It shows a downward trend but the graph is without much context. The pale lettering does not help. Obviously Googlers do not view the world through trifocals with 70 year old eyes. Here’s the Trends’ output for “enterprise search”:
Now let’s add some context. From the “enterprise search” Trends’ output, click the pale blue plus and add this with quotes: “big data.” Here’s the output for this two factor analysis:
One does not have to be an Ivy League data scientist to see the difference between the hackneyed “enterprise search” and more zippy but meaningless “Big Data.” I am not saying Big Data solutions actually work. What’s clear is that pushing enterprise search is not particularly helpful when the Trends’ reveal a flat line for years, not hours, not days, not months–years.
I think it is pretty clear why I can assert with confidence that “enterprise search” appears to be a non starter. I know why search vendors persist in telling me what “enterprise search” is. The vendors are desperate to find the grip that a Tupinambis lizard possesses. Instead of clinging to a wall in the sun at 317 R. Dr. Emílio Ribas (Cambui) (where I used to live in Campinas, SP), the search vendors are clinging to chimera. The goal is to make sales, but if the Google data are even sort of correct, enterprise search is flat lining.
Little wonder that consultant reports like those from the mid tier crowd try to come up with verbiage that will create sales leads for the research sponsors; case in point, knowledge quotient. See Meme of the Moment for a fun look at IDC’s and search “expert” Dave Schubmehl’s most recent attempt to pump up the music.
The question is, “What is generating revenue?” In a sense, excitement surrounds vendors who deliver solutions. These include search, increasingly supplied by open source software. Elasticsearch is zipping along, but search is not the main dish. Search is more like broccoli or carrots.
The good news is that there is a group of companies, numbering about 30, which have approached search differently. As a result, many of these companies are growing and charting what I call “next generation search.”
Want to know more? Well, that’s good. Watch for my coverage of this sector in the weeks and months ahead. I will toss a small part of our research into my November Information Today column. A tiny chunk. Keep that in mind.
In the meantime, think critically about the craziness flowing from many mid tier or azure chip consulting firms. Those “outputs” are marketing, self aggrandizing, and, for me, downright silly. What’s that term for doing trivial actions again and again?
Stephen E Arnold, November 9, 2014
Google Fatigue: Get Over It
November 9, 2014
I did three monographs about Google’s technology. I developed Google fatigue about half way through the research for “The Google Legacy,” now out of print. (A librarian told me that there is a copy online somewhere, but I never bothered to look.)
This morning I read a listicle that reminded me of three things:
- I don’t pay much, if any, attention to Google’s activities. Oh, I did notice the balloon thing, the barge thing, and the “solve death” thing.
- My interest in keeping tracking of Google emissions is close to zero.
- The coming and going of products like Orkut, Wave, Web Accelerator, etc. reminds me that I don’t want to waste cycles learning about digital mayflies.
If you think my three points are the honkings of a wild goose, you will want to read and memorize “18 Cool Google Products You Might Not Have Known About.”
Here are three examples from the author’s “gotta love these” file:
- Plan your wedding with Google (Married once and entering year 46. No immediate plans to do another wedding or pay for one.)
- The Google to do list (I use a pencil and note cards and have for the last 60 years)
- Swiftly. (I have no clue what this is.)
Go forth and Google. Sounds like a Star Wars’ injunction.
Stephen E Arnold, November 9, 2014
Stanford Finds the First Web Site: Guess Who?
November 9, 2014
I read “Stanford Libraries Unearths the Earliest US Website.” Guess which outfit created the first Web site according to the Stanford Wayback Machine? Give up? It was Stanford. Never heard of the Stanford Wayback? Neither had I. Here’s a link. I suppose the original CERN demo page I saw in the mid 1990s does not count. Well, CERN is obviously not Stanford. Tim Berners who? Next Stanford may discover from its Stanford resources that the university invented fire.
Stephen E Arnold, November 9, 2014
POTUS, Fear, and Google
November 8, 2014
I have zero clue of this article—“Movie Chief: Obama Is Scared to Push Google, ISPs on Piracy”—is accurate. Let’s for the moment assume that the write up by Andy is right as rain.
Here’s a statement I noted:
“It’s sad because if we had a good president that cared about the film industry he would pass a very simple law, an anti-piracy law, but they don’t want to stop it because they are scared of Google, and he’s scared of all the ISPs,” Lerner says. Google’s power and money not only scares off the President but Congress too, Lerner adds. Furthermore, plenty of that revenue is coming piracy-related sources, so the company has no incentive stop it.
Let’s look at the entities in this article.
- The president of the United States or POTUS
- Nu Image CEO and founder Avi Lerner
- The GOOG.
As I understand it, Google which worked out a friendly deal with Axil Springer the other day is just as cuddly as a child chewed Harrod’s teddy bear. The POTUS is able to send troops, issue Executive Orders, and disrupt traffic when he ventures out into the amber waves of grain. (Is there “grain” in LA?) Mr. Lerner is a movie mogul. I am not sure what a movie mogul does. I think it involves creating high value intellectual property which puts Shakespeare and Milton in a state of inferiority.
The point is that movie moguls and POTUS are not as powerful as Google.
From Google’s point of view, that’s the way life is supposed to work. Problems with that, pilgrim. Well, you can always take your queries to Yahoo or, better yet, Qwanza OR Qwanta, whatever. (Try typing that name rapidly on your iPhone.)
Keep in mind that the source write up may not be spot on. It is entertaining, though.
Stephen E Arnold, November 8, 2014
Amazon: Not Right for Some Authors
November 8, 2014
I wanted to call this write up Godforsaken ID. But you might plug in the letter “C” or you might not. I suggest you track down a dead tree edition of the still dog paddling New York Times. Check out the business section and look for the Google pleasing headline “Prominent Editor’s Exit a Setback for Amazon Publishing Unit.” I quite like the juxtaposition of prominent, setback, and everyone’s favorite online WalMart.” You may be able to view a version of the story at this link, but I make no promises in this money oriented era.)
The write up has a great quote or two.
- “His [Ed Park, a literary luminary unknown to me] departure reflects the challenges that Amazon faces in a publishing ecosystem that largely views the online retailer as a rapacious competitor.”
- “Some literary agents say Amazon’s publishing operation seems to be retreating.”
In my view, I don’t want my work sold on the Amazon system. I have enough experience writing and selling monographs that appeal to maybe 300 people in the world. These folks are not reached via WalMart.
You views, like those of Dave Schubmehl and IDC, may differ from mine. As you know, without a written agreement, Mr. Schubmehl (an alleged expert in information retrieval) and his employer (the large mid tier consulting firm, IDC) reworked my research, put their names and brand on the material, and attempted to sell the result for $3,500 on Amazon.
Is that clueless? I don’t know. I am relatively confident that whatever executive decision lead to that move may suggest some management challenges. You can read about the “surfing on Arnold” play and the IDC hopes Amazon can move 10 pages for $3500 at these links:
- IDC and Reports by Schubmehl
- Are HP, Google and IDC “Out of Square”?
- IDC Attivio Report Spotted by a Librarian
Several observations:
First, Amazon obviously did not check with the authors on the IDC report that permissions were in place. What’s this say about Amazon?
Second, who at IDC perceived Amazon as a way to move 10 pages of my recycled content for $3,500?
Third, how desperate are companies like Amazon and IDC to earn monikers like rapacious and name surfer?
We live in interesting information centric times. As I reveal my research results about the new direction in content processing, how long will it take for this information to surface with the name of a person who did not do the nitty gritty work? I should emulate the NCAA basketball gambling craze start a pool for this digital publishing sport?
Oh, I like old fashioned bookstores too.
Stephen E Arnold, November 8, 2014
The Amazon Cloud: From Objects to an “Incredible Figure”
November 7, 2014
I suppose rural Kentucky is no bellwether for the economic micro climates in which Amazon, Google, eBay, Facebook, and a handful of other companies operate. The big news in Kentucky is General Electric’s rumored sale of the sprawling Appliance Park. The “park” is a misnomer or one of those business euphemisms for acres of concrete and low cost industrial structures popular in the Rust Belt for many years.
I read “Amazon’s Cloud Is One of the Fastest-Growing Software Businesses in History.” I though about euphemisms because when my team and I wrote an analysis of the issues Amazon faced by using certain parts of infrastructure as a way to reduce the costs of online infrastructure, Amazon did not provide verifiable financial data. I had to look at fuzzies like “objects.”
The $5 billion figure in the Businessweek story arrested my attention. The transition from objects to dollars was quick. Even the MBA must read (which is on the shopping block) had the temerity to write:
If true, it’s an incredible figure.
Here’s another statement based on data from an allegedly objective source, Pacific Crest Securities:
The growth of Amazon’s cloud business is unprecedented, at least when compared to other business software ventures. It’s grown faster after hitting the $1 billion revenue mark than Microsoft, Oracle, and Salesforce.com.
That is indeed impressive. Businessweek notes:
You would need to turn to Google (GOOG)—which had the advantage of the vast consumer market—to find a business that grew faster.
The point not mentioned in the Businessweek analysis is that the fact that Amazon is not Google may be powering Amazon’s openness about the stunning and incredible size of its cloud business. For now, Google, not Amazon, holds the number one spot on many Internet Top 10 listicles.
Based on the research we have conducted about Amazon, I am hopeful that Amazon will provide similarly concrete information about:
- Ownership stakes in companies using Amazon cloud services and how discounts and invoicing and payments work
- Cost detail about the online infrastructure; telco, hardware, software, and human engineers (FTE and rentals)
- How Amazon’s core services operate on the online infrastructure at times of peak demand; that is, does “peak” mean something different among class/type of cloud customer and Amazon’s core services
At the root of my question is how a push for infrastructure optimization has morphed into the “incredible figure”? More to the point, is the $5 billion real or collection of financial procedures to keep Amazon’s costs from poking through Amazon’s revenue line?
Stephen E Arnold, November 7, 2014
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
