The New York Times Pairs up with Spotify for Subscription Gains
July 18, 2017
The article on Quartz Media titled The New York Times Thinks People Will Still Pay for News—
If Given Free Music examines the package deal with Spotify currently being offered by the Times. While subscriptions to the news publication have been on the rise thanks in large part to Donald Trump, they are still hurting. The article points out that if the news and music industries have one thing in common, it is trying to get people to pay for their services.
The two companies announced an offer… giving a free year of Spotify Premium to anyone in the US who signs up for an all-access subscription to the news publication. Premium normally costs $120 a year, and the offer slashes the price of an all-access Times subscription too—from $6.25 a week to $5 a week… While it may seem like both companies will take a hit from these discounts, the boost in new subscribers/readers will likely more than make up for it.
It is a match made on Tinder, a coupling for the new world order. Will this couple get along? As millennials seek new outlets for activism, purchasing a subscription to the Times is a few steps above posting a rant on Facebook. Throw a year of Spotify into the mix and this deal is really appealing to anyone who doesn’t consider the Times a “liberal rag.” So maybe the Donald won’t be interested, but the rest of us sure might consider paying $5/month for legitimate news and music.
Chelsea Kerwin, July 18, 2017
Hope for Improvement in Predictive Modeling
July 18, 2017
A fresh approach to predictive modeling may just improve the process exponentially. Phys.org reports, “Molecular Dynamics, Machine Learning Create ‘Hyper-Predictive Computer Models.” The insight arose, and is being tested, at North Carolina State University.
The article begins by describing the incredibly complex and costly process of drug development, including computer models that predict the effects of certain chemical compounds. Such models traditionally rely on QSAR modeling and molecular docking. We learn:
Denis Fourches, assistant professor of computational chemistry, wanted to improve upon the accuracy of these QSAR models. … Fourches and Jeremy Ash, a graduate student in bioinformatics, decided to incorporate the results of molecular dynamics calculations – all-atom simulations of how a particular compound moves in the binding pocket of a protein – into prediction models based on machine learning. ‘Most models only use the two-dimensional structures of molecules,’ Fourches says. ‘But in reality, chemicals are complex three-dimensional objects that move, vibrate and have dynamic intermolecular interactions with the protein once docked in its binding site. You cannot see that if you just look at the 2-D or 3-D structure of a given molecule.’
See the article for some details about the team’s proof-of-concept study. Fourches asserts the breakthrough delivers a simulation that would previously have been built over six months in a mere three hours. That is quite an improvement! If this technique pans out, we could soon see more rapid prediction not only in pharmaceuticals but many other areas as well. Stay tuned.
Cynthia Murrell, July 18, 2017
Google: Making Search Better. But What Does Better Mean?
July 17, 2017
I read a darned interesting (no, not remarkable, just interesting) article called “The Google Exec in Charge of Designing Search: ‘There’s Always This Internal Debate about How Much Functionality Should We Add‘”. At first, I thought this was an Onion write up, but I was wrong. The article is a serious expression of the “real” Google. Now the “old” and now “unreal” Google is not applicable. That’s why I thought the write up was like the content I present in HonkinNews.
Here are the points I noted:
First, the write up points out that Google’s core business is its search engine. This surprised me because I thought the firm’s core business was selling ads. I know the “search” system is the honey which attracts the bees (95 percent or so in Europe, for example), but the “search” system is not about finding relevant and objective information. Sure, that happens for some queries, but for most queries, the searches are easy to cache and deliver with matching ads. Examples range from the weather to the latest in the dust ups and make ups between pop stars and starlets.
Second, the source of the write up is an “expert” in “design for search.” I am not sure what “design” means. I am old fashioned and prefer the trusty calculations of precision and recall, the stale bread of Boolean queries, and unfiltered content.
I prefer to do my own censoring, thank you. I noted this statement:
The whole goal is to try to organize information and deliver it to you. That’s the problem we’re trying to solve. The design has to accommodate multiple people, multiple expectations, and multiple situations. When you’re looking for whatever answer you want, how do we give you the right answer in a way that you’re like ‘oh yeah, that thing?
No, the “whole goal” consists of sub goals designed to deliver the following, based on my research for the three books in my Google Trilogy (alas, no longer in print but I can provide pre publication copies for those who want to buy a set):
- Minimize computational demands on the query matching system via caching frequent queries, partitioning indexes to get around the federation of disparate content like Google Scholar, videos indexed in Google Video, and the gusher of stuff emanating from Google Blogs
- With clicks on traditional desktops falling and small screen video queries from smart software or humans (imagine!), Google has to find a way to make ads out of everything. Thus, the need to keep revenue ticking upwards while driving costs down becomes a fairly significant sub goal. Some, like myself, say, “Hey, that’s the actual goal.” Others who enjoy watching billions flood into solving death, keeping Glass alive, and building a new puffy office part would disagree. That’s okay. I think I am right.
- Maintain the PR and marketing offensive that makes Google the innovation leader in finding information. The methods involve generating mumbo jumbo that disconnects precision and recall from what Google generates: Results that are often off point or some type of content marketing. (I know content marketing works because the Wall Street Journal told me it does. I assume that’s why Google pays some people to write really rah rah articles about Google. As I said in this week’s HonkinNews, “One must be able to tell the difference between a saint who helps people and a billionaire who rides flying car things.)
The write up identifies the experience “things” which Google is incorporating into its search results. Some of these are content objects like tweets. Others are pages which look like mini reports which cobble together “facts” to make it easy for a person to “know” the answer to the question he, she, or a software module had not yet asked. (Predictive results are part of the pervasive search movement in which Google wants to be a player who gets the biggest payday and the most media love.)
I noted this statement which is worthy of one of the New Age types I bumped into when I lived in Berkeley:
When asked if there are any similarities between the design for Search and the design for Google’s new offices in Mountain View and London, Ouilhet pointed to the fact that both are becoming “more open and more flexible.” He said they were also both becoming more “inclusive between people that belong to Google and people that don’t belong to Google.”
Net net: Google has yet to find Act 2 to its Yahoo/Overture/GoTo inspired business model. Setting up more VC operations, incubators, and buying companies in easy to reach places like Bengaluru, Karnataka, and smart software offices in cheery Edmonton, Alberta are not yet delivering on Act 2. If the European Union has anything to say about Google’s search business, we will have to wait for more action from that Google watcher Margrethe Vestager.
Stephen E Arnold, July 17, 2017
PS. For information about the Google Trilogy, write benkent2020 at yahoo dot com and put Google Trilogy in the Subject field.
Darktrace Delivers Two Summer Sizzlers
July 17, 2017
Darktrace offers an enterprise immune system called Antigena. Based on the information gathered in the writing of the “Dark Web Notebook,” the system has a number of quite useful functions. The company’s remarkable technology can perform real time, in depth analyses of an insider’s online activities. Despite the summer downturn which sucks in many organizations, Darktrace has been active. First, the company secured an additional round of investment. This one is in the $75 million range. This brings the funding of the company to the neighborhood of $170 million, according to Crunchbase.
Details about the deal appear in this Outlook Series write up. I noted this statement:
The cyber security firm has raised a $75 million Series D financing round led by Insight Venture Partners, with participation from existing investors Summit Partners, KKR and TenEleven Ventures.
On another front, Darktrace has entered into a partnership with CITIC. This outfit plans to bring “next-generation cyber defense to businesses across Asia Pacific.” Not familiar with CITIC? You might want to refresh your memory bank. Beyond Search believes that this tie up may open the China market for Darktrace. If it does, Darktrace is likely to emerge as one of the top two or three cyber security firms in the world before the autumn leaves begin to fall.
Here in Harrod’s Creek we think about the promise of Darktrace against a background of erratic financial performance from Hewlett Packard. As you may recall, one of the spark plugs for Darktrace is Dr. Michael Lynch, the founder of Autonomy. HP bought Autonomy and found that its management culture was an antigen to its $11 billion investment. It is possible to search far and wide for an HP initiative which has delivered the type of financial lift that Darktrace has experienced.
Information about Darktrace is at www.darktrace.com. A profile about this company appears in the Dark Web Notebook in the company of IBM Analyst’s Notebook, Google/In-Q-Tel Recorded Future, and Palantir Technologies Gotham. You can get these profile at this link: https://gum.co/darkweb.
Stephen E Arnold, July 17, 2107
Seriously, Siri? When Voice Interface Goes Wrong
July 17, 2017
The article on Reddit titled Shower Thoughts offers some amusing moments in voice interfaces, mainly related to Siri switching on when least expected. Most of the anecdotes involve the classroom environment either during lecture or test time. Siri has a tendency to check in at the worst possible time, especially for people who are not supposed to be on their phone. For example,
My friend thought it would be funny to change my name on my phone to Sexy Beast, unfortunately I was later sitting in a biology lecture of about 150 people when Siri said loudly “I didn’t quite get [that] Sexy Beast.”…I keep thinking about shouting “Hey Siri, call Mum” whilst in the middle of a house party, and then watch how many people frantically reach for their phones!
For the latter hypothetical, other users pointed out that it would not work because Siri is listening for the voice of the owner. But we have all experienced Siri responding when we had no intention of beckoning her. If you use certain words like “seriously” or “Syria,” she often awkwardly pops into the conversation. One user relates that a teacher asked the class for the capital city of China, and while the class sat in silence, Siri correctly responded, “Beijing.” In this case, Siri earned a better grade. Other people report Siri spilling the beans during exams when cheaters try to keep their phones nearby. All in a day’s work.
Chelsea Kerwin, July 17, 2017
Google Develops a Job-Hunt Feature
July 17, 2017
Does the process of searching for a job really need an innovative update? Apparently, Google believes so, as Quartz reports in, “Google Is Testing a Job-Search Feature that Could Rival LinkedIn—and Facebook.” Writer Joon Ian Wong cites SEO consultant Dan Shure, who stumbled upon an apparent test-run of the feature. We learn:
Dan Shure apparently triggered the feature by entering ‘jobs online’ in the Google search box. This returns a specially formatted box containing a list of jobs above the main search results. Clicking these jobs leads to a portal where users can select tabs to display jobs by title, city, employer, and more. The page also shows jobs by industry, including health care, advertising and marketing, and retail. The jobs listed are attributed to third-party job sites, such as Internships.com and Catholic Jobs Online. …
The broad base of jobs available on the search feature suggests Google is going after the same general jobs market as Facebook is, with its own jobs function. LinkedIn is better known for its white-collar listings, but it, too, has been trying to cater to workers of all types, including blue-collar workers (paywall), in recent years.
Wong notes the company has also been developing Google Hire, a recruitment-management tool for the employer side, but with no fanfare. So it does seem that Google is stepping into the job-hunt & worker-search arena. Can it compete with LinkedIn, the niche’s veteran?
Cynthia Murrell, July 17, 2017
Women in Tech Want Your Opinion on Feminism and Other Falsehoods Programmers Believe
July 14, 2017
The collection of articles on Github titled Awesome Falsehood dives into some of the strange myths and errors believed by tech gnomes and the issues that they can create. For starters, falsehoods about names. Perhaps you have encountered the tragic story of Mr. Null, who encounters a dilemma whenever inputting his last name in a web form because it often will be rejected or even crash the system.
The article explains,
This has all gotten to the point where I’ve developed a number of workarounds for times when this happens. Turning my last name into a combination of my middle name and last name, or middle initial and last name, sometimes works, but only if the website doesn’t choke on multi-word last names. My usual trick is to simply add a period to my name: “Null.” This not only gets around many “null” error blocks, it also adds a sense of finality to my birthright.
Another list expands on the falsehoods about names that programmers seem to buy into. These include cultural cluelessness about people having first names and last names that never change and are all different. Along those lines, one awesome female programmer wrote a list of falsehoods about women in tech, such as their existence revolving around a desire for a boyfriend or to complete web design tasks. (Also, mansplaining is their absolute favorite, did you know?) Another article explores falsehoods about geography, such as the mistaken notion that all places only have one official name, or even one official name per language, or one official address. While the lists may reinforce some negative stereotypes we have about programmers, they also expose the core issues that programmers must resolve to be successful and effective in their jobs.
Chelsea Kerwin, July 14, 2017
Google Ups the Ante for Local SEO
July 14, 2017
Google is now allowing small businesses to insert content directly into search results. The content can be a special event or anything related to business that will appear as featured snippet in the carousel.
As reported by The Verge in an article titled Local Businesses Can Now Feature Content Directly in Google Search Results, the author says:
The new posts show up below the company card in search results, where information like the location, phone number, web address, and hours of the company are already aggregated. The Posts feature is available starting today for verified companies using Google My Business.
As more business move their marketing activities online, it is becoming increasingly difficult for businesses to reach out to their customers. Google, being the leader in this space does not want local business to miss out on this and is rolling out services like these for small businesses.
Digital marketing already is too competitive for small businesses with limited budgets. With these changes, Google expects that local businesses will try to introduce digital marketing into their marketing mix. Google gains by procuring data of local businesses. What else does it want?
Vishal Ingole July 14, 2017
Google: What For-Fee Thought Leader Love? And for Money? Yep
July 13, 2017
Talk about disinformation. Alphabet Google finds itself in the spotlight for normal consulting service purchases. How many of those nifty Harvard Business Review articles, essays in Strategy & Business (the money loser published by the former Booz, Allen & Hamilton), or white papers generated by experts like me are labors of thought leader love.
Why not ask a person like me, an individual who has written a white paper for an interesting company in Spain? You won’t. Well, let me interview myself:
Question: Why did you write the white paper about multi-language text analysis?
Answer: I did a consulting job and was asked to provide a report about the who, what, why, etc. of the company’s technology.
Question: Is the white paper objective and factual?
Answer: Yes, I used information from my book research, a piece of published material from the “old” Autonomy Software, and the information gathered at the company’s headquarters in Madrid by one of my colleagues from the engineers. I had a couple of other researchers chase down information about the company, its products, customers, and founder. I then worked through the information about text analysis in my archive. I think I did a good job of presenting the technology and why it is important.
Question: Were you paid?
Answer: Yes, I retired in 2013, and I don’t write for third parties unless those third parties pony up cash.
Question: Do you flatter the company or distort the company’s technology, its applications, or its benefits?
Answer: I try to work through the explanation in order to inform. I offer my opinion at the end of the write up. In this particular case, the technology is pretty good. I state that.
Question: Would another expert agree with you?
Answer: Some would and some would not. When figuring out with a complex multi-lingual platform when processing text in 50 languages, there is room for differences of opinion with regard to such factors as [a] text through put on a particular application, [b] corpus collection and preparation, [c] system tuning for a particular application such as a chatbot, and other factors.
Question: Have you written similar papers for money over the years?
Answer: Yes, I started doing this type of writing in 1972 when I left the PhD program at the University of Illinois to join Halliburton Nuclear in Washington, DC.
Question: Do people know you write white papers or thought leader articles for money?
Answer: Anyone who knows me is aware of my policy of charging money for knowledge work. I worked at Booz, Allen & Hamilton and a number of other equally prestigious firms. To my knowledge, I have never been confused with Mother Teresa.
| Mother Theresa | A Person Who Works for Money |
 |
 |
I offer this information as my reaction to the Wall Street Journal’s write up “Google Pays Scholars to Influence Policy.” You will have to pay to read the original article because Mr. Murdoch is not into free information.The original appeared in my dead tree edition of the WSJ on July 12, 2017 on the first page with a jump to a beefy travelogue of Google’s pay-for-praise and pay-for-influence activities. A correction to the original story appears on Fox News. Gasp. Find that item here.
Google, it seems, is now finding itself in the spotlight for search results, presenting products to consumers, and its public relations/lobbying activities.
My view is that Google does not deserve this type of criticism. I would prefer that real journalists tackle such subjects as [a] the Loon balloon patent issue, [2] Google’s somewhat desperate attempts to discover the next inspiration like Yahoo’s online advertising approach, and [3] solving death’s progress.
Getting excited about white papers which have limited impact probably makes a real journalist experience a thrill. For me, the article triggers a “What’s new?”
But I am not Mother Teresa, who would have written for Google for nothing. Nah, not a chance.
Stephen E Arnold, July 14, 2017
WaveNet Machine-Generated Speech from DeepMind Eclipses Competitor Technology
July 13, 2017
The article on Bloomberg titled Google’s DeepMind Achieves Speech-Generation Breakthrough touts a 50% improvement over current technology for machine speech. DeepMind developed an AI called WaveNet that focuses on mimicking human speech by learning the sound waves of human voices. In testing, the machine-generated speech beat existing technology, but is still not meeting the level of actual human speech.
The article expands,
Speech is becoming an increasingly important way humans interact with everything from mobile phones to cars. Amazon.com Inc., Apple Inc., Microsoft Inc. and Alphabet Inc.’s Google have all invested in personal digital assistants that primarily interact with users through speech. Mark Bennett, the international director of Google Play, which sells Android apps, told an Android developer conference in London last week that 20 percent of mobile searches using Google are made by voice, not written text.
It is difficult to quantify the ROI for the $533M that Google spent to acquire DeepMind in 2014, since most of their advancements are not extremely commercial. Google did credit DeepMind with the technology that helped slash power needs by 40%. But this breakthrough involves far too much computational power to lend itself to commercial applications. However, Google must love that with the world watching, DeepMind continues to outperform competitors in AI advancement.
Chelsea Kerwin, July 13, 2017
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
