Why Beat Up the Google?
June 30, 2010
I read two stories by publications that bump up against one another for readers.Eweek, once a Ziff flagship in terms of ad pages, is now an online publication. The story is really a slideshow with comments next to each graphic. Navigate to “10 Reasons to Stop Using Google.” The idea is to call attention to Google weaknesses and services that out Google Google. The example that sticks in my mind is Zoho, an online version of Microsoft Office. I understand the need for page views, but I wondered why pick on Google? The analysis is okay, but nothing spectacular.
The second Google kicker is “Why Do We Trust Google?”, which appeared in an Infoworld online publication. Like the eWeek “story”, this write up dances around the “Google is evil” angle. Nothing wrong with that, but the Google has been chugging along in the same mode for more than a decade. Worrying about Google makes it possible to mention lots of Google services and maybe get some traffic.
The more interesting question for me is, “Why are these outfits snapping at Google’s heels?” Like the identical covers that popped up once in a while on Time and Newsweek paper issues, the coincidence is interesting. My opinion is that Google is not an advertiser and writing about Google produces traffic. Google is a juicy target and it is great sport. Substantive articles? It is summer time and the SEO is easy.
Stephen E Arnold, June 30, 2010
Freebie
Googlers vs Xooglers: Are Smarts the X Factor?
June 28, 2010
There are lots of Xooglers now. Some are at little-known outfits with pals in the Pentagon. Some are now financiers or pundits. And some others are working at Facebook. I have watched how the Xooglers at Facebook have managed to emulate some of Google’s more interesting characteristics such as zigzagging around user security settings and pushing into the uncharted world visible to lesser mortals. I have also found some surprising insights such as skipping the 1998 approach to relevance by embracing the social network’s predilections.
I was interested in The Snitch’s write up about Web rock star Kevin Rose. Mr. Rose, a former business magazine cover personality, and podcast/meet up superstar. The article was “Is Google About to Launch a Facebook Killer? Kevin Rose Says So.” The idea is that there is a rumor, apparently Velcroed to Mr. Rose about Google’s Facebook killer.
Source: http://mark.koli.ch/2009/01/13/google-facebook.png
Let’s think about these “killers”. You know about these digital Ebolas: the Microsoft Word killer, the Oracle killer, the iPod killer, and so on. In my experience, when someone suggests that another company – usually gasping in second place or even farther behind in a market race – a sure fire way to keep the credibility is to get associated with a “killer”.
I am an old, addled goose. I am increasingly amused by the monopolization that occurs in digital markets. Decades ago, I pointed out in a series of columns for Information World Review that information pools and beckons handling in the way power companies and water companies operate. The infrastructure and captured customers eliminate competition because life is easier for the consumer.
Don’t believe me? That’s okay. You, gentle reader, are probably younger, smarter, and more hungry than this goose. But look around. Apple is in a pretty good position when it comes to high margin computers and gizmos that make teens and college students drool. Google owns the Web search and online advertising sector. The much maligned Microsoft owns the enterprise desktop no matter what a Zoho or Google PR person says. Want to buy a book online? You know the place to go: Amazon. There are other examples ranging from IBM in big companies to outfits like AT& and Verizon for “real telephony”.
Predicting the Weather: Risky at Picnics, Even Riskier for Cloud Computing
June 21, 2010
I am parked in Madrid, Spain, waiting to give my talk about real time content. I am catching up with the news from the “real journalists”. I just read “Why Microsoft’s Hybrid Cloud Threatens Google.” I flashed back to 1958. In the Midwest, the local weather person was Bill Houlihan. He explained the weather each evening on the 6 pm news, and he almost always got it wrong. He started a chicken restaurant with a 30 foot plastic chicken on the roof and he got that wrong too. The restaurant failed as quickly as his weather forecasts.
Predicting the weather is risky, particularly if you are planning a picnic. Predicting the climate for cloud computing is even riskier. Remember that giant plastic chicken. That artifact is probably still intact, resting in a junk yard somewhere outside of Dunlop, Illinois.
Risk in weather prediction and plastic chickens, the associations—the Forbes article triggered these. For me the most important passage was:
Cloud computing has become a key piece of an enterprise’s IT strategy, typically used in a hybrid (cloud plus on-premise) model of computing that offers customers the best of both worlds: the ability to keep their data on-premise, while leveraging the cloud’s accelerated software development speeds and lower costs by eliminating the need to invest in ongoing on-premise hardware and software. A common example of hybrid is being able to develop applications and test them in the cloud before releasing them onto internal networks. his scenario gives Microsoft (MSFT – news – people ) a major advantage over cloud-only hosted service providers Google ( GOOG– news – people ) and Amazon, one that creates great opportunities for Microsoft’s broader partner ecosystem. Developers can use the same development tools, frameworks and execution environment for either cloud or on-premise applications. Developers can build a single application that leverages the cloud’s scalability for transactional processing while supporting the security of on-premise data storage.
This addled goose is not going to dispute the interest organizations are showing in cutting costs, increasing reliability, and gaining some breathing room from the crazy hot fixes that flood from vendors. Timesharing in its many guises is not new. Today’s economics force organizations to find ways to keep systems up and running, manage available technical staff, and get back online when one of today’s bargain basement solutions crashes.
My concern is that cloud computing comes in different flavors. Most organizations are in scramble mode. There is experimentation, parallel testing, and trials. These include experiments with the Walmart of cloud computing, roll-your-own systems, half baked solutions from the math club, and arabesques on these methods. The idea is that a specific organization knows the one best way to deal with the untenable status quo of information technology is like a weather forecast—probably incorrect. There is one added benefit to this type of prognostication about the future. The observations become today’s big plastic chicken.
Source: http://www.springchickensale.com/images/sign_chicken_sm.jpg
The idea that Microsoft has a slam dunk is interesting as an example of a marketing pitch based on a cloud computing weather prediction. No computing solution has delivered pain free information technology in my experience. Methods have upsides and downsides. My hunch is that cloud solutions will become as tough to figure out as the solution to the BP oil spill.
Opinions are to be encouraged. Predicting the weather and putting up a big plastic chicken make it easy to spot enthusiastic marketing. Will the future unfold with Microsoft dominating the hybrid cloud? I don’t know. What is clear is that lots of predators are chasing this “next big thing”. I don’t need marketing to confuse me. Do you? I just learned it will be sunny and bright in Madrid today. It is now cloudy and it looks like rain.
Stephen E Arnold, June 21, 2010
Freebie
Google Faces Chinese Bureaucracy
June 12, 2010
Short honk: I lived in Brazil for a spell when I was in the weird grade school – high school age. I was old enough to know what was going on but too young to drive. I do recall one incident in the state office in which we lived. My father had to renew a license. There was a yellow and green government office which could have been transported from a government building in Washington, DC. There were windows with the old Department of Justice style pay windows along the wall. There were benches. There were lots of people. My father wanted to pay the fee, get a couple of thump thumps from the rubber stamp collection, and get on with his job of bulldozing the rain forest.
Didn’t happen.
My father had me stand in line. We did take turns that day, but my recollection is that we were in that hot, crowded office a long time. When we did get to the window, my father submitted his forms and the clerk looked sad. My father then dropped a paper into the tray in front of the window. The clerk looked at the paper, picked it up, smiled, and thump thumped the rubber stamp. Mission accomplished.
Source: http://saysomethingfunny.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/red-tape.jpg
I asked my father, “What was the paper?” He said, “It was part of an envelope with a conto in it.” In the lingo of Brazil in the 1950s, a conto was a bill with a lot of zeros. My father added, “Next time, we won’t have to wait in line.”
Lesson: some countries operate in a manner different from the US of A. Brazil is probably very different today. The lesson stuck in my mind.
The story “Google’s Challenges Mount in China” reminded me of what happens when a bureaucracy functions by rules different from those in America. Here’s the passage that reminded me of the potential delays and methods a decidedly non-US bureaucracy can deliver to an impatient supplicant:
To receive a license, companies must guarantee that their maps do not disclose sensitive military and government sites and that borders are labeled in accordance with Chinese law, including disputed areas such as Tibet and Taiwan. Some companies are considered a lock to receive a license, such as Baidu. It cooperates with NavInfo on its mapping service, and NavInfo was the early brainchild of the SBSM. For Google, on the other hand, guaranteeing that it can play by the rules could prove difficult because it permits users to post on its maps. An insider noted that Google has already applied for the license. But even if Google does meet all the requirements, there is no guarantee it will be granted. As a foreign company, Google will also have to gain approval from other government agencies. China’s security apparatus is known to be wary of maps — once considered a national secret — and rapid growth in the popularity of online mapping has drawn the government’s attention.
Maybe the Chinese bureaucracy will work as smoothly as auto registration here in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. On the other hand, it might not. If short cuts are sought, those might be frowned upon. My father ran a risk. Would a large company?
Stephen E Arnold, June 12, 2010
Freebie
Google and Microsoft, the School Yard Spat Continues
June 4, 2010
This squabble between Google and Microsoft is about money. Search, applications, and specific markets are dependent upon the big focus. Both firms are publicly traded and both firms have enough money to pay the bills. The problem is future money, which both outfits covet. Money defines the 2010 business landscape. Even the oil spill is a money problem. Forget the pelicans, right? Florida is worried about tourism. Louisiana is worried about the seafood jobs. Savannah, maybe worried that a lawn party will be permeated with the odor of petroleum factors?
Google threw mud on Microsoft’s white bucks when it made clear that personal computers running Microsoft software were not welcome at Google. The reason was that Microsoft products were not secure. Okay. Tough to disagree with that because Patch Tuesday is now a standard indigestion day for people like me. You can get the background on the blackballing of Mr. Ballmer’s crown jewels in “Google Bans Use Of Microsoft Windows Company-Wide.” Whether Google has taken this step may or may not be true. Doesn’t matter.
Microsoft responded by pushing Google and sticking out its tongue. PC World’s “Microsoft: No Matter What Google Says, Windows Is Secure.” So there. Here’s the passage I found interesting in the PC World story:
“When it comes to security, even hackers admit we’re [Microsoft] doing a better job making our products more secure than anyone else,” said Microsoft spokesman Brandon LeBlanc in a post Tuesday afternoon to the company’s Windows blog . “And it’s not just the hackers; third party influentials and industry leaders like Cisco tell us regularly that our [security] focus and investment continues to surpass others.” LeBlanc added. LeBlanc also ticked off half a dozen examples of Microsoft’s efforts to make Windows more secure, ranging from “we ship our software and security updates to our customers as soon as possible” to ” Windows 7 uses Address Space Layout Randomization [ASLR] as well by randomizing data in memory.”
Where does search fit into this school yard spat? Well, it is not a factor. In fact, neither company seems prepared to go for the kill shot. Google can ride the security pony really hard, and so far, Google is making Math Club jibes at recess. Microsoft also seems reluctant to choke Google in a rear naked choke. Google, which Microsoft may have forgotten, seems to have some issues with its StreetView Wi-Fi activities.
Both companies are making my life more interesting because of their executives’ public debate. Both companies are monopolies and both companies pretty much one trick ponies when it comes to making money. Both companies are not able to respond to outfits like Facebook and Apple as well as other monopolists decorating the US business landscape. Both outfits are vulnerable.
So, school yard spat. Fun to watch. I am not taking sides. If a fight breaks out, maybe there will be even more excitement.
Stephen E Arnold, June 4, 2010
Freebie
User Experience, Mittens, and the Spotlight
May 24, 2010
The short article “Five User Experience Trends” identifies the likely rallying points for the UX crowd. I don’t know much about user experience beyond my own limited experience. The post caused me to think about the notion of UX in the context of search and content processing.
The point in the write up that caused some consternation was:
Are people moving away from a world of things to one that values experience more?
I have to admit that this sentence dredged up memories of a sociology class taught by one very unusual fellow. He was talking about the emergence of mittens versus gloves. The idea was that certain environments and their exigencies push hand covering innovation in certain ways. The mitten is ideal for cold climates and those who choose or find themselves living in a land of snow and ice. The five-fingered type of hand covering is a response to other cultural needs.
Now when I think about locating a precise item of information, what is the meaning of “user experience”? For me the statement quoted above applies to a video game type of presentation. I think about interface as a movie marquee, complete with flashing lights, words like “blockbuster” and the name of stars. I can envision spotlights illuminating clouds and lines of limousines disgorging glamorous movie goers.
The reality is that the UX may not have much substance. The razzle dazzle does not have a much, if anything, to do with the film.
The same applies to UX in search. Finding information within applications, applications, and / or repositories is a tricky business. Slapping up a single hit because a numerical recipe “calculates” is the “right one” does not appeal to me. Cluttered interfaces with hidden hot links that pop up with a click or when I hover like those annoying Radiant ads get in the way of my finding what I need.
My hunch is that the “world of things” is going to be around for a long time. The notion of valuing experience is an out growth of some cultural forces. Pictures instead of substance are appropriate for some information climates and not others. When I need data mittens, I want data mittens. When I want, data neoprene surgical gloves, that’s what I want. UX strikes me as a c oat of digital polyurethane over a fragile surface. Perhaps a search system needs more than gloss? When I hear “UX”, I think of a barrier that prevents me from getting to the substance. Do I need images in search results when I am looking for information about online translation of a source in Japanese to an output in English? Do I need pictures of an airport when I am looking for information about a medical condition? Do I need hot links to felines for books about Einstein when I am looking for an example of a quantum cat?
UX is for me one more aspect of information retrieval that has been pushed to center stage. Keep UX on stage but stage left rear, please.
Stephen E Arnold, May 24, 2010
Freebie
Real Journalists May Have Lost Touch with IT Reality
March 9, 2010
Keep in mind that the addled goose’s Web log, which you are now reading, is a marketing vehicle. It contains on good days old news. On bad days, the addled goose recycles his own talks which he delivers for tacos and Pepsis. I am not a journalist and I don’t pretend to be one. I am not even a public relations person. As I approach 66, I entertain myself capturing information that I otherwise would forget and documenting my thoughts, which are subject to change. When was the last time, a 65 year old could remember where he or she put the keys to the automobile? See what I mean.
When I read the Cnet write up about a post I saw last week, I thought, “CBS’s real journalists are now thinking about themselves in a meta-way.” Navigate to “Has Business Press Lost Touch with the Tech Industry?” CBS is a real company and it does real news. Cnet is a real news outfit, if I understand set theory. The point is that an azure chip outfit called ITDatabase figured out that the real journalists are writing about topics that are popular. I think this is using humans the way Google uses popularity algorithms. I am sure the “real” journalists would disagree. That’s okay.
For me, the most interesting passage in the write up in Cnet was:
Enterprise IT is woefully underrepresented, despite being the cash-cow in the industry. “In the overall editorial agenda,” the report says, “enterprise IT is treated like consumer tech’s snaggletoothed twin. It barely even makes the family photo.”
Let’s think about this statement.
First, publicly traded companies are covered with a bit of fancy geometry by the investment analysts tracking these companies. The information is usually able to deliver a couple of nuggets. The reason is that most of the analysts talk to people * other than public relations * and * business development officers *. Most of the real journalists recycle familiar contacts, preferring to quote names the writer assumes the readers will recognize. So when the word “search” appears in a story the same handful of “experts’ get quoted. The result is that the stories really don’t change too much from article to article. Google is an advertising company. Bing is gaining share. Autonomy is the leader in enterprise search. The statements in the article are true because they are in the article. Tautology meets routine.
Second, figuring out what is going on in a technology field is tough for three reasons. [a] The jargon is impenetrable. A “real” journalist may not have the time to figure out what the words mean. Example: faceted search or taxonomy. [b] The sources are often running the game plan. Take a look at the comments by tech leaders. There are buzzwords and a jab or two at a windmill. Not much substance because the focus is the sound bite. [c] A tech company sells products that a really complex. The wizards at the company cannot be trusted to answer a question because the wizard might point out that a specific feature is different from the function described by the marketing person. Guess who gets in trouble? The tech person so there folks are shuttled away from the lights and the cameras.
Third, I heard that publishing companies are getting rid of staff. The numbers quoted at a conference last week struck me as pretty high. The person pointed out that newspapers were shedding jobs at the rate of 1,000 per month. Wow. What will be left? What’s left, if this number is accurate, are people who have to write from news releases, contacts who are warm and familiar, and topics that are listed on Tweetmeme.
When the money goes away, algorithms will do this work and, of course, folks with time on their hands like this addled goose. Just my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, March 9, 2010
No one paid me to write about how I write this blog. Wait. If I buy myself lunch this afternoon, I will be getting paid. I will report the write-for-food angle to the FCC.
Picking on Google
January 7, 2010
The Atlantic Monthly is jumping into the digital world. What better way to rack up clicks than to tackle a subject that will work like an the best a search engine optimization expert can craft. Navigate to “Is Google Too Big?” The write up explains that some folks think Google is, well, to big. On the other hand, some folks think that Google is just fine. After 153 years of operation, the Atlantic Monthly—er, Atlantic Wire—let me know that Google is either too big or not too big. I whipped out one of my candy colored 4X6 note cards and jotted down: “Google, either too big or just right.”
When I was a college debater, I treasured factoids that I could use to crush my opponents argument. One never knows when a “too big, just right” factoid will come in handy.
For my part, the Google has been chugging along for 11, 12 years. Google has not changed all that much in the last five years. What’s changed is that folks are now understanding the importance of infrastructure, the third party payer model, the importance of integrated services, and usage tracking.
Light bulbs have been operating on a time delay. Too bad the room illuminated has been lived in for a long time by the Math Club members. Room occupied. Look elsewhere. But picking on Google is au courant.
Here’s a run down of the “challenges” Google faces in 2011:
- Dealing with the privacy hassles related to Street View data acquisition. Various US states and a number of countries continue to bite Google’s ankles about alleged improper data matters.
- Figuring out what to do about Facebook, which continues to generate investment, traffic, and buzz. The Facebook Goldman Sachs approach seems to be astrategic variant of the method than used by Google for its IPO.
- Addressing the issues of Google TV. Rumors aside, the Internet on the TV sector is a mixed bag. The content challenge may be a bigger issue than the usability of the Logitech and Sony gizmos.
- Putting a damper on the Android fragmentation subject. Open source is free and it forks. Telecommunication companies like free and don’t like software outside their span of control. Android, therefore, is a technical Pandora’s Box. Google may have to do some fancy dancing to keep pace with the telcos approach to the Android software.
- Addressing the multi front war challenge. It may be a distorted view, but here in Harrod’s Creek it sure looks as if Google is fighting a lot of big companies. Apple and Oracle may be particularly problematic. It is not a matter of right or wrong; it is ego time.
- Responding to cloud computing threats. I am now of the mind that Microsoft is a better marketer of cloud services to the US government. Amazing as it seems to me, Amazon is out Googling Google in the cloud space as well. We like Google’s engineering, but time may be slipping away in some markets.
Stephen E Arnold, January 7, 2011
Freebie, definitely a freebie
“
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
