Modern Monopolies: Looking the Wrong Way
December 2, 2010
Far be it from me, an addled goose, pushing 70, living in rural Kentucky to disagree with super-poobahs. You can point your browser thing at “Should We Be Afraid of Apple, Google and Facebook?” and get a damning indictment and a rousing cheer for big business.
Neither the guru nor the professor are looking at the issue in the light of day. I am. Here’s the scoop. Familiarize yourself with Jacques Ellul, a dude of little or no interest to gurus or professors today. Dude Ellul was a Catholic priest, a Marxist, and generally pragmatic about technology and its alleged benefits.
His writings about technology are not what attract clicks on Reddit or Digg. There’s no Facebook page for Le bluff technologique. Paris: Hachette, 1988. Not too many tweets either.
Dude Ellul’s view is that technology triggers a chain of events. Some events have unexpected consequences. The really bad consequences get fixed by applying more technology. There you have it.
The company’s that the guru and the professor impugn cannot help themselves. The context in which each operates rewards their actions in many ways. Technology is now an end in itself.
Forget Skynet and other crazy robot-alien fantasies. The world is plugged in. Paraphrasing another professor who was mostly wrong is plugged in and ungovernable.
For search and content this means, in my opinion:
- Consumers cannot discern or filter content. Whatever is out there is okay for most folks. Think a different type of serfdom.
- Political entities lack the tools to operate in any other way than tactical response. A plan is almost guaranteed to go off the rails but you can “manage” with Pivotal Tracker, not share context.
- Companies are like hapless sharks who can never rest.
There are what look like monopolies. Monopolies are an illusion. We have an environment produced by technology and those who would use it for instrumental purposes.
Dude Ellul is more right than the guru and the professor in my opinion. I am glad I am old. Dude Ellul is probably glad he has leveled up.
Stephen E Arnold, December 2, 2010
Freebie
ArnoldIT Loses Best Engineer
November 20, 2010
Short honk: Just a quick note about the death of Tyson (Kenliko Canadian Mist, 2003-2010), a former American Kennel Club show dog with a technical bent. He died as a result of an auto-immune disease on November 20, 2010.
Tyson’s parents hailed from Germany and the United States. In this photograph he is looking at one of the geese who winter in Harrod’s Creek. Chasing geese was one of his favorite activities after testing search algorithms.
Like our other computer-savvy engineers, Tyson contributed to numerous Google research projects, and he was particularly interested in new clients. His judgment was impeccable.
After many successful appearances in dog shows, he gave up the bright lights and female boxers to work on search and content processing in Harrod’s Creek, Kentucky.
Not long ago, we asked him, “What do you think about the next-generation of enterprise search and content processing solutions.” He replied, “Not happy.”
He added, “Why can’t these vendors focus on facts when describing their products?”
You can see from his expression that he had more to say about search and the mid tier consultants, former English majors reinvented as programmers, and the marketing fast dancers in this sector.
He was a great worker and a colleague of few words. Now it’s back to work at ArnoldIT.
Just lonely today in the server room, though.
Stephen E Arnold, November 20, 2010
No one paid me to write this.
Google: Snort of a Two Humped Camel
October 17, 2010
Years ago, I wrote a for fee column about one of those nightmares of high school math. Each y axis represents a different scale or a combined chart. The curves often illustrate interesting points about data. The x axis was a common base like the horizon viewed from a hiker plodding through the digital sand. The resulting curve had a fancy name, but the graphic representation looked like the humps on a two humped camel. I can almost hear that snort.
That camel is back.
There are other ways to represent data that show a lot of people generating lots of clicks and money and a few people generating an even larger amount of money. I like the camel metaphor because it is easy to visualize and camels can go a long way when their characteristics are understood.
I thought about a half dozen two humped camels trotting across the search desert when I read “Google Sees a Browser in Every TV.” The idea is that TV delivers eyeballs and advertisers will pay to reach these eyeballs. The key is the notion of “every”. Represent the revenue from “every” using just about any measurement one wants and you end up with revenue that just keeps on growing. “Every” says to me most TV viewers. Plot the clicks, mouse hovers, or whatever other data point one collects. Slice and dice the data. Match the interesting centroids to advertisers’ messages, and you get a big computational job. Plot the data and you may see a curve that suggests the outfit with the infrastructure is going to be in the catbird’s seat. No one else can duplicate the eyeballs, the investment in plumbing to do the matching, and so on. This two humped camel is likely to leave competitors with only one part of the camel. That part is not as nifty as the parts that yield the big revenue curves.
Here’s a passage from the write up I found interesting:
Asked about whether GoogleTV would be embraced by non-techies, those who might not be comfortable with a keyboard in the living room, Chandra [Google wizard] said, “Almost everyone is familiar with a keyboard by now, and uses it to watch videos on a computer. We’re just moving the keyboard to a different room and setting, one more conducive to watching TV.”When asked why WebTV and all of the previous attempts to bring the Web and TV together failed and why GoogleTV will be a success, Chandra says that, more than anything else, timing is key. “We are at a tipping point,” he said. Web video has finally matured and there is enough compelling content available on YouTube and other platforms that will drive usage.
Plot the timeline. Google wants lots of eyeballs and lots of clicks. One hump. Google wants the advertisers willing to pay to access the eyeballs chopped into demographically and pychographically tasty nuggets. That’s another hump. When you put the two humps together, Google may get the camel. The competitors get the camel exhaust.
Snort.
Stephen E Arnold, October 17, 2010
Yahoo and the Yahooligans
October 4, 2010
Five or six years ago, some addled outfit paid me to take a look at Yahoo, its search systems, and it plumbing. I did my thing, cooked up a report, and included a couple of PowerPoint slides to add levity to what was a quite grim report. As I recall, one of the PowerPoint foils featured a picture of the Titanic with Terry Semel as the captain of the ship. I got a chuckle, but the report had few highlights for stakeholders.
I have taken a casual interest in Yahoo since then. My own research indicated that it was a goner. I know that some of the folks who pay me for my opinions disagreed. I think the notion of a zooming Yahoo would yield some cash to my clients. Wrong. Nothing much flowed to these outfits, and with each organizational lurch, crazy decision like turning down real Microsoft money, and hiring a tough female executive to float the Yahooligans’ boat my original analysis was spot on.
Now I read “The Dream Is Collapsing: Another Massive Yahoo Re-Org Coming Next Tuesday.” I liked the write up, but my view is, “Tuesday. The collapse has taken place.” No amount of shuffling, puffing, and huffing will alter the fact that after a spectacular rise, Yahoo has become the poster child for the wind down of an online powerhouse.
There are three surprising aspects to Yahoo.
First, I am amazed at the fondness people have for the service. I still dump some old email into Yahoo Mail, but I find the system clunky. The search system often tells me I have no hits. I hate the multiple clicks it takes to see a list of what’s in the email queue. Nevertheless, there are people who like Yahoo. The news page is a stalwart for my father when he can manage to log on. Yahoo wants to kick him off the system and a 90 year old has a tough time logging in. Good thinking, Yahooligans. But he loves Yahoo.
Second, the search system has for a long, long time be worthless. I know that Yahoo has developed some experimental services. One feature little sliders which I found somewhat interesting. But the core search function has never been particularly helpful. The shopping service is a joke. I wanted to limit the search to only Yahoo Stores. I couldn’t figure out how to do it without turning cartwheels with a complex Google query. Yahoo shopping results remain deeply flawed despite efforts to change the service.
Third, I can’t find stuff available from Yahoo. The company does a lousy job of exposing its services. Now Google and Microsoft have similar problems, but of the three, Yahoo is in my opinion, unable to let me find specific Yahoo services. I created some links in a Yahoo bookmark service. Then I could never find that service again. I am not sure anyone at Yahoo knows what is available, nor is anyone particularly concerned with providing a directly to Yahoo itself. Directory. Remember, Yahooligans? That was your core service.
Finally, have you ever tried to locate some of the innovative work done with various Yahoo tools? Well, I have. I have written about Cluuz.com, which at one time, made Yahoo results quite useful. I have stumbled across others, but Yahoo cannot find a way to provide one click access to developers’ work that showcases Yahoo. I think this is not just indifference. I don’t think anyone at Yahoo knows about much other than what is in front of them at this moment. The culture that bought companies and left to their own devices is still intact. A shift to Microsoft management won’t make much difference because the DNA of the company is in the carpet and cubicles I think.
So is Yahoo a goner? Some pundits want AOL to buy Yahoo or Yahoo to buy AOL. My view right now is that there is no easy, simple solution. Tuesday is already here for Yahoo I think.
Stephen E Arnold, October 4, 2010
Freebie
Need to Understand Transparency and Online Advertising
October 3, 2010
I don’t but you may. An outfit called Initiative for a Competitive Online Marketplace offers a free white paper “Openness & the Internet: The Role of Transparency in Online Search and Search Advertising.” You have to jump through a bunch of hoops to get this 24 page document. Begin the question by navigating to ComputerWeekly.com. You can try this link or run a query with crossed fingers for the title of the white paper. Good luck.
I read the white paper and noted that Lord Watson of Richmond CBE wants me to provide feedback. So, here goes.
The idea is that big online entities should be able to figure out how much dough Google makes so that information can be used by advertisers to get a better deal.
Why not ask Ptolemy why he is using so many circles and arcs? I bet he would drop what he was doing and fill you in? Wrong. The guy was busy reworking Hipparchus’ system of epicycles and eccentric circles. If you didn’t get it, he probably wasn’t going to give the information to you. Is Google much different?
Fat chance.
The silliness of this idea is clear in one passage:
How important is it that a dominant firm employs consistent and predictable procedures for resolution of complaints for online publishers and advertisers?
Really? Why not just write directly about Google? A couple of thoughts:
First, I suggest the author of the white paper drop by the local high school or pre-college institution and attend a Math Club meeting. Once in the room, ask this question, “I am having trouble figuring out how many miles to the gallon I get in my Honda.” The author of the paper should note the response of the group and then revisit this question about consistent and predictable. The only behavior that will be predictable and consistent, in my opinion, will be scorn and laughter.
Second, the notion of dealing with humans who want something the Math Club does not want to provide is addled. The whole idea behind Math Club is that those who join it intuitively grasp certain ideas. Those who don’t “get it” are not worthy of Math Club and, therefore, will never “get it.” Ergo. Go find your lacrosse pals and ask them something.
Third, the underlying principle of online advertising is that everything is dynamic. That means that at any point in time factors change the rules. Asking a human, even a Math Club member, what is happening at a particular point in time and why it is happening evokes a look of disbelief.
In short, the white paper wants the Math Club to change. I think if you tracked down Ptolemy and asked him to explain how he did maps of what is now Northern Europe 2000 years ago, he would have snorted and ignored you.
That behavior doesn’t seem to change in my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, October 3, 2010
Freebie
Facebook and Google: Philosophies Collide
September 27, 2010
I listened to the Thursday, Buzz Out Loud podcast. On the show the talent explained that a certain high profile blog (Techcrunch) wrote a story about a rumored Facebook phone. The high profile blog garnered a meeting with the founder of Facebook (Wizard Zuck or Mark Zuckerberg). In that discussion, if I heard correctly as I was peddling my exercise bike at 66 year old goose pace, Mr. Zuckerberg point out something along the lines that social functions could not be added on. The idea I took away was that Facebook is built for social functions. Google was built for search or some other function.
As I thought about this, the comment highlighted what I think of as a “platform” fight.
The idea has surfaced elsewhere. I have started to write about the i2-Palantir tussle. That seems to be about lots of different technical issues, but it is really a platform fight. i2 has been one of the leaders if not the leader in data fusion and analysis for law enforcement and intelligence applications for 20 years. Keep in mind that I have done some work for the i2 folks. The Palantir outfit—stuffed with $90 million in semi-worthless US bucks—is a comparative newcomer. These two outfits are struggling to keep or get, depending on one’s point of view—control of a very esoteric market niche. Most of the azurini and mid-tier consultants steer clear of this sector. The types of baloney generated by the azurinis’ spam plants can harm people, not just get procurement teams reassigned. The i2-Palantir issue interests me because it is a platform tussle.
I think Facebook and Google are in a platform war as well.
Now keep in mind that if you are a Googler, you see the world through Google goggles. If you are a Facebook fan, you see the world through the friend lens. I am in the middle, and here’s my take on Wizard Zuck’s alleged comment about “adding” social instead of building a social platform.
First, I think the shift from Google to Facebook as a go-to resource is an important change. The reason Facebook “works” for 500 million or more people is that the information (good, bad, right, wrong, made up, crazy, or indifferent) comes from humans. If you have some relationship with that human, the information exists within a relationship context. When I run a search on Google, I have to figure out for myself whether the information is right, wrong, made up, crazy, indifferent or an advertisement. I don’t get much human help to figure out what’s what. As a result, the Google algorithmic and “secret sauce” results strike me as somewhat less useful now that there are “contextual” results and what I call “friend cues.” Your mileage may vary, but these friend cues also exist in services like Twitter and its derivatives/applications like Tweetmeme.
Second, Google is definitely in Microsoft Word feature mode. I am impressed with some of Google’s new services such as its new authentication method, which I will write about in one of my October columns. I am not too impressed with other Google innovations such as “Instant”. The ration of Word type features to useful features seems to be tilting toward the Microsoft model. I don’t use Word because it is a program that tries to do everything well and ends up becoming a wild and crazy exercise in getting text on the screen. My goodness: green lines, red lines, auto bullets, disappearing images, weird table behavior. Give me Framemaker 7.2. Facebook is a complicated system, but the basics work reasonably well even though the firm’s immature approach to information reminds me of the last group of 20 somethings I spoke with in Slovenia several months ago. Google is now at risk of letting features get in the way of functional improvements. Facebook is in refinement mode. When it comes to social, Facebook is refining social actions. When it comes to social, Google is still trying to figure it out.
Third, Google is a platform built originally to deliver Web search results in the manner of AltaVista without Hewlett Packard in my opinion. Facebook is a platform built to let those who are young at heart find old and new pals. Google has morphed search into advertising and now faces the challenge of figuring out how to go beyond Orkut, which as I write this is struggling with some crazy virus or malware. Facebook is, according to a rumor I heard, working to provide search that uses the content within the Facebook ecosystem as the spider list. Curation versus search/advertising. Which platform is better to move search forward in the social space? Google is layering on a new approach to people and content and Facebook is simply indexing a subset of content. Curated content at that.
My view is that Facebook and Google are in a platform battle. Who will win? Wizard Zuck and Xooglers who know technically what Google errors to avoid in the Facebook social environment? Googlers who are trying to keep an 11 year old platform tuned for brute force Web indexing and on the fly ad matching run by smart algorithms?
Interesting platform battle. And a big one. This may not be a Socrates-hemlock type of tussle but it is a 21st century philosophical collision.
Stephen E Arnold, September 27, 2010
Freebie
Azurini Line Up Behind Other Azurini to Praise Google Android
September 14, 2010
From coast to coast the azurini (non blue chip consulting firms and their experts) are really excited about a Gartner Group prognostication. I won’t mention the demise of certain “magic quadrants” but I will urge you to read “And Android Will Crush Them All… Eventually!.” You can even get a glimpse of the Gartner future think market share projections. You can see the Gartner data at the link above. What’s projected? Nothing less than the triumph of Android over the pathetic pretenders. Who are the also rans, Also Participateds, and the losers? How about Nokia, Research in Motion, Microsoft, and Apple? Did I leave anyone out.
Now the mobile space is an interesting arena. The appeal of a “free”, “open” mobile operating system is undeniable. But there are some potential trip wires across the jogging track.
- Android exists to help the Google. Those using Android are enlisted in the Google militia. Summer soldiers and sunshine patriots often have second thoughts. Regulations and rules can make some in the militia long for sleeping late and leisurely showers. Open source software can fork and then, in turn, fork and fork again. How long will the Google watch Verizon rely on Bing search? Hmmm.
- Those lawyers just keep catching flights to SFO. The reason is that Google has an uncanny ability to collect lawsuits. Now I know that oodles of money can flummox the great US judicial system. But every once in a while there is a deposition, a non Googley judge, and a law suit that won’t go away. Anyone remember Viacom, Germany, and an annoying SEO vendor in the UK?
- Google has had a tough summer. Instead of surfing from big wave to big wave, Google fell off its surf board. I don’t have a comprehensive list but I do recall Buzz, the Frankfort police’s irritation over StreetView and Wi-Fi, and the weird trajectory of Wave. In the meantime, the Xooglers at Facebook pulled ahead of the Google in traffic. Bummer of a summer.
So what?
Google is no longer a slam dunk. Too many variables for me to dial in. The azurini want to have Google do things that help the azurini consulting business. Consumers, on the other hand, respond to different signals. Those pesky consumers.
In short, Android is zooming along but those trip wires. Oh my.
Stephen E Arnold, September 14, 2010
Freebie
More Reassurances about Google Instant
September 14, 2010
Me thinks some doth protest too much. Apologies to Billy Shakespeare but the stories running in the “real” media’s Web sites and blog posts are catching my attention. From the goose pond, I see Google Instant as a marketing play, a service designed to pump up revenues, and a reminder that Googlers can have a potentially fatal disease called “feature-itis”.
You make up your own mind. Navigate to “Google: Concerns over Instant Unwarranted.” For professional journalists, the article is a long one. It has two parts. The story is an interview with a Googler wrapped in well-crafted rhetorical bookends. No problem. I could, if I were motivated, identify a quote to note in the verbiage.
instead I noted this passage:
As tends to happen whenever Google introduces a potentially disruptive technology, a debate has sprouted, in this case focused on how Instant potentially changes three things: the way publishers optimize their pages to rank in Google results; the way marketers pick and bid on keywords for search ad campaigns; and the way end users articulate queries and review results.
I look at this from the perspective of an addled goose and ask, “Why bother?” I recall one of the rich guys I used to work for before he keeled over from a stroke in one of his more interesting business facilities, “Never complain. Never explain.” I read the article and noted both complaining, well, maybe just whining and quite a bit of explaining.
Instant is for me a feature that strikes at the heart of search engine optimization’s base camp, gives the Google a reason to captivate the world’s media with crazy statements about saving billions of hours when searching, and triggers a “debate”. The reaction is interesting because it really means little to me.
What it tells me is this:
First, Google wants to capture headlines and attention after the holiday weekend. Mission accomplished. Good job, marketing department.
Second, Google has not really innovated because Instant strikes me as rewarding big companies and deep pockets. With Instant running, one has to focus in order to get a complete, original query into the search box and launched. The suggestions method will appeal to a certain type of Google user. Other types of Google users may shift to advanced search or just use a different service of which there are quite a few, gentle reader.
Third, the Instant function does not address the increasing problems I have experienced in getting fresh, precise, and relevant results. For example, I ran a series of queries on Google and a competitor called DuckDuckGo.com and on the Xoogler site Cuil.com. Guess what I found. I was able to obtain more relevant results on my test topic related to what are called “RAC” in the health care business than on Google.
In short, like Buzz and Wave, the benefits to me are not great. Therefore, the volubility of Google about Instant suggests that what looked so good over Odwallas may be having some unexpected consequences. Words won’t address these. Cats out of the bag are tough to recapture.
Stephen E Arnold, September 14, 2010
Freebie
The Speed Thing: Google Search Results Tricks
September 10, 2010
I don’t have too much to say about speed. In my talks about real-time information, I make a point of identifying points in an information retrieval system where latency imposes delays. The Google speed thing addresses one aspect of search; namely, displaying results as someone types. I noted this display stuff in year 2000 when I got a demo of Fast Search & Technology’s implementation of a type ahead feature. Then and now, I did not get too excited. The reason is that I formulate queries and enter them with intent. I personally dislike systems that try to “think like a goose.” Pretty tough since algorithms work one way and a goose brain works a different way, right?
I do want to call attention to what I think is one of those wild and crazy write ups that appear in “real” publications. Point your browser thingy at “In an Instant, Google Pulls Further Ahead of Microsoft, Yahoo.” Now if the predictive stuff actually worked, you would not have to point or click in my opinion. Keep in mind that the predictive stuff is reasonably new and we were not able to see the function across the different systems we tested yesterday, so here in Harrod’s Creek, the Google magic was hit and miss. The article is a collection of observations by pundits and most of the points are like high school cheers. You hear the words but don’t really care. It is the spirit that counts.
My views are this:
- It is a bit early to declare that a Google feature does much of anything to Web usage data. The data are approximations of what’s happening and quite old. This means that the “effect” of Google’s whiz bang new feature won’t be known in its fuzzy statistical glory for weeks.
- The focus of search is shifting, based on our work in the last few months. Not only is the mobile device having an impact, but the social approach is beginning to gain traction. If our work is on the money, this spells big trouble in River City for traditional search box methods.
- Embedded search puts information “there”. A good example is a map which shows a bunch of stuff. The user just hovers. The “map” gets search parameters in the background so the “search without search” approach that I noted when I examined Endeca’s implementation for Fidelity Investments in the UK six or seven years ago is now being consumerized.
In short, I know folks love Google mouse pads and secretly hope to work for Messrs. Brin and Page. I also know that no one gets invited to Google events for raining on a Google parade. Nevertheless, let’s keep the latency issue in mind and then put the Google announcement in the context of significant search trends. “Real” journalists, I suppose, long for the days when they could sit in English class and interpret Milton’s “Lycidas.” Won’t work for the hard world of information retrieval in this goose’s opinion. Confusing razzle dazzle for what users are doing keeps the azurini busy. Wonderful.
Stephen E Arnold, September 10, 2010
Freebie
Digital Information and Progress?
August 25, 2010
Progress is an interesting idea. I read the “A Smartphone Retrospective” and looked at the pictures on August 19, 2010. To be candid, I didn’t give it much thought. Math Club types, engineers, and Type A marketers have been able to cook up the progress pie for many years. In fact, prior to the application of electricity, life was pretty much unchanged for millennia. A hekatontarch in Sparta could have been dropped into the Battle of Waterloo and contributed without much effort. Drop that same grunt into a SOCOM unit, and he wouldn’t know how to call in air cover.
Let’s take a trip down memory lane.
Most people in Farmington, Illinois, not far from where I grew up, believed that the world got better a little bit at a time. The curves most people believed and learned in grade school went up.
Well, most people believed that until the price for farm output stagnated. Then the strip mining companies made life a little better by pushing some money into the hands of farmers. Well, the money dried up and the land was not too useful for much after the drag lines departed.
Then the price of chemical fertilizer climbed. Well, then the government paid farmers not to farm so things looked better. Each year the automobiles got bigger and more luxurious and those who wanted the make the American dream a reality left for the big city. Now Farmington, Illinois, is a quiet town. Most of the stores are closed, and it is a commuter city for folks lucky enough to have a job in the economically-trashed central Illinois region about one hour south of Chicago.
Progress.
What’s happening in online and digital information is nothing particularly unusual. The notion of “progress”, at least in Farmington, is different today from what it was in 1960. Same with online, digital information, and technological gimcracks. I realized that most folks have not realized that “progress” may not be the bright, shiny gold treasure that those folks in Farmington accepted as the basic assumption of life in the U. S. of A.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
