The Google Reorg. Will It Output Xooglers, Not Innovations?
April 25, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
My team and I have been talking about the Alphabet decision to merge DeepMind with Google Brain. Viewed from one angle, the decision reflects the type of efficiency favored by managers who value the idea of streamlining. The arguments for consolidation are logical; for example, the old tried-and-true buzzword synergy may be invoked to explain the realignment. The decision makes business sense, particularly for an engineer or a number-oriented MBA, accountant, or lawyer.
Arguing against the “one plus one equals three” viewpoint may be those who have experienced the friction generated when staff, business procedures, and projects get close, interact, and release energy. I use the term “energy” to explain the dormant forces unleashed as the reorganization evolves. When I worked at a nuclear consulting firm early in my career, I recall the acrimonious and irreconcilable differences between a smaller unit in Florida and a major division in Maryland. The fix was to reassign personnel and give up on the dream of one big, happy group.
This somewhat pathos-infused image was created using NightCafe Creator and Craiyon. The author (a dinobaby) added the caption which may appeal to large language model-centric start ups with money, ideas, and a “we can do this” vibe.
Over the years, my team and I have observed Google’s struggles to innovate. The successes have been notable. Before the Alphabet entity was constructed, the “old” Google purchased Keyhole, Inc. (a spin-off of the gaming company Intrinsic). That worked after the US government invested in the company. There have been some failures too. My team followed the Orkut product which evolved from a hire named Orkut Büyükkökten, who had developed an allegedly similar system while working at InCircle. Orkut was a success, particularly among users in Brazil and a handful of other countries. However, some Orkut users relied on the system for activities which some found unacceptable. Google killed the social networking system in 2014 as Facebook surged to global prominence as Google’s efforts fell to earth. The company was in a position to be a player in social media, and it botched the opportunity. Steve Ballmer allegedly described Google as a “one-trick pony.” Mr. Ballmer’s touch point was Google’s dependence on online advertising: One source of revenue; therefore, a circus pony able to do one thing. Mr. Ballmer’s quip illustrates the fact that over the firm’s 20-plus year history, Google has not been able to diversify its revenue. More than two-thirds of the company’s money comes directly or indirectly from advertising.
My team and I have watched Google struggle to accept adapt its free-wheeling style to a more traditional business approach to policies and procedures. In one notable incident, my team and I were involved in reviewing proposals to index the content of the US Federal government. Google was one of the bidders. The Google proposal did not follow the expected format of responding to each individual requirement in the request for proposal. In 2000, Google professionals made it clear its method did not require that the government’s statement of work be followed. Other vendors responded, provided the required technical commentary, and produced cost estimates in a format familiar to those involved in the contracting award process. Flash forward 23 years, and Google has figured out how to capture US government work.
The key point: The learning process took a long time.
Why is this example relevant to the Alphabet decision to blend the Brain and DeepMind units? Change — despite the myths of Silicon Valley — is difficult for Alphabet. The tensions at the company are well known. Employees and part-time workers grouse and sometimes carry signs and disturb traffic. Specific personnel matters become, rightly or wrongly, messages that say, Google is unfair. The Google management generated an international spectacle with its all-thumbs approach to human relations. Dr. Timnit Gebru was a co-author of a technical paper which identified a characteristic of smart software. She and several colleagues explained that bias in training data produces results which are skewed. Anyone who has used any of the search systems which used open source libraries created by Google know that outputs are variable, which is a charitable way of saying, “Dr. Gebru was correct.” She became a Xoogler, set up a new organization, and organized a conference to further explain her research — the same research which ruffled the feathers of some Alphabet big birds.
The pace of generative artificial intelligence is accelerating. Disruption can be smelled like ozone in an old-fashioned electric power generation station. My team and I attempt to continue tracking innovations in smart software. We cannot do it. I am prepared to suggest that the job is quite challenging because the flow of new ChatGPT-type products, services, applications, and features is astounding. I recall the early days of the Internet when in 1993 I could navigate to a list of new sites via Mosaic browser and click on the ones of interest. I recall that in a matter of months the list grew too long to scan and was eventually discontinued. Smart software is behaving in this way: Too many people are doing too many new things.
I want to close this short personal essay with several points.
First, mashing up different cultures and a history of differences will act like a brake and add friction to innovative work. Such reorganizations will generate “heat” in the form of disputes, overt or quiet quitting, and an increase in productivity killers like planning meetings, internal product pitches, and getting legal’s blessing on a proposed service.
Second, a revenue monoculture is in danger when one pest runs rampant. Alphabet does not have a mechanism to slow down what is happening in the generative AI space. In online advertising, Google has knobs and levers. In the world of creating applications and hooking them together to complete tasks, Alphabet management seems to lack a magic button. The pests just eat the monoculture’s crop.
Third, the unexpected consequence of merging Brain and DeepMind may be creating what I call a “Xoogler Manufacturing Machine.” Annoyed or “grass is greener” Google AI experts may go to one of the many promising generative AI startups. Note: A former Google employee is sometimes labeled a “Xoogler,” which is shorthand for ex-Google employee.
Net net: In a conversation in 2005 with a Google professional whom I cannot name due to the confidentiality agreement I signed with the firm, I asked, “Do you think people and government officials will figure out what Google is really doing?” This person, who was a senior manager, said to the best of my recollection, “Sure and when people do, it’s game.” My personal view is that Alphabet is in a game in which the clock is ticking. And in the process of underperforming, Alphabet’s advertisers and users of free and for-fee services will shift their attention elsewhere, probably to a new or more agile firm able to leverage smart software. Alphabet’s most recent innovation is the creation of a Xoogler manufacturing system. The product? Former Google employees who want to do something instead of playing in the Alphabet sandbox with argumentative wizards and several ill-behaved office pets.
Stephen E Arnold, April 24, 2023
Search and Retrieval: A Sub Sub Assembly
January 2, 2023
What’s happening with search and retrieval? Google’s results irritate some; others are happy with Google’s shaping of information. Web competitors exist; for example, Kagi.com and Neva.com. Both are subscription services. Others provide search results “for free”; examples include Swisscows.com and Yandex.com. You can find metasearch systems (minimal original spidering, just recycling results from other services like Bing.com); for instance, StartPage.com (formerly Ixquick.com) and DuckDuckGo.com. Then there are open source search options. The flagship or flagships are Solr and Lucene. Proprietary systems exist too. These include the ageing X1.com and the even age-ier Coveo system. Remnants of long-gone systems are kicking around too; to wit, BRS and Fulcrum from OpenText, Fast Search now a Microsoft property, and Endeca, owned by Oracle. But let’s look at search as it appears to a younger person today.
A decayed foundation created via smart software on the Mage.space system. A flawed search and retrieval system can make the structure built on the foundation crumble like Southwest Airlines’ reservation system.
First, the primary means of access is via a mobile device. Surprisingly, the source of information for many is video content delivered by the China-linked TikTok or the advertising remora YouTube.com. In some parts of the world, the go-to information system is Telegram, developed by Russian brothers. This is a centralized service, not a New Wave Web 3 confection. One can use the service and obtain information via a query or a group. If one is “special,” an invitation to a private group allows access to individuals providing information about open source intelligence methods or the Russian special operation, including allegedly accurate video snips of real-life war or disinformation.
The challenge is that search is everywhere. Yet in the real world, finding certain types of information is extremely difficult. Obtaining that information may be impossible without informed contacts, programming expertise, or money to pay what would have been called “special librarian research professionals” in the 1980s. (Today, it seems, everyone is a search expert.)
Here’s an example of the type of information which is difficult if not impossible to obtain:
- The ownership of a domain
- The ownership of a Tor-accessible domain
- The date at which a content object was created, the date the content object was indexed, and the date or dates referenced in the content object
- Certain government documents; for example, unsealed court documents, US government contracts for third-party enforcement services, authorship information for a specific Congressional bill draft, etc.
- A copy of a presentation made by a corporate executive at a public conference.
I can provide other examples, but I wanted to highlight the flaws in today’s findability.
A Xoogler May Question the Google about Responsible and Ethical Smart Software
December 2, 2021
Write a research paper. Get colleagues to provide input. Well, ask colleagues do that work and what do you get. How about “Looks good.” Or “Add more zing to that chart.” Or “I’m snowed under so it will be a while but I will review it…” Then the paper wends its way to publication and a senior manager type reads the paper on a flight from one whiz kid town to another whiz kid town and says, “This is bad. Really bad because the paper points out that we fiddle with the outputs. And what we set up is biased to generate the most money possible from clueless humans under our span of control.” Finally, the paper is blocked from publication and the offending PhD is fired or sent signals that your future lies elsewhere.
Will this be a classic arm wrestling match? The winner may control quite a bit of conceptual territory along with knobs and dials to shape information.
Could this happen? Oh, yeah.
“Ex Googler Timnit Gebru Starts Her Own AI Research Center” documents the next step, which may mean that some wizards undergarments will be sprayed with eau de poison oak for months, maybe years. Here’s one of the statements from the Wired article:
“Instead of fighting from the inside, I want to show a model for an independent institution with a different set of incentive structures,” says Gebru, who is founder and executive director of Distributed Artificial Intelligence Research (DAIR). The first part of the name is a reference to her aim to be more inclusive than most AI labs—which skew white, Western, and male—and to recruit people from parts of the world rarely represented in the tech industry. Gebru was ejected from Google after clashing with bosses over a research paper urging caution with new text-processing technology enthusiastically adopted by Google and other tech companies.
The main idea, which Wired and Dr. Gebru delicately sidestep, is that there are allegations of an artificial intelligence or machine learning cabal drifting around some conference hall chatter. On one side is the push for what I call the SAIL approach. The example I use to illustrate how this cost effective, speedy, and clever short cut approach works is illustrated in some of the work of Dr. Christopher Ré, the captain of the objective craft SAIL. Oh, is the acronym unfamiliar to you? SAIL is short version of Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. SAIL fits on the Snorkel content diving gear I think.
On the other side of the ocean, are Dr. Timnit Gebru’s fellow travelers. The difference is that Dr. Gebru believes that smart software should not reflect the wit, wisdom, biases, and general bro-ness of the high school science club culture. This culture, in my opinion, has contributed to the fraying of the social fabric in the US, caused harm, and erodes behaviors that are supposed to be subordinated to “just what people do to make a social system function smoothly.”
Does the Wired write up identify the alleged cabal? Nope.
Does the write up explain that the Ré / Snorkel methods sacrifice some precision in the rush to generate good enough outputs? (Good enough can be framed in terms of ad revenue, reduced costs, and faster time to market testing in my opinion.) Nope.
Does Dr. Gebru explain how insidious the short cut training of models is and how it will create systems which actively harm those outside the 60 percent threshold of certain statistical yardsticks? Heck, no.
Hopefully some bright researchers will explain what’s happening with a “deep dive”? Oh, right, Deep Dive is the name of a content access company which uses Dr. Ré’s methods. Ho, ho, ho. You didn’t know?
Beyond Search believes that Dr. Gebru has important contributions to make to applied smart software. Just hurry up already.
Stephen E Arnold, December 2, 2021
Search Engines: Bias, Filters, and Selective Indexing
March 15, 2021
I read “It’s Not Just a Social Media Problem: How Search Engines Spread Misinformation.” The write up begins with a Venn diagram. My hunch is that quite a few people interested in search engines will struggle with the visual. Then there is the concept that typing in a search team returns results are like loaded dice in a Manhattan craps game in Union Square.
The reasons, according to the write up, that search engines fall off the rails are:
- Relevance feedback or the Google-borrowed CLEVER method from IBM Almaden’s patent
- Fake stories which are picked up, indexed, and displayed as value infused,
The write up points out that people cannot differentiate between accurate, useful, or “factual” results and crazy information.
Okay, here’s my partial list of why Web search engines return flawed results:
- Stop words. Control the stop words and you control the info people can find
- Stored queries. Type what you want but get the results already bundled and ready to display.
- Selective spidering. The idea is that any index is a partial representation of the possible content. Instruct spiders to skip Web sites with information about peanut butter, and, bingo, no peanut butter information
- Spidering depth. Is the bad stuff deep in a Web site? Just limit the crawl to fewer links?
- Spider within a span. Is a marginal Web site linking to sites with info you want killed? Don’t follow links off a domain.
- Delete the past. Who looks at historical info? A better question, “What advertiser will pay to appear on old content?” Kill the backfile. Web indexes are not archives no matter what thumbtypers believe.
There are other methods available as well; for example, objectionable info can be placed in near line storage so that results from questionable sources display with latency or slow enough to cause the curious user to click away.
To sum up, some discussions of Web search are not complete or accurate.
Stephen E Arnold, March 15, 2021
Open Source Software: The Community Model in 2021
January 25, 2021
I read “Why I Wouldn’t Invest in Open-Source Companies, Even Though I Ran One.” I became interested in open source search when I was assembling the first of three editions of Enterprise Search Report in the early 2000s. I debated whether to include Compass Search, the precursor to Shay Branon’s Elasticsearch reprise. Over the years, I have kept my eye on open source search and retrieval. I prepared a report for an the outfit IDC, which happily published sections of the document and offering my write ups for $3,000 on Amazon. Too bad IDC had no agreement with me, managers who made Daffy Duck look like a model for MBAs, and a keen desire to find a buyer. Ah, the book still resides on one of my back of drives, and it contains a run down of where open source was getting traction. I wrote the report in 2011 before getting the shaft-a-rama from a mid tier consulting firm. Great experience!
The report included a few nuggets which in 2011 not many experts in enterprise search recognized; for instance:
- Large companies were early and enthusiastic adopters of open source search; for example Lucene. Why? Reduce costs and get out of the crazy environment which put Fast Search & Transfer-type executives in prison for violating some rules and regulations. The phrase I heard in some of my interviews was, “We want to get out of the proprietary software handcuffs.” Plus big outfits had plenty of information technology resources to throw at balky open source software.
- Developers saw open source in general and contributing to open source information retrieval projects as a really super duper way to get hired. For example, IBM — an early enthusiast for a search system which mostly worked — used the committers as feedstock. The practice became popular among other outfits as well.
- Venture outfits stuffed with oh-so-technical MBAs realized that consulting services could be wrapped around free software. Sure, there were legal niceties in the open source licenses, but these were not a big deal when Silicon Valley super lawyers were just a text message away.
There were other findings as well, including the initiatives underway to embed open source search, content processing, and related functions into commercial products. Attivio (formed by former super star managers from Fast Search & Transfer), Lucid Works, IBM, and other bright lights adopted open source software to [a] reduce costs, [b] eliminate the R&D required to implement certain new features, and [c] develop expensive, proprietary components, training, and services.
Security Vendors: Despite Marketing Claims for Smart Software Knee Jerk Response Is the Name of the Game
December 16, 2020
Update 3, December 16, 2020 at 1005 am US Eastern, the White House has activate its cyber emergency response protocol. Source: “White House Quietly Activates Cyber Emergency Response” at Cyberscoop.com. The directive is located at this link and verified at 1009 am US Eastern as online.
Update 2, December 16, 2020 at 1002 am US Eastern. The Department of Treasury has been identified as a entity compromised by the SolarWinds’ misstep. Source: US “Treasury, Commerce Depts. Hacked through SolarWinds Compromise” at KrebsonSecurity.com
Update 1, December 16, 2020, at 950 am US Eastern. The SolarWinds’ security misstep may have taken place in 2018. Source: “SolarWinds Leaked FTP Credentials through a Public GitHub Repo “mib-importer” Since 2018” at SaveBreach.com
I talked about security theater in a short interview/conversation with a former CIA professional. The original video of that conversation is here. My use of the term security theater is intended to convey the showmanship that vendors of cyber security software have embraced for the last five years, maybe more. The claims of Dark Web threat intelligence, the efficacy of investigative software with automated data feeds, and Bayesian methods which inoculate a client from bad actors— maybe this is just Madison Avenue gone mad. On the other hand, maybe these products and services don’t work particularly well. Maybe these products and services are anchored in what bad actors did yesterday and are blind to the here and now of dudes and dudettes with clever names?
Evidence of this approach to a spectacular security failure is documented in the estimable Wall Street Journal (hello, Mr. Murdoch) and the former Ziff entity ZDNet. Numerous online publications have reported, commented, and opined about the issue. One outfit with a bit of first hand experience with security challenges (yes, I am thinking about Microsoft) reported “SolarWinds Says Hack Affected 18,000 Customers, Including Two Major Government Agencies.”
One point seems to be sidestepped in the coverage of this “concern.” The corrective measures kicked in after the bad actors had compromised and accessed what may be sensitive data. Just a mere 18,000 customers were affected. Who were these “customers”? The list seems to have been disappeared from the SolarWinds’ Web site and from the Google cache. But Newsweek, an online information service, posted this which may, of course, be horse feathers (sort of like security vendors’ security systems?):
Google: Simplifying Excellence
October 22, 2020
Almost everyone knows Google. I spotted an eclectic write up in Entertainment Overdose (an estimable publication). The article “Eric Schmidt, Who Got YouTube for a Premium, Assumes Social Media Networks Are Amplifiers for Idiots” contains a quote. This is an alleged statement attributed to Eric Schmidt, the overseer of Google until 2018.
Here’s the alleged pearl of wisdom:
The context of social networks serving as amplifiers for idiots and crazy people is not what we intended.
But it happened with YouTube, right? Who was running the company at this time? I think it was Mr. Schmidt.
It seems that Mr. Schmidt’s social world view is divided into those who are not crazy (possibly Google employees and those who share some Google mental characteristics but are in some way in touch with reality) and those who are crazy. Crazy means mentally deranged, which may be a bad thing. Plus, the “crazy” group uses social media as “amplifiers.” This seems to suggest that anyone using social media falls into the crazy category. Is this correct?
Note the “we”. The royal “we” appears to embrace the senior management of Google.
Now check out the Rupert Murdoch “real” news Wall Street Journal for October 22, 2020. The story to which I direct your attention is called “Google Ex-CEO Hits DOJ As Antitrust Battle Looms.” [When the story is posted to wsj.com, you will have an opportunity to purchase access. Until then, hunt for the dead tree edition and look on Page A-1.]
The write up reports that Mr. Schmidt said:
There’s a difference between dominance and excellence.
Is the idea may be that operating like a plain vanilla monopoly not acceptable. This suggests that monopoly delivering “excellence” is a positive for everyone.
Is YouTube dominant or excellent? Are those who post links to children’s playgrounds to the delight of individuals with proscribed tendencies idiots? (There are other, more suitable terms I believe.)
Exclusive: Interview with DataWalk’s Chief Analytics Officer Chris Westphal, Who Guides an Analytics Rocket Ship
October 21, 2020
I spoke with Chris Westphal, Chief Analytics Officer for DataWalk about the company’s string of recent contract “wins.” These range from commercial engagements to heavy lifting for the US Department of Justice.
Chris Westphal, founder of Visual Analytics (acquired by Raytheon) brings his one-click approach to advanced analytics.
The firm provides what I have described as an intelware solution. DataWalk ingests data and outputs actionable reports. The company has leap-frogged a number of investigative solutions, including IBM’s Analyst’s Notebook and the much-hyped Palantir Technologies’ Gotham products. This interview took place in a Covid compliant way. In my previous Chris Westphal interviews, we met at intelligence or law enforcement conferences. Now the experience is virtual, but as interesting and information in July 2019. In my most recent interview with Mr. Westphal, I sought to get more information on what’s causing DataWalk to make some competitors take notice of the company and its use of smart software to deliver what customers want: Results, not PowerPoint presentations and promises. We spoke on October 8, 2020.
DataWalk is an advanced analytics tool with several important innovations. On one hand, the company’s information processing system performs IBM i2 Analyst’s Notebook and Palantir Gotham type functions — just with a more sophisticated and intuitive interface. On the other hand, Westphal’s vision for advanced analytics has moved past what he accomplished with his previous venture Visual Analytics. Raytheon bought that company in 2013. Mr. Westphal has turned his attention to DataWalk. The full text of our conversation appears below.
Palantir Technologies: A Problem for Intelware Competitors?
September 24, 2020
The Palantir Technologies initial public offering is looming. Pundits are excited; for example, “Palantir Has A Long Uphill Battle Towards Customer Acquisition, But Benefits From Stickiness And Contract Expansion” makes clear that the journey to profitability may be like the Beatles observed: A long and winding road. Others are focused on churn; for example, “5 things to Know about Palantir’s Upcoming IPO.” DarkCyber’s response: “Just five?”
The issue is intelware. Many companies have tried to convert selling to law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and regulators into a billion dollar software and services business. There are some success stories; for example, Booz Allen fits the bill. The company sells time. The company has its own software, not much, but it exists. The company cheerleads, which is a nice way to say that for money “experts” will talk about promising products from the competitive marketplace.
Palantir is more like Autonomy than a blue-chip consulting firm. Autonomy played the “secret black box” chip with its neuro-linguistic programming. It worked until it did not. The firm licensed its black box to BAE Systems in the 1990s. The Autonomy marketing machine then generated revenue slowly and steadily. Then Autonomy acquired companies and cranked up its sales machine. At “peak Autonomy,” the well managed outfit Hewlett Packard, grabbed a brass ring with Autonomy engraved on it. The cost was north of $10 billion and years of legal bills. Autonomy was a publicly traded company, and it had a revenue track record dating from 1996. The HP deal was completed in October 2011. That means that the FY2010 data give us an idea about how much secret black box software can generate with “advanced” software, great marketing, and demanding management. The revenue for Autonomy after 15 years was in the neighborhood of $870 million.
One of Palantir Gotham’s innovations: A right mouse click displays a wheel of choices. The interface is definitely jazzier than that of Analyst’s Notebook, now owned by IBM.
Palantir Technologies opened for business in 2003. The company has been in business for 17 years. Yep, that’s two years longer than Autonomy. And what is Palantir’s alleged revenue for the last fiscal year? $742 million. The company’s advantages were the support of Peter Thiel (a Silicon Valley Thor), secrecy, a method for importing ANB files (if you don’t know what this is, well, what can I tell you in a free blog post?), and okay sales and so-so marketing. (One of Palantir’s innovations was a wheel of choices, not Bayesian methods wrapped in mystery.)
If my math is correct, Autonomy generated $128 million more revenue that Autonomy. If one uses 2011 dollars, not the Rona roiled 2020 dollars, the difference is more like $400 million, give or take $20 million or so. Yep, Autonomy appears to have outperformed Palantir: Less time, more revenue.
What?
Why?
Who?
How?
Let’s take each question.
First, what? The lackluster performance of Palantir Technologies illustrates the difficulty intelware companies, even ones with great advantages like the aforementioned ANB filter, have making really big money quickly. Remember. To generate less revenue than Autonomy, Palantir required $2.6 billion in funding. DarkCyber thinks that patient investors may be nervous about their investment which could melt away like a real snowflake. You can work out the math. Take 17 years of losses, subtract the revenue generated over 17 years, add in some interest just for spice, and mix into a pressurized container containing the fumes of burning a big cash pile. Read more
Dark Patterns: Is the Future of Free Video Editing Software Duplicity, Carelessness, and Indifference?
August 31, 2020
One of the DarkCyber team suggested a run down of three free video editing software solutions. We had just finished a couple of our for-fee write ups about technology related to warfighting, and I concluded that the group wanted a break from million watt beam weapons.
I said, “Okay, just use a machine we don’t rely on for real work.” Stephanie was thrilled when Ben said he would help. The three “free” software solutions these two set about installing were:
DaVinci Resolve, allegedly “the standard for high end post production and finishing on more Hollywood feature films, television shows and commercials than any other software.” You can get a free copy at this link. (There is a $300 version too.)
HitFilm Express, allegedly “a free video editing software with professional-grade VFX tools and everything you need to make awesome content, films or gaming videos.” You can get a free copy at this link.
Shotcut, a free, open source, cross platform video editor. You can get a copy at this link.
We never got to the review. We were trapped in what sure looks like the FXHome / HitFilm Express dark pattern. It was a swamp populated by creatures dependent on auto reply email, bizarre instructions, and names like “Dibs” and “Joe.” So wholesome, yet so frustrating despite the friendly monikers.
This blog post is about dark patterns, not the video editing software. Sorry, Stephanie (the team member who cooked up the idea for the story.) Read on to find out why DarkCyber cares about a single firm and its enthusiastic pursuit of dark patterns.
The illustration below is a depiction of Dante’s Inferno. About eight layers down is the Dark Pattern of FXHome. That’s better than spending every day, all day with Beelzebub and the gang.
What’s a dark pattern?
The phrase means, according to the ever reliable Wikipedia, “A user interface that has been carefully crafted to trick users into doing things, such as buying insurance with their purchase or signing up for recurring bills.”
Stephanie tried to install the software and was greeted with a Web page presenting her with options to upgrade the free software by purchasing $25 to $50 dollar bundles of macros and pre-sets. Puzzled, she retrieved the details for the accounts we use to purchase software, pay for subscriptions, and buy crap from Amazon.
I ignored her grumbling, but I noticed when two of my engineers were standing behind her staring at the screen and getting that weird look in their eyes when something does not compute. I walked over to the group and said, “When will you finish your reviews of these three tools?”
Stephanie said, “I am running behind. I spent yesterday and today trying to get the software to work. Apparently someone installed a version of HitFilm Express last year, and now FXHome took the money, sent a series of steps, and nothing works.”
I said, “Okay, write the company. Explain what happened and get help to install the software.”
My two engineers nodded and walked away. This, in my experience, meant that the HitFilm Express software was something that presented numerous challenges. Researching and analyzing EMP technology was more appealing than not-so-free software.
I told Stephanie to give me the user name and password she used to buy the software. I happily logged in from a different machine, created a user name and password, saw the same difficult to evade plea to buy add-in packs, and I bought a $39 pack. The video editor came up but no add in software.
Now I was intrigued. Two installations. Almost $80US down a rat hole and no special add in packs. I told my engineers to log in, get the install information, and see if each could get the software to work.
Nope. FXHome has a system to take money. FXHome does not have a functional, reliable system to deliver what the customer purchased.
Now I am thinking cyber fraud. Call me silly, but I am a suspicious person, and when we write about next generation weapons, what type of customers do we have? Certainly not the Vatican or Green Peace.
I found a customer support email which is managed by “smart” software. The email to which I was directed is support@fxhome.com and along the line of a series of email exchanges over the span of nine days a human included his/her name. That individual identified himself/herself as Dibs McCallum.
The dark patterns we believe the user interface implements for the free software includes these elements:
- Blandishments to purchase upgrades before allowing downloads
- Instructions for installing software which do not install software
- Customer service interfaces intended to frustrate those seeking information; for example, the FXHome system strips attachments even though people or bots like Dibs McCallum request them and your truly attaches them. Even more dutifully I resend the attachments and receive zero acknowledgement or information about the failure.
Where am I? Well, definitely there is no review of FXHome. It is tough to write about software which does not function. The upside is that I have an anecdote for my next cyber crime lecture. As we were editing this story, PayPal reported a refund of $39. FXHome still has $39 and we have no functioning software.
When I step back and look at this series of events involving three of my team and the ever helpful Dibs McCallum, who insisted that attachments showing the unhelpful error messages HitFilm Express displayed, did not arrive.
Then there was this email:
Allow me to explain. You buy from us. If you want a refund within 14 days you get one.
That is why I have refunded both your order 0000000000000 for $39 that you made by credit card under the email seaky2000@yahoo.com and also your order 0000000000000 for $39 that you made via PayPal that you made under the email 00@arnoldit.com. Both amounts will appear in your prospective credit card and PayPal statements within the next 5-10 working days. Though most likely far sooner. This does mean your software packs will no longer work of course. Those effects will be deactivated and you are left with the free HitFilm Express without the extra content. It is always best to remember what email you use for purchases as it can be confusing if you habitually use more than one email. We are always dealing with this confusion with customers. Very common.
Best Regards, Joe Gould, Business Coordinator
Notice the phrase “We are always dealing with this confusion”.
Yeah, Joe said, “Always.” What’s that old saw about doing the same thing over and over? Was it ground hog day or one of Dante’s circles of Hell?
The dark pattern is apparently accidental. A situation exists which creates an “always” situation. Why not figure out changes to the system to eliminate an “always” problem. Why not think through making the interface work with a customer, not against the customer. Why not skip the “buy more add in packs”? Just charge people money.
What’s free mean? Upsells, confusing purchase options, and a “system” designed to make the craziness of Microsoft customer support for non-installable $0.99 HEVC codecs look like a paragon of lucidity.
One answer is that it earned this write up in Beyond Search and DarkCyber. It has converted sweet Stephanie into a termagant and HitFilm Express hater. (Good work that.)
Observations:
- Generating sustainable revenue is difficult. If a product is “good,” people will pay for it. If a product is not so good, carelessness, indifference, or laziness generates “buy this, then that” solutions. Helpful? Not so much. Suggestion for FXHome: Less weird orange color and more begging for dollar options like Indiegogo or Patreon, among others?
- Competing against Adobe, Apple, Magix, and other for-fee video editing programs is difficult. Yes, DarkCyber understands that FXHome needs revenue. Suggestion: Why not sell a subscription to upgrades?
- Relying on an interface and the people who conceived it may not be a winning tactic. Staff changes and additional inputs may provide the creative spark that moves beyond what sure look like dark patterns. Suggestion: Skip the hear, speak, and see no evil approach to your current upgrade interface. Listen and fix the problem. “Always”. Wow, that’s an endorsement of clear thinking.
Is DarkCyber suspicious? Yep. FXHome could be a YouTube video titled UXMoan.
Stephen E Arnold, August 31, 2020
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
