A Single, Glittering Google Gem for 27 March 2024
March 27, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
So many choices. But one gem outshines the others. Google’s search generative experience is generating publicity. The old chestnut may be true. Any publicity is good publicity. I would add a footnote. Any publicity about Google’s flawed smart software is probably good for Microsoft and other AI competitors. Google definitely looks as though it has some behaviors that are — how shall I phrase it? — questionable. No, maybe, ill-considered. No, let’s go with bungling. That word has a nice ring to it. Bungling.
I learned about this gem in “Google’s New AI Search Results Promotes Sites Pushing Malware, Scams.” The write up asserts:
Google’s new AI-powered ‘Search Generative Experience’ algorithms recommend scam sites that redirect visitors to unwanted Chrome extensions, fake iPhone giveaways, browser spam subscriptions, and tech support scams.
The technique which gets the user from the quantumly supreme Google to the bad actor goodies is redirects. Some user notification functions to pump even more inducements toward the befuddled user. (See, bungling and befuddled. Alliteration.)
Why do users fall for these bad actor gift traps? It seems that Google SGE conversational recommendations sound so darned wonderful, Google users just believe that the GOOG cares about the information it presents to those who “trust” the company. k
The write up points out that the DeepMinded Google provided this information about the bumbling SGE:
"We continue to update our advanced spam-fighting systems to keep spam out of Search, and we utilize these anti-spam protections to safeguard SGE," Google told BleepingComputer. "We’ve taken action under our policies to remove the examples shared, which were showing up for uncommon queries."
Isn’t that reassuring? I wonder if the anecdote about this most recent demonstration of the Google’s wizardry will become part of the Sundar & Prabhakar Comedy Act?
This is a gem. It combines Google’s management process, word salad frippery, and smart software into one delightful bouquet. There you have it: Bungling, befuddled, bumbling, and bouquet. I am adding blundering. I do like butterfingered, however.
Stephen E Arnold, March 27, 2024
Xoogler Predicts the Future: China Bad, Xoogler Good
March 26, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Did you know China, when viewed from the vantage point of a former Google executive, is bad? That is a stunning comment. Google tried valiantly to convert China into a money stream. That worked until it didn’t. Now a former Googler or Xoogler in some circles has changed his tune.
Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Working on security I presume?
“Eric Schmidt’s China Alarm” includes some interesting observations. None of which address Google’s attempt to build a China-acceptable search engine. Oh, well, anyone can forget minor initiatives like that. Let’s look at a couple of comments from the article:
How about this comment about responding to China:
"We have to do whatever it takes."
I wonder if Mr. Schmidt has been watching Dr. Strangelove on YouTube. Someone might pull that viewing history to clarify “whatever it takes.”
Another comment I found interesting is:
China has already become a peer of the U.S. and has a clear plan for how it wants to dominate critical fields, from semiconductors to AI, and clean energy to biotech.
That’s interesting. My thought is that the “clear plan” seems to embrace education; that is, producing more engineers than some other countries, leveraging open source technology, and erecting interesting barriers to prevent US companies from selling some products in the Middle Kingdom. How long has this “clear plan” been chugging along? I spotted portions of the plan in Wuhan in 2007. But I guess now it’s a more significant issue after decades of being front and center.
I noted this comment about artificial intelligence:
Schmidt also said Europe’s proposals on regulating artificial intelligence "need to be re-done," and in general says he is opposed to regulating AI and other advances to solve problems that have yet to appear.
The idea is an interesting one. The UN and numerous NGOs and governmental entities around the world are trying to regulate, tame, direct, or ameliorate the impact of smart software. How’s that going? My answer is, “Nowhere fast.”
The article makes clear that Mr. Schmidt is not just a Xoogler; he is a global statesperson. But in the back of my mind, once a Googler, always a Googler.
Stephen E Arnold, March 26, 2024
AI Job Lawnmowers: Will Your Blooms Be Chopped Off and Put a Rat King in Your Future?
March 25, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I love “you will lose your job to AI” articles. I spotted an interesting one titled “The Job Sectors That Will Be Most Disrupted By AI, Ranked.” This is not so much an article as a billboard for an outfit named Voronoi, “where data tells the story.” That’s interesting because there is no data, no methodology, and no indication of the confidence level for each “nuked job.” Nevertheless, we have a ranking.
Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Will you be sparking human rat kings? I would wager that you will.
As I understand the analysis of 19,000 tasks, here’s that the most likely to be chopped down and converted to AI silage will be:
IT / programmers: 73 percent of the job will experience a large impact
Finance / bean counters: 70 percent of the jobs will experience a large impact
Customer sales: 67 percent of the job will experience a large impact
Operations (well, that’s a fuzzy category, isn’t it?): 65 percent of the job will experience a large impact
Personnel / HR: 57 percent of the job will experience a large impact
Marketing: 56 percent of the job will experience a large impact
Legal eagles: 46 percent of the job will experience a large impact
Supply chain (another fuzzy wuzzy bucket): 43 percent of the job will experience a large impact
The kicker in the data is that the numbers date from September 2023. Six months in the faerie land of smart software is a long, long time. Let’s assume that the data meet 2024’s gold standard.
Technology, finance, sales, marketing, and lawyering may shatter the future of employees of less value in terms of compensation, cost to the organization, or whatever management legerdemain the top dogs and their consultants whip up. Imagine eliminate the overhead for humans like office space, health care, retirement baloney, and vacations makes smart software into an attractive “play.”
And what about the fuzzy buckets? My thought is that many people will be trimmed because a chatbot can close a sale for a product without the hassle which humans drag into the office; for example, sexual harassment, mental, drug, and alcohol “issues,” and the unfortunate workplace shooting. I think that a person sitting in a field office to troubleshoot issues related to a state or county contract might fall into the “operations” category even though the employee sees the job as something smart software cannot perform. Ho ho ho.
Several observations:
- A trivial cost analysis of human versus software over a five-year period means humans lose
- AI systems, which may suck initially, will be improved over time. These initial failures may cause the once alert to replacement employee into a false sense of security
- Once displaced, former employees will have to scramble to produce cash. With lots of individuals chasing available work and money plays, life is unlikely to revert back to the good old days of the Organization Man. (The world will be Organization AI. No suit and white shirt required.)
Net net: I am glad I am old and not quite as enthralled by efficiency.
Stephen E Arnold, March 25, 2024
Software Failure: Why Problems Abound and Multiply Like Gerbils
March 19, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read “Why Software Projects Fail” after a lunch at which crappy software and lousy products were a source of amusement. The door fell off what?
What’s interesting about the article is that it contains a number of statements which resonated with me. I recommend the article, but I want to highlight several statements from the essay. These do a good job of explaining why small and large projects go off the rails. Within the last 12 months I witnessed one project get tangled in solving a problem that existed 15 years ago. Today not so much. The team crafted the equivalent of a Greek Corinthian helmet from the 8th century BCE. Another project infused with AI and vision of providing a “new” approach to security wobble between and among a telecommunications approach, an email approach, and an SMS approach with bells and whistles only a science fiction fan would appreciate. Both of these examples obtained funding; neither set out to build a clown car. What happened? That’s where “Why Projects Fail?” becomes relevant.
Thanks, MSFT Copilot. You have that MVP idea nailed with the recent Windows 11 update, don’t you. Good enough I suppose.
Let’s look at three passages from the essay, shall we?
Belief in One’s Abilities or I Got an Also-Participated Ribbon in Middle School
Here’s the statement from the essay:
One of the things that I’ve noticed is that developers often underestimate not just the complexity of tasks, but there’s a general overconfidence in their abilities, not limited by programming:
- Overconfidence in their coding skills.
- Overconfidence in learning new technologies.
- Overconfidence in our abstractions.
- Overconfidence in external dependencies, e.g., third-party services or some open-source library.
My comment: Spot on. Those ribbons built confidence, but they mean nothing.
Open Source Is Great Unless It Has Been Screwed Up, Become a Malware Delivery Vehicle, or Just Does Not Work
Here’s the statement from the essay:
… anything you do not directly control is a risk of hidden complexity. The assumption that third-party services, libraries, packages, or APIs will work as expected without bugs is a common oversight.
My view is that “complexity” is kicked around as if everyone held a shared understanding of the term. There are quite different types of complexity. For software, there is the complexity of a simple process created in Assembler but essentially impenetrable to a 20-something from a whiz-bang computer science school. There is the complexity of software built over time by attention deficit driven people who do not communicate, coordinate, or care what others are doing, will do, or have done. Toss in the complexity of indifferent, uninformed, or uninterested “management,” and you get an exciting environment in which to “fix up” software. The cherry on top of this confection is that quite a bit of software is assumed to be good. Ho ho ho.
The Real World: It Exists and Permeates
I liked this statement:
Technology that seemed straightforward refuses to cooperate, external competitors launch similar ideas, key partners back out, and internal business stakeholders focus more on the projects that include AI in their name. Things slow down, and as months turn into years, enthusiasm wanes. Then the snowball continues — key members leave, and new people join, each departure a slight shift in direction. New tech lead steps in, eager to leave their mark, steering the project further from its original course. At this point, nobody knows where the project is headed, and nobody wants to admit the project has failed. It’s a tough spot, especially when everyone’s playing it safe, avoiding the embarrassment or penalties of admitting failure.
What are the signals that trouble looms? A fumbled ball at the Google or the Apple car that isn’t can be blinking lights. Staff who go rogue on social media or find an ambulance chasing honed law firm can catch some individual’s attention.
The write up contains other helpful observations. Will people take heed? Are you kidding me? Excellence costs money, requires informed judgment, and expertise. Who has time for this with AI calendars, the demands of TikTok and Instagram, and hitting the local coffee shop?
Stephen E Arnold, March 19, 2024
A Single Google Gem for March 19, 2024
March 19, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I want to focus on what could be the star sapphire of Googledom. The story appeared on the estimable Murdoch confection Fox News. Its title? “Is Google Too Broken to Be Fixed? Investors Deeply Frustrated and Angry, Former Insider Warns”? The word choice in this Googley headline signals the alert reader that the Foxy folks have a juicy story to share. “Broken,” “Frustrated,” “Angry,” and “Warns” suggest that someone has identified some issues at the beloved Google.
A Google gem. Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. How’s the staff’s security today?
The write up states:
A former Google executive [David Friedberg] revealed that investors are “deeply frustrated” that the scandal surrounding their Gemini artificial intelligence (AI) model is becoming a “real threat” to the tech company. Google has issued several apologies for Gemini after critics slammed the AI for creating “woke” content.
The Xoogler, in what seems to be tortured prose, allegedly said:
“The real threat to Google is more so, are they in a position to maintain their search monopoly or maintain the chunk of profits that drive the business under the threat of AI? Are they adapting? And less so about the anger around woke and DEI,” Friedberg explained. “Because most of the investors I spoke with aren’t angry about the woke, DEI search engine, they’re angry about the fact that such a blunder happened and that it indicates that Google may not be able to compete effectively and isn’t organized to compete effectively just from a consumer competitiveness perspective,” he continued.
The interesting comment in the write up (which is recycled podcast chatter) seems to be:
Google CEO Sundar Pichai promised the company was working “around the clock” to fix the AI model, calling the images generated “biased” and “completely unacceptable.”
Does the comment attributed to a Big Dog Microsoftie reflect the new perception of the Google. The Hindustan Times, which should have radar tuned to the actions, of certain executives with roots entwined in India reported:
Satya Nadella said that Google “should have been the default winner” of Big Tech’s AI race as the resources available to it are the maximum which would easily make it a frontrunner.
My interpretation of this statement is that Google had a chance to own the AI casino, roulette wheel, and the croupiers. Instead, Google’s senior management ran over the smart squirrel with the Paris demonstration of the fantastic Bard AI system, a series of me-too announcements, and the outputting of US historical scenes with people of color turning up in what I would call surprising places.
Then the PR parade of Google wizards explains the online advertising firm’s innovations in playing games, figuring out health stuff (shades of IBM Watson), and achieving quantum supremacy in everything. Well, everything except smart software. The predicament of the ad giant is illuminated with the burning of billions in market cap coincident with the wizards’ flubs.
Net net: That’s a gem. Google losing a game it allegedly owned. I am waiting for the next podcast about the Sundar & Prabhakar Comedy Tour.
Stephen E Arnold, March 19, 2024
Just One Big Google Zircon Gemstone for March 5, 2024
March 5, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I have a folder stuffed with Google gems for the week of February 26 to March 1, 12023. I have a write up capturing more Australians stranded by following Google Maps’s representation of a territory, Google’s getting tangled in another publisher lawsuit, Google figuring out how to deliver better search even when the user’s network connection sucks, Google’s firing 43 unionized contractors while in the midst of a legal action, and more.
The brilliant and very nice wizard adds, “Yes, we have created a thing which looks valuable, but it is laboratory-generated. And it is gem and a deeply flawed one, not something we can use to sell advertising yet”. Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Good enough and I liked the unasked for ethnic nuance.
But there is just one story: Google nuked billions in market value and created the meme of the week by making many images the heart and soul of diversity. Pundits wanted one half of the Sundar and Prabhakar comedy show yanked off the stage. Check out Stratechery’s view of Google management’s grasp of leading the company in a positive manner in Gemini and Google’s Culture. The screw up was so bad that even the world’s favorite expert in aircraft refurbishment and modern gas-filled airships spoke up. (Yep, that’s the estimable Sergey Brin!)
In the aftermath of a brilliant PR move, CNBC ran a story yesterday that summed up the February 26 to March 1 Google experience. The title was “Google Co-Founder Sergey Brin Says in Rare Public Appearance That Company ‘Definitely Messed Up’ Gemini Image Launch.” What an incisive comment from one of the father of “clever” methods of determining relevance. The article includes this brilliant analysis:
He also commented on the flawed launch last month of Google’s image generator, which the company pulled after users discovered historical inaccuracies and questionable responses. “We definitely messed up on the image generation,” Brin said on Saturday. “I think it was mostly due to just not thorough testing. It definitely, for good reasons, upset a lot of people.”
That’s the Google “gem.” Amazing.
Stephen E Arnold, March 5, 2024
The Google: A Bit of a Wobble
February 28, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
Check out this snap from Techmeme on February 28, 2024. The folks commenting about Google Gemini’s very interesting picture generation system are confused. Some think that Gemini makes clear that the Google has lost its way. Others just find the recent image gaffes as one more indication that the company is too big to manage and the present senior management is too busy amping up the advertising pushed in front of “users.”
I wanted to take a look at What Analytics India Magazine had to say. Its article is “Aal Izz Well, Google.” The write up — from a nation state some nifty drone technology and so-so relationships with its neighbors — offers this statement:
In recent weeks, the situation has intensified to the extent that there are calls for the resignation of Google chief Sundar Pichai. Helios Capital founder Samir Arora has suggested a likelihood of Pichai facing termination or choosing to resign soon, in the aftermath of the Gemini debacle.
The write offers:
Google chief Sundar Pichai, too, graciously accepted the mistake. “I know that some of its responses have offended our users and shown bias – to be clear, that’s completely unacceptable and we got it wrong,” Pichai said in a memo.
The author of the Analytics India article is Siddharth Jindal. I wonder if he will talk about Sundar’s and Prabhakar’s most recent comedy sketch. The roll out of Bard in Paris was a hoot, and it too had gaffes. That was a year ago. Now it is a year later and what’s Google accomplished:
Analytics India emphasizes that “Google is not alone.” My team and I know that smart software is the next big thing. But Analytics India is particularly forgiving.
The estimable New York Post takes a slightly different approach. “Google Parent Loses $70B in Market Value after Woke AI Chatbot Disaster” reports:
Google’s parent company lost more than $70 billion in market value in a single trading day after its “woke” chatbot’s bizarre image debacle stoked renewed fears among investors about its heavily promoted AI tool. Shares of Alphabet sank 4.4% to close at $138.75 in the week’s first day of trading on Monday. The Google’s parent’s stock moved slightly higher in premarket trading on Tuesday [February 28, 2024, 941 am US Eastern time].
As I write this, I turned to Google’s nemesis, the Softies in Redmond, Washington. I asked for a dinosaur looking at a meteorite crater. Here’s what Copilot provided:
Several observations:
- This is a spectacular event. Sundar and Prabhakar will have a smooth explanation I believe. Smooth may be their core competency.
- The fact that a Code Red has become a Code Dead makes clear that communications at Google requires a tune up. But if no one is in charge, blowing $70 billion will catch the attention of some folks with sharp teeth and a mean spirit.
- The adolescent attitudes of a high school science club appear to inform the management methods at Google. A big time investigative journalist told me that Google did not operate like a high school science club planning a bus trip to the state science fair. I stick by my HSSCMM or high school science club management method. I won’t repeat her phrase because it is similar to Google’s quantumly supreme smart software: Wildly off base.
Net net: I love this rationalization of management, governance, and technical failure. Everyone in the science club gets a failing grade. Hey, wizards and wizardettes, why not just stick to selling advertising.
Stephen E Arnold, February 28,. 2024
Google Gems for the Week of 19 February, 2024
February 27, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
This week’s edition of Google Gems focuses on a Hope Diamond and a handful of lesser stones. Let’s go.
THE HOPE DIAMOND
In the chaos of the AI Gold Rush, horses fall and wizard engineers realize that they left their common sense in the saloon. Here’s the Hope Diamond from the Google.
The world’s largest online advertising agency created smart software with a lot of math, dump trucks filled with data, and wizards who did not recall that certain historical figures in the US were not of color. “Google Says Its AI Image-Generator Would Sometimes Overcompensate for Diversity,” an Associated Press story, explains in very gentle rhetoric that its super sophisticate brain and DeepMind would get the race of historical figures wrong. I think this means that Ben Franklin could look like a Zulu prince or George Washington might have some resemblance to Rama (blue skin, bow, arrow, and snappy hat).
My favorite search and retrieval expert Prabhakar Raghavan (famous for his brilliant lecture in Paris about the now renamed Bard) indicated that Google’s image rendering system did not hit the bull’s eye. No, Dr. Raghavan, the digital arrow pierced the micrometer thin plastic wrap of Google’s super sophisticated, quantum supremacy, gee-whiz technology.
The message I received from Google when I asked for an illustration of John Hancock, an American historical figure. Too bad because this request goes against Google’s policies. Yep, wizards infused with the high school science club management method.
More important, however, was how Google’s massive stumble complemented OpenAI’s ChatGPT wonkiness. I want to award the Hope Diamond Award for AI Ineptitude to both Google and OpenAI. But, alas, there is just one Hope Diamond. The award goes to the quantumly supreme outfit Google.
[Note: I did not quote from the AP story. Why? Years ago the outfit threatened to sue people who use their stories’ words. Okay, no problemo, even though the newspaper for which I once worked supported this outfit in the days of “real” news, not recycled blog posts. I listen, but I do not forget some things. I wonder if the AP knows that Google Chrome can finish a “real” journalist’s sentences for he/him/she/her/it/them. Read about this “feature” at this link.]
Here are my reasons:
- Google is in catch-up mode and like those in the old Gold Rush, some fall from their horses and get up close and personal with hooves. How do those affect the body of a wizard? I have never fallen from a horse, but I saw a fellow get trampled when I lived in Campinas, Brazil. I recall there was a lot of screaming and blood. Messy.
- Google’s arrogance and intellectual sophistication cannot prevent incredible gaffes. A company with a mixed record of managing diversity, equity, etc. has demonstrated why Xooglers like Dr. Timnit Gebru find the company “interesting.” I don’t think Google is interesting. I think it is disappointing, particularly in the racial sensitivity department.
- For years I have explained that Google operates via the high school science club management method. What’s cute when one is 14 loses its charm when those using the method have been at it for a quarter century. It’s time to put on the big boy pants.
OTHER LITTLE GEMMAS
The previous week revealed a dirt trail with some sharp stones and thorny bushes. Here’s a quick selection of the sharpest and thorniest:
- The Google is running webinars to inform publishers about life after their wonderful long-lived cookies. Read more at Fipp.com.
- Google has released a small model as open source. What about the big model with the diversity quirk? Well, no. Read more at the weird green Verge thing.
- Google cares about AI safety. Yeah, believe it or not. Read more about this PR move on Techcrunch.
- Web search competitors will fail. This is a little stone. Yep, a kidney stone for those who don’t recall Neeva. Read more at Techpolicy.
- Did Google really pay $60 million to get that outstanding Reddit content. Wow. Maybe Google looks at different sub reddits than my research team does. Read more about it in 9 to 5 Google.
- What happens when an uninformed person uses the Google Cloud? Answer: Sticker shock. More about this estimable method in The Register.
- Some spoil sport finds traffic lights informed with Google’s smart software annoying. That’s hard to believe. Read more at this link.
- Google pointed out in a court filing that DuckDuckGo was a meta search system (that is, a search interface to other firm’s indexes) and Neeva was a loser crafted by Xooglers. Read more at this link.
No Google Hope Diamond report would be complete without pointing out that the online advertising giant will roll out its smart software to companies. Read more at this link. Let’s hope the wizards figure out that historical figures often have quite specific racial characteristics like Rama.
I wanted to include an image of Google’s rendering of a signer of the Declaration of Independence. What you see in the illustration above is what I got. Wow. I have more “gemmas”, but I just don’t want to present them.
Stephen E Arnold, February 27, 2024
Hewlett Packard and Autonomy: Search and $4 Billion
February 12, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
More than a decade ago, Hewlett Packard acquired Autonomy plc. Autonomy was one of the first companies to deploy what I call “smart software.” The system used Bayesian methods, still quite new to many in the information retrieval game in the 1990s. Autonomy kept its method in a black box assigned to a company from which Autonomy licensed the functions for information processing. Some experts in smart software overlook BAE Systems’ activity in the smart software game. That effort began in the late 1990s if my memory is working this morning. Few “experts” today care, but the dates are relevant.
Between the date Autonomy opened for business in 1996 and HP’s decision to purchase the company for about $8 billion in 2011, there was ample evidence that companies engaged in enterprise search and allied businesses like legal work processes or augmented magazine advertising were selling for much less. Most of the companies engaged in enterprise search simply went out of business after burning through their funds; for example, Delphes and Entopia. Others sold at what I thought we inflated or generous prices; for example, Vivisimo to IBM for about $28 million and Exalead to Dassault for 135 million euros.
Then along comes HP and its announcement that it purchased Autonomy for a staggering $8 billion. I attended a search-related event when one of the presenters showed this PowerPoint slide:
The idea was that Autonomy’s systems generated multiple lines of revenue, including a cloud service. The key fact on the presentation was that the search-and-retrieval unit was not the revenue rocket ship. Autonomy has shored up its search revenue by acquisition; for example, Soundsoft, Virage, and Zantaz. The company also experimented with bundling software, services, and hardware. But the Qatalyst slide depicted a rosy future because of Autonomy management’s vision and business strategy.
Did I believe the analysis prepared by Frank Quatrone’s team? I accepted some of the comments about the future, and I was skeptical about others. In the period from 2006 to 2012, it was becoming increasingly difficult to overcome some notable failures in enterprise search. The poster child from the problems was Fast Search & Transfer. In a nutshell, Fast Search retreated from Web search, shutting down its Google competitor AllTheWeb.com. The company’s engaging founder John Lervik told me that the future was enterprise search. But some Fast Search customers were slow in paying their bills because of the complexity of tailoring the Fast Search system to a client’s particular requirements. I recall being asked to comment about how to get the Fast Search system to work because my team used it for the FirstGov.gov site (now USA.gov) when the Inktomi solution was no longer viable due to procurement rule changes. Fast Search worked, but it required the same type of manual effort that the Vivisimo system required. Search-and-retrieval for an organization is not a one size fits all thing, a fact Google learned with its spectacular failure with its truly misguided Google Search Appliance product. Fast Search ended with an investigation related to financial missteps, and Microsoft stepped in in 2008 and bought the company for about $1.2 billion. I thought that was a wild and crazy number, but I was one of the lucky people who managed to get Fast Search to work and knew that most licensees would not have the resources or talent I had at my disposal. Working for the White House has some benefits, particularly when Fast Search for the US government was part of its tie up with AT&T. Thank goodness for my counterpart Ms. Coker. But $1.2 billion for Fast Search? That in my opinion was absolutely bonkers from my point of view. There were better and cheaper options, but Microsoft did not ask my opinion until after the deal was closed.
Everyone in the HP Autonomy matter keeps saying the same thing like an old-fashioned 78 RPM record stuck in a groove. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. You produced the image really “fast.” Plus, it is good enough like most search systems.
What is the Reuters’ news story adding to this background? Nothing. The reason is that the news story focuses on one factoid: “HP Claims $4 Billion Losses in London Lawsuit over Autonomy Deal.” Keep in mind that HP paid $11 billion for Autonomy plc. Keep in mind that was 10 times what Microsoft paid for Fast Search. Now HP wants $4 billion. Stripping away everything but enterprise search, I could accept that HP could reasonably pay $1.2 billion for Autonomy. But $11 billion made Microsoft’s purchase of Fast Search less nutso. Because, despite technical differences, Autonomy and Fast Search were two peas in a pod. The similarities were significant. The differences were technical. Neither company was poised to grow as rapidly as their stakeholders envisioned.
When open source search options became available, these quickly became popular. Today if one wants serviceable search-and-retrieval for an enterprise application one can use a Lucene / Solr variant or pick one of a number of other viable open source systems.
But HP bought Autonomy and overpaid. Furthermore, Autonomy had potential, but the vision of Mike Lynch and the resources of HP were needed to convert the promise of Autonomy into a diversified information processing company. Autonomy could have provided high value solutions to the health and medical market; it could have become a key player in the policeware market; it could have leveraged its legal software into a knowledge pipeline for eDiscovery vendors to license and build upon; and it could have expanded its opportunities to license Autonomy stubs into broader OpenText enterprise integration solutions.
But what did HP do? It muffed the bunny. Mr. Lynch exited and set up a promising cyber security company and spent the rest of his time in courts. The Reuters’ article states:
Following one of the longest civil trials in English legal history, HP in 2022 substantially won its case, though a High Court judge said any damages would be significantly less than the $5 billion HP had claimed. HP’s lawyers argued on Monday that its losses resulting from the fraud entitle it to about $4 billion.
If I were younger and had not written three volumes of the Enterprise Search Report and a half dozen books about enterprise search, I would write about the wild and crazy years for enterprise search, its hits, its misses, and its spectacular failures (Yes, Google, I remember the Google Search Appliance quite well.) But I am a dinobaby.
The net net is HP made a poor decision and now years later it wants Mike Lynch to pay for HP’s lousy analysis of the company, its management missteps within its own Board of Directors, and its decision to pay $11 billion for a company in a sector in which at the time simply being profitable was a Herculean achievement. So this dinobaby says, “Caveat emptor.”
Stephen E Arnold, February 12, 2024
Scattering Clouds: Price Surprises and Technical Labyrinths Have an Impact
February 12, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Yep, the cloud. A third-party time sharing services with some 21st-century add ons. I am not too keen on the cloud even though I am forced to use it for certain specific tasks. Others, however, think nothing of using the cloud like an invisible and infinite USB stick. “2023 Could Be the Year of Public Cloud Repatriation” strikes me as a “real” news story reporting that others are taking a look at the sky, spotting threatening clouds, and heading to a long-abandoned computer room to rethink their expenditures.
The write up reports:
Many regard repatriating data and applications back to enterprise data centers from a public cloud provider as an admission that someone made a big mistake moving the workloads to the cloud in the first place. I don’t automatically consider this a failure as much as an adjustment of hosting platforms based on current economic realities. Many cite the high cost of cloud computing as the reason for moving back to more traditional platforms.
I agree. However, there are several other factors which may reflect more managerial analysis than technical acumen; specifically:
- The cloud computing solution was better, faster, and cheaper. Better than an in house staff? Well, not for everyone because cloud companies are not working overtime to address user / customer problems. The technical personnel have other fires, floods, and earthquakes. Users / customers have to wait unless the user / customer “buys” dedicated support staff.
- So the “cheaper” argument becomes an issue. In addition to paying for escalated support, one has to deal with Byzantine pricing mechanisms. If one considers any of the major cloud providers, one can spend hours reading how to manage certain costs. Data transfer is a popular subject. Activated but unused services are another. Why is pricing so intricate and complex? Answer: Revenue for the cloud providers. Many customers are confident the big clouds are their friend and have their best financial interests at heart. That’s true. It is just that the heart is in the cloud computer books, not the user / customer balance sheets.
- And better? For certain operations, a user / customer has limited options. The current AI craze means the cloud is the principal game in town. Payroll, sales management, and Webby stuff are also popular functions to move to the cloud.
The rationale for shifting to the cloud varies, but there are some themes which my team and I have noted in our work over the years:
First, the cloud allowed “experts” who cost a lot of money to be hired by the cloud vendor. Users / customers did not have to have these expensive people on their staff. Plus, there are not that many experts who are really expert. The cloud vendor has the smarts to hire the best and the resources to pay these people accordingly… in theory. But bean counters love to cut costs so IT professionals were downsized in many organizations. The mythical “power user” could do more and gig workers could pick up any slack. But the costs of cloud computing held a little box with some Tannerite inside. Costs for information technology were going up. Wouldn’t it be cheaper to do computing in house? For some, the answer is, “Yes.”
An ostrich company with its head in the clouds, not in the sand. Thanks, MidJourney, what a not-even-good-enough illustration.
Second, most organizations lacked the expertise to manage a multi-cloud set up. When an organization has two or more clouds, one cannot allow a cloud company to manage itself and one or more competitors. Therefore, organizations had to add to their headcount a new and expensive position: A cloud manager.
Third, the cloud solutions are not homogeneous. Different rules of the road, different technical set up, and different pricing schemes. The solution? Add another position: A technical manager to manage the cloud technologies.
I will stop with these three points. One can rationalize using the cloud easily; for example a government agency can push tasks to the cloud. Some work in government agencies consists entirely of attending meetings at which third-party contractors explain what they are doing and why an engineering change order is priority number one. Who wants to do this work as part of a nine to five job?
But now there is a threat to the clouds themselves. That is security. What’s more secure? Data in a user / customer server facility down the hall or in a disused building in Piscataway, New Jersey, or sitting in a cloud service scattered wherever? Security? Cloud vendors are great at security. Yeah, how about those AWS S3 buckets or the Microsoft email “issue”?
My view is that a “where should our computing be done and where should our data reside” audit be considered by many organizations. People have had their heads in the clouds for a number of years. It is time to hold a meeting in that little-used computer room and do some thinking.
Stephen E Arnold, February 12, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
