Guidewire » Microsoft

Searching for Answers in Search

carlacthompson — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:45:21 +0000

There has been an influx of announcements in the search world lately – Wolfram Alpha, Bing, and Siri among the most high profile – so our upcoming panel at SemTech 2009 really couldn’t come at a better time. Set for next Wednesday, June 17 at 8:30am at the San Jose Fairmont, our Executive Roundtable on Semantic Search will pick some of the biggest brains in the business to share their insights on where search is now, where it should be going and what role semantic technology should play in this complex sector.

With both Microsoft and Google represented, we’re sure to discuss Bing and its new place in the search game. Yahoo and Ask.com will share their experiences as legacy sites that must constantly innovate to stay viable. And up-and-comers True Knowledge and Hakia can give perspective on what it’s like to battle the behemoths in a space that is always hungry for more. In short, we’ve got every aspect of the search game covered so you won’t want to miss it.

If you’re not already registered for SemTech, do so now. Friends of Guidewire Group get a $300 discount on a full-conference pass. If you’re only interested in semantic search, the conference is offering a special Semantic Search Day pass for $195. This gets you access to our panel, a one-on-one Wolfram Alpha interview by Nova Spivack, and access to the exhibit hall.

Hope to see you all in San Jose next week!

We May Not Know Where the Web is Going But These Folks Sure Do

carlacthompson — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:05:53 +0000

As reported in ReadWriteWeb last month, we’ve been working on a fantastic roundtable for DEMOfall and I’m thrilled to finally be able to reveal details. Nova Spivack, the session’s moderator, and I have worked overtime to secure a stellar and diverse line-up of thought leaders to answer the very tough question: Where the Web is Going?

Though everyone can agree that we’re on the cusp of the next Internet revolution, its exact definition is one of frequent and vigorous debate. Is Web 3.0 about semantics or user-generated content? Innovate search engines or cloud computing? Where does the enterprise fit in all this? And what about big media; are they adapting sufficiently and flexibly?

To address these issues for and with DEMO’s business-minded audience, we thought we’d go straight to the big guns. As Nova says,

My goal for this panel is to find out where the major Web incumbents think the Web is going. If their stock valuations do not fluctuate one way or the other by at least a few hundred million in market cap after this panel then I have failed.

He sets manageable goals, no? Without further ado, our lineup for ‘Where the Web is Going: Web 2.0, 3.0 and Beyond.’ There is sure to be lively debate with this group, so make sure you’re registered for DEMOfall 08; you won’t want to miss a thing.

Moderator: Nova Spivack, Founder and CEO, Radar Networks

Panelists:

Ross Levinsohn, Partner, Velocity Interactive Group

Howard Bloom, Author, The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century

Peter Norvig, Director of Research, Google Inc.

Jon Udell, Evangelist, Microsoft Corporation

Prabhakar Raghavan, PhD, Head of Research and Search Strategy, Yahoo! Inc.

Top-of-mind thoughts on Microsoft and Powerset

carlacthompson — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:53:37 +0000

There’s a reason I love emerging technology so much: over the course of one hour, the entire landscape can be turned on its head. The rumor out of VentureBeat this afternoon, that Microsoft will acquire Powerset for $100 million next month, has produced the predictable memes: Microsoft is desperate after the Yahoo debacle; Powerset overhyped itself to bankruptcy and needs a bailout; Powerset only searches Wikipedia and we like Google just fine, thanks. While neither party will confirm the rumors, it now seems likely that something significant will happen in the semantic sector over the next couple of months. Having analyzed Powerset and semantic search extensively, I think we should keep a couple of key points in mind beyond the arguments over valuation and hype machines.

1) After years toiling in the uber-geek trenches, semantics just got uber-interesting. As I wrote late last week, the days of GoogleKiller.com – an ultimate destination search site to rule them all – are behind us. The next wave of semantics lies in plugging into already existing sites and products that desperately need a smarter framework behind them.

It’s now time to focus on the niggling details: how to identify and amass relevant information, present it to users in an easily consumable yet rich visual format, and, perhaps most importantly, establish a user base that will consistently turn to your product as a valued information resource.

Powerset just landed (speculatively of course) the largest user base in the world. Which brings me to point number two.

2) That massive user base won’t amount to much if users are faced with a complex, hard-to-parse interface. Though some disagreed, I viewed Powerset’s Wikipedia search as a changing of the game in search.

Once you’ve dug into the meat of a Wikipedia article with just a couple of clicks, zeroing in on precise actions and entities and going directly to their citations in the article, paging through flat hyperlinks just ain’t going to cut it.

Many viewed the Wikipedia search product as a disappointing launch from Powerset, after so many months of hype. They were focused on the wrong angle though, fixating on the language used to search rather than the results produced. (And I do blame Powerset for some of this, as previous messaging from the company fixated on search phrasing.) Asking Wikipedia where you should go for dinner tonight is barking up the wrong tree, no matter what engine you use. But what if you applied those same Powerset algorithms to your email? Or to Live Search listings? Or to the documents on your hard drive? Microsoft – or any other company wanting to throw its hat in at this point – sees the potential in Powerset’s algorithms, yes. But more importantly, that intuitive little UI the company threw on top of Wikipedia opens up a wide realm of consumer possibilities.

3) The talk of whether this is an over-valued deal is valid but, in one sense, it would be more than a deal between two companies. It would be an acknowledgement by the business sector at large that semantics’ time has come. That it’s time to take it out of the university labs and hands of the rocket scientists and put it in front of consumers for true vetting. Is semantics ready for that stage? I think it is. Will it look and sound the same after going through the billion-dollar-behemoth ringer? Probably not. But that’s the most exciting part of all.

One More Thought on Yahoo's Rebuff

chrisshipley — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 22:50:19 +0000

So much has already been said and speculated about Yahoo!’s rejection of Microsoft’s $44.6 billion offer that it would be screaming in the echo chamber to add my analysis and prognostications about the offer and its rebuff. Except I can’t help making one (hopefully) original observation: This episode may be the best thing to happen to Yahoo! and its employees in a very long time.

When the proposed deal was announced 11 days ago, I wrote – assuming Yahoo! to be a willing recipient of the offer – that getting the deal past regulators would be a challenge and one that could demoralize an already struggling Yahoo!

Now, Yahoo!’s decision to reject the offer could have the opposite affect on the company and it’s employees.

From the press release issued by Yahoo this morning:

After careful evaluation, the Board believes that Microsoft’s proposal substantially undervalues Yahoo! including our global brand, large worldwide audience, significant recent investments in advertising platforms and future growth prospects, free cash flow and earnings potential, as well as our substantial unconsolidated investments.

Roughly translated: “Microsoft is out of its friggin’ mind if it thinks for a minute we’re some kind of cheap date.”

And therein lies the motivation. Nothing energizes an organization and galvanizes employees quite like righteous indignation. Now, Yahoo! has something to prove, damn it!

Sure, Yahoo! left the door ajar for counter offers and other “strategic options,” but the Microsoft bid – and its rejection – might be the best thing to happen to Yahoo! in a very long time.

Microsoft Courts Danger

chrisshipley — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 22:21:52 +0000

Even as Yahoo! rebuffed Microsoft’s proposal this morning, Microsoft announced this morning that it would acquire mobile software and services provider Danger Inc. (and in the process nix Danger’s plans to go public).

In the press release, Microsoft said the “acquisition will align Danger’s nearly 10 years of expertise in the mobile consumer space with Microsoft’s vision to provide innovative andcompelling mobile experiences to a growing base of customers.”

We first met Danger in early 2000 when my colleague Jim Forbes and I were putting together the DEMOmobile events. Danger introduced the Sidekick at DEMOmobile 2001. Meeting the company in their scrappy offices on University Ave., in Palo Alto, it was clear

to us that the future value of Danger wasn’t the Sidekick device or even the operating environment; it’s the applications and services that the device connects to that matter most. Microsoft seems to get that, too.

So concerns voiced in a c|net post about how Microsoft will reconcile the incompatible operating systems seem moot to us. Microsoft Windows Mobile has focused on the device, to the neglect of the services the device connects with. Danger provides an end-to-end infrastructure to deliver data and Internet services to consumers. Whether Microsoft adopts Danger’s OS or kills it is of little consequence. It’s the service infrastructure that matters and in acquiring Danger, Microsoft is acquiring the architecture, IP, and experienced engineers to extend Windows Mobile – or for that matter the Xbox and other device-centric operating platforms — from the device to the service layer.

We hope Microsoft also recognizes the value of Danger’s consumer-smart marketing organization. Danger has been successful in creating a hip brand that appeals to the iPod generation, a substantial market segment that Microsoft can’t seem to crack.

Microsoft + Yahoo: Can the Deal Get Done?

chrisshipley — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 14:23:39 +0000

I woke this morning to the news that Microsoft has tendered a $44.6 billion ($31/share) offer to buy Yahoo in a cash and stock deal. (And here I thought I was getting up early to pack for vacation!).

The acquisition has been rumored and speculated on for a year or more, and even in the dawns early light there’s plenty of commentary on whether the deal should or should not happen, whether it makes sense, what the combined company might look like, what Microsoft ought to do with the Yahoo asset.

When rumors of a possible merger circulated last May, Om Malik called a Microsoft-Yahoo merger a “bad idea.” He wrote:

Marrying a company with Internet DNA (Yahoo) with another who can’t take a step forward without turning its neck twice (looking back at the PC) is not that easy. Will this deal become the 21st century version of AOL-Time Warner merger, and a high-water mark for the current boom?

One-time Wall Street wonder-analyst Henry Blodget called a potential merger a “smart strategic move” but advised Microsoft to create a new company Internet company in the process.

Would it be a smart strategic move for Microsoft and Yahoo to combine forces? Absolutely. Is the best way to do this to have Microsoft suck Yahoo into the massive Windows/Office empire? Absolutely not. If Microsoft buys Yahoo, Microsoft should immediately spin the Yahoo-MSN business out as a separate company. If it doesn’t, both Yahoo and MSN will die

Now that the deal has gone from rumor to announcement, there’ll be plenty of jockeying around these two, and a myriad of other, opinions. I’ll leave that speculation to folks who are far better arm-chair quarterbacks than I. But what I will say is this:

Not so fast.

I’ve seen this play before and while (for the record) I think this is a brilliant move on the part of both companies, I question whether it’s a deal that can get done. Remember the mid-90s when Microsoft tried to buy Intuit in a play to own the small business market? Well, I do. After the offer comes the regulators and after that six months of wrangling before both companies had to agree that they couldn’t come to final terms that would also suit the suits in Washington.

The detritus of that aborted merger took years to clean up. Intuit employees, once proud Davids in a battle with Goliath – a battle in the finance software market it looked like it was winning — had first reset its thinking that Goliath may have won after all, only to find the battle would wage on after all. It took considerable time for Intuit’s people to get their heads back in the game and I would argue the company was never quite as competitively hungry in the personal finance software market after that.

And, of course, there were years of insider trading investigations that compromised several Silicon Valley execs and their families.

Intuit has healed from that on-again-off-again proposal, and certainly is a stronger, smarter, better company today than it was a decade ago. But it took years for the company to get over the jilted deal.

This Microsoft-Yahoo proposition smells a lot like that ill-fated Intuit proposal. The consolidation of two significant networks will make regulators look sideways at the deal, I’m certain. On one hand, the combined companies do make an important counterweight to Google. On the other (and I think this is the hand that will win out), the combined assets may consolidate the advertising market and combine (and thereby limit competition) too many consumer Internet services to pass muster with regulators.

I may be wrong, and it many ways, I hope I am. But even while the shareholders and employees are sipping mimosas this morning, they need to be prepared if they should be left at the alter.