Pattern Finder

The Ecosystem Grows: Google Cuts a Deal with Ingram Micro

Google announced today that it had cut a deal with Ingram Micro to sell and distribute its Google Search Appliance and Google Mini. This is a smart move, as Ingram Micro is a powerhouse in distribution, and it gives Google many more feet on the street. In addition, Google is now up to having sold 9,000 search appliances, a number that dwarfs the number of enterprise search installations done by Autonomy, FAST Search, and others.

I would view this a more general pattern of ecosystem growth by Google. The company is at the point where it can't hire people fast enough to support the many areas it wants to get into. Cutting alliances with Ingram Micro (distributing the search appliances), open source advocates (having others work on Google Gears), and professional services companies (third-party implementation of Google Analytics, for example) continues Google's growth while spreading the largess around.

The questions that arise are the common partner questions: how well will Google support its partners now that the handshakes have taken place and how it will deal with the inevitable conflicts (e.g., what will it do when both Google's sales force and Ingram Micro's salesforce try to sell into the same company?). We'll have to wait and see.

Desktop Search: Google Complains, Microsoft Blinks, Users Win

According to a story in The New York Times and elsewhere, Microsoft is going to make changes in the Windows Vista OS, allowing users to select a default desktop search program (such as, umm... Google Desktop Search), rather than defaulting to "Instant Search" that Microsoft built into the operating system.

Google had filed a complaint with the U.S. Justice department in December 2006, saying that the built-in functionality didn't allow competition from other desktop search applications. (The built-in Vista functionality also blunted Google's May 2006 deal with Dell Computer, where Dell agreed to pre-load the PCs it sells with the Google toolbar for Web and PC search.) Microsoft's initial response was that no, it didn't prevent competition -- that users could install a third party app such as Google Desktop Search if they so desired. Google's riposte was along the lines of, "Yeah, but it slows the system down running two indexers at once." (Although I didn't test the specific instance, I can certainly verify that that can happen. Several years ago, in order to better understand the functionality of desktop search, I concurrently ran desktop search applications from Blinkx, Copernic, Google, and Yahoo! and watched my system slow to a crawl.)

So after a bit of posturing by Google, Microsoft, the U.S. Department of Justice, and attorney generals from the U.S. states, a deal has been cut. This is a win for users, as users should be able to choose which desktop search application they use, partly because the user interfaces are inclined to be different. For example, I personally don't like the sidebar Google interface; I much prefer Yahoo! Desktop Search (built by X1). Desktop search, just like a worker's physical desk, is an intensely personal thing. Some users like buttons to push, others want a clean text box and nothing more, while others want to see suggested content. With Copernic, Google, Microsoft, X1, and others each offering different UIs, letting users choose their own is a good thing.

Autonomy's Yin; Microsoft's Yang

Autonomy announced today that it was integrating its IDOL system with Microsoft SharePoint 2007 via SharePoint Web Parts. So add another vendor to the list (e.g., EMC, Open Text, Vignette) that recognizes that integrating with SharePoint 2007 is a necessity.

The good news for enterprises is that they can live in SharePoint to perform everyday work, but then can access best-of-breed systems (in this case Autonomy) to gain functionality or content that isn't present in SharePoint. It's a yin and yang thing: Office/SharePoint is where most information workers live; best-of-breed systems offer deeper features and own certain information islands that SharePoint doesn't. By making such an alliance, Microsoft gains additional functionality through its SharePoint "gateway"; meanwhile,  best-of-breed vendors get to extend their user reach beyond the department that brought them in.

In short, SharePoint's value--to both enterprises and vendors--is as a user delivery system. I get a lot of questions from Burton Group clients about whether they should toss out out their current content management system or enterprise search solution and replace it with SharePoint. Rephrased, the question I'm often asked is, "Should I replace A with B?" Almost always the answer is no;  SharePoint typically complements such systems, by offering access to a larger audience via its ease-of-use and low price. Instead, the question should be, "Should I drive users to A with B?" Documentum typically serves hundreds of users; SharePoint often serves tens of thousands. If enterprises want to increase usage of Documentum functionality--without installing Documentum on every desk--they should install SharePoint. Autonomy is no doubt hoping the same thing will happen here.

Google Gears: Admitting that Microsoft Is Right

On May 31, Google announced Google Gears, an open source browser extension that lets developers insert calls in their web application so it can store application pages offline, store data offline, and perform the necessary tasks to synchronize the online and offline data. CNET pitched the Google vs. Microsoft angle:

Not only is Google strengthening its presence in the developer community, it is pleasing many different factions by releasing Gears as open-source software, rather than proprietary. Microsoft has been criticized for locking developers into its Windows operating system and other Microsoft software. Microsoft has also been struggling to figure out how best to respond to the threat that Web-hosted applications pose to its desktop business.

The Guardian in the UK, the Washington Post (via AP), and others did the same: all claiming that Google Gears is a sign that Google is gaining on Microsoft. But nobody mentioned the philosophical shift that Google Gears signifies. Google has surrendered. Google is finally admitting what Microsoft has been saying for awhile now: the future is not Software as a Service, but rather a combination of software and services. So yes, Google is competing with Microsoft--but finally adopting Microsoft's strategy to do so.

And make no mistake, Google Gears is software and a local database running on the client. In the eWeek story, here's how Bret Taylor, head of Google Developer Programs, characterized Google Gears: "Taylor said he believes Google Gears marks an important step in the evolution of Web applications because it addresses the issue of availability of data and applications when there's no Internet connection available, or when a connection is slow or unreliable." Gee, sounds like software to me.

I, for one, am glad that Google has finally figured out what Microsoft has been saying for awhile, because enterprises--whether Google or Microsoft clients--will win by being able to buy better software.