James Governor/Redmonk: IBM to Google: Come eat our lunch?

May 23 2005

Redmonk's James Governor wonders what's behind the IBM Lotus team-up with Google...

But i have to say when i first heard the idea IBM would endorse Google Desktop Search (GDS) because it supported Lotus Notes formats, i was struck that IBM was potentially ceding some extremely important real estate to Google by giving it the nod.

I mean where do you live? In your email? In your aggregator? Or in search? Search is fundamental UI real estate.
...
Maybe Lotus is just confident because it feels like they have fought off the MS Exchange and Live Communications Server collaboration challenge for now... But surely Google is going to come after IBM sooner rather later? Eric Schmidt is sanguine apparently. But Bill Gates didn't get to where he is today without being able to identify competitive threats. You could argue doing so is a Microsoft core competence. IBM on the other hand, has not always been quite so adept at spotting threats early.

I don't expect IBM to ignore Google, after all it wants to attract ISVs, and Google is one, but in my opinion search is fundamental to the computing experience. Apple with Spotlight and Microsoft with its own desktop search seem to think so. So what of IBM's ambitions? If it wants to displace Microsoft going forward it will need to offer a better user experience, and to reduce MS dependence. By putting its weight behind GDS and giving it the enterprise imprimatur, it has strengthened the position of an emerging competitor.
Maybe I'm being too practical, but I just see this deal as recognition of the value of a single end-user being able to search mutliple content types from a single engine  Desktop search <> enterprise search...thus, I don't see the current -- or potential -- overlap that James does.  Do you?

Ed Brill Highland Park, IL USA Category:  IBM Workplace  Add/View Comments [30]

Post a Comment

  1. 1  Vince Schuurman http://blog.vinceschuurman.com | 5/24/2005 3:05:47 AM

    If you 'own' the end-user, you 'own' the enterprise.

    Bill Gates knows this very well, it's the way Word became the number one in word processing software.

  1. 2  Arnd Layer  | 5/24/2005 3:06:41 AM

    Well, it looks like desktop search could become a big thing in the near future and if IBM had the intention to provide an own client OS, Google would be a competitor.

    So what we really need is a great (desktop) search functionality within the Wokplace Client Technology / Eclipse Rich Client Framework. I'd like to see a Google solution for this. Google could differentiate from MS / Apple by supporting multiple OSs.

    By the way, as Google desktop search only indexes the Notes Inbox, it is not as helpful as I expected.

  1. 3  Axel Janssen  | 5/24/2005 4:11:24 AM

    Oh boy. Deep sigh.

    Is it really such a bad idea to team up with the leading expert in a well-defined field?

    Isn't car industry doing that for years?

    Should any company build there own search engine?

    Instead of providing us IT-workers with reliable, diferentiated opinions and insights they invent every week a new "story" which reminds me more on startrek but on reality as I understand it.

    I am still praying for a world where their readers (IT-workers + decision makers) consider The Economist more relevant than Star Trek.

    Axel

  1. 4  Vince Schuurman http://blog.vinceschuurman.com | 5/24/2005 4:34:59 AM

    I'm not saying I disagree with IBM, on the contrary. I think it's a wise decision.

    I'm just saying it's important to realize that end-users want to use the same interface for the 'enterprise search' as they are used to when 'searching their personal desktop'

  1. 5  Axel Janssen  | 5/24/2005 4:57:01 AM

    Vince,

    with the dominant modular, layer-based architecture it really can't be too dificult to mimic the ui of desktop search for the enterprise search.

  1. 6  Keith Nolen http://www.yellerdog.net | 5/24/2005 9:16:12 AM

    As I see it, desktop search should not be separate from enterprise search, at least as far as the user experience is concerned. Whether I want to search my hard drive, a Linux file server, an Oracle database, or the Domino server, I should be able to use one consistent interface.

    A really useful search tool would allow me to search locally, to search file servers, Domino servers, other database servers, or the Web. In other words, let me pick what I want to find and where to look for it with just one tool.

    Google Desktop Search is a step in the right direction becasue it takes all sorts of data into account. I've used it to locate all references to a project whether they are in Outlook, Word files, or Excel files. Now if it would only search Domino databases other than the inbox...

  1. 7  Craig Wiseman  | 5/24/2005 9:19:55 AM

    Hmmm. 3rd party support for Notes/Domino? From a shop that doesn't primarily cater to Notes/Domino? A novel idea indeed....

  1. 8  Dan Sickles  | 5/24/2005 9:36:46 AM

    So nsfs won't be added to the google appliance?

  1. 9  Alan Lepofsky http://www.alanlepofsky.net | 5/24/2005 10:00:44 AM

    @2 and @6, if you want desktop search today for more than just mail, you can take a look at X1 Desktop Search for Notes:

    { Link }

    I assume both X1 and Google will be adding more features, and tighter integration as time goes on.

  1. 10  james governor www.redmonk.com/jgovernor | 5/24/2005 10:02:11 AM

    Good point Vince.

    I agree with Arnd that the service would be more useful if it indexed all Lotus files.

    Its not just individual users. not according to the press release ({ Link } which states:

    One-Stop Searching for Employees

    - Search desktop files, the corporate intranet and global Internet all from one search box

    - Instantly find vital corporate email, files, web history, even instant messages

    - View web pages visited, even when not online

    Regarding the car analogy Axel, have you looked at that industry lately? Its in carnage. the only people making a buck are Toyota. Why do you think IBM needed to reduce reliance on Intel and Windows businesses and so Lenovo. To increase margins.

    And finally i would majorly appreciate it if folks comment on my site so i don't have to track Ed quite so closely for feedback, although i VERY much appreciate the link. i will be hovering here though, of course, as this seems to be the hot real estate! :-) Thanks anyone and everyone.

  1. 11  Douglas Himmler  | 5/24/2005 10:21:03 AM

    "IBM on the other hand, has not always been quite so adept at spotting threats early."

    Maybe Microsoft is just jealous that they could not buy Google.

    See: { Link }

    "In fall 2003, Microsoft briefly considered buying Google, only to realize that even if Brin, Page, and their board could have been persuaded to sell—which seemed unlikely—Microsoft would have been left to explain to the world why it was now running a search engine built entirely on Linux instead of Windows. "

    So, At one time they saw Google as not a threat but an opportunity. Microsoft would have liked to use the Google technology but cannot because it is not Windows based. So now they are swinging the FUD stick at IBM. I am not buying it.

  1. 12  Axel Janssen  | 5/24/2005 10:32:59 AM

    @James: Toyota is increasing margins, because they have good quality, good internal processes, etc.

    Certainly not because they are doing anything by themselves.

    On the contrary they are collaborating a lot with suppliers.

    IBM does the same (Eclipse, Geronimo, etc.) and I believe that they will do more so in the future.

  1. 13  james governor www.redmonk.com/jgovernor | 5/24/2005 11:07:59 AM

    @9 if you read the original post you would see that i do indeed put forward X1 as an enterprise alternative.

    @11 swinging the FUD stick? No - MS is responding to what it perceives as a real threat. MS has said nothing about Google's deal with IBM for all I know, or care.

    @Axel - points very well made, Toyota has benefited from having the most effective quality processes for build and so on. We do see the industry moving that way, as software as a service and open source converge. I think we might just disagree about where the line is drawn between suppliers and competitors. Some suppliers you can manage, others less so. There once was a time when Intel and MS were just suppliers in an IBM ecosystem.

  1. 14  Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 5/24/2005 11:38:04 AM

    Manual trackback...

    Ed Moltzen/The Chart:

    { Link }

    "If nothing else, maybe IBM can help Google improve the Google Desktop Search, which is something of a bandwidth hog on the desktop (so is the Yahoo desktop search, for that matter), and which can be maddening to install in many cases."

  1. 15  Stu Mac www.uksatnavltd.co.uk/catalog | 5/24/2005 2:11:20 PM

    Generally speaking, Google worries me...

    In the same way as MS has (arguably) created a virtual monopoly in so many areas of IT over the past 20 years, so Google are doing now, albeit in a less preditory way.

    I know in the US, Yahoo, MSD and others still have a major portion of the search market, here in EMEA, Google is rapidly heading for a significant 80-90% of web searches made. In addition, Adwords and Adsense is also gobbling up more and more of SMB advertising spend.

    Now this week, we have the new Enterprise Search and Web portal (see www.google.com/ig) plus the hugely powerful GMail that is expanding all the time.

    Don't get me wrong, Google's technology and invention impresses me hugely, I just hope they don't come to abuse their market share in years to come.... Stu

  1. 16  Tim Latta  | 5/24/2005 2:35:08 PM

    @Arnd - are you sure about Google desktop search only indexing the Inbox? The numbers of indexed documents match much closer the total document count of my local mail replica than just those in my Inbox.

  1. 17  Wild Bill http://www.billbuchan.com | 5/24/2005 5:46:42 PM

    I see it as two different cultures. IBM have been in the position where it owned big companies' IT systems, and it wasnt a happy time. Hence IBM's thrust into open systems, open standards, etc.

    Of course every red-blooded capitalist company would love to *own* everything. But thats just immature.

    Enter the beast of Redmond.

    You cannot possibly do it all, be it all and then do a good job on it all. Different systems are here to stay. IBM's position is a lot more mature than Googles, in that they are very customer focused. If the customer wants to run google desktop search - great. Better be the master of some markets than a fool in them all. Does IBM have a console device ? No. However, it now supplies the chips for all the new console devices..

    (Hey. Tiger on XBox360 anyone ? Would that be *cool* ? )

    Standards, open or otherwise, drive interconnections, and as well all know - help drive business connections. Long may it live. IBM have got this loud and clear and are forcing the issue.

    (Oh - remember Redmond purchased Hotmail which ran on Linux. Perhaps it still does? )

    My 2 cents worth..

    ---* Bill

  1. 18  Axel Janssen  | 5/25/2005 12:30:30 AM

    See google as a truly innovative company. So they deserve some succesfull innovation premia. They also were creative in getting money out of their service. They appear now also as a kind of a spearhead of the ajax stuff.

    On the other side the fears about monopoly are understandable. The head of the lucene project shares them. Now this man is heading a project "nutch", currently on apache.incubator.

    { Link }

    The project explicitly addresses the fear of monopolization as the motivation of the project.

    Maybe such openSource organisations are better as guardians against monopolization than IBM. IBM has to look for ROI, people help openSource organization without expecting money, etc.

    I agree with Wild Bill that IBM can't do it all.

    I see search as a subsystem and with layered architecture different search solutions are replacable.

  1. 19  Axel Janssen  | 5/25/2005 12:55:02 AM

    IBM might team up with "nutch" when google is getting to bossy. It would be no surprise if there are actually right now email adresses of ibm engineers in the source code of nutch. Maybe I'll find the time to take a look on that tonight.

  1. 20  Chris Reckling  | 5/25/2005 1:57:46 AM

    Bring back Magellan! (for all you old time Loti)

    :)

    Chris

  1. 21  Arnd Layer  | 5/25/2005 3:09:11 AM

    @16

    according to my tests Google Desktop Search only indexes the Notes inbox. I did the same search through Google and through Notes Search on All Documents and had more hits in Notes. The additional hits were docs in other folders.

    Besides that the Web site always talks about indexing the inbox.

    Right now for me Notes Search is the better one for Notes data. I'd use Google, only to expand the scope to the file System.

  1. 22  Randall Shimizu  | 5/25/2005 3:37:59 AM

    The Google IBM/Alliance does raise some thought provoking possibilites.

    In all probablility Google wants to get into the 'secure' enterprise desktop search market. IBM has a huge customer base a lot of research into search technology. I have heard that IBM has no less than 7 search R&D projects. Also remember that IBM is a major supporter of Linux so they can help Google Desktop search get on to other platforms.

    The major benefit is that hopefully Google will develop from primarilly a consumer model to a enterprise one. There is other areas where IBM can help such as Google's virtual library project. Perhaps IBM might acquire a large stake in Google.

  1. 23  Randall Shimizu  | 5/25/2005 3:39:03 AM

    The Google IBM/Alliance does raise some thought provoking possibilites.

    In all probablility Google wants to get into the 'secure' enterprise desktop search market. IBM has a huge customer base a lot of research into search technology. I have heard that IBM has no less than 7 search R&D projects. Also remember that IBM is a major supporter of Linux so they can help Google Desktop search get on to other platforms.

    The major benefit is that hopefully Google will develop from primarilly a consumer model to a enterprise one. There is other areas where IBM can help such as Google's virtual library project. Perhaps IBM might acquire a large stake in Google.

    So as you can see the opportunity is practically endless....

  1. 24  Axel Janssen  | 5/25/2005 4:28:45 AM

    opportunity is practically endless...

    Thats my favourite one: Its allways difficult to make predictions. Especially when they are about the future.

  1. 25  Richard Schwartz http://smokey.rhs.com/web/blog/poweroftheschwartz.nsf | 5/25/2005 7:13:39 AM

    Unless I'm seriously misreading the IBM Workplace strategy, there is no downside at all for IBM in aligning with Google on desktop search. Why? Because Workplace is not about the desktop. It's an attempt at an end-run around Microsoft's dominance on the desktop by moving the enterprise toward server/portal-based applications. And just as Microsoft has owned the desktop for the past 20 years by making sure that their operating system is an attractive target to all ISVs (and a mandatory target for all leading ISVs), IBM must do the same with their servers, portal and Workplace platform. The next logical step, it seems to me, will be a Google-based enterprise search portlet.

    -rich

  1. 26  james governor www.redmonk.com/jgovernor | 5/25/2005 8:01:24 AM

    @25 imho Workplace is about the desktop. It takes 2Gb RAM which is not exactly a thin client. It is surely all about data flow online and offline, which is why it embeds a database and one of the major selling points is data synchronization. But what if someone else "owned" the client side database around user-authored data, websites visited and so on? You are right about a MS end-run play, but succeeding would require that IBM takes ownership of the data. but if Google "owns" the data that just brings us back to lunchtime.

    I found this interview with Barry Diller instructive on the search threat, and his view of it. { Link }

    "We were defensive about search...due to fears of disintermediation...but then realized....life will start with the search box."

  1. 27  Axel Janssen  | 5/25/2005 9:02:58 AM

    If you provide a replacable search subsystem for the data you are owning the data?

    I can't follow you here.

  1. 28  Axel Janssen  | 5/25/2005 9:28:32 AM

    In this thread I read:

    - If you own the end user, you own the enterprise.

    - If you own provide a replacable search subsystem for some data, you own that data.

    I wouldn't be very surprised if some of you guys would say next day that he has seen Klingon working for Oracle.

    You should understand that.

    Or maybe I just don't understand.

  1. 29  Randall Shimizu  | 5/26/2005 12:43:43 AM

    James Governor/Redmonk: IBM to Google: Come eat our lunch?

    Correction Workplace requires 2gb on the server. Workplace rich client requires 512mb...

  1. 30  james governor www.redmonk.com/jgovernor | 5/26/2005 9:31:43 AM

    thanks randall. that is very important point. hopefully you will agree 512MB is still not particularly "thin". the majority of shops would need to upgrade their hardware to run it.

    I am not sure you're interested in understanding the point Axel, which is fine by me. I do know a Clingan that works for Sun. { Link }

    I am glad you brought up Oracle though. I see that IBM is having no problem whatsoever displacing Oracle in customer shops. Its a breeze. I mean all Oracle did was "own the departmental app", and offer a "replaceable search system"-aka-Oracle-aka a relational database for some data (normally held on an "expensive mainframe"). and now its been easily swapped out and replaced with DB2 UDB and IBM has account control back. That is correct isn't it? That's the way it works. Oh well - back to Star Trek.