Facebook's Graph Search, in Theory And in Practice

The biggest news in consumer technology this week was created by Facebook. The social network’s new product – “Graph Search” – was the subject of an international press event where analysts initially speculated on all new things, from a Facebook partnership on the scale of Spotify or even their own phone. There were a lot of posts about Graph Search. Facebook is an important, powerful company, and that level of coverage is warranted. I’ve finally read through most of the analysis that made its through my Twitter feed, and found myself surprised by the range of opinions shared on the matter.

Graph Search is probably not a “Google Killer,” as it indexes, restructures, and surfaces data within its own walled gardens (which includes data pumped into Open Graph). Facebook’s search product opens up a new window to search what many refer to as the “dark web,” a web that is not accessible to Google’s crawlers and algorithms.

Smart writers weighed in with great insights. John Battelle, who has covered Google and search for years, argues Graph Search gives Facebook a new layer of interaction to increase engagement; Steve Cheney artfully argued Facebook’s mining of “Likes” created distorted signals to begin with and puts Graph Search at risk of irrelevance; Pando’s Hamish McKenzie cast Facebook as a network of connections over a network of people, which presumes Facebook must continue to acquire user data, either directly through native activity on the site or indirectly through Open Graph permissions or acquisitions like Instagram; and Xconomy’s Wade Roush views Graph Search as Step One of Many in Facebook’s attempt to produce more relevant results for everything, based on the belief social filters and recommendations are going to best what algorithms can deliver.

I haven’t paid as close attention to Facebook as others, but my initial reaction to the unveiling of Graph Search was that it was less about what individual consumers could do (though that’s cool), and more about how companies, brands, and other institutions could further segment the Facebook audience in order to hyper-target their messages, advertisements, and attention. This is where Open Graph, in theory, could continue to funnel data into Facebook’s data centers and, over time, build all sorts of audiences with a few keyword search terms.

Where this logic breaks down for me, however, is that I rarely send data to Facebook. I use the service daily, and I like it a lot. But, I don’t connect many other services to it that send data back to Facebook. I also don’t go to Facebook to search, so it’s not an underlying behavior for me on their properties. This creates two issues: (1) I’m not trained to search on Facebook; and (2) I’m not giving Facebook more details about me or my graph in order to produce more relevant results against a search. I know it’s dangerous to extrapolate from just my own behavior, but I also sense people are growing more and more reluctant to sign into new services with their Facebook permissions, or to embed their Facebook account into Apple’s iOS operating system.

All this said, I wouldn’t bet against Facebook. I don’t know exactly how, but I feel they’ll figure it out and continue to extract key data, whether directly or through other means, perhaps even acquisitions as its revenue streams mature.

Yet, reading all these great analyses and reflecting on this week’s news, I find myself thinking about other great sources for information where the underlying behaviors for search are already being served in more natural ways. On Pinterest, users discover new things through streams of images, but users also can search directly for things they’re interested in, bypassing Google entirely. On Quora, most visitors to the site lurk (e.g. “browse” and “search”) and do not actively participate, many of them ironically ending up on the site after entering a Google search.

It remains to be seen whether Facebook is able to reinvent search altogether, or whether Facebook successfully opens an entirely new search channel which could monetize as well as Google’s, or whether other sites like Pinterest and Quora, for instance, already have a head start on capturing the underlying behaviors embedded into their properties and flipping them into a search business model.

What I’ve learned from this week, then, is that Facebook and newer companies have a great opportunity to allow their users to search within their walled-gardens and Wall Street, already primed on Google’s model, loves how online search monetizes. There will likely be many different types of search, especially as the “dark web” continues to grow outside the sight of Google. Graph Search is an important step in this direction, but given the competition and the pace of growth of particular startups in the market right now, it remains to be seen if Facebook will actually create the next killer search product. In theory, Graph Search makes a ton of sense; in practice, however, Graph Search most likely has a very, very, very long way to go. [TechCrunch]

You can follow me on Twitter, add me to your circles on Google+ or Subscribe to me on FaceBook or YouTube. You can also check my Website and Blog to keep yourself updated with what is happening in the ever changing world of technology

How Hardware Startups Changed The Essence Of CES

It was all bad timing, really. Just ahead of CES 2012, Microsoft announced that year's event would be its last, blaming product schedules that just didn't match up with the annual show. There was no question that the tech giant's absence would be felt the following year, the first time in recent memory the Consumer Electronics Show wasn't kicked off by a Microsoft keynote. It signaled, perhaps, a slight shift away from the days of huge companies dominating the event's headlines -- a phenomenon helped along by the recent attention-grabbing successes of a number of crowdfunded projects, many of which were present at the show.

The move from Bill Gates to Steve Ballmer was one thing, but a CES without Redmond? That was just unheard of, a specter that loomed over the show, even as the CEA happily announced it had sold out the company's floor space in "record time." In the end, of course, Microsoft was still at the show, albeit in a less overt form, by way of third-party machines from Sony, Samsung and the like, and in the form of a cameo by none other than Ballmer himself -- a sort of spiritual baton-passing to the company's keynote successor, Qualcomm. Heck, even the Surface Pro reared its head backstage at the show.

Timing, too, played havoc with this year's mobile announcements, with many manufacturers holding off news until next month's Mobile World Congress in Barcelona. Even RIM opted to forgo the CES press conference, choosing to hold its own event to launch its long-awaited BlackBerry 10 operating system, later this month, and joining in on a larger industry trend of breaking away from the industry's noisiest week.

The relative absence of mobile announcements from the major players in the US market (even Sony, which debuted the Xperia Z, opted not to make the device a centerpiece of its press conference) allowed manufacturers like ZTE and Huawei, largely unknown in the States, to hog the mobile spotlight. Instead, focus from the majors was on the world of Ultra HD, a fact that highlighted one of the biggest concerns with these sorts of shows: product overlap. It's hard not to notice when two of the biggest companies at a show use it as a platform to make a big deal about 65- and 55-inch versions of previously announced 84-inch sets.

But the vacuum of excitement created by the major players contributed to a perfect storm of sorts, mingling with the on-going explosion of crowdfunded projects put into play by the likes of Kickstarter and Indiegogo. The real stars of the show weren't the multinational corporations, but rather the startups that couldn't necessarily afford the astronomical fees required to set up a booth at a show like this. And while this certainly wasn't the first year that crowdfunding has had a presence at the event, there was a sense that 2013 was the year that it truly came into its own, delivering the promise of real, marketable hardware, rather than the sort of vaporware that seems ever-present at CES.

No better was this demonstrated than with the Pebble smartwatch, the Kickstarter phenomenon that seemingly managed to drum up as much excitement as one of those high-end TV sets the majors were hawking. What these projects lack in resource infrastructure, they make up for in adaptability, producing genuinely unique takes on the tech space. It's hard to imagine major corporations experimenting with products as they launch press conferences and ad campaigns designed to pat themselves on the back for adding a few fractions of an inch to a smartphone screen.

Then there were the 3D printers making a big showing compared to the year prior, in which MakerBot unveiled the only high-profile entry in the space. This year, 3D Systems gave the company a run for its money, in the form of the portable Cube (which employees were carrying strapped to their chests while walking the show floor) and the CubeX, with its enormous basketball-sized build platform. Kickstarted company Formlabs, meanwhile, showed off the massively impressive FORM 1, which could bring pro-level 3D printing into the home. The success of such products has contributed to the hardware explosion in their own right, offering up the capability of rapid prototyping in a home environment. Bre Pettis showed us the Square Helper, a credit card iPad accessory that one 3D printer owner is selling -- an example of the "desktop industrial revolution," the MakerBot CEO loves to talk about.

And if CES can be regarded as a sort of testing ground for those far-off conceptual products like the foldable display, crowdfunding has that very thing built-in. If users don't support a product, it doesn't get made.

"Crowdfunding is a natural," SticknFind creator Jimmy Buchheim told us during an interview. "It allows us to bring products to market fast and lets us know whether the products are good or (if we have to) go back to the drawing board."

And certainly there's a lot to be said for the sort of pre-show buzz such campaigns can elicit -- there weren't too many projects that we were more excited to play around with in the lead up to the show than the Oculus Rift.

It will be fascinating to watch how such a shift will affect the show moving ahead. If small companies continue to draw as much or more attention than the big guns by walking the floor in hopes of meeting press members and buyers, it may impact the amount of money they will actually spend to exhibit. The hidden treasures have always been a highlight of shows like CES, but 2013's event seems to have signaled a shift toward a potential future in which they are the focal point.

It's a trend we certainly welcome, both with regards to the slight leveling of the playing field it brings to hardware startups and, perhaps, toward a push for creative thinking amongst the larger companies moving ahead. Hopefully the CEA will expand its effort to embrace these small companies, as well. If the big manufacturers continue to commit to launching products on their own terms, at their own events, crowdfunded companies and their ilk may well prove to be the future of CES. [Engadget]

You can follow me on Twitter, add me to your circles on Google+ or Subscribe to me on FaceBook or YouTube. You can also check my Website and Blog to keep yourself updated with what is happening in the ever changing world of technology