Why Eric Schmidt Left As CEO of Google?

Edsj writes "According to The New Yorker: 'Schmidt, according to associates, lost some energy and focus after losing the China decision. At the same time, Google was becoming defensive. All of their social-network efforts had faltered. Facebook had replaced them as the hot tech company, the place vital engineers wanted to work. Complaints about Google bureaucracy intensified. Governments around the world were lobbing grenades at Google over privacy, copyright, and size issues. The “don’t be evil” brand was getting tarnished, and the founders were restive. Schmidt started to think of departing. Nudged by a board-member friend and an outside adviser that he had to re-energize himself, he decided after Labor Day that he could reboot. He couldn't.'"

Ahhhahahaahaa...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're killing me. The CEO of one of the most well known companies in the world steps down because he doesn't like the company motto and the new man at the top upholds "don't be evil". Hilarious. How do you come up with this stuff?

Re:Not the most flattering portrayal...

[Darkness404]

By that logic everyone is pro-evil.

Got to love a privately owned public company

[A beautiful mind]

As far as I know the share structure of Google gives enough voting rights to the founders to retain absolute control even with a minority of the shares.

the reason google is google!

[crank-a-doodle]

The reason google is looked upon by people as a great company and why every software guy wants to work there is their "don't be evil" policy! google gives ni ads to promote itself, yet it continues to be the most admired companies of our times! i think the decision for uncensored searches was awesome, and the fact that these guys don't give a shit about corporate bullshit is even awesomer!

Sounds like they made the right choice then

[PPalmgren]

A CEO getting butthurt over not following something in their company core values shouldn't be running that company. Not everything can be easily quantifiable by dollars and cents, but you can bet your ass that that corporate philosophy has made them money over the years. Schmidt is short sighted.

Re:Not the most flattering portrayal...

[Carewolf]

Because everybody is a corporation?(!)

Corporation as a construct are intended to behave in psychopathic manors. Most people on the other hands are not psychopaths,

Re:Schmidt to replace Steve Jobs

[binarylarry]

Follow up: SELL YOUR FUCKING STOCK ASAP WITH THE RETURN OF THE BUSINESS GUYS AT APPLE!

i like typing in all lowercase sometimes to evade the filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. but this is important you see slashdot, filter.

The other side of the coin

[Haedrian]

Two sides to every story -

I viewed the China censorship affair as a large corporation ignores a country's laws because it was powerful enough to be above the government.

I don't think that's a force for good at all, I think that it sets a very dangerous precedent.

Good track record

[Animats]

10 years as CEO of a Fortune 500 company isn't a bad record. The average is 6.5 years. Schmidt leaves with Google much larger than when he started, profitable, and in good condition. He's done far better than the CEOs of most of the Fortune 500 in the last decade.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Plain and simple...

[Super Dave Osbourne]

Schmidt, and most of the upper portion of Google management is evil. However, Google is not alone in its desire to own the world of information. Apple, M$, the US Gov, other governments... The real issue is where Schmidt and others like him will land when their time on this planet is over.

Re:The other side of the coin

[khallow]

I viewed the China censorship affair as a large corporation ignores a country's laws because it was powerful enough to be above the government.

Another deluded fool thinks a business is more dangerous than a authoritarian state. The current government of China is a long term threat to the freedom of the world in a way that no mere business can ever be.

Re:The other side of the coin

[CodeBuster]

Governments are far more dangerous than corporations. Governments have the power to deprive you of your life, liberty or property...literally. The governments have the armies and the guns, remember? In fact, since we are on the subject of China, wasn't it Mao Zedong who said that, "Political power flows from the barrel of the gun"? Indeed, I am often frustrated by those who fail to grasp the irony of advocating for more government power to regulate individual economic activities without realizing that those same powers invariably destroy the individual liberties and freedoms which they claim they want to protect and preserve. They cannot have it both ways. They are either being disingenuous, as those with an anti-freedom progressive agenda often are, or naïve or both. As much as I distrust the motivations of some corporations I distrust governments even more . So I view Google's defiance of the Chinese government as a victory for freedom and individual liberty. In my opinion the governments of the world need to be taken down a notch or two, if only to remind them that it is the people who are sovereign, not the governments elected by them. Too much government control, too much nanny state and too much power over people's lives is the real danger. Those who continually seek to enhance the power of the state over the individual should be careful what they wish for; they might actually receive it and if they do, they will deserve it.

Re:Schmidt to replace Steve Jobs

[UnknowingFool]

I don't think Schmidt would become CEO of Apple. It would be hard for Apple to replace Jobs. Though Jobs was never technical, there were a few characteristics about Jobs made Apple was it is today. (1) The demand of perfection. Jobs is maniacal about perfection in Apple products. To be fair, Jobs is probably an asshole in real life as many stories suggest, but he has always expected that Apple build really good products. I don't see that desire from Schmidt. (2) Clear vision and strategy. I don't know whether it is his ideas or his staff that formulates the strategy, but Apple has been right more than they've has been wrong about the direction of technology. If we look back here on slashdot, many of the moves Apple made were ridiculed when first announced but seem as brilliant in hindsight (retail stores, music store, etc). I don't see Schmidt as someone who has that vision. At best he's good at managing people.

Re:The other side of the coin

[bmo]

Governments have the power to deprive you of your life, liberty or property...literally.

So do corporations.

C.f., the Banana Wars and the United Fruit Company, and the "privatization" of the Iraq war. Oh, and let's not forget the US railroads in the 19'th century. Among other things.

I love how you guys try to absolve corporations of their sins. The doublethink in your head must be nearly crippling.

--
BMO

Re:The other side of the coin

[Darundal]

No, you can avoid a monopoly by going without it's services or products. You might end up either slightly inconvenienced, or living like a cave man, or dieing from some horrible disease because said monopoly makes some drug that you need to not die slowly and painfully, but you can avoid it. Think "Matrix" with this. As long as you technically have a choice, it is all good and wholly acceptable. The second you don't, there are issues. Of course, some of us live in the real world. Where "I can technically disassociate myself from these bastards" doesn't really work out to much of a choice.

Pray tell

[Chicken_Kickers]

Sigh. Not this shit again. Is China the evil villain now? I wasn't paying attention to Faux News. I am still at EyeRaan as the Axis of Evil chapter. In my non-American view, the US is the short, medium and long term threat to freedom in the world. The last global economic meltdown originated from there. The most Draconian laws (copyright, intellectual property laws, RIAA etc.) emanates from America. America can and did invade any country it likes on any pretense and get away with it. It can kidnap, imprison without trial and torture anyone regardless of nationality and get away with it. It has nuclear, chemical and biological weapon stockpiles that at any moment could fall into the hands of Sarah Palins and their ilk. It has mercenary fanatical soldiers who will carry out any order, even shooting civilians in cold blood. And worst of all, Americans still believe that they are the good guys. This belief is what scares me. Historically, China on the other hand had not much interest in the outside world other than the buffer zones around it. China want to become a world player but from what I have seen, it does not want to become the world police, judge and executioner.

Re:So CEOs...

[MagusSlurpy]

They, to paraphrase, "lose some energy and focus" when they do not get their way. Interesting way to put that.

That really describes everyone. I often "lose some energy and focus" when my boss tells me to change the way I am tackling a problem, because he doesn't think the same way I do.

Re:Not the most flattering portrayal...

[postbigbang]

I'm not hating at all. You're swallowing the kool-aid of an enormous post-clash push to give the public the concept that Schmidt's departure as CEO is a good thing.

Larry Page has little identity, where Schmidt was the 'face' of most of Google's public posture. Schmidt is gone, and now we're being fed stories about what he should do, how cool his stripes are, a few stories about his $200M yacht (just so that we know he can do Paul Allen stuff) and so on.

Every time Google's stock price drops, there are lots of institutional investors that look at that, and ponder whether to leave or not. Jobs leaving when he did, was bolstered by what Hunter Thompson would call, KING HELL EARNINGS REPORT so as to buoy Apple's stock. This is ALL ABOUT keeping that stock price hopping, and doing damage control. There's no hate in what I say, rather the observation of the facts.

Re:Not the most flattering portrayal...

[Culture20]

"there wasn't enough food to go around" there still not enough, don't believe me as you local food bank volunteer.

sure there is. It's just not getting around before it goes bad or is destroyed. Thanks for helping make sure it gets distributed.

Re:Not the most flattering portrayal...

[Omestes]

Efficiency often has a moral trade off. Why have 5 men do the work if it can be done by one robot? The robot will save money and be more efficient at the expense of giving 5 people work. If the company decided not to be efficient it would shortly fail to be competitive.

It would be vastly more efficient for me to shoot my neighbor and take his food, than have to go to work every day to earn my food. It would be vastly advantageous to me to run around raping women, than having to spend the time and resources to woo one in the traditional way.

These are sociopathic statements, when stated by an individual, but are valid corporate logic. It is more efficient to lay off 90% of my workforce, than to pay them a living wage. It is more advantageous to screw over 3rd world countries to sell fruit or designer water to American and Europeans, than it would be to have an ethical policy and treat people fairly.

Re:Got to love a privately owned public company

[swillden]

I'm not an attorney, but all I can say is that sounds like utter nonsense to me.

What about companies that are specifically set up to do "green" business? Are you telling me that if they then choose environmentally-friendly manufacturing processes that are much more expensive and therefore barely provide a profit margin over non-green processes that would provide a much better shareholder return, that the shareholders can sue them for doing precisely what the company was established to do, and what the shareholders were made aware of before they bought shares?

Your argument is basically that the defined and documented goals of the corporation are meaningless. I don't buy it.