Why Eric Schmidt Left As CEO of Google? 378
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.'"
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not the most flattering portrayal... (Score:2, Interesting)
Corporations are "pro-evil"
Evil is power.
Schmidt to replace Steve Jobs (Score:5, Interesting)
You heard it here first.
well then good (Score:3, Interesting)
don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, mr. schit
sergey brin emigrated to the usa at age 6 from russia. it is my understanding his strong anti-censorship views comes from what his parents imparted on him from their experience in the totalitarian ussr
so good for you mr. brin, bless you. maybe google can be a force for good in this world and not a data abusing behemoth like facebook as long as you draw breath
Submitter is wrong about "don't be evil" (Score:5, Interesting)
or at least not clearly right. Context from TFA:
This doesn't mean that Schmidt wanted to move away from "don't be evil", he may have just been worn out from trying to uphold it for as large and diverse a company as Google is.
Re:Schmidt to replace Steve Jobs (Score:5, Interesting)
Seeing as he is/was in apple's board of directors, that's not so far fetched.
Re:Not the most flattering portrayal... (Score:5, Interesting)
No, the whole thing is a PR sham to make you believe that the change doesn't mean anything. Now, the 'good guys' are back in charge.
Puhleeze.
This is an over-capitalized corporation trying to convince the world that the stock price is ok, don't sell, don't short, believe in the magic, etc.
Speculation about Schmidt's change is pretty meaningless. He left Sun. He left Novell. Now he's in semi-retirement at Google.
Next.
Re:Good track record (Score:4, Interesting)
Google has a lot of interesting projects going on, with 20% (somewhat) discretionary time, but Facebook has a single website that I almost wish didn't exist. No question where I'd rather work.
Re:Sounds like they made the right choice then (Score:4, Interesting)
A majority of Google's business model relies on an open and free internet. Censorship and government control pass the decision-making on what product the use from the consumers to government authorities. To play in to that philosophy is the beginning of the end of Google.
Also, their stance gives them a selling point and differentiator in their domestic market. There are significant benefits for their decision that do not comprimise the core company values, thus hurting the identity of the company. When the scales are even, you go with the gold not the gamble.
Re:The other side of the coin (Score:3, Interesting)
Capital has just as much ability to employ armed force
They don't. They depend on government for enforcement of contracts and laws.
Suitably large businesses are no better than governments, and more likely to be autocratic and authoritarian in nature.
Employment at those businesses is voluntary. You agree to the autocratic/authoritarian control only as long as you work there.
Re:Facebook: Hot Tech Company — Explain??? (Score:1, Interesting)
Google does everything by committee internally (and slowly, I might add). Promotions, job offers, designs, etc. It is as if the company is designed to fail when it reaches critical mass. The message from my friends who work there: not only will you not get rich, you won't promotions unless you somehow create a proof package demonstrating your value, and a committee approves it.
Insanity, I'll stick with smaller tech.
Why would I bother reading this? (Score:2, Interesting)
No wonder newspapers and magazines are dying - they still don't "get" it.
Nobody has spotted the obvious (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good track record (Score:5, Interesting)
Not only that, I object to the characterization of Facebook as a better place to work that Google.
Yeah, I think someone's been doing a few too many lunches with Facebook reps. I've never heard this one. To be perfectly honest, the one company I still hear "vital engineers" talk about working for (if they can't work at Google) is Microsoft. /.ers may hate Microsoft on principle, but where else could you go and end up working on .... well, you name it. Look at all the stuff coming out of Microsoft Research, even if it's never productized. An engineer who goes to work for a start-up might get to work on one really interesting idea, for stock options. An engineer who goes to Microsoft and gets disillusioned with one idea can get transferred to another one and still keep seniority and a highly competitive compensation package. Facebook? It might have a big valuation, but it sounds like just another Web start-up to me -- a few opportunities for engineers, but a lot more for marketing types and other "visionaries."
Re:Got to love a privately owned public company (Score:4, Interesting)
I think "We're acting in accordance with the goals outlined in our articles of incorporation, with which stockholders indicated their concurrence when they bought the stock" is pretty much an ironclad defense, unless said stockholders can prove that the corporation's actions are not in fact in accordance with the defined goals.
The fact that most corporations' articles of incorporation specify profit as their primary goal doesn't mean all of them have to, and Google's don't.
Re:Pray tell (Score:4, Interesting)
Points of fact that doesn't serve your argument very well:
WWI was precipitated by the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The war was started when an empire in decline decided to exert its will upon a state it had annexed and occupied for some years.
So, in truth, the lesson to be drawn here is that empires in decline should be wary of unbottling very powerful genies when they try to act in their declining years as they did in their prime. Kind of supports the GP's argument more than yours, I'm afraid to say.
WWII was started, not by Poland, but by Germany in its attempt to build an empire for itself. Here, the parallels are stronger between the US' recent bellicosity and Germany's. In both cases, we see unprovoked attacks against a strategically useful but virtually defenseless nation, resulting in tragic consequences, both the the aggressor and the defender. Yet again, an object lesson again that speaks more to the GP's point than yours.