Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google The Internet Businesses

Google CEO Talks Business 140

Posted by CowboyNeal from the where-the-money-is dept.
prostoalex writes "InformationWeek interviews Google CEO on Google's enterprise strategy. No cool products announcements or anything related to personal technology - Eric Schmidt talks about Google's offerings for the enterprise market."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google CEO Talks Business More

Google CEO Talks Business

Comments Filter:

  • what is /. for ?? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Virtual Karma ( 862416 ) on Thursday May 26, 2005 @06:54PM (#12650225) Homepage
    No cool products announcements or anything...

    Slashdot exist solely for this purpose ;)

  • Hmmm... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Sheepdot ( 211478 ) on Thursday May 26, 2005 @06:57PM (#12650262) Journal
    Let's imagine you're a CEO and you're running a sales force. How can you get your sales force to generate more revenue?

    Tell them to call up CowboyNeal and ask them where the "Google Story for the Day" is and why it wasn't posted before 5:00pm EST.

  • But do they offer solutions? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 26, 2005 @06:58PM (#12650269)
    I am looking for solutions for my enterprise level e-synergy. Can Google help me actualize this?

  • Wrong, but thanks for playing. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pheersome ( 116234 ) on Thursday May 26, 2005 @07:05PM (#12650320)
    Schmidt: Transparency is not necessarily the only way you achieve security. For example, part of the encryption algorithms are not typically made available to the open source community, because you don't want people discovering flaws in the encryption.
    I hope he didn't really mean that; I had a fairly good opinion of him, but that statement is (IMO) a pretty serious misunderstanding of The Way Things Should Be. We (the security-loving Internet elite) want maximal transparency for all of our systems, cryptographic and otherwise, so problems are found and fixed... right?
    • There are different kinds of people in this world.

      Some try to make sure that they don't say b.s. about things they don't understand. Others try to sound smart and then say something stupid.

      It is a bit like a kid playing with nunchucks and hitting himself in the nuts. But at least then you know that you are not Bruce Lee.

      This guy probably still thinks he understands cryptography.
    • . For example, part of the encryption algorithms are not typically made available to the open source community, because you don't want people discovering flaws in the encryption.

      I think I once heard about an encryption algorithm called......RS......A yes thats it

      RSA

      The algorithm has been around for a longgggggg time, and is available in any number of math textbooks involving changing bases

      If you can find a flaw in RSA after seeing code for it, you are a genius and deserve a math award for discovere
      • Grandparent isn't talking about open-sourcing code for RSA, he's talking about making the algorithm public. There's a big difference.

        The idea behind an open encryption algorithm is that if there's a flaw in the algorithm, someone who would publish that flaw will find it. The first person to find it might not publicize it, but someone will. (This is what academics in math do)

        With a closed encryption algorithm, if someone finds a flaw, they probably won't publish it as they probably shouldn't know the algor
    • Sure, open algorithms such as RSA are typically better because of their scrutiny by the the world's best cryptographers. However, a bunch of the NSA's algorithms are good BECAUSE they are secret (to their best of their ability). Yes, it probably won't hold the test of time as well, but that's not to say they don't work.

      I guess it's kind of analagous to 'security through obscurity.' Yeah, it's not the best way to do things, but it sometimes works well enough for some applications.
    • He didn't say that he believes that it is The Way Things Should Be or whatever else. He said it was not necessarily the ONLY way you achieve security, and you know what, some encryption algorithms aren't made public. Don't get up in arms about nothing IMO. Millions of people rely on systems which they have no clue about. Who knows if there's some new flaw in GMail's algorithm to read other people's messages? But millions of people still rely on Gmail and other free e-mail providers all the time and the
    • "We (the security-loving Internet elite) want maximal transparency for all of our systems, cryptographic and otherwise"

      Inject the word "security" and I'm cool with that. I don't want maximal transparency for everything. I want to know how my data is protected, but Google doesn't have to tell me how page ranking works in order for me to get that... on the other hand, if they did tell me, I could help them. That's their choice.

      Yes, he made a silly mistake, and I'm kind of stunned that he said what he did. O
    • We (the security-loving Internet elite) want maximal transparency for all of our systems, cryptographic and otherwise, so problems are found and fixed... right?

      Certainly.

      I hope he didn't really mean that ....

      I imagine he did mean it, but doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. I also imagine he's not in directly in charge of any encryption work at Google. And I have hope that their corporate culture is healthy enough that, if the issue comes up in a practical way, people who do know what the

  • Who are Google? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Thursday May 26, 2005 @07:09PM (#12650353)
    I looked them up on MSN search I cant find anything about them. Why is Slashdot posting stories about piss ant little companies that no one has ever hear of?
  • Like announcing they were buying the Evil Empire in Redmond. Oh...I almost forgot, Google is just a fad according to Balmer. Silly me.

  • My request to Google... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bogaboga ( 793279 ) on Thursday May 26, 2005 @07:12PM (#12650376)
    ...is to synchronize the release of tools for major browsers including Firefox. That is, they (Google) should release their "add-ons" at once for all browsers. This is because if they for example released this for IE first, by the time that for Firefox is released, the steam is almost out.

    Next, my request is to make sure they go for M$ and Yahoo head on. I need GoogleBiz (to check my stocks), I need GoogleMusic, GoogleRadio and all that is possible.

    • I believe that they released gmail and google maps for both IE and FireFox concurrently, and it was Explorer for OS X, Safari, and Opera that lagged behind...

      But your point isn't meant to be an exact example but the general gist. So let's argue that.

      IE on Windows is 90% of the market. Why not release for that, beta on IE and Firefox, get general reactions, ui testing, etc, and then move forward with the later releases on every browser?

      With Javascript, you have to test interaction on every browser. Would

  • UW talk (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mtn_Dewd ( 15169 ) on Thursday May 26, 2005 @07:14PM (#12650397) Homepage Journal
    Eric Schmidt is really busy on showing just how progressive Google is right now. I just got out of a talk at University of Washington by him in which he addressed many interesting Google policy questions ranging from responsibilities, censorship, and corporate structure. They're really trying to establish that they aren't just another fad and are trying to find a way to meet the demands of an exponentially increasing task of information aggregation and retrieval.

    Interestingly, in our Computer Science department at UW, there is definitely an aura about Google. Everyone wants to work for them. They seem to defy all of the standard business models that we have grown to hate (ie: Office Space) and use a 70%, 20%, 10% rule that allows you to work on Google-related work, Personal-project-google-related work, and just personal work. I won't drag on about their structure, but I'm wondering if their business model and ideas will now spread into the mainstream corporate world.
    • For employees at google, which time fraction would reading slashdot come under?

      Theres the incredible drag factor of obsessive refreshing and giggling at stupid jokes on screen, or the fact your mainly reading articles about your own company.

      hmmmmm

      • Re:UW talk (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Luddite ( 808273 )
        >> For employees at google, which time fraction would reading slashdot come under?

        With the number of google stories that get posted I think they're editing slashdot not reading it. I Like google as much as the next guy, use it daily... but ffs.

        Enough with the gooogle stories. Give me something refreshing and insightful. Perhaps a submission by that a Roland P. guy that everyone loves?

        just a thought...

    • Re:UW talk (Score:3, Informative)

      by adpowers ( 153922 )
      I was there. I found it interesting how shallow/flat their corporate hierarchy is. There aren't many levels between Sergey/Larry and the average employee. They don't try to micromanage employees, instead letting them just run with their work.

      One impression I've gotten of Google compared to, say, Microsoft, is how quick they are to release new products. I've been to some Microsoft recruiting talks, and if I remember correctly, you have to interview to change product teams, and it seems like a cumbersome, bu

      • Re:UW talk (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Momoru ( 837801 )
        One impression I've gotten of Google compared to, say, Microsoft, is how quick they are to release new products

        They "release" products that are in beta all the time. If your talking when the beta tag comes off, Google's software cycles are really long (The search was beta for like 5 years).

        Also it's kind of apple's and oranges. It takes significantly more time to write an email client for Windows then it does to write a web mail client or many of Google's other programs. Google also can just "put
        • I don't think search was in Beta nearly that long. If you look at the image, it was out of Beta [archive.org] by 2001, so only like 3 years at most.

          They do have a lot of Beta software out there, but it is still usable and has features. It has been released and is available for public consumption, so beta is just a description. Also, I was trying to compare MSN with Google (since MSN competes more directly). Google has been adding a lot of search features and such faster than MSN can manage.
      • People on slashdot have wondered why they haven't put advertisements on Google News and some thought it was because they would get in trouble for making money off other people's content.

        I would have figured it'd result in all kinds of unintentional jokes, you know, context sensitive stuff putting life insurance ads on a terri schiavo story.

    • Re:UW talk (Score:3, Interesting)

      by zerbot ( 882848 )
      Hah, that's funny. When I went to the UW we had a "heterogenous environment" meaning we had systems from a number of different vendors. We were told it was so that students would be exposed to a wide variety of stuff they might work with in the outside world. Shortly after I graduated, Bill Gates donated a bunch of money to the UW, and all of a sudden they're ripping everything out and putting all Windoze boxes in, saying the new "homogenous environment" will be more consistent and less confusing for stu

  • Google turns Neocon with new Executive Hirings (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I submitted a story that slashdot hasn't chosen to post. Recently, Google has started filling their new executive hirings with Neocons from the Bush Administration.

    Curiosly, there seems to be a lack of info on this in the American media and you need to go to foreign sources for the scoop.

    Here's The Register's article on it: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/24/google_neo con [theregister.co.uk]

    So much for "Don't be evil."

    Google's newest executive that they hired was spotted jogging in Iraq wearing a Bush/Cheney '04

  • Holding a Box (Score:2, Informative)

    by Josuah ( 26407 )
    InformationWeek's most recent issue has the Google CEO on the cover holding a "search appliance" type box. Maybe not an official announcement, but seems there is a new product in there somewhere.
  • there search engine sucks - (a) no booleans for even the simplest things; (b) I have started using verizon online yellow pages for a lot searches; (c) if /. was not, for some wierd reason, hynoptized by goole, u cd fill in your own point hear

    as to how generous they are with your own time, and stuff like that, its easy to look good bicycling downhill, that is, when you are one of the very few companies taht the market is blessing with monopoly rents, it is easy to be generous, after all, att ran the greates
  • I've had this issue of InformationWeek on my desk since last friday... I usually try and get my breaking news from online... not dead trees.

  • Eric Schmidt at University of Washington today (Score:3, Informative)

    by imnoteddy ( 568836 ) on Thursday May 26, 2005 @10:35PM (#12651634)
    /. readers might be interested in an mp3 of a talk given by Mr. Schmidt at the University of Washington today (26 May 2005).

    http://videosrv14.cs.washington.edu/info/audio/mp3 /colloq/ESchmidt_050526.mp3 [washington.edu]

    Probably more relevant to techies than TFA. Interestingly, ge stopped his prepared statement about halfway into his alloted 50 minutes to take questions.

  • Evil Skunkshop (Score:2, Informative)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 )
    Google's finally getting big enough to open an "Evil Department" - they've hired White House propagandist^Wspokesman [nygaardnotes.org] and Carlyle Group [hereinreality.com] exec Dan Senor [jamespoling.net].
  • The interview was fairly interesting, until this choice quote:
    "Transparency is not necessarily the only way you achieve security. For example, part of the encryption algorithms are not typically made available to the open source community, because you don't want people discovering flaws in the encryption."

    All good encryption algorithms are made public and transparent so that you and the top cryptographers in the world can inspect it, try to break it and eventually trust it. Encryption who's strength is

Slashdot Top Deals

Talent does what it can. Genius does what it must. You do what you get paid to do.

Close