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: (Score:2, Interesting)
Corporations are "pro-evil"
Evil is power.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not the most flattering portrayal... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Not the most flattering portrayal... (Score:5, Funny)
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,
Then that's a problem, because with the economy as it is I don't think we have the resources to design and build psychopathic manors large enough to house each corporation. Plus, the work required to ensure that each manor was sufficiently psychopathic... nevermind the environmental impact statements...
Re: (Score:2)
Are we better off now? Prediction fulfilled, sadly (Score:3)
Some things have improved, some things have gotten worse. It's hard to say, overall, that most people in the USA are much happier than the Haudenosaunee (Iroqois) were 500 years ago, even living a bit longer perhaps on average. Are those alive now in the USA much happier or more physically fit than the Arawak in Haiti who Columbus and his successors wiped out?
See, for example:
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncol1.html [historyisaweapon.com]
"Arawak men and women, naked, tawny, and full of wonder, emerged from th
Re: (Score:3)
But due to people acting in their own self-interest, we've developed modern techniques of agriculture to the point where everyone can be fully fed unless they are under an oppressive government (such as most of Africa).
Or the nearly 10 million Americans that are forced to skip meals or eat too little each year.
To nearly all the rest of your comments, I thank unions more than corporations for all of that. Corporations that sell to the middle class only exist because there is a middle class.
Re: (Score:3)
You seem confused. There is a such thing as business without massive psychopathic mega-corps. Nobody here claims that business is bad. Technology has given us those things you talk about. The home computer exists because of individuals in garages doing their thing. Businesses then manufactured and distributed them.
Safe water, btw came from public works, not mega-corporations. It's still that way, at least where I live.
You might be surprised to learn that Adam Smith was the first of many advocates of capital
Re: (Score:3)
Your utopian havens of european socialism still rely on cheaply produced goods from outside, they're just better at keeping the rifraff out. Show me the country that adheres to socialist ideals while at the same time banning imports from countries that don't make the same pledge, and perhaps you'll have a point.
Re:Not the most flattering portrayal... (Score:4, Insightful)
"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... (Score:4, Funny)
> Most people on the other hands are not psychopaths.
I see what you just did to paranoids fearing a mutants` invasion, you 3+ handed monster!
Re:Not the most flattering portrayal... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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:Not the most flattering portrayal... (Score:5, Funny)
This beta nonsense is getting out of hand. Can't they complete anything?
Re: (Score:3)
Sun -> Oracle.
Novell -> Attachmate (pending).
Google -> Apple? Apple is one of four companies to buy Google, having sufficient cash to do the job-- and perhaps the only one that could really digest it without an intellectual tummy ache.
Re:Not the most flattering portrayal... (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
So basically what they're saying is "Eric Schmidt is pro-evil".
Yes. in fact he was so 'pro-evil' that he'll be played by Dr. Evil in the Google movie.
Re: (Score:3)
Edsj writes
"According to The New Yorker: 'It seems Eric Schmidt didn't like the decision to deliver uncensored searches in China. It is reported the decision to withdraw censored searches in China was made by co-founder Larry Page sided with his founding partner, Sergey Brin and probably an internal battle for power begun. Schmidt also wasn't happy with the 'don't be evil' policy, something the Google founders were prepared to protect anytime. Schmidt lost some energy and focus after losing the China internal battle and decided to leave the position of CEO. It is also reported that the chairman position is a temporary one until he finds another business to take care.'"
Quoting the original summary for posterity.
Re:Summaries Changing Drastically (Score:4, Funny)
Wait, so we can't change our posts but they can change the summaries!
YRO!
Ahhhahahaahaa... (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
Schmidt to replace Steve Jobs (Score:5, Interesting)
You heard it here first.
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:Schmidt to replace Steve Jobs (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes
But they're going to take Steve Jobs brain and put it in Eric Schmidt
Turtlenecks are forbidden until 2 years after the surgery.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I have great confidence that Tim and the rest of the executive management team will do a terrific job executing the exciting plans we have in place for 2011." -- Steve Jobs [sfgate.com]
I'd say The Steve hasn't exactly kept it a secret whom he views as his heir apparent.
Re:Schmidt to replace Steve Jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
Got to love a privately owned public company (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You can still sue them, claiming they are not working for the benefit of the shareholders (even if you are in the minority). Being a publicly listed corporation has its disadvantages too.
Re:Got to love a privately owned public company (Score:5, Informative)
Actually you can't. You can only sue them claiming they are not acting in accordance with the company bylaws. Google's bylaws allow for significant activity that is not in the benefit of, or might even be contrary to, the economic benefit of its shareholders. If the shareholders don't like that they shouldn't have bought the stock.
Re: (Score:2)
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:Got to love a privately owned public company (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a defense, but it's not an ironclad defense.
But good luck fighting against it. You'd have to have a really good case for it to be worth considering at all.
I haven't specifically read Google's AOI.. but consider for a moment if the "don't be evil" principle was written in some way into the AOI. What if one day Larry Page decided that targeted advertising is evil (it arguably is), and therefore decided to immediately shut down AdSense?
Well? It's purely hypothetical. He's unlikely to do so unless there's a scheme waiting to take over that makes even more money. However, if he did then maybe a case could be made. Until that time... well, who cares? (Well, as an investor maybe you should care, but you would typically price that risk premium into the price you're willing to pay to invest in the company, and that's true for any inves
Re: (Score:3)
No one is concerned over that. They're concerned about the tracking/profile building/data mining necessary to do it. Just like most people have no problem with a homeowner shooting a criminal who has a gun in their house to prevent murder or rape, but some people think that the cost of getting to that action (people owning guns, the added risks in being able to find
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Hey, no complaining. If it's good enough for Bruce Wayne and Wayne Enterprise it's good enough for Page/Brin and Google.
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
The other side of the coin (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The other side of the coin (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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.
But haven't you heard? Google is not like other companies: It has it's own NAVY (http://www.theonion.com/audio/google-steps-in-to-help-us-with-google-navy,12948/ and http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/08/09/06/1755216.shtml [slashdot.org]) and Airforce (http://seoblackhat.com/2008/10/24/google-air-force-alpha/)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure Google did that because they believe in the right of unfiltered search results, and not because in China they are not the dominant search engine.
Or are our search engine companies the Vigilantes of the future? Saving us from the evil governments who want to take away our freedom?
Today it was about censorship - tomorrow it might be another company, and it might be about something else - like Net Neutrality
Re: (Score:2)
Today it was about censorship - tomorrow it might be another company, and it might be about something else - like Net Neutrality
Today it was about the rule of law, not just censorship. And the bad guys won. Remember that.
Re: (Score:2)
I said no such thing. I said in fact that they are NOT the dominant search engine.
Google don't dominate in China. They are losing potential revenue on a sector which is seeing a lot of internet growth. Why wouldn't they want to tap that market?
The loyalty of a company is - in the end - to its shareholders. Shareholders want more profits, and everything a company does is an attempt to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Google don't dominate in China. They are losing potential revenue on a sector which is seeing a lot of internet growth. Why wouldn't they want to tap that market?
Because it harms their growth elsewhere. Theft of IP is a real problem especially in a place like China which heavily favors local businesses over foreign.
Pray tell (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Historical China is nothing like modern China. The country is positioned to become in a few decades the dominant country on a very small Earth. With that comes naturally the roles of world police, judge, and executioner. Further, there is a long term trend towards the infamously named "One World Order", that is, a supernational level of government. As long as the most powerful country in the world is authoritarian, that's going to tend to make any supernational creations by this government authoritarian as
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.
Re: (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:The other side of the coin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The other side of the coin (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
No one is forced to support a corporation, whereas governments rule through coercive force. I know that doesn't sink into you anti-corporation people too well, but since most of your views are founded on poor understanding of reality in the first place, I don't worry too much about that.
Re: (Score:3)
No one is forced to support a corporation
Really? Suppose your corrupt government sells your water supply to private interests? (Yes, I know this was the plot of Quantum of Solace, but that script was based on actual events [wikipedia.org].)
Re:The other side of the coin (Score:4, Insightful)
Monopolies answer to governments (Score:3)
Oh, look! Another moron who's never heard of a thing called a "monopoly".
Monopolies are answerable to the government in the country in which they reside. Furthermore, there is no monopoly that has the (legal) authority to put you in jail, confiscate your property, or terminate your life. I can live a free life without electricity or telephone service. Less convenient but quite doable.
"How many divisions" (Score:5, Informative)
Governments have the power to deprive you of your life, liberty or property...literally.
So do corporations.
For a corporation to do that, two conditions must be met first:
1) there must exist a government
2) that government must be corrupt
Without a corrupt government, corporations do not have the powers you mention.
Without any government at all, let's say as happens in some parts of Africa, no corporations exist.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The governments have the armies and the guns, remember?
Colt, Group 4 LLC, Xe and McDonnell-Douglas would beg to differ.
But the government does have the money to pay the people who actually make the guns.
Re: (Score:2)
Most debates about rights and freedoms are about large and powerful organisations wanting to be bigger than the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Revenue of Google: 29.321 billion
GDP of China: 4.99 trillion
Sorry, but governments now are stronger than corporations will ever be.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like they made the right choice then (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Or perhaps Schidmt's interpretation of "don't be evil" was different. I think he thought they could still not be evil by working with China.
Re: (Score:2)
...but you can bet your ass that that corporate philosophy has made them money over the years. Schmidt is short sighted.
Right on!
Furthermore, it can be argued that making money is secondary, or at least only a secondary consequence of more fundamental things here. Corporations make money as a result of providing a valuable service to their customers, after all, and here the "customers" are first and foremost Netizens. Brin and Page's corporate values, Google's success and the respect this company has earned in the Net community and here on Slashdot is for me the living demonstration that the "greed is good" ideology peddled
Re: (Score:2)
China boils down to the future of the company as a cash sown. China is acknowledged as the greatest emerging market. Those who are not interested in playing ball with government get to honor core US values, but also are prevented from enjoying the profits that will come from China. Those who do play will be portrayed as evil, but get
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.
Now, before you answer the question... (Score:2)
Why Eric Schmidt Left As CEO of Google?
...we must establish when he was supposed to leave. Only then can we begin to meaningfully speculate.
Otherwise, everything fronted here as the answer is just hearsay.
Re: (Score:2)
Loading tired
buffering...
You must be new here.
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: (Score:3)
The other advantage of "don't be evil" is that it removes a huge number of the choices that you might oth
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
he may have just been worn out from trying to uphold it for as large and diverse a company as Google is.
In support of our corporate "alignment diversity" initiative, Google are now revising our policy from "don't be evil" to "chaotic neutral Fridays".
We want to create a work culture where all ethical stances are welcome - especially in Marketing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I believe that is what I said."
Consider the following (which is itself a simplification, but at least gives some idea of the range):
The article basically says "the China searches were argued, DBE was tarnished, some other stuff happened, he considered bailin
Why Eric Schmidt Left As CEO of Google? (Score:5, Funny)
Why lolcats added to headline proofreading department?
Re:Why Eric Schmidt Left As CEO of Google? (Score:5, Funny)
Because it's cheaper than outsourcing to India.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and Chase No Face is the new CEO of Chase Bank
Good track record (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Not sure why there needs to be a negative spin on his leaving.
Otherwise it wouldn't be news worthy... :)
Re: (Score:2)
Quite some fall from grace - how many billions has he earned?
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: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."
Plain and simple... (Score:2, Insightful)
Mr. Schmidt Goes to Washington (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspac [nist.gov]
Next Steps to Enhance Online Security [commerce.gov]
Probably going to be on Obama's new jobs politboro (Score:2)
Wait for it; Schmidt will be named to his buddy Obama's "White House Council on Jobs and Competitiveness", and it was thought best he not be GOOG CEO while doing so.
Facebook: Hot Tech Company — Explain??? (Score:4)
Could someone explain?
CC.
Re:Facebook: Hot Tech Company — Explain??? (Score:5, Informative)
--stock options: Facebook is/was pre-IPO. If you want to get rich as an engineer you would work there. You will never get that rich at Google.
--freedom: Google is a large company and it is hard to get stuff done. Facebook is small.
--Google is perceived as no longer being the place where the best work.
Re: (Score:3)
CC.
Re: (Score:2)
It's nonsense that's continuously propagated by Facebook employees. Out of my graduating class at MIT the top places to work were Google, Microsoft Research and small startups. Facebook acquired some of low end students, but not much else. Very few of the top students would even genuinely entertain offers from Facebook because the problems Facebook works on aren't interesting.
I don';t think so.... (Score:4, Informative)
Leave Google to go work on PHP spaghetti code? Puhleese.
Maybe people have left Google, but show us the numbers. I highly doubt they went to FACEBOOK.
Re: (Score:2)
I work in the industry, and that is EXACTLY the case. Lots of good engineers have left google to go work for facebook (the company I work for has gotten quite a few from google and facebook ourselves)
Nobody has spotted the obvious (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Because /. editors don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So CEOs... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.