×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Why Eric Schmidt Left As CEO of Google?

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the take-this-job-and-shove-it dept.

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.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

378 comments

First Post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34974506)

Schmidt just wanted to get more first posts.

Re:First Post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34974780)

Steve Jobs died today. A moment of silence please

R.I.P.

Re:First Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34975004)

Even in death, his beachball spins forever.

Good night, sweet prince.

CALL -151

Not the most flattering portrayal... (3, Interesting)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974510)

So basically what they're saying is "Eric Schmidt is pro-evil".

Re:Not the most flattering portrayal... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34974516)

Corporations are "pro-evil"

Evil is power.

Re:Not the most flattering portrayal... (2, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974530)

By that logic everyone is pro-evil.

Re:Not the most flattering portrayal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34974576)

You have a problem with that?

Re:Not the most flattering portrayal... (4, Insightful)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974640)

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:Not the most flattering portrayal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34974824)

No but everyone, including you are consuming products and services daily from corporations.
Oh Snap!! I just DESTROYED you!!!
Me 1, Carewolf - 0. CHECKMATE BITCH!!!!

Re:Not the most flattering portrayal... (2)

vshade (1451739) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974864)

Most people are not psychopaths? Don't you read internet comments?

Re:Not the most flattering portrayal... (5, Funny)

Joren (312641) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974892)

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:Not the most flattering portrayal... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#34975222)

No, corporations are designed to maximize profits which in a free economy leads to greater wealth in that economy. For example, thanks to corporations such as HP, Sony, Dell and other computer manufacturers, we are able to have a quality of life people could only dream of just thirty years ago. Just think about how much things have changed for the better. And all that wouldn't happen without computer manufacturers cutting prices to improve their bottom line. If computers still cost $3,000 for a basic model that really couldn't do all that much, how many people could afford a computer? Today, everyone can. Sure, they might not be able to afford the top-of-the line Core i7s with 3 GPUs, but they can afford a cheap $300 laptop or a used desktop. Heck, just look at how much better quality has life has gotten when it comes to agriculture. It used to be that there wasn't enough food to go around and water could kill you. 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). I know we love to think that life was great without business and we all lived in nature, but the reality is, life was unpleasant, brutal and short back then. Starvation, sicknesses and accidents were common. Today it is considered to be a major tragedy when a child dies. Just a few hundred years ago it was just a common occurrence. Today when someone dies at the age of 50 or 60 we think that they died young. It wasn't too long ago when it was considered lucky to live past 30. The idea that industrialization, capitalism and corporations are inherently evil is laughable, rather, through them acting in their own interests they have lead us to a high standard of living.

Re:Not the most flattering portrayal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34974644)

Yeah seriously, AC has a point. You gotta problem with pro-evil, bub?

Re:Not the most flattering portrayal... (4, Interesting)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974860)

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... (2)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974658)

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:Not the most flattering portrayal... (1)

ethan0 (746390) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974866)

It's worth noting that parent is in response to the original summary, which seems to have changed drastically. Pasting the original here.

"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 [newyorker.com] . It is also reported that the chairman position is a temporary one until he finds another business to take care.'"

Re:Not the most flattering portrayal... (2)

The_mad_linguist (1019680) | more than 3 years ago | (#34975002)

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.

Ahhhahahaahaa... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34974522)

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:Ahhhahahaahaa... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34974556)

I'm betting it was more a case of Schmidt wanted to drop the bullshit and Page & Brin want to try to keep up the "Dont get caught being Evil" crap.

Schmidt to replace Steve Jobs (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34974526)

You heard it here first.

Re:Schmidt to replace Steve Jobs (5, Interesting)

HateBreeder (656491) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974668)

Seeing as he is/was in apple's board of directors, that's not so far fetched.

Re:Schmidt to replace Steve Jobs (5, Informative)

oiron (697563) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974876)

He resigned [wikipedia.org] , partly over conflicts of interest regarding Android. If he did take up Apple again, presumably he'd have to resign as Executive Chairman of Google for the same reason...

Re:Schmidt to replace Steve Jobs (1, Insightful)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974712)

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.

Re:Schmidt to replace Steve Jobs (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974870)

Most people seem to have decided the CEO position will pass to Tim Cook [apple.com] , not that I know enough to comment on his credentials. I do know what you mean about 'business guys' having the potential to destroy what Apple currently is, though - like it or not, their formula is successful.

At the complete opposite end of the spectrum, I wonder what the chances of the job going to Jony Ive [apple.com] are?

Re:Schmidt to replace Steve Jobs (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974934)

Just to clarify after re-reading my post: I meant that Apple's current formula is successful, not the aforementioned 'business guys'.

Re:Schmidt to replace Steve Jobs (2)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974992)

"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 (4, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#34975180)

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:Schmidt to replace Steve Jobs (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34974952)

In the comments to TFA, note the time:

Schmidt had to resign from the board of Apple in 2009 due to an incompatibility. Now it seems that the illness of Steve Jobs is becoming more severe, Schmidt could be the best candidate to be the CEO. Apple in this period needs a prestigious chairman and Jobs and Schmidt are friends since a long time.

POSTED 1/22/2011, 10:44:30AM BY SNOTGREEN

Re:Schmidt to replace Steve Jobs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34975020)

Yahoo. Carol Bartz just got another reason to be nervous.

Re:Schmidt to replace Steve Jobs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34975318)

Oh that would be rich. The CEO of Google resigning only to take Steve's job at Apple. Que the conspiracy theorist babble. Shoehornjob

Got to love a privately owned public company (3, Insightful)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974540)

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.

Re:Got to love a privately owned public company (2)

iammani (1392285) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974642)

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 (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34974690)

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:Got to love a privately owned public company (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34975184)

Actually you can. Per US law, executives and board members have a fiduciary duty to the shareholders. If the shareholders feel that duty is not being fulfilled they can file suit against the company seeking intervention.

Re:Got to love a privately owned public company (3, Funny)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974706)

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 (3, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974558)

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

Re:well then good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34974624)

Hey, cts, shouldn't you make a Filipino horror movie instead of whining about censorship?

Re:well then good (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34974730)

BWAHAHAHAHAH! He's having a contest with Michael Crawford to see who can not ship first. So far, the score is FAIL-FAIL.

Re:well then good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34975268)

cts' failure in this regard is indeed Crawfordian.

Come to think of it, he exhibits similar "sentences as paragraphs" and wall-of-text tendencies, without even the excuse of being insane.

Re:well then good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34974792)

Your grammar is as good as TFS. Please rewrite in English.

Re:well then good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34974896)

His point was clear and understandable. STFU.

The other side of the coin (2, Insightful)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974796)

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.

Re:The other side of the coin (4, Insightful)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974920)

They had the choice of obeying China's laws or being shut down, and they were shut down. I see where you're coming from, but it's not like they wilfully tried to continue running while breaking the law, or attempted to hide what they were doing - they were open about their position, and China responded. To say they were ignoring the laws implies (to me, at least) that they were trying to get away with doing so, rather than making a direct and public stand. Agree with it or not, that's the difference between crime and civil disobedience.

Re:The other side of the coin (4, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974964)

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 (0)

Damek (515688) | more than 3 years ago | (#34975254)

Meanwhile, you're both wrong. Anarchists have been right for over a century: both capitalist concentrations of power and governments are "evil." Capital has just as much ability to employ armed force, and has. Suitably large businesses are no better than governments, and more likely to be autocratic and authoritarian in nature.

Re:The other side of the coin (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#34975264)

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:The other side of the coin (4, Insightful)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 3 years ago | (#34975006)

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:The other side of the coin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34975198)

The governments have the armies and the guns, remember?

You haven't read "Daemon" yet, have you.

Re:The other side of the coin (5, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#34975280)

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 (3, Informative)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 3 years ago | (#34975326)

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:well then good (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34975024)

Haven't you been promising to deliver on a shitty Filipino horror movie since, like, half a decade ago? What ever happened to that?

Re:well then good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34975098)

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

Did you sell your "shift" key to finance that movie you were working on?

the reason google is google! (1, Insightful)

crank-a-doodle (1973286) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974562)

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!

Re:the reason google is google! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34974672)

The real awesomeness is that at Google they don't give a flying frak about the usual corporate-IT-decisions-bullsh!t. Lame SQL DBs simply don't cut it for Google: they roll their own big-tables like thinggy. Lame J2ME on cellphones simply don't cut it in Google's plan: they start a whole new OS and rock the cellphone world. A pathetic programming language and environment gives way too many headaches to developers to develop for the Web (JavaScript and it's countless non-portable OS/browser specificities)? Google develops GWT. No good enough concurrent language? Google develops Go. Etc.

In addition to that, they come out with a lot of great stuff to cut the grass under MS's feet (GMail, Google Docs, Android, etc.) and give it for free (in exchange for targetted ads) to everyone.

That's why they are so good. That's why they won't be disappearing anytime soon. They define the rules of the game instead of adhering to the usual bullsh!t corporate ones.

Re:the reason google is google! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34974702)

The best thing about Google is the way a few well placed bits of bullshit and publicity and people actually believe that they're different to every other evil greedy corporation out there.

Re:the reason google is google! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34974804)

No shit... "Don't be evil" sounds to me like "I'm loving it" or "Wal-Mart cares about local communities"... yet people buy it hook line and sinker.

Do no evil is actually not that uncommon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34974936)

In the corporate world there is such a thing as social responsibility. The bad thing is that most corporations can have a very skewed view of the world. Some corporations have social responsibility only as a word in their charter. This means they lie and don't hope to get caught. Then there is the corporations that have active tactics to avoid getting caught. For instance they sub-contract small companies to do manufacturing. And if there is a scandal, they just deny knowledge and fire the sub-contractor. Then there are the fascist, they have corporate responsibility to some charities that they deem to be important, usually some cheap face-value thing that only helps limited amounts of people. When it comes to paying taxes, those corporations think that they already supported a charity of their choice, so they think that paying taxes is excessive. They hide money in tax heavens too.

Then there are corporations who really live up to their responsibilities. They will have union representatives in their organization. They will have wages through the organization that does not make so much difference between the people who work there. They pay their taxes. They go green. They provide a unlimited expense health-care plan for all their employees. They stay out of the elections because they believe in democracy. They give a yearly contribution from their employees to charity instead of presents during holidays.

But, the quality-assurance is hard on these matters. There really should be independent third-parties making sure the companies live up to their promises. The goals are in place, everybody knows what they should be. But, the companies to guarantee such measures are not in place. And some companies would not be able to live up to ethical measures no matter how hard they try.

Sounds like they made the right choice then (3, Insightful)

PPalmgren (1009823) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974564)

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:Sounds like they made the right choice then (1)

GWBasic (900357) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974694)

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:Sounds like they made the right choice then (1)

openfrog (897716) | more than 3 years ago | (#34975122)

...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 by less moral corporate abusers (Koch brothers, libertarians, etc.) is bunk. No wonder some people (think Ballmers' "I will fucking kill them") wish them ill.

I keep wishing that Steve Jobs/Apple would realize that and try to get more on the side of Google than the rest of the corporate bums in that respect. Unfortunately, they don't seem to. In the short run, they are OK and only get bad comments here on Slashdot, but in the long run, they are losing tremendous opportunities. Sad.

Re:Sounds like they made the right choice then (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 3 years ago | (#34975256)

It is more likely that as an employee he decided that is was impossible to maintain the official stated core values while producing the cash flow required by the founders.

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 to grow fat and happy.

Google does not have to be China. Engagement is not going to change China's vision of human rights. In the US those rights include freedom of speech, freedom to own toy guns, freedom to criticize authority. In China human rights means freedom from starvation, freedom to walk the streets without threats, freedom to live. All engagement is going to do is increase Googles profit, and insure it is profitable for a long time.

Some might say that Google founders are more interested in the image of the company than profits. Such statements are not supported by Larry Page paying nearly 50 million for a yacht. In this economy the market for such luxuries is in decline due to companies unsure what the free market is up to. However, if one is depending on a command economy, such issues are not relevent.

Now, before you answer the question... (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974572)

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:Now, before you answer the question... (1)

Beyond_GoodandEvil (769135) | more than 3 years ago | (#34975082)

Otherwise, everything fronted here as the answer is just hearsay.
Loading tired /. meme...
buffering...
You must be new here.

Restore trust (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34974578)

It will certainly boost the no-evil trust which started to bite Google a little I must say. Is it a master chess move or not?
Good move.

Submitter is wrong about "don't be evil" (5, Interesting)

emurphy42 (631808) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974592)

or at least not clearly right. Context from TFA:

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.

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:Submitter is wrong about "don't be evil" (1)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974648)

Come on, you've been here long enough to know you have to play to the moral watchdogs of Slashdot.

Re:Submitter is wrong about "don't be evil" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34974650)

Indeed, I don't know where the quote in the summary came from, but it didn't come from the linked article. Shit, if you're gonna put in a loaded sentence like that, at least give a citation.

Re:Submitter is wrong about "don't be evil" (2)

dr2chase (653338) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974686)

Maybe. If you look at some of the issues listed, arguably they are fall out from being a little half-hearted in the pursuit of non-evil. Schmidt's remarks on privacy were not helpful for the company image. Size they can do little about (I mean, come on, "Google", it's a huge number, for a huge company), but privacy and copyright, absolutely, they could do better than they did, especially privacy.

The other advantage of "don't be evil" is that it removes a huge number of the choices that you might otherwise consider, giving you a much smaller search space for what-to-do-next.

it doesnt ? (-1, Flamebait)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974698)

google got involved in a lot of privacy issues and questionable practices in his watch. and he was wanting to deliver censored searches to china too, had no problems.

but here you are, speaking on his behalf and saying that he was not wanting to move away from dont be evil policy. and you have no basis, other than saying 'large and diverse company'. excuse me but that is electionspeak. it has no basis, it has no means of being verified, it is vague enough to be taken in any way, and defended in any occasion.

Re:it doesnt ? (1)

emurphy42 (631808) | more than 3 years ago | (#34975182)

I'm not saying that Schmidt wasn't at fault, just that TFA didn't directly state that Schmidt was at fault (apart from the China searches) - it just sort of implied it.

mod 0P (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34974598)

most. LSobok at the

oh! google problems (1)

cosmas_c (1079035) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974620)

(I self-sensored the title)
ok I remember steve jobs leaving apple ...
maybe I should read the article, but what I get from comments so far is ...
Is it business as usual ? Business of the internet age ? (Google is one of the first big internet-based companies)

Google got involved in a lot of shit in his watch (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974714)

ranging from privacy abuses to wireless scandal. in his watch, google almost lost its reputation for dont be evil policy. this is further evidenced by his merry acceptance of censored search result serving in china. some justify that as 'trying to keep a diverse company up', but i call it lack of backbone. the very backbone, which carried google to prominence on the shoulders of people who liked the have-backbone policy.

it was high time he left.

Tells millions to us all each. (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974830)

if you bring some creation to life, you better stand by it and watch it forever. if you hand it over to someone else, s/he may undo what your vision has done. someone else, is flatly, someone else. not you. noone can hold your vision stronger and clearer than you can.

i think this should be a good lesson for sergei and larry. and all of us tech upstarts.

building a company vs. an building an empire (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34974852)

Schmidt probably wanted to build an empire by acquiring hot startups as quickly as possible, in the manner of most of Google's competitors (Apple is an outstanding exception). He's been around Silicon Valley long enough to see how quickly the landscape turns over a hot new platform. The other two want to do it in house "the right way". Briefly, Schmidt's way produces much better short term business results, but (lack of) product integration and multi-site bureaucracy become continuing burdens for the company. The in-house way is elegant and life-affirming, but only if you can ship the product that people want in a timely fashion AND anticipate or roll with changes in the industry.

Good track record (5, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974908)

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:Good track record (1)

krotkruton (967718) | more than 3 years ago | (#34975018)

Agreed. Not sure why there needs to be a negative spin on his leaving. He did good things for the company, they had some disagreements, and now he's moving on. That sounds like the story of many of the millions of people who search for new jobs every year.

Re:Good track record (1)

choko (44196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34975104)

The negative spin is due to the relative success and size of Google. People love seeing other people at the top fail and fall from grace.

Re:Good track record (1)

jopsen (885607) | more than 3 years ago | (#34975120)

Agreed. Not sure why there needs to be a negative spin on his leaving.

Otherwise it wouldn't be news worthy... :)

Re:Good track record (3, Interesting)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#34975216)

Not only that, I object to the characterization of Facebook as a better place to work that Google. Facebook might be nice if you want to pretend you're still in a college frat house with toys and a full bar [time.com] . That kind of thing appeals to college students (including me when I was in college), but if you're the type of programmer who wants to work at a place where you can do interesting programming things, Google is WAY better than Facebook.

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.

Eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34974916)

"Facebook had replaced them as the hot tech company, the place vital engineers wanted to work"
What? :P

Oracle (1)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974924)

He may figure that the Oracle lawsuit won't go so well, and either paying Oracle off or being forced to join OpenJDK won't do wonders for the Android business plan.

Plain and simple... (1, Insightful)

Super Dave Osbourne (688888) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974946)

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.

Mr. Schmidt Goes to Washington (1)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974994)

Part of the Obama administration, in the spring. You heard it here first, unless you already read John Dvorak's Second Opinion -- http://www.marketwatch.com/story/eric-schmidts-next-act-bodes-well-for-tech-2011-01-21 [marketwatch.com] .

Probably going to be on Obama's new jobs politboro (1)

MaggieL (10193) | more than 3 years ago | (#34974998)

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??? (3)

foobsr (693224) | more than 3 years ago | (#34975040)

From TFS: "Facebook had replaced them as the hot tech company, the place vital engineers wanted to work."

Could someone explain?

CC.

Re:Facebook: Hot Tech Company — Explain??? (5, Informative)

mysterons (1472839) | more than 3 years ago | (#34975170)

--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.

I have a clue :D (1)

lsdi (1585395) | more than 3 years ago | (#34975132)

Google: Is struggling to offer profitable new products and is suffering of bit rot. Is stuck at 00's. Bing was the first product that got google by surprise and they had to catch-up to it. Also too slow on making changes. (see Gmail) Wastes too much energy on issues that are meaningless to it's average users. Needs to take some fresh air.

Eric Schmidt will run Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34975328)

The real reason: He's going to run Apple after Jobs has to step down.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...