×

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!

Google's Schmidt Says He 'Screwed Up' On Social Networking

Roblimo posted more than 2 years ago | from the so-busy-he-didn't-notice-Facebook dept.

Businesses 252

"Google chairman Eric Schmidt took responsibility for the search titan's failure to counter Facebook's explosive growth, saying he saw the threat coming but failed to counter it." Note: The original link's landing page was changed after we posted it. The one showing now goes to a Wired article. The same story (coverage of a May 31 conference presentation by Schmidt) also quotes him as saying, unsurprisingly, that cloud services will be 'the death of IT as we know it.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

252 comments

Yeah Right.... (5, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#36307432)

No company worth their salt will put all the company data "on the cloud" No way in HELL is my customer DB and accounting DB going on the cloud.

Re:Yeah Right.... (1)

felipekk (1007591) | more than 2 years ago | (#36307440)

Re:Yeah Right.... (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#36307506)

The cloud is not one of those. We had time sharing before.

Re:Yeah Right.... (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#36307634)

No kidding. It's all been done before, and when Visicalc came out, everyone ran out and bought Apples so they didn't have to pay to have their data and apps stored elsewhere and out of their control.

I'm not saying the "cloud" is all bad, but I am saying that for critical or highly sensitive data, you're asking for a disaster to store it in this fashion.

Re:Yeah Right.... (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#36308006)

"Everyone" bought Apples? According to ars technica, the program visicalc was released in 1979 and the number one selling computer for the following years was NOT Apple.

In fact Apple wasn't even close:
1979 - TRS-80 (#2 was Atari #3 Commodore PET #4 Apple)
1980 - TRS80 again
1981 - 1982 = Atari 400/800 was #1
1983 - 1986 - C64
1987 - IBM PC clones

Apple II and its variants never rose higher than 3rd place in sales volume. So rather than saying "everyone" ran-out to buy an Apple, it's more like one-tenth of the population bought an apple. The rest were buying TRS, Atari, Commodore, or IBM.

Re:Yeah Right.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36308038)

Hmm, you should really look more deeply into those numbers. Which of the TRS-80s were for home, and which for the office? Nobody bought Atari or Commodore PET for the Office.

Re:Yeah Right.... (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 2 years ago | (#36308696)

I believe by "everyone" he meant to say: "Everyone in business who needed one or two Apples for their accounting dept. to use the new VisiCalc software while they bought cheaper DOS based systems or kept the status quo for non-accounting positions (98%). " There, does that add up better for you?

Re:Yeah Right.... (3, Interesting)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 2 years ago | (#36308156)

Cloud is more than storage, and I understand the need for security, regulatory compliance, and general safety. The cloud is just as safe as your internal network, and they require equal effort to make them so. If you choose a reliable cloud provider, then impose your policy discipline and regimen, there is no difference between 'cloud' and your data center.

Those that make excuses for sites that go bad do us all an injustice, just as when your data center gets cracked or you leak data, you deserve a new job flipping burgers.

VisiCalc/SuperCalc/Lotus 123 all won because they could get real work done, rather than having an app built to do repetitive relational math. Because those worked so well, people tried to turn them into word processors because Wang and Lanier and IBM Displaywriters were so expensive. Then they started to sort stuff, and little dbs took off. It wasn't a nexus of storage control, it was impatience that drove the populist computing revolution..... and games.....and pr0n.

Re:Yeah Right.... (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#36308426)

"Cloud" storage is offsite and thus inherently there is an aspect of it beyond your control. I wouldn't store any critical or highly confidential data on a cloud service no matter how many guarantees I was given.

Re:Yeah Right.... (2)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 2 years ago | (#36308602)

And you think that the fat drive array in your data center is IN your control? The location doesn't matter if your discipline isn't up to snuff. You'll get eaten internally, or externally-- or not-- if you apply the same studiousness to both.

Re:Yeah Right.... (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 2 years ago | (#36307458)

Lots of companies are already doing it. Whether you think it's a good idea is irrelevant, but I will remind you that history is littered with people in an industry arrogantly proclaiming that something new will "never work" because it doesn't fit their past experience. No matter how much they stamp their feet progress marches on.

Re:Yeah Right.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36307498)

Mainframes are dead! Long live mainframes!

History is also littered with people who jumped on the latest bandwagon and crashed and burned miserably when that bandwagon ran off a cliff.

Re:Yeah Right.... (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#36307536)

Name one, just one company that has everything in the cloud. No mail servers, no terminal services servers, no in house intranet, no local hosted sftp/ftps and all customer and accounting data in the cloud.

Lots of companies are using these technologies where they make sense, near no one is using them in a way that gets rid of IT.

Re:Yeah Right.... (1)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 2 years ago | (#36308096)

Quite a few indie game companies do since their team members tend to be scattered across the globe. When you have someone in Canada, the US, Europe and in Japan suddenly a cloud makes sense since it makes sure everyone stays on the same page, even if they aren't in the same timezone.

Re:Yeah Right.... (1)

Machtyn (759119) | more than 2 years ago | (#36308166)

Same thing for multinational mega-corps. They may use cloud technologies, but it is all still in-house.

Re:Yeah Right.... (1)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 2 years ago | (#36308404)

You mean, like, I dunno... a concurrent versioning server? A shared development server?

This whole cloud thing is nought but marketingspeak from companies who see money in large-scale, thin-provisioned hosting. As usual, the inept CTOs are gobbling it up like crazy.

Re:Yeah Right.... (2)

paimin (656338) | more than 2 years ago | (#36308128)

I work for a startup that has everything in the cloud (except possibly backup - I'd bet there is a physical copy somewhere). Seriously, all of the above are handled in the cloud, and we have nobody with the title of "IT". We outsource our firewall admin, and all data services are cloud. Mind you, there are plenty of IT tasks being handled by developers, and I definitely do NOT agree that those types of tasks are going away. But I think it is conceivable that the title will fade away, and it is conceivable that very few companies will deal with local services before too long.

Re:Yeah Right.... (1)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 2 years ago | (#36308392)

If you've got stock options in this startup, I suggest you start off today making that "bet" of a physical copy more of an assurance.

Re:Yeah Right.... (1)

capsteve (4595) | more than 2 years ago | (#36307612)

i doubt that my company's customers data will ever move to the cloud... some data and/or customer data might move to the cloud, but not all of it. it's not about arrogantly proclaiming something wouldn't work, it has more to do with contracts and agreements that prohibits our customer data to be moved beyond our data center.

Re:Yeah Right.... (5, Insightful)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 2 years ago | (#36307632)

Pretty much like every tech trend before it, and after it, cloud computing will do a fraction of what it's supporters say it will do, and many times what it's detractors say it cannot do. Just look at pretty much EVERY other tech trend ever.... dot com? Didn't really change how we bought dog food, did change how we shop for a lot of other articles though. Offshore outsourcing? According to a Gartner report in 2003 or thereabouts, right now over 50% of all US IT jobs should be in India and there was predicted to be massive unemployment in the US IT sector, while the detractors said that all the work that went to India will come back because the Indians cannot do it. The truth? Nowhere near what Gartner said, but significantly more work is outsourced than before and isn't coming back, so the detractors were wrong too.

Cloud computing is in a similar position IMO. Of course the owner of one of the biggest clouds on the planet is going to be all gung ho about cloud computing, and of course people whose jobs may be threatened will say it will never work. But if you look in between that, there are some exciting opportunities for the cloud, but also some severe limitations that may never be completely overcome.

Long story short, if someone is telling you "Technology x will do a-z!" and someone else shouts back "Technology x is worthless!", you are better off not believing either of them.

Re:Yeah Right.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36307824)

"Lots of companies are already doing it. "

Not only companies, but just .... people. People are falling all over themselves to not have to manage their local music, video, or photograph collections for example. If local, they have to back them up (and they won't, and don't even want to), they have to worry about malware wiping them out, etc.

No matter how hard the slashdot crowd bitches, it IS safer for those people to have their data in the cloud. Yes, you can point to examples of problems with cloud services, but there are far MORE problems with Joe Sixpack trying to manage it himself.

Plus, when Joe Sixpack's tablet dies and he buys a new one, with cloud services all his data is still there same as ever. With local storage, he has to figure out how to transfer it, and he isn't smart enough to do that.

Cloud computing where your local device is just an access point is the future because it is easier and more functional for Joe Sixpack. What slashdot readers want is not a significant factor, because they are a tiny, tiny fraction of the computer using public.

Re:Yeah Right.... (1)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 2 years ago | (#36308054)

Joe Sixpack might have trouble figuring out how to transfer their files from old tablet to new tablet, but Joe Sixpack has no trouble figuring out that when your streaming everything from the internet and you have a tiny cap causing you to have a $500+ monthly internet bill then the cloud isn't worth it.

Re:Yeah Right.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36308236)

Except that Comcast (for example) has 250 GB cap, and other big ISPs are similar, up in the 150-250 GB range. And that's an assload of streaming - something Joe isn't going to run into.

There is a HUGE market pressure towards cloud computing, and it will happen, like it or not. One can either stick one's head in the sand about it, which there is a long and proud history of people doing, or accept the reality of it.

Re:Yeah Right.... (1)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 2 years ago | (#36308324)

Since tablets and other technology are moving to cellular networks, I'd like to see these caps. Unlimited caps are all but gone and most are hovering around 5 gigs a month or lower. ISP don't need to raise their caps for other companies business plans since they don't have much, or in many cases, any competition meaning they can set low caps to max out profit. This is what is happening with things today like YouTube and Netflix. As you pointed out, ISPs have caps of 150-250 gigs, thing is these are LOWERED caps, not raised and yet its done in the face of rising usage. You think when more is wanted to be streamed all the ISP's will suddenly change their minds and bring back unlimited caps?

Re:Yeah Right.... (3, Interesting)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 2 years ago | (#36308648)

> If local, they have to back them up [...] it IS safer for those people to have their data in the cloud.

Only true if Joe Sixpack is willing to pay for his cloud services. All your Picasa pictures, Youtube movies and Gmail messages are explicitly not insured. They'll do their best, of course, but you're free to point me where in the terms of service they define their guaranteed backup retention policies for the user.

> when Joe Sixpack's tablet dies and he buys a new one, with cloud services all his data is still there same as ever.

Yes, assuming he buys a compatible tablet from the same vendor. I'd like to see you use your iCloud data on an Android tabled. Same caveat: as long as you don't pay you have no rights.

> it is easier and more functional

Yes, as long as you have a connection and aren't running into some volume or bandwidth cap. I don't see many users wanting to upload their 15-megapixel raw images to Picasa.

Re:Yeah Right.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36307474)

No company worth their salt will put all the company data "on the cloud"

An enormous amount of commercially successful companies use Amazon Web Services. While perhaps not ideal, it has not held them back in any significant way.

Re:Yeah Right.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36307522)

Back in the old days, we used to call a lot of this "managed hosting" and/or "co-location."

Who cares if it's A VPS INSTANCE RUNNING IN A MULTITENANT ${BUZZWORD1} ${BUZZWORD2} CLOUD-BASED GRID PLATFORM if to me, it's a freakin' ip address with a dedicated OS that I can use to run my applications on?

Most of this is pure hype. Amazing to see how everyone fawns over "the cloud" when 90% of its value is essentially what we had back in the olden days of 2007--admittedly with incremental improvements.

Re:Yeah Right.... (2)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 2 years ago | (#36308518)

The advantage of amazon is that they've got a staff who are experts at distributing the workload in a server farm, while keeping the cost of the farm proportional to only the amount being used. It's prohibitively expensive to own and operate this infrastructure if you only expect to get bogged down on black friday, but don't want to buckle under the load.

It's more than co-location or managed hosting. It's a price efficient way of distributing load. Of course, if it's like any other technology, as this equipment gets cheaper and easier to use it's likely you'll see a move from the cloud back to hosting it yourself. Technology has a funny way of ebbing and flowing like that. The original 3D movies had complete server farms that were prohibitively expensive to run unless you were a major player (i.e. pixar). But as processors get better and cheaper, starting your own render farm is becoming more realistic, and there are some very impressive amateur renders out there. (we're not all the way yet though)

Re:Yeah Right.... (2)

mikeroySoft (1659329) | more than 2 years ago | (#36307530)

Clouds don't have to be public... it's perfectly reasonable to have an internal private cloud, and that can communicate with a public-facing public cloud (where the .com gets hosted, customer portal, etc)

Re:Yeah Right.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36307726)

This "private cloud" thing is beyond funny.

What the fuck is it? A name that brain-death managers can understand and relate to?
It's just fucking repackaged name for the fucking server room.

Re:Yeah Right.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36307828)

This "private cloud" thing is beyond funny.

What the fuck is it?

You must be some old fart who still calls it a LAN.

Re:Yeah Right.... (1)

pmontra (738736) | more than 2 years ago | (#36307876)

I wish I had mod points for you. I have my private cloud on the desk, the USB drives I backup my stuff to :-)

To be fair, I also have some servers in other countries which I use to backup some critical data to (encrypted!). I also encrypt and copy some data to my Dropbox folder (that should be in another continent). Big companies have multiple data centers so they could do the same degree of disaster recovery within their network.

Leaving the private cloud aside, some companies use github to host the source code for their projects, even the ones they develop for their customers, and services like basecamp and lighthouse to manage projects. I prefer using my own redmine and gitosis server (is that a private cloud even if they are quite far away from me?) and those kind of services had really changed the way we work.

Re:Yeah Right.... (2)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 2 years ago | (#36308380)

Can you really not figure it out? Really?

A "private cloud" is an internet site that is not open to the general public. For example, I work for the DoD. When Airman Pike, in Korea, wants to check his personnel records, he goes to - what might be called - a "private cloud." The internet servers are owned and operated by the DoD, and only open to DoD personnel. The servers are located here in the USA, in a secure facility on a military base, but they can be accessed, securely, from anywhere in the world.

It is a perfectly sensible way of doing things, and not hard to understand at all.

Re:Yeah Right.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36308678)

Sorry dude but how old are you? 24?

We've been able to do that for quite some time, you know?

Re:Yeah Right.... (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#36307816)

Wouldn't an "internal private cloud" just be called a "server farm"?

Re:Yeah Right.... (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 2 years ago | (#36308198)

Not necessarily. It could be internal to the corporation, but not to a specific department/team/developer. Each department could get isolated use of that cloud. From the department's perspective, it's an internal private cloud.

Re:Yeah Right.... (3, Informative)

mikeroySoft (1659329) | more than 2 years ago | (#36308320)

A server farm can host a 'cloud', certainly, they aren't necessary the same thing.
Servers are hardware. A 'cloud' represents a logical infrastructure, independent of the hardware it's currently sitting on.
With such an abstraction, you can more easily and reliably do things like disaster recovery, load balancing, storage migration, fail-over.. etc.. Gives the infrastructure the agility to deal with change, whether it's planned or not.

Re:Yeah Right.... (2)

VolciMaster (821873) | more than 2 years ago | (#36307570)

Nobody said it has to be the public cloud: private and hybrids exist, too

Re:Yeah Right.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36307802)

There's a name for that: your IT department.

Re:Yeah Right.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36307620)

Tell that to Salesforce.com's customers (including Dell, Symantec, Qualcomm, etc).

It's an issue of managing risks. It should be safer to hoard your cash at home too (you've your fireproof safe!), instead of the bank. But most people gives their cash to the bank to store anyway, because it's more convenient.

Re:Yeah Right.... (1, Insightful)

jrumney (197329) | more than 2 years ago | (#36307682)

No company worth their salt will put consumer grade PCs on every desktop. No way in HELL is my mainframe based customer DB and accounting DB going to be accessible on the LAN.

Re:Yeah Right.... (0)

TheSunborn (68004) | more than 2 years ago | (#36307986)

Maybe not for large companies, but I can easily see a future where most small companies have most of their software and data run by "cloud service"(Or rather Software as a service) companies.

And this will in general be a service which is far more secure, and better backup up then what they currently have.

An example is googles service, where email, calendar, wordprocessor and spreadsheet is located in the cloud. I know some small companies where the everyday workflow depend on all these applications working.

Or take a look at http://www.e-conomic.dk which is a danish cloud based software as a service accounting solution. It can only  only be accessed by the browser*. I think that this is the most used accounting** service when talking about small companies.

*Well they also have a Soap api, if you need to integrate with your own software.

**You know, invoices customer data and so on.

Re:Yeah Right.... (1)

rvw (755107) | more than 2 years ago | (#36307990)

No company worth their salt will put all the company data "on the cloud" No way in HELL is my customer DB and accounting DB going on the cloud.

No company worth *your* salt.... That's what you're saying essentially. And it won't happen, because those companies either stick with you, or they will find somebody else to handle their data.

Re:Yeah Right.... (1)

cHiphead (17854) | more than 2 years ago | (#36308002)

I love the cloud moniker, because its the perfect description. Eventually either the data escapes and pours out of the cloud or just outright evaporates into thin air. You get what you get if you put important data in a 'cloud.'

That doesn't make complete sense, though... (0)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 2 years ago | (#36308254)

No company worth their salt will put all the company data "on the cloud" No way in HELL is my customer DB and accounting DB going on the cloud.

While I sympathize with you, that doesn't make sense. Google's data is on Google's cloud. Facebook's data is on Facebook's cloud. Now, the question is, are you big enough to build your own cloud, or can you leverage the advantage of another, larger company's cloud? As long as you remember that cloud is not perfect, and you do proper backups, you are completely fine. A server on premises can fail as, or more, easily than a server in a cloud. If you never back up either, then it's the same mistake, not some new "how dare you trust the cloud?!?" mistake.

It's the difference between treating cloud as "a" server, and not "the" server.

Re:Yeah Right.... (1)

AftanGustur (7715) | more than 2 years ago | (#36308300)

No company worth their salt will put all the company data "on the cloud" No way in HELL is my customer DB and accounting DB going on the cloud.

Your competition will do it, and it will cost them just a fraction of what you will have to pay for your in-house solution.

Unfortunately Mr. Schmidt is right, and you cannot fight the tide of change. So, swallow your pride and step into the new world with the rest of the market.

Re:Yeah Right.... (1)

brainzach (2032950) | more than 2 years ago | (#36308356)

I trust Google to safeguard my data better than myself because I am not an IT security expert. I don't want to waste money and time coming up with my own redundant servers and managing them when I can easily put it in the cloud, which would likely be more secure and reliable than anything I come up with.

Re:Yeah Right.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36308466)

Let me guess, you make your living delivering IT as we currently know it?

Re:Yeah Right.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36308644)

They will if the CEO comes up to you because "a friend of his" told him how awesome the cloud is, and now he wants you to do it, not taking no for an answer. I eventually left the company I ran IT for over repeated asinine requests such as these, because the CEO would push for them regardless of my warnings; he would inevitably become furious when none of it worked half as well as he'd been told it would be "his friend".

Direct link (4, Informative)

jaymz2k4 (790806) | more than 2 years ago | (#36307442)

The posted url now 410's. here's a link [pcmag.com] to the article on PC mag and the wired source [wired.com] too...

Re:Direct link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36307534)

The URL is a doubleclick ad; someone thought it was a bright idea to get some cash money out of a slashdot submission.

Death of IT again? (2)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 2 years ago | (#36307488)

Before it was thin clients. Then thick clients. Then outsourcing. Then mobile devices. Then tablets. Now cloud services.

Who exactly is going to manage all your cloud based servers? Do these guys really expect some $8/hr amazon support monkey to manage your linux patches, fix bugs, write scripts, install applications, customize applications, etc.

If the cloud does anything, it just moves your server room to a different room off-site. You still need IT to make it do anything useful.

Re:Death of IT *in the USA* (4, Insightful)

tekrat (242117) | more than 2 years ago | (#36307826)

I think what he means is that it's the death of IT in America.

I mean, with virtualization, "cloud" services can allow your admins to be in a cheaper country, like India. Since you never get to touch your hardware, your admins don't need to touch the hardware anymore either.

It's yet another way for management to increase profitability by lowering costs by firing everyone except themselves, who all get big fat bonuses.

What the "cloud" really provides is yet another way to make the rich richer, and everyone else poorer.

Never mind that they are handing the crown jewels over to a bunch of people, who, should the shit hit the fan, are more than happy to steal all that data and keep it for themselves, leaving their rich corporate masters with nothing.

It's akin to giving the serfs all the weapons to protect the castle, and then the king thinking he's somehow safe even though no guards are loyal to him.

Greed has truly fucked up this country. We're going to find, in less than a decade, that we've given away everything that made this nation great, and we'll be left with very little to show for it. Rome was smarter than we were.

Re:Death of IT *in the USA* (2)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 2 years ago | (#36307962)

Yeah, that just outsourcing. It didn't work when they tried selling it to us as the solution for everything about 10 years ago and I don't see why its suddenly going to work now.

Re:Death of IT *in the USA* (1)

ThinkWeak (958195) | more than 2 years ago | (#36308604)

True. However, Cloud services do have their benefits when you integrate them with disaster recovery. I guess just about any large corporation is already "cloud-based," more or less. The SharePoint farm is a cloud, virtual folders are a cloud, etc. I don't see why the sky is suddenly going to fall.

Re:Death of IT *in the USA* (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 2 years ago | (#36308500)

It's yet another way for management to increase profitability by lowering costs by firing everyone except themselves, who all get big fat bonuses.

So, what is your solution for increasing productivity? Giving everyone meaningless jobs like TSA Agents groping and feeling their way to a pay check offering no real service or product?

It is easy to parrot the left wing rant, but it is much harder to actually give a solution to the problem. However, if what you're talking about is selling the goose that lays the golden egg for a quick buck, screwing anyone but the short term share holders, then yeah. But the fix to that is to tax short term transactions, and promote long term holding of assets.

Why did they fail? (3, Interesting)

lxs (131946) | more than 2 years ago | (#36307544)

More specifically: why does he believe that everything on the entire Internet needs to be governed by Google? Not even Ballmer or teh Jobs are that megalomaniacal.

Re:Why did they fail? (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#36307854)

Considering Google and Facebook are in the advertising market, some companies might decide they'd rather buy Facebook ads than Google ads.

Re:Why did they fail? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36308170)

It's so easy to forget that bit. I guess they both do their best to make sure that, if you know, that you do forget and that if you don't, you don't find out.

Though, honestly, I'm more concerned about the bit at the end. I really don't think large companies, especially large international ones, have any place in elections. Individuals can contribute their own money but I really loathe the whole "Acme Inc Endorses Wile E. Coyote for Mayor!" thing.

Re:Why did they fail? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36308532)

Exactly what I'm thinking. I use two social services on the web, and one is google talk.

Certainly an interesting point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36307618)

from the perspective of the world's largest add-space reseller.

But you know, enterprise IT is really not their business, so I'd take their view with a pinch of salt.

He screwed up and got paid millions (1)

kmdrtako (1971832) | more than 2 years ago | (#36307644)

If you or I screw up, we'll get shown the door without so much as a penny.

and (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36307732)

He gets to be "more entitled" to his opinion of the merit of Facebook's business practices than you or I. Or apparently, like anyone with greater broadcasting power, his opinion on any other subject, regardless of field.

Re:He screwed up and got paid millions (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 2 years ago | (#36307800)

You need a better job. I don't get fired for every minor mistake I make. Often enough I don't even get in trouble. People make mistakes, in a decent company you own up to yours and try to fix them as best you can. Sure this was potentially a very big, very expensive mistake, but when you make decisions for the entire multinational company, your mistakes are likely to be correspondingly large. No way to avoid that. It's not like he hasn't also made many more very successful decisions that resulted in Google becoming one of the biggest players in the world.

Re:He screwed up and got paid millions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36307902)

He founded the company and owns a controlling interest in it. It's his to fuck up as he sees fit.

Cloud computing = Glass house computing all over (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36307718)

I seem to remember going through this in the 70's when the innovation of the personal computer finally broke the wall. Now you have Apple, Google and Microsoft dreaming of setting it back up again. Good luck guys.

Re:Cloud computing = Glass house computing all ove (1)

pmontra (738736) | more than 2 years ago | (#36307898)

And Apple and Microsoft were two of the companies that broke that wall, possibly the most famous ones. What irony.

Schmidt *is* a screw up (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36307812)

He should change his name and start over.

Doesn't need to counter it (1)

sstamps (39313) | more than 2 years ago | (#36307814)

Just like every retarded social networking fad before it, and every one which will come after it which lulls people into giving up their privacy for a pittance, there is nothing that a respectable company should WANT to "counter" "with their own".

It is sad to see that Schmidt has fallen so far to lose sight of his own company's egalitarian mantra: "Do no evil". He now only sees the evil, and he covets it, like Gollum covets the One Ring.

Re:Doesn't need to counter it (2)

creat3d (1489345) | more than 2 years ago | (#36307912)

And why should every stupid fad taking over the collective time-wasting be jumped on by every company, why would we need a counter-Facebook? Seriously, how many "social networks" are there now? How about companies stick to what they do and stop trying to take over every goddamn market there is? Yeah, in my dreams...

Re:Doesn't need to counter it (2)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#36307916)

How is Google any different from Facebook? It makes money in exactly the same way, through ads which are targeted by the information you enter in your searches, emails, etc.

Re:Doesn't need to counter it (2)

sstamps (39313) | more than 2 years ago | (#36308164)

Not from me it doesn't. I block all ads, I don't use gmail, and my searches are for things which aren't generally very targetable for advertisements, and not traceable back to me.

Re:Doesn't need to counter it (1)

MadMaverick9 (1470565) | more than 2 years ago | (#36308716)

How is Google any different from Facebook?

google sells services to businesses. that's revenue.

facebook sells ... nothing ... nada ... zilch. no revenue whatsoever. a bubble waiting to burst.

Change IT? (1)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 2 years ago | (#36307830)

Shouldn't change IT. Putting important company data on the web with access via a simple l/p violates any decent IT security policy, and most bad ones. But say it does happen, all it means is that everyone will need to become a network engineer, since even if they don't need local server administrators, they'll still need network folks to maintain the network that has to be on the ground locally.

Re:Change IT? (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 2 years ago | (#36308504)

Major companies do this, securely, all the time. As another poster pointed out, take a look at salesforce customers.

Are local admins still needed? I could show you several brokerage houses that do not have an on-site IT staff. They just contract with Dell or HP for their desktop support.

Yes, I think it's fair to say that this is changing IT. Not that long ago, the accounting, payroll, etc. were on a machine within the facility, and everybody who worked on the system worked at that facility. Now the company is California, the servers are in Nevada, and the developers are in India.

Re:Change IT? (1)

mario_grgic (515333) | more than 2 years ago | (#36308582)

Cloud is not the Web first of all. No one is saying you will be putting your data on some website where anyone can potentially access it, nor is anyone saying your data will not be transferred through secure communication channel (most enterprises I know of have VPN access where employees remotely access data through secure channels, so in effect the company headquarters are acting as "the cloud"), nor is anyone saying your data will be stored unencrypted on the cloud.

But if you are a small company, let's say you are a carpenter making furniture, does it make sense for you to have your own mail server, network, customer database etc? Why would you buy machines, software and pay someone to maintain it all, when you can have economies of scale working for you by outsourcing all that to the cloud provider for the fraction of the cost?

Dodgeball Fail (2)

otis wildflower (4889) | more than 2 years ago | (#36307840)

Dodgeball was Twitter before Twitter.. Google bought it and fucking squandered it, stupidity of a Microsoftian degree.

I can't wait to see Facebook melt down though, too scamilicious to IPO in the US lol...

If it'll make the CEO an extra buck (1)

Timtimes (730036) | more than 2 years ago | (#36308000)

then they are gonna do it. I can't be the only one who has noticed that consumer/client data security is not exactly a priority concern. Enjoy.

Google's problem (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 2 years ago | (#36308142)

Google went about social networking all wrong. With Buzz, the idea is to build a network of contacts, and post updates to them. As Facebook has shown us, social networking is really all about recommending "friends" you've never met, showing how many thousand people think they might know you from somewhere, and bombarding users with trivial accomplishments in thoughtless games.

Social networking isn't about being social. It's about filling bars [penny-arcade.com].

It's time to move on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36308150)

....quotes him as saying, unsurprisingly, that cloud services will be 'the death of IT as we know it.'"

Perfect. Then we can move on and implement the next tech/science revolution...

Cloud services as the death of IT as we know it (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 2 years ago | (#36308218)

I am happy to see someone like Google stating this clearly, but isn't that a bit hypocritical ? They started this all and promote gmail and Google Documents

The "Death of IT"? (1)

ReallyEvilCanine (991886) | more than 2 years ago | (#36308258)

Shit, I don't know how to score higher. Do I go with "OH NOES! The'yre goez my sallarie" or "Thank fuck! Now I can get a real job."

.

Or do I just settle for "Fucker's about my age, said something which made sense, forgot to turn his filters on just like me, it's not the end of the world as we know it"? Oh, and "Give me a billion dollars for being the newest sensible pundit". Fuck, Taco was a billionaire for about 30 minutes and felt the need to write about it here.

A bigger issue: Is Google a Post-scarcity place? (2)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | more than 2 years ago | (#36308428)

http://www.pdfernhout.net/a-rant-on-financial-obesity-and-Project-Virgle.html [pdfernhout.net]
"Look at Project Virgle and "An Open Source Planet":
        http://www.google.com/virgle/opensource.html [google.com]
Even just in jest some of the most financially obese people on the planet (who have built their company with thousands of servers all running GNU/Linux free software) apparently could not see any other possibility but seriously becoming even more financially obese off the free work of others on another planet (as well as saddling others with financial obesity too :-). And that jest came almost half a *century* after the "Triple Revolution" letter of 1964 about the growing disconnect between effort and productivity (or work and financial fitness):
        http://www.educationanddemocracy.org/FSCfiles/C_CC2a_TripleRevolution.htm [educationa...ocracy.org]
Even not having completed their PhDs, the top Google-ites may well take many more *decades* to shake off that ideological discipline. I know it took me decades (and I am still only part way there. :-) As with my mother, no doubt Googlers have lived through periods of scarcity of money relative to their needs to survive or be independent scholars or effective agents of change. Is it any wonder they probably think being financially obese is a *good* thing, not an indication of either personal or societal pathology? :-( "

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...