Beta
×

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 CEO Joins Apple's Board

ScuttleMonkey posted about 8 years ago | from the inquiring-minds-wanna-know dept.

104

Phooey42 writes "AppleInsider is reporting that Google's CEO, Eric Schmidt, has been approved to join Apple's board of directors, bringing the board's total head-count up to eight. From the article, 'Schmidt also sits on Google's board of directors and Princeton University's board of trustees. He joins other Apple board members that include: former Vice President of the United States, Al Gore Jr.; President and CEO of Harwinton Capital, Jerry York; Chairman and CEO of Genentech, Arthur Levinson; Chairman and CEO J. Crew, Millard Drexler; Chairman and former CEO of Intuit, Bill Campbell, former CFO of Apple, Fred Anderson; and Apple CEO, Steve Jobs.'"

cancel ×

104 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hunh. And this matters why? (-1, Troll)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | about 8 years ago | (#16004878)

Google's main market share is still made of Windows clients. So the OMFG APPLE IS GOING TO GET SPESHUL GOOGLE FEATURES speculation can stop *now*.

Re:Hunh. And this matters why? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16004916)

HOLY SCHMOLY I have a huge Jewish hook-nose up my shit-hole and I like it!

Re:Hunh. And this matters why? (1)

Duds (100634) | about 8 years ago | (#16005739)

It's an implication that the two comapanies share similar values which in itself offers us some kind of glimpse into the future direction of both.

Re:Hunh. And this matters why? (5, Funny)

PHPfanboy (841183) | about 8 years ago | (#16005787)

Yes, "Get Microsoft" is their shared similar values

Re:Hunh. And this matters why? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16005741)

I can understand that you don't read TFA (this is Slashdot after all), but not reading the post... come on, it's not about technology exchanges what they talk here, is the *board of directors*!.

Re:Hunh. And this matters why? (1)

zavou (998615) | about 8 years ago | (#16009560)

yes, and the importance of the board of directors is not very important really in the decissions of the companies, specially in the technological ones.

Re:Hunh. And this matters why? (1)

hey! (33014) | about 8 years ago | (#16006139)

I don't think anyone can say for sure why this matters.

One thing is certain: Schmidt, acting as CEO of Google, cannot do anything which benefits Apple to the detriment of Google. Nor can he do anything as a board member of Apple that benefits Google at Apple's expense. He may have to recuse himself from certain decisions at Apple; for example if Google decides to launch a music service, he exposes himself legally if he

Clearly, Schmidt was hired because his experience Internet technologies brings a certain viewpoint and expertise to the Apple board. It may even tend to align Apple strategy with Google strategy, by virtue of elements of a shared world view. But this shouldn't be seen as a business deal between Google and Apple. It's a highly inefficient way of doing a business deal for the companies, and a risky one for Schmidt.

Re:Hunh. And this matters why? (1)

Chimera512 (910750) | about 8 years ago | (#16008766)

"Clearly, Schmidt was hired because his experience Internet technologies brings a certain viewpoint and expertise to the Apple board:"

well Al Gore invented the Internet, so I don't know what they need this guy for.

Re:Hunh. And this matters why? (0)

hey! (33014) | about 8 years ago | (#16009108)

well Al Gore invented the Internet, so I don't know what they need this guy for.

Yeah, and Jews poison wells and use the blood of Christian infants in their religious observances.

Some lies, like the blood libel or the one about Al Gore supposedly claiming he "invented" the Internet, never seem to lose their ability to charm people of a certain mentality.

Oh hell no. (-1, Troll)

pair-a-noyd (594371) | about 8 years ago | (#16004906)

Google is a profiteering parasitic operation. This is the foot in the door for google to swallow up Apple.
I'll bet Microsoft is paying google to do this, to infiltrate and swallow Apple.

Google = bad. Go away google..

Re:Oh hell no. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16004973)

Oh well, at least your login adequately reflects you. Google is doing what the other companies failed at. Yahoo and MSN had 5 years head start and failed because overall they sucked. Both were true parasites. Besides, you have a choice. You do not have to use Google.

Re:Oh hell no. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16005117)

Google is doing what the other companies failed at.

Yes, at losing money. You do realize that Yahoo is makeing money and Google loses it, right, Miss Dumbcunt?

Re:Oh hell no. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16005241)

Hmmm, google is losing money? [google.com] Amazing the shear amount of fud here. Yahoo is slowly losing revenue and profits while Google increases. BTW, MS is selling fewer units, but has an increase in total sales $ and profits. It is good to be a monopoly.

Re:Oh hell no. (4, Funny)

SeekerDarksteel (896422) | about 8 years ago | (#16004995)

This post gets my vote for the "Most fitting poster name" of the year award.

Good for Google, good for Apple (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16004915)

The summary may as well have linked to the actual press release [apple.com] .

I like GigaOM's [gigaom.com] take:
Even though Google is being overtly aggressive about online video market, it is trying to leverage its advertising network more than download sales. Is it too hard to imagine - watch the video on Google Video, and download it on iTunes store? Both parties win? iTunes being included as part of Google software pack, or part of Google Toolbar? Google driving music-related searchers to iTunes store?

Google must be paying handsomely for those searches emanating out of Safari browser (about 3% of the total market) and a soft alliance could help balance the books. In other words, Google gets paid for referring customers to the iTunes music/video store.

I also hope this translates into more Mac-friendliness [businessweek.com] from Google: "it did take Google a little while to let Safari users log into Gmail, for instance, and it did take Google Earth a little while to come out for the Mac".

Re:Good for Google, good for Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16004996)

At least they support Mac at all, which can't be said for many others. Obviously, they can't make it their top priority, seeing as Mac has a single-digit market share, but they are supporting it which is great to see.

Re:Good for Google, good for Apple (4, Informative)

bunions (970377) | about 8 years ago | (#16005138)

> it did take Google a little while to let Safari users log into Gmail, for instance

Yeah, because there was -no- javascript debugger for Safari until very recently. Don't blame Google, blame Apple.

Re:Good for Google, good for Apple (1)

slughead (592713) | about 8 years ago | (#16015967)

> Yeah, because there was -no- javascript debugger for Safari until very recently. Don't blame Google, blame Apple.

I had to put a 'no safari' stamp on one of my web software solutions because I was unable to debug safari. Sometimes things wouldn't work and no error would be thrown. Finally, there's some description of the problem.

Nothing beats firefox though--most of the time you can click on a link in the debugger and it'll show you the problem in source.

Re:Good for Google, good for Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16022452)

Don't blame Google, blame Apple.

Um, no. Not promising functionality and locking users out are two different things.

Re:Good for Google, good for Apple (1)

Pink Tinkletini (978889) | about 8 years ago | (#16005569)

Google Earth still hasn't come out for Mac. Sure, it runs on OS X, but only like Frankenstein runs the Idiotarod [precisionaccidents.com] . It's nowhere close to being a Mac application in philosophy or interface.

On the bright side, several months ago I heard Google was looking for Cocoa developers. And they recently hired Doug Bowman, the stopdesign guy, which can only improve the company's heretofore crippled sense of aesthetics. Anyone got news on more recent developments?

Re:Good for Google, good for Apple (2)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | about 8 years ago | (#16006283)

Google Earth still hasn't come out for Mac. Sure, it runs on OS X,

Dumb. Think about what you're saying for a second. By that logic, Apple hasn't released quicktime or itunes for windows.

Re:Good for Google, good for Apple (1)

cirisme (781889) | about 8 years ago | (#16006730)

Except, on Windows, it's normal for a media player to be their own UI entity. Just look at WMP and Winamp and all the other media players, none of the popular ones use Windows' chrome.

Re:Good for Google, good for Apple (1)

Pink Tinkletini (978889) | about 8 years ago | (#16007213)

Well, yeah, dude. Just trying to make a point.

Today they added another member of the board (3, Funny)

sgant (178166) | about 8 years ago | (#16007746)

In a stunning move sure to send ripples across the tech industry, Apple today announced another member to it's Board of Directors. That person? You guessed it: Frank Stallone.

Great news. (3, Interesting)

jcr (53032) | about 8 years ago | (#16004971)

If Schmidt were still at Sun, they might have some hope of long-term survival. Kudos to Apple for getting him on the board.

-jcr

No, terrible news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16005765)

Schmidt's no Mac user, that's obvious at a glance [google.com] . I mean, where are his tattoos? His piercings? I doubt he's ever been in a threesome, and he's probably never done a speedball in his life. What a dweeb [babilim.co.uk] !

Mark my words: this guy's appointment to the board marks the beginning of the end. He will destroy Apple from the inside out. Just you wait and see.

Re:Great news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16008951)

Yeah, it looks bad for Sun, all right.

After all, they're the only big server maker gaining marketshare over the past couple of quarters, and
the only one seeing growth over the past couple. (They just bumped Dell from 3rd to 4th in server
vendors, for example.)

Sun now isn't Sun of the last three or five years.

Re:Great news. (1)

jcr (53032) | about 8 years ago | (#16012650)

Yeah, it looks bad for Sun, all right.

I've watched friends bailing out of that company for years. Don't let a temporary sales bump fool you; sun is following SGI down the drain. Schwartz isn't a cause, he's a symptom.

-jcr

Re:Great news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16016624)

For years huh?

Kind of like Apple's been going out of business since 1986...

At least Sun develops new, interesting, technologies that actually push the tech world forward, rather than using OSS as a marketing tool, and suing everyone left, right, and center who produces anything remotely like their designs, while pretending that "design" = "invention". Sun's main problem is that they're too application specific for most people to be using their hardware and software.

Apple will continue to do well because everyone's heard of them. They product nice looking computers. The fact the computers are the same as Dell's these days, with the industry standard OS replaced by a mixture of FreeBSD and a crappy, 1980s, non-managed OO application framework, will be glossed over by their enthusiasts who will claim every red, yellow, or green pill is somehow "innovation" and oooo! Pretty colors.

If Apple dies tomorrow, a few people will temporarily throw a tizzy, but the computer world will stay largely as it did before. If Sun dies: well, who knows what they would have produced after Java? Who else would GPL a 32-way CPU? Who else will pioneer the underappreciated next generation technology, setting the standards in much the same way as Sun did in the eighties and early nineties with networking and TCP/IP?

It'll not be fucking Apple, that's for sure.

Goggle-ization of Apple... (3, Funny)

creimer (824291) | about 8 years ago | (#16004976)

I knew Google was taking over the world, but I never suspected that Steve Jobs would let them into the Board Room. Of course, this is the same guy who had a larger-than-life video image of Bill Gates gloating over him. What's next, GoggleDisney?

Re:Goggle-ization of Apple... (2, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | about 8 years ago | (#16008243)

Google has helped Apple emensly. Think about it. Giving Mac Users to search he internet for Apps and stuff. Web Applications that work on their computers. Google has made a world that is not as depentant on windows. And Now people can decide what OS they like better.

Steve Ballmer... (5, Funny)

5plicer (886415) | about 8 years ago | (#16005011)

... just threw a chair.

Hmmm.... (4, Funny)

linguae (763922) | about 8 years ago | (#16005028)

...with all of the chairs being tossed around by Steve Ballmer (according to Slashdot), you'd think that Microsoft ran out of chairs by now.

Re:Hmmm.... (2, Funny)

NoGuffCheck (746638) | about 8 years ago | (#16005232)

you probably think the google-ebay deal was about advertising revenue. it was just to secure a supply of chairs for the upcoming carnage over at redmond.. with balmer pre-occupied with an endless supply of chairs to throw, google and apple will be free to take over the world! muhahahaaarrrggh!

Your sig (there is): (4, Funny)

IANAAC (692242) | about 8 years ago | (#16005253)

If only there were a girl that was like this OS [apple.com] in my life..

http://www.digibarn.com/collections/screenshots/Sc reenshots%20Funstuff/apple_weed.jpg [digibarn.com]

Re:Your sig (there is): (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16005636)

Pick your poison [atspace.com] . Or her [imageshack.us] , who's not in the gallery (yet).

Re:Hmmm.... (4, Funny)

wbren (682133) | about 8 years ago | (#16005263)

...you'd think that Microsoft ran out of chairs by now.
They only have one chair left [microsoft.com] , and I don't think that even Ballmer has the balls to throw him across a room.

Nah. (1)

antdude (79039) | about 8 years ago | (#16005382)

Maybe Microsoft has a secret factory to produce more chairs. [grin]

Re:Hmmm.... (1, Insightful)

suv4x4 (956391) | about 8 years ago | (#16005483)

...with all of the chairs being tossed around by Steve Ballmer (according to Slashdot), you'd think that Microsoft ran out of chairs by now.

I swear that tossing chair jokes ARE NOT FUNNY ANYMORE .

Re:Hmmm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16010689)

And why should anyone care what you think?

Re:Hmmm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16006058)

King of Microsoft, do you have enough chairs?

Re:Hmmm.... (1)

FirienFirien (857374) | about 8 years ago | (#16006086)

They just re-use chairs. It's like product testing - if it doesn't break, use it again.

...maybe that should be "If it doesn't break enough, use it again"

Re:Hmmm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16006149)

52 Billion = Lot of chairs.

Re:Hmmm.... (1)

mgblst (80109) | about 8 years ago | (#16006727)

Well the good thing is that he can't throw very far.

Re:Hmmm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16007342)

If I start throwing chairs around in my office I'd soon run out of windows.

Re:Hmmm.... (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 8 years ago | (#16008185)

The chair doesn't always need to break. You can reuse them. Logic Plain and simple.

Re:Steve Ballmer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16005389)

that joke will never get old funny.

What does it mean? (1)

4D6963 (933028) | about 8 years ago | (#16005065)

Good news I guess, but what does it really mean? I wish the article would go into further details and speculated on the implications of this..

Well if anyone who knows what they are talking about wants to explain what it means for Google, for Apple, for the market/industy and also if someone can explain what Al Gore is in that thing for and what he does, well feel free to explain..

Re:What does it mean? (1)

jcr (53032) | about 8 years ago | (#16005588)

Good news I guess, but what does it really mean?

It means that Apple gains the benefit of advice from one more highly qualifed computer entrepeneur and corporate executive.

-jcr

It means the Mac is becoming The Man. Cue PC users (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16005699)

You will have to forgive me. My definition of PC user has expanded in the past couple of years from big-haired douchebags from Wintel who trolled Tekserve at night trying to get through Crystal Quest or Inside Macintosh. (Ahh, the '80s.) I now use "PC user" as a general term to describe the wannabes who exhibit an attitude of "Yeah, we cool. We're Mac users," when they are clearly from some other part of the universe.

However, to prevent further confusion from the teeming masses, I will use the term poseur. Or in this case, switcheurs. These are the dunderheads who proclaim their trendiness because they use a Mac even though they were probably maximizing their windows until last week.

They try to act counterculture by making comments about good taste and how everything is beige, and think of themselves as nonconformists, which is laughable since all they are doing is conforming to another lifestyle.

What is really pathetic is when these expatriates proclaim their love for their adopted platform. When I hear it I cringe and automatically think of that Daphna Kalfon song "I Love My Mac [ilovemymacthesong.com] ." Not that there is anything wrong with Daphna.

That phrase reeks of such vomit-inducing pretension. You think you are cooler than the rest of the world because of your computer? Because of your zero-button mouse? Because of the fact that you have to manually sort the Desktop upon failing (inevitably) to understand the Mac's right-handed icon arrangement? Where I come from, this is called "trying too hard."

The Mac platform today is ground zero for the switcheur epidemic, which means more tourists and more expatriates moving in. It has become way too mainstream and too damn self-congratulatory to live here. And with more corporate giants moving in, the Mac is so ovah.

Re:It means the Mac is becoming The Man. Cue PC us (1)

Silicon Jedi (878120) | about 8 years ago | (#16006230)

Mod Parent Redundant, it's a cut and paste comment from another apple column.

Re:It means the Mac is becoming The Man. Cue PC us (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16007136)

Mod "Silicon Jedi" down -1, Square. Obviously a PC user at heart.

Re:It means the Mac is becoming The Man. Cue PC us (1)

4D6963 (933028) | about 8 years ago | (#16007636)

Awesome! An off-topic Mac fanboy troll.

Keep it real, cuz I can tell you're not a poseur, yo!

lol.

Re:What does it mean? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16006177)

Al Gore is on there because he invented the internet! Duh!

Re:What does it mean? Dvorak tells all, knows??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16010074)

You want speculation? John Dvorak wasted no time: http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?g uid=%7B3C8F8E30-3A0A-4991-9A9C-17B89E611038%7D&sou rce=blq%2Fyhoo&dist=yhoo&siteid=yhoo [marketwatch.com] Dvorak is always good for fun 'n' games at /.

Re:What does it mean? Dvorak tells all, knows??? (1)

4D6963 (933028) | about 8 years ago | (#16011259)

Thanks for this link, here have a virtual Informative point ;-). Eric Schmidt to be the CEO of a merged Apple-Sun? heheh, Dvorak will never cease from making me laugh. However, that one article wasn't quite as laughable as the one about Elvis having predicted the dot-com crash.

What's up with CEO's serving on boards? (0, Flamebait)

aeoo (568706) | about 8 years ago | (#16005108)

I think this practice should be illegal. Currently it seems quite common for various CEO's and other execs to be involved in many many companies. I think that's insane.

This allows for an insane power concentration and it also solidifies and protects the "old boys club". That's not something we should stand for as people and citizens. If someone is involved in one company, it should be illegal to be involved in another. Any time power concentrates it's bad for the people.

Power should be well distributed and diffused.

Re:What's up with CEO's serving on boards? (0, Troll)

rylin (688457) | about 8 years ago | (#16005145)

Damn commie, go back to cuba!

Re:What's up with CEO's serving on boards? (2, Insightful)

Preacher X (545221) | about 8 years ago | (#16005154)

IF you look into the history of corporate america you will realize that current and past executives serve on the boards of many many companies. This is nothing new and never has been. In fact, alot of todays companies would not exist if not for such things. I am willing to bet you own little to no stock at all. If you did you would realize just how foolish your comment was. Saying that someone should be tied to only one company is like saying a stockholder should be able to only buy stake in one company. As a stock holder in 20+ firms, I for one know this would equal noone making any money on stocks (not that many are as it is). Brainshare is a huge part of what drives companies yesterday, today, and most assuredly tomorrow.

PP may not have said it quite right... (3, Insightful)

IANAAC (692242) | about 8 years ago | (#16005211)

but when someone sits on more than one board (as opposed to a regular stockholder) in the same industry, it tends to cause conflict of interest.

I once worked for an online retailer in their IT dept., and can tell you the board was full of executives from all over the retail industry. Lots of back room dealing, scratching each others backs. When one company cuts a deal for another company in the same business, it's usually not with good intentions.

Re:What's up with CEO's serving on boards? (2, Insightful)

Lambticc (563530) | about 8 years ago | (#16005161)

Sure, that is exactly what we need. The government needs to tell private businesses how they should be run. How about the government tell us what to drink, wear and what we should watch on TV too? Maybe, successful people create successful businesses.

Re:What's up with CEO's serving on boards? (4, Insightful)

LifeNLiberty (975116) | about 8 years ago | (#16005187)

Is capitalism a new concept for you or something? If that offends, you, go start a business that adopts different practices, until then, this is how they want to run it. Not saying I like it but they were the ones succesful enough to end up in these positions to begin with, they can let in whomever they want.

Re:What's up with CEO's serving on boards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16005294)

Is capitalism a new concept for you or something?

Help, help, I'm being repressed! See the violence inherent in the system!

Re:What's up with CEO's serving on boards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16005207)

Also what happens is that CEO, sitting on each others' board, quite readily approve large CEO and executive salaries and bonuses. Scratch my back, I scratch yours.

Re:What's up with CEO's serving on boards? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16005236)

If someone is involved in one company, it should be illegal to be involved in another. Any time power concentrates it's bad for the people.

This is a contradiction. If the board of directors of a company was comprised entirely of persons from within the same company, that would be an even greater concentration of power. There is basically no point in having a board that is responsible for overseeing itself. If I remember correctly, Sarbanes-Oxley (the Act designed to prevent another Enron or WorldCom) requires that at least half of a corporation's board be from outside the company for that very same reason.

The reason you see executives and board members serving for different companies generally has to do with them knowing something about running companies. Why should it be illegal for a qualified person to make use of their experience and skill?

Methinks you just don't know anything about corporate governance.

Re:What's up with CEO's serving on boards? (2, Insightful)

monoqlith (610041) | about 8 years ago | (#16005284)

This allows for an insane power concentration and it also solidifies and protects the "old boys club". That's not something we should stand for as people and citizens. If someone is involved in one company, it should be illegal to be involved in another. Any time power concentrates it's bad for the people.


Don't be silly. It's our government that does that, not being on more than one board.

If you want the burgeoning aristocracy to stop forming, elect some officials to the federal government that actually care about people.

Your argument is otherwise absurd - being on a board of directors still means that the performance of the company has to be maintained, and the board of directors still has to work hard to make sure that happens by hiring the right executives, holding them accountable, and deciding what stock and dividends to issue. They also represent their shareholders, who can literally be *anyone* in the case of public companies and is not exclusive. It doesn't mean much else, since directors typically don't own a huge share of the company. It's really just a representative institution (dare I say democratic) - that is way to ensure public(and private) ownership of a company gets its voice heard. So it's a good thing that upholds a democratic ideal of what the economy should be. A far more important question is whether the Senate and the House of Representatives are exclusive playgrounds for the rich.

Re:What's up with CEO's serving on boards? (3, Insightful)

brian.reading (934490) | about 8 years ago | (#16005301)

In a free market society, power is checked quite easily by consumer organization. If you disagree with their business practices, don't buy their products.

Re:What's up with CEO's serving on boards? (1)

trifish (826353) | about 8 years ago | (#16005577)

How about monopolies or de-facto monopolies? How will you "not buy" their products?

Re:What's up with CEO's serving on boards? (1)

brian.reading (934490) | about 8 years ago | (#16005726)

Microsoft is considered a de-facto monopoly by most. Since when does everyone on earth own a Microsoft product?

Re:What's up with CEO's serving on boards? (1)

Millenniumman (924859) | about 8 years ago | (#16012205)

For real monopolies it can be hard. For some things, you can just not buy the product, but you probably want electricity. Now, building a well or water reclamation/ putting up solar panels isn't but it isn't impossible. The thing is that if a monopoly abuses its position too much, those options become feasible.

By as for near/de facto monopolies, it is often quite simple.

Microsoft -> Linux/OS X
Cable company -> Satellite/IPTV
Telephone -> Cable, Cell Phone, Fiber Optic
etc.

There's really no business you can't stop doing business with (except the government). If you are unwilling to take the steps to do that, you are "voting" that they are doing a good enough job.

Re:What's up with CEO's serving on boards? (1, Flamebait)

jcr (53032) | about 8 years ago | (#16005635)

I think this practice should be illegal.

Oh, for fuck's sake. Thank goodness that legislation takes more than one pig-ignorant prat's decree.

Currently it seems quite common for various CEO's and other execs to be involved in many many companies. I think that's insane.

Then don't buy the shares of those companies. The companies are owned by their shareholders, not by you. If you don't like it, then buy 51% of the authorized shares, and vote the management out.

If someone is involved in one company, it should be illegal to be involved in another.

I am so glad that someone like you will never be involved in the management of any publicly-traded corporation.

-jcr

Re:What's up with CEO's serving on boards? (1)

nerdsv650 (175205) | about 8 years ago | (#16007018)

>jcr wrote:
>Thank goodness that legislation takes more than one pig-ignorant prat's decree.

I assume you live on the moon or some equally remote location, if you look around here in the US or anyplace else I can think of there is NO evidence at all to support your assertion.

-michael

Re:What's up with CEO's serving on boards? (1)

jcr (53032) | about 8 years ago | (#16012954)

I'm sure you thought that was a snappy comeback, but the fact is that in the USA legislation at the federal level still requires the votes of at least a majority of a quorum of both the house and the senate.

-jcr

Re:What's up with CEO's serving on boards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16017008)

I am so glad that someone like you will never be involved in the management of any publicly-traded corporation.

I guess you're pretty much the only Slashdotter not to know that aeoo is the /. nick of Larry Ellison. aeoo is actually a Japanese word meaning "Peace".

I'd have thought a more appropriate question would have been to ask why he's whining about it given he was active on both the Oracle and Apple boards at the same time until 2002.

The Coming of The Anti-Microsoft? (1)

tecnopa (931480) | about 8 years ago | (#16005354)

I wonder if there could be a merger looming in the next 5 - 10 years.... doubt that it could happen any time soon but it's an interesting idea.

Al Gore (1, Interesting)

mqduck (232646) | about 8 years ago | (#16005516)

Al Gore is on the board at Apple? Wasn't there an article recently about how Apple was one of the least environmentally-friendly tech companies?

Re:Al Gore (2, Informative)

bursch-X (458146) | about 8 years ago | (#16005562)

Al Gore is on the board at Apple?

Since quite a while. He actually was one of the people demonstrating the then new video-chat capability of iChat AV together with Steve Jobs.

Re:Al Gore (2, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | about 8 years ago | (#16005601)

Wasn't there an article recently about how Apple was one of the least environmentally-friendly tech companies?

More like Greenpeace wanted some attention, and decided to get it by bashing a company that gets a lot more press than they do.

-jcr

Re:Al Gore (1)

HuguesT (84078) | about 8 years ago | (#16005851)

As far as I'm aware, Greenpeace had little to do [wired.com] with this story, more like grassroot protesters [zdnet.co.uk] and Apple's own shareholders, who rightly said Dell and HP had both better policies. Apple did appear with a bad score in a Greenpeace report [macsimumnews.com] , but that's one voice amongst many.

Recycling is important, Apple is flush with cash and rides on the image of a modern, innovative, user-friendly company. It should be recycling more, but doesn't. In particular, currently its recycling program is limited to the continental US [apple.com] . I think this is not good enough. Fortunately, other companies [dell.com.au] have much better policies, whose goal is to become global [zdnet.fr] .

It's interesting so watch what happens when reality intrudes harshly on the image Apple wants to give of itself.

Re:Al Gore (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16006717)

Recycling is important, Apple is flush with cash and rides on the image of a modern, innovative, user-friendly company. It should be recycling more, but doesn't.

Through taxes, I pay for Hazardous Waste Disposal pickups that happen several times a year. They accept computers and will take care of the "recycling" part.

Why should I have to pay TWICE for this service (once in taxes, and once in the price of a new PC)?

Re:Al Gore (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16006906)

Why should I have to pay TWICE for this service (once in taxes, and once in the price of a new PC)?

Absolutely right. Anyone trying to persuade Apple to be a greener company is advocating higher taxes and TERRORISM.

I couldn't agree with your post more!111!!!!>!

Re:Al Gore (1)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | about 8 years ago | (#16006301)

More like Greenpeace wanted some attention, and decided to get it by bashing a company that gets a lot more press than they do.

1) Strawman. Please debate points in the report, not attack the authors.
2) Greenpeace didn't criticise Apple any more than they criticised any other low scoring company.
3) If Greenpeace's methodology was flawed, it was flawed across all companies. Apple scored very low on the same criteria other tech companies performed well on.

I agree with the GP. Gore should put his money where his mouth is & use his position on Apple's board to start some real green policies at Apple.

Re:Al Gore (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16005611)

"Al Gore is on the board at Apple?" — Only for about five hundred years. Try to keep up, will you?

Al Gore... (0, Offtopic)

7Prime (871679) | about 8 years ago | (#16005540)

Ahhhh! So THAT'S why the PowerBook was featured in An Inconvenient Truth [rottentomatoes.com] so much! I wondered if there was some sorta Apple endorsement being made by Al Gore. It seems that it may not be quite as much the normal product placement, as Al really is a part of Apple. Interesting... Way to go Al!

Re:Al Gore... (2, Insightful)

2nd Post! (213333) | about 8 years ago | (#16007998)

Does it matter that Al Gore uses Macs at home?

I mean, if a person owns an iPod and then uses it at work, is that product placement, or endorsement, or is it, you know, using the tool to get the job done?

Al Gore uses his PowerBook and Keynote to do his presentations.

Women? (-1, Flamebait)

HuguesT (84078) | about 8 years ago | (#16005863)

Interesting to note that amongst the 8 members there are no women. Sometimes I wonder if Apple is so progressive after all.

Re:Women? (4, Insightful)

kestasjk (933987) | about 8 years ago | (#16006016)

A board is about meeting the corporations objectives, and members are voted in based on their ability to help meet those objectives. If the shareholders vote someone into the board based on ability alone, that's no more discrimination than an olympic coach choosing 100m runners based on ability and ending up with Kenyans.

Are you saying the shareholders should try and vote a woman onto the board just because there aren't any women in there at the moment? That's real discrimination (positive or negative, it's all bad).

If there was a 50:50 ratio of men to women, then what? Should there be representatives of all religions, skin colours, programming language preferences, etc?

Nevermind if they can meet corporate objectives, are their genetalia representative of the population?!

Re:Women? (2, Funny)

pookemon (909195) | about 8 years ago | (#16006032)

"than an olympic coach choosing 100m runners based on ability and ending up with Kenyans"

Kenyans are long distance runners...

(Granted for /. readers 100m probably is long distance.) ;)

Re:Women? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16008723)

How much is that in parsecs?

Re:Women? (1)

Princeofcups (150855) | about 8 years ago | (#16007901)

> Are you saying the shareholders should try and vote a woman onto the board just because there aren't
> any women in there at the moment? That's real discrimination (positive or negative, it's all bad).

You would be correct in an idealized world with an equal playing field. But the fact is that it is called the old "boys" network for a reason.

jfs

Re:Women? (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 8 years ago | (#16008695)

I guess HP should never have booted Carly Fiorina.

If you look around, there are actually quite a few female board members. Anyway, the way to combat discrimination isn't more discrimination.

Re:Women? (1)

Scudsucker (17617) | about 8 years ago | (#16022524)

You would be correct in an idealized world with an equal playing field. But the fact is that it is called the old "boys" network for a reason.

Yes, because the "old boys" were ambitious workaholics who proved themselves, and the women...weren't. The "glass ceiling", much like the "wage gap" and "1 in 4 women will be raped" is a feminist urban legend with no basis in reality. If women want to be VPs and CEOs, they need to bust their butts and prove themselves. Take Anne Mulcahy, CEO of Xerox - did not take a weekend off for two years.

No minorities (0, Flamebait)

Shivetya (243324) | about 8 years ago | (#16006231)

Does not appear to be any minorities on the board at Apple.

Not saying that there should be, just using google for images on the names resulted in none being obvious.

Re:No minorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16006760)

> Does not appear to be any minorities on the board at Apple.

And there never will be as long as Jobs is there given his hatred of blacks and chinese. A lot of people think that's why he picked Al Gore, the racist from Tennessee, for the job. Of course growing-up in the family that he did, Al Gore didn't have any hope of not becoming one. His father hated blacks. His father even voted against the Civil Rights Act.

Re:No minorities (1)

Bentov (993323) | about 8 years ago | (#16009387)

Hmm, I would be interested in seeing any links you have on this. I know about Gore, but didn't know about Jobs....they do have black ipods and laptops now..damn you may be on to something...

The next Cube ... (0, Offtopic)

Slorv (841945) | about 8 years ago | (#16005967)

After seeing Google showing ambitions on being the the new M$, are the new Apple Cube going to be a Borg Cube then?

/Per

GOOGLE SHOULD FIRE ERIC SCHMIDT!! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16006326)

This is the jackass that ran Novell into the ground. I was stunned when Google, a company I think is great, hired him as CEO. He's a 'do nothing', 'know nothing' executive that should thrown out on his ass. Schmidt is one of the biggest duchbags out there, which would make himm a perfect fit for Apple and its customers.

You know what this means... (0, Offtopic)

tonyr1988 (962108) | about 8 years ago | (#16008147)

Google X [theplaceforitall.com] is back! Yes!

No surprise that Dvorak thinks this is possible (2, Interesting)

tyrione (134248) | about 8 years ago | (#16011763)

NeXT and SUN do not have fond ties. Steve in his own words, "SUN is no Apple." If you think Steve is going to let someone else fuck up the momentum he has created you need to check yourself into an asylum.

Interesting! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16014418)

While you sitting home with your computer you maybe want to earn some money at the same time! I know two great money making programs! Check out my website http://www.onlineshoppingguide.eu/ [onlineshoppingguide.eu] for more info!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>