Slashdot Mirror
Google CEO Talks Business
prostoalex writes "InformationWeek interviews Google CEO on Google's enterprise strategy. No cool products announcements or anything related to personal technology - Eric Schmidt talks about Google's offerings for the enterprise market."
Slashdot exist solely for this purpose ;)
fuvoo: watch something
Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated!
But the next thing you know Google announces 1GBit free broadband Beta on April 1st 2006.
Let's imagine you're a CEO and you're running a sales force. How can you get your sales force to generate more revenue?
Tell them to call up CowboyNeal and ask them where the "Google Story for the Day" is and why it wasn't posted before 5:00pm EST.
I am looking for solutions for my enterprise level e-synergy. Can Google help me actualize this?
Better luck next time
Schmidt: Transparency is not necessarily the only way you achieve security. For example, part of the encryption algorithms are not typically made available to the open source community, because you don't want people discovering flaws in the encryption.
I hope he didn't really mean that; I had a fairly good opinion of him, but that statement is (IMO) a pretty serious misunderstanding of The Way Things Should Be. We (the security-loving Internet elite) want maximal transparency for all of our systems, cryptographic and otherwise, so problems are found and fixed... right?
Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
Nothing to see here, move along?
I looked them up on MSN search I cant find anything about them. Why is Slashdot posting stories about piss ant little companies that no one has ever hear of?
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Like announcing they were buying the Evil Empire in Redmond. Oh...I almost forgot, Google is just a fad according to Balmer. Silly me.
I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
Next, my request is to make sure they go for M$ and Yahoo head on. I need GoogleBiz (to check my stocks), I need GoogleMusic, GoogleRadio and all that is possible.
Eric Schmidt is really busy on showing just how progressive Google is right now. I just got out of a talk at University of Washington by him in which he addressed many interesting Google policy questions ranging from responsibilities, censorship, and corporate structure. They're really trying to establish that they aren't just another fad and are trying to find a way to meet the demands of an exponentially increasing task of information aggregation and retrieval.
Interestingly, in our Computer Science department at UW, there is definitely an aura about Google. Everyone wants to work for them. They seem to defy all of the standard business models that we have grown to hate (ie: Office Space) and use a 70%, 20%, 10% rule that allows you to work on Google-related work, Personal-project-google-related work, and just personal work. I won't drag on about their structure, but I'm wondering if their business model and ideas will now spread into the mainstream corporate world.
My little sad piece of the internet: www.mtndewd
Whoever said that Google is going to die in a couple of years was wrong. ^_^
I've got Cobuyitaphobia you insensitive clod!!!
Get your Unix fortune now!
I submitted a story that slashdot hasn't chosen to post. Recently, Google has started filling their new executive hirings with Neocons from the Bush Administration.
o con
Curiosly, there seems to be a lack of info on this in the American media and you need to go to foreign sources for the scoop.
Here's The Register's article on it: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/24/google_ne
So much for "Don't be evil."
Google's newest executive that they hired was spotted jogging in Iraq wearing a Bush/Cheney '04 T-shirt, and is a key player from the Bush Administration. Is this an attempt by Google to get in good with the current US government, in a bid to get more enterprise Defense contracts?
A Google GMail [TM] Appliance.
Being stuck using *shudder* Outlook at work makes me wish we had GMail mailboxes at work.
Even if I could invite everyone in the company to use GMail, I'm sure they don't want our company data in a server we don't even control. But if there were some GMail Appliance, not unlike their search appliance...
Oh well, who am I kidding? It's probably in the works already... I just need to convince the boss higher ups that Outlook sucks ass (not hard...) and one of those would be much nicer whenever Google finally gets them out of beta...
InformationWeek's most recent issue has the Google CEO on the cover holding a "search appliance" type box. Maybe not an official announcement, but seems there is a new product in there somewhere.
That hurt my eyes :( My geek cypher detector was buzzing like crazy. it took about 3 attempts before it focused.
there search engine sucks - (a) no booleans for even the simplest things; (b) I have started using verizon online yellow pages for a lot searches; (c) if /. was not, for some wierd reason, hynoptized by goole, u cd fill in your own point hear
as to how generous they are with your own time, and stuff like that, its easy to look good bicycling downhill, that is, when you are one of the very few companies taht the market is blessing with monopoly rents, it is easy to be generous, after all, att ran the greatest science lab in the world when they had the money.
Care to explain?
I've had this issue of InformationWeek on my desk since last friday... I usually try and get my breaking news from online... not dead trees.
And the Register is a reliable source on any of this because... ? Moreover, you start out talking like they're filling *all* their executive slots with neocons, then go on to say that they've only actually hired *one* guy who apparently supports Bush[1].
/quite/ as bad as O'Gara, but the Register DID just reprint that article from Lyons[2] of Forbes about the loss of BitKeeper meaning impending doom for Linux or whatever.
C'mon, the Register always trolls for hits. Granted, they're not
[1] Google can't discriminate by political party when it's not relevant to the job, and it's not very clear how that criteria could be relevant from a job performance standpoint for someone working at Google. Half the voters in the USA, more or less, voted for Bush in the last election so the chance that they didn't hire anyone who voted for Bush would be vanishingly small given the number of US citizens they've hired. In fact, ANY company hiring US citizens that doesn't discriminate in hiring by political part and which has a reasonably large workforce is virtually guaranteed to have hired at least one person who voted for Bush. The chance of them NOT hiring at least one such person is (.5)^N where N is the number of workers, and we assume that the workers are selected randomly from the available workforce. Yes, this is an extreme oversimplification because the workforce may not overlap very well with those who voted, and various regions they hire from will display different political leanings, but it's a good enough approximation to show just how quickly your odds of NOT hiring someone who voted for Bush vanish if you don't discriminate based on that criterion.
[2] Lyons, for those who have forgotten, long ago joined Enderle, Didio, O'Gara & co. in spreading SCO FUD and other nonsense. He also interviewed one of the ex-Sys-Con editors with a slant that implied that he was working on a piece about O'Gara getting fired over the whole "outing" of PJ thing, and perhaps even contemplating repeating some of that irrelevant libel O'Gara published. Hopefully his editors quashed that one realizing that it might well expose Forbes to a lawsuit. I'd say it could hurt Forbes' reputation, too, but frankly they don't *have* any reputation to speak of right now, as far as I personally am concerned--any time they're mentioned any more, I tell people how worthless their magazine is and that they could just read PR Newswire directly if they thought it was some kind of substitute for actual research.
----
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 24 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Maybe this putz can explain to us why Gmail has started randomly locking out its users for 24 hours at a time -- accusing them of "irregular activity." I'm a victim, and I know I haven't done anything "irregular" with my Gmail account.
How can this guy talk about enterprise apps when they can't even figure out how to run an email service? (Without picking on random, innocent users, anyway.)
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
Took me a second. It says /. sucks in the bolded letters. Don't look at the letters, look at the picture.
The person is not just a "Bush voter," but rather an integral player in the Bush Administration. I get the sense he was hired more for his connections than his merits at technology.
http://videosrv14.cs.washington.edu/info/audio/mp3 /colloq/ESchmidt_050526.mp3
Probably more relevant to techies than TFA. Interestingly, ge stopped his prepared statement about halfway into his alloted 50 minutes to take questions.
No electrons were harmed creating this post, though some may have been subjected to electrical and/or magnetic fields.
Google's finally getting big enough to open an "Evil Department" - they've hired White House propagandist^Wspokesman and Carlyle Group exec Dan Senor.
--
make install -not war
In fact that is just one customer experience, and it is hardly typical. But it annoys the hell out of me when these corporate drones try and smoothly persuade by seemingly casual anecdote, when in fact it is carefully chosen, sometimes even crafted, to support a point they're trying to market.
It's almost as if they think we are too dumb to realize they're tooting their own horns if they toot by means of a telling narrative, that is somehow supposed to turn off our b.s. detector.
Screw them all, I tell you.
The interview was fairly interesting, until this choice quote:
"Transparency is not necessarily the only way you achieve security. For example, part of the encryption algorithms are not typically made available to the open source community, because you don't want people discovering flaws in the encryption."
All good encryption algorithms are made public and transparent so that you and the top cryptographers in the world can inspect it, try to break it and eventually trust it. Encryption who's strength is based on secrecy and security through obscurity will never gain trust, because it could contain backdoors etc. You want people to uncover flaws in the algorithms, either so to you can fix it, or know to stay the fuck away from it.
The only "secret" part of good encryption is the private key, anything else is public, especially the algorithms (math).
This kind of soured the interview for me. How much else that he said is just pulled randomly from his ass?
If anyone can tell me what exactly is either cool, innovative, wonderful, awesome, or so damn interesting about Google I will offer up my mod-points for whoring. I don't think anyone can come with a convincing argument. As usual, media drummed it up and you let it ring in your reptile brain. It's a search engine. It may even be the best search engine. And it has an extensively sized mailaccount. And supposedly they're not doing this for money or some other stupid horseshit from more reptiles. But no one sees it just for what it is, a well-executed Yahoo runner-up. Google is Titanic and the iceberg it is about to hit is the fact that they haven't innovated worth shit since innoculation and crowning.
is all I really need to say....
What you say is what investors said in the '90s.
As far as Google riding out anything, they haven't ridden out any bust as a public company. It's an important distinction.
Nobody likes a bear. Nobody.
It is likely that Google already has a streamlined process for complying with warrants from local or federal law enforcement. The indexing of your search terms, ip addresses, and handy identity provided by your gmail account shouldn't be a problem unless you're being investigated for something specific.
Google hiring smarm-dork Dan Senor may be most offensive simply because it is another case of individuals going back and forth between private and public service with conflicts of interest. E.g., Dick Cheney moving from a position with Halliburton where he would lobby for goverment contracts to a goverment position where he could directly provide those contracts, and, who knows, maybe back to Halliburton when his deplorable stint as VP is over.
Dan Senor is a very typical DC political climber who marries himself to one or the other political parties with absolute allegiance in order to earn advancement. Especially republicans have a well established system of rewards to mindless sycophants like him.
And Finnish television and radio (for the whole country) may have gotten a Manchurian candidate from Micro$oft. Who know's untill he's proven himself one way or the other.