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."

Comments

what is /. for ??

[Virtual Karma]

No cool products announcements or anything...

Slashdot exist solely for this purpose ;)

Re:what is /. for ??

[PopeAlien]

Speak for yourself, I come here for the great business news but I stay for the cowboy neal jokes.

Re:what is /. for ??

[Anonymous Coward]

pfffftttt /. exist for many reasons.

Google luv
SCO & M$ bashing
roland pipquillle articles
gnome vs. kde flame wars
Best OS discussions

those are just a few

Re:what is /. for ??

[Albinofrenchy]

There is alot of talk about Best OS's, but I would no sooner call them 'discussions' then call the Vietnam war a 'conflict'.

Re:what is /. for ??

[wft_rtfa]

You'd think they could at least have a picture of google's cute and colorful hardware: http://www.google.com/enterprise/

I have absolutely no use for one, but these servers are so cute. I want one!

Re:what is /. for ??

[wolvie_cobain]

did you forget about the star wars hype too

Re:what is /. for ??

[xtremee]

Don't forget that we also talk of alternative ways of making profit in 3-5 simple steps.

Re:what is /. for ??

[rsadelle]

You forgot the missing options, you insensitive clod.

Hmmm...

[Sheepdot]

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.

Re:Hmmm...

[LiquidCoooled]

Be assured, there will be 3 dupes by morning as compensation.

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Can a third dupe be called a "trupe"?

Re:Hmmm...

[Stregone]

I like "tripe" better.

Re:Hmmm...

[nokilli]

George Lucas calls it a prequel.

But do they offer solutions?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am looking for solutions for my enterprise level e-synergy. Can Google help me actualize this?

Re:But do they offer solutions?

[Muhammar]

Do you have your vision fully conceptualized? Do you have defined clear go-nogo checkpoints on your flowchart to facilitate your decision-making process? You may need a consultant.

Re:But do they offer solutions?

[Shky]

How are those TPS reports coming along?

Re:But do they offer solutions?

[fullcircleflight]

Your suggestion for consultancy is not unwarranted.

In the current complex 21st century competitive global landscape, management consultants have helped my business achieve efficiency and effectivness in e-business processes in order to acheive my enterprise level e-synergistic goals and objectives.

Re:But do they offer solutions?

[NanoGator]

"I am looking for solutions for my enterprise level e-synergy. Can Google help me actualize this?"

Bingo, sir.

Re:But do they offer solutions?

[Breakfast Pants]

"Management consultants"? HAH! Every modern business has replaced these with a single "e-consultant." Please get with it or perish like pets.com.

Re:But do they offer solutions?

[roman_mir]

Neal: I nominate Eric Schmidt to help you actualize everything. Not just because he has a suit, but because he knows about business and stuff and he has a tie.

Schmidt: -There are two kinds of people. Sheep and sharks. Anyone who is a sheep is fired. Who is a sheep?

Timothy: -Errr, excuse me... which is the one people like to hug?

Schmidt: This isn't a business plan. It's an excape plan!

CmdrTaco: -So long suckers! Huhuhahahha!

Neal: Don't you worry about Google, let me worry about blank.

Hemos: -We can't compete with MSN! That company is big and evil! Ours is small and neutral!"

Schmidt: -Switzerland is small and neutral! We are more like Germany, ambitious and misunderstood!

Robo: -Look, everyone wants to be like Germany. But do we really have the pure strength of will?

Neal: -As Vice Chairman, I believe I speak for the entire board when I issue this challenge to Mom!" *zip* "Look at my butt! Whooohooohohoho!

Schmidt: -It's time I cut you in on a secret to success. Any guesses?

Neal: -Err, work really really hard?

Schmidt: -No.

Neal: -Oh, thank god!

Schmidt: -It's all about appearances.

Timothy: -That Guy is turning this place into some kind of business.

Taco: -This isn't a business. I've always thought of it more as a source of cheap labor. Like a family.

Ballmer: -Errm, errr" *beep* *errrrr* "Ehh, the ballot was confusing!

BORG: -How about a hand recount?

Ballmer: -OK! *slap* "Oww!"

Times: "Your shares are worth a hundred and seven dollars a piece!"

Robo: -They are? Oh my god! I'm a millionaire! Suddenly I have an opinion about the capital gains tax!

Timothy: -Awww, I have no shares! Ahahaha ... Wait! My sandwich! Has it also appriciated in value? Please, oh please!

Hemos: -You didn't even refrigerate it you spineless lobster!

Timothy: -You! Had to drag spines into this! Ahahhha

Timothy: *dingdingding* "Aha! Once again the conservative sandwich-heavy portfolio pays of for the hungry investor!" *slurp* "Oh.. I'm ruined! Wuahahahaaha why ... why....

Re:But do they offer solutions?

[Skim123]

(Obligatory Simpsons quote...)

Excuse me, but "e-synergy," "actualize..." aren't those words stupid people use to sound smart? ... I'm fired, aren't I?

Wrong, but thanks for playing.

[Pheersome]

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?

Re:Wrong, but thanks for playing.

[putko]

There are different kinds of people in this world.

Some try to make sure that they don't say b.s. about things they don't understand. Others try to sound smart and then say something stupid.

It is a bit like a kid playing with nunchucks and hitting himself in the nuts. But at least then you know that you are not Bruce Lee.

This guy probably still thinks he understands cryptography.

Re:Wrong, but thanks for playing.

[mrtroy]

. 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 think I once heard about an encryption algorithm called......RS......A yes thats it

RSA

The algorithm has been around for a longgggggg time, and is available in any number of math textbooks involving changing bases

If you can find a flaw in RSA after seeing code for it, you are a genius and deserve a math award for discovered some new prime number technique

Re:Wrong, but thanks for playing.

[Spezzer]

Sure, open algorithms such as RSA are typically better because of their scrutiny by the the world's best cryptographers. However, a bunch of the NSA's algorithms are good BECAUSE they are secret (to their best of their ability). Yes, it probably won't hold the test of time as well, but that's not to say they don't work.

I guess it's kind of analagous to 'security through obscurity.' Yeah, it's not the best way to do things, but it sometimes works well enough for some applications.

Re:Wrong, but thanks for playing.

[bluk]

He didn't say that he believes that it is The Way Things Should Be or whatever else. He said it was not necessarily the ONLY way you achieve security, and you know what, some encryption algorithms aren't made public. Don't get up in arms about nothing IMO. Millions of people rely on systems which they have no clue about. Who knows if there's some new flaw in GMail's algorithm to read other people's messages? But millions of people still rely on Gmail and other free e-mail providers all the time and they rely it on things critical to their lives.

Re:Wrong, but thanks for playing.

[roach2002]

Grandparent isn't talking about open-sourcing code for RSA, he's talking about making the algorithm public. There's a big difference.

The idea behind an open encryption algorithm is that if there's a flaw in the algorithm, someone who would publish that flaw will find it. The first person to find it might not publicize it, but someone will. (This is what academics in math do)

With a closed encryption algorithm, if someone finds a flaw, they probably won't publish it as they probably shouldn't know the algorithm at all. Academics don't usually spend their time verifying algorithms they shouldn't know about - and the people who do spend their time doing that don't want you to know it's broken.

I'm usually a big fan of Google, but if Schmidt really means that general algorithms for encryption should be kept secret, he's being silly (and I doubt Larry or Sergey would agree with him on it).

Re:Wrong, but thanks for playing.

[flatface]

qmail.

Re:Wrong, but thanks for playing.

[ajs]

"We (the security-loving Internet elite) want maximal transparency for all of our systems, cryptographic and otherwise"

Inject the word "security" and I'm cool with that. I don't want maximal transparency for everything. I want to know how my data is protected, but Google doesn't have to tell me how page ranking works in order for me to get that... on the other hand, if they did tell me, I could help them. That's their choice.

Yes, he made a silly mistake, and I'm kind of stunned that he said what he did. Oh well. Stupid interview quotes are a dime a dozen. Good search engines are rare.... I wonder if I thought of that, or if I'm quoting something... hold on, I'll just Google it.

Re:Wrong, but thanks for playing.

[corblix]

However, a bunch of the NSA's algorithms are good BECAUSE they are secret

Will all due respect, you really don't know what you're talking about here. Read some Bruce Schneier.

Re:Wrong, but thanks for playing.

[corblix]

We (the security-loving Internet elite) want maximal transparency for all of our systems, cryptographic and otherwise, so problems are found and fixed... right?

Certainly.

I hope he didn't really mean that ....

I imagine he did mean it, but doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. I also imagine he's not in directly in charge of any encryption work at Google. And I have hope that their corporate culture is healthy enough that, if the issue comes up in a practical way, people who do know what they're talking about will feel free to set him straight.

Who are Google?

[Timesprout]

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?

Re:Who are Google?

[CriminalNerd]

Try going to: http://www.fuckinggoogleit.com/ and http://www.google.com/

Re:Who are Google?

[neodude88]

Please mod parent -1, Sarcastically Disadvantaged.

Damn...I was hoping for more

[PenguinBoyDave]

Like announcing they were buying the Evil Empire in Redmond. Oh...I almost forgot, Google is just a fad according to Balmer. Silly me.

My request to Google...

[bogaboga]

...is to synchronize the release of tools for major browsers including Firefox. That is, they (Google) should release their "add-ons" at once for all browsers. This is because if they for example released this for IE first, by the time that for Firefox is released, the steam is almost out.

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.

Re:My request to Google...

[bogaboga]

Because I do not like Yahoo. They will not let me use Firefox to use their launchcast services. Try http://launch.yahoo.com/launchcast/ with Firefox and tell me what you see. There is more than this of course.

Re:My request to Google...

[roach2002]

I believe that they released gmail and google maps for both IE and FireFox concurrently, and it was Explorer for OS X, Safari, and Opera that lagged behind...

But your point isn't meant to be an exact example but the general gist. So let's argue that.

IE on Windows is 90% of the market. Why not release for that, beta on IE and Firefox, get general reactions, ui testing, etc, and then move forward with the later releases on every browser?

With Javascript, you have to test interaction on every browser. Would you rather create the beta on 5 browsers, and then change 200 things on 5 browsers going from beta to release, or beta on 2 browsers, then change 200 things on those 2 browsers and create things anew on the rest of the browsers?

Google already does stock tracking (http://www.google.com/ig), but not portfolio tracking. They also look up today's chart and stock price if you search on a ticker symbol.

UW talk

[Mtn_Dewd]

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.

Re:UW talk

[LiquidCoooled]

For employees at google, which time fraction would reading slashdot come under?

Theres the incredible drag factor of obsessive refreshing and giggling at stupid jokes on screen, or the fact your mainly reading articles about your own company.

hmmmmm

Re:UW talk

[adpowers]

I was there. I found it interesting how shallow/flat their corporate hierarchy is. There aren't many levels between Sergey/Larry and the average employee. They don't try to micromanage employees, instead letting them just run with their work.

One impression I've gotten of Google compared to, say, Microsoft, is how quick they are to release new products. I've been to some Microsoft recruiting talks, and if I remember correctly, you have to interview to change product teams, and it seems like a cumbersome, bureaucratic process. At Google, you can help people with their 20% time projects and do work where you are interested. This allows them to get very rapid turn around on projects and this is probably a big reason why they are running circles around MSN.

Oh, another thing I remember. People on slashdot have wondered why they haven't put advertisements on Google News and some thought it was because they would get in trouble for making money off other people's content. Today Eric mentioned that the business model is mostly up to the team that develops it. As an example he gave: during a meeting, they had the option of either developing an advertising system for the news, or adding Afghanistan news. They decided to go after news in other countries before working on the advertising end. This is one reason why some of their projects don't seem to have any money-making goals. He said the Orkut team is too busy trying to get speed out of the system to work on some other things they might try.

Oh, I remembered something else :). It is kind of off topic, but I thought it was interesting. Apparently when they were rolling out Google Maps (or maybe it was the satellite data), they went on Yellow Alert because the traffic from mirroring the images across the world (I believe that is what he said) was filling up all their pipes. They were almost taken down, but they managed to get their traffic shaping back in line. Just an interesting tidbit. I'm sure the speech will be available on UWTV's website in a few months.

Andrew

Re:UW talk

[zerbot]

Hah, that's funny. When I went to the UW we had a "heterogenous environment" meaning we had systems from a number of different vendors. We were told it was so that students would be exposed to a wide variety of stuff they might work with in the outside world. Shortly after I graduated, Bill Gates donated a bunch of money to the UW, and all of a sudden they're ripping everything out and putting all Windoze boxes in, saying the new "homogenous environment" will be more consistent and less confusing for students. The students started developing a serious Microsoft-worship complex, everybody wanted to work there.

Must be galling to Bill that the students at "his" bought and paid for university now have Google-stars in their eyes.

Re:UW talk

[Anonymous Luddite]

>> For employees at google, which time fraction would reading slashdot come under?

With the number of google stories that get posted I think they're editing slashdot not reading it. I Like google as much as the next guy, use it daily... but ffs.

Enough with the gooogle stories. Give me something refreshing and insightful. Perhaps a submission by that a Roland P. guy that everyone loves?

just a thought...

Re:UW talk

[zerbot]

If there is no accountability, then why would missing Wall Street numbers mean anything? If the founders still have control and have no intention of selling their controlling shares, then what do they care what Wall Street thinks? That's a double edged sword, either they can completely screw over the other shareholders or they can thumb their nose at the "making next quarter's numbers" mentality and think about the long term.

I once worked for a company whose definition of working (as a programmer) was "staring at the screen and hitting keys". If I was sketching a program or data structure on paper, that was "not working". If I was staring into space thinking through a problem, that was "not working". Taking a walk around the building to clear my head was "not working". In spite of the fact that I was the most productive person they ever had, I was always getting in trouble for "not working".

Being able to push a knotty problem to the back of the brain for a bit really helps. Human beings are not machines, and if you try to treat them like machines, you end up losing what they can give you that machines can't.

Re:UW talk

[Momoru]

One impression I've gotten of Google compared to, say, Microsoft, is how quick they are to release new products

They "release" products that are in beta all the time. If your talking when the beta tag comes off, Google's software cycles are really long (The search was beta for like 5 years).

Also it's kind of apple's and oranges. It takes significantly more time to write an email client for Windows then it does to write a web mail client or many of Google's other programs. Google also can just "put something out there" on the web and see how people like it. Microsoft doesn't have that luxury since most of their products are software apps, not web apps. I also expect that because of the Web Accelerator debacle, Google will take a little more time to throughly vet things before putting them out there.

Re:UW talk

[adpowers]

I don't think search was in Beta nearly that long. If you look at the image, it was out of Beta by 2001, so only like 3 years at most.

They do have a lot of Beta software out there, but it is still usable and has features. It has been released and is available for public consumption, so beta is just a description. Also, I was trying to compare MSN with Google (since MSN competes more directly). Google has been adding a lot of search features and such faster than MSN can manage.

Re:UW talk

[Xzzy]

People on slashdot have wondered why they haven't put advertisements on Google News and some thought it was because they would get in trouble for making money off other people's content.

I would have figured it'd result in all kinds of unintentional jokes, you know, context sensitive stuff putting life insurance ads on a terri schiavo story.

Re:UW talk

[fbg111]

There's also the free (large) cafeteria.

Specifically calculated by Google to cut the lost productivity costs of Google staff leaving the campus everyday for lunch. He said this in his graduation speech at University of Michigan.

3) Investor control. What investor control? The founders still control the majority voting block, and have ensured they will remain in control. One might as well just donate money to Google, because there's no accountability.

Who would you rather have calling the shots at Google, Brin and Page who have so far done a bang-up job, or a bunch of second-guessing, know-nothing, back-seat-driving, kick-back-giving, short-term-only-thinking, racketeering, conniving Wall St. llamas? Having lived in NYC and worked on Wall St., I vote the former anyday. There's no honest endeavor that Wall St. can do that good engineers can't do better and with more integrity.

When Google starts missing Wall St. numbers, expect perqs to vanish and layoffs to ensue. Also expect outsourcing to increase. Google will then be like every other public company.

Doubt it. Google already weathered the .com bust and recession of the early 2000s. They only hire the most highly educated people they can find, and only have about 1500 employees. Google isn't a company of application developers, it's a company of computer scientists. Further, one reason Larry & Sergei retained control of the company is so that they can prevent making short-term Wall St. numbers from ever becoming a priority at Google. They're in it for the long-term, which is good for long-term investors, the kind most companies would give their left nut to attract.

Re:UW talk

[fbg111]

And as for accountability, Sarbanes-Oxley ensures that any public company is financially accountable. My company is going through compliance right now, and documenting every single process, decision, deal, etc. that touches revenue in any way is a biatch. If you want accountability of strategy and business decisions, why don't you at least wait till Brin and Page make some big misjudgements before protesting as you are. Let's not kill the goose that's laying the golden egg, until or unless it's terminally ill at least.

Re:Google Strategy:

[big daddy kane]

What are you talking about TROLL???? Their motto is "Don't Be Evil" its not like any corporation goes against their motto!

HEY!!!!!

[ImaLamer]

I've got Cobuyitaphobia you insensitive clod!!!

Google turns Neocon with new Executive Hirings

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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_neo con

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?

Re:Google turns Neocon with new Executive Hirings

[Senor_Programmer]

It's the way one does business with the govt.

Google is a business first and your friend 2nd.

It may turn out to be the sort of friend who gets you hooked on grak (google-crack) and make you pay for it with personal information.

Free searching? Sure, but we need your SSN. Free searching? Sure, just fill out this survey. Free searching? Sure, BTW we pulled your credit report. Free searching? Only if you allow your ISP to reveal the IP you are using....

I'm not anti-corporate, but would like to see a distributed index-search-archive FOSS competitor, right down to the advert marketing with funds returned co-op fashion to the hosting participants. Sort of a SETI at home meets bit-torrent with statistical spreading based error anticipation and participants coming on and off line. (RAID on steroids). Rambling here because I've done diddly squat as far as research ;-)

What's google got that could not be done with a global network devoting some disk space, processor ticks, and bandwidth?

Re:Google turns Neocon with new Executive Hirings

[halltk1983]

a leader

Re:Google turns Neocon with new Executive Hirings

[bogie]

Well one hire isn't exactly a "trend".

About him, he is about as far right as it gets so automatically I of course hate him, but let's see where google is 5 years from now before you call what they are doing evil.

Not to excuse them for hiring someone "like him" but I'd be more suprised if they hird someone way left of center to be their "new Global Communications and Strategy VP". Its a right leaning time afterall and if anyone can grease the wheels for Google domination in both the us and aboard its a humanoid like him.

Re:Google turns Neocon with new Executive Hirings

[logic hack]

Who better to enlist the help of in the search for WMD's than Google.

Re:Google turns Neocon with new Executive Hirings

[ggvaidya]

Your search - WMDs +iraq - did not match any documents.

Did you mean "WMDs +north +korea"?

The product *I* want to see...

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:The product *I* want to see...

[Kergan]

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...

I'm not sure it'll be as easy as you expect... I find that MSN consistently outperforms Google on search and newsbot. Imho, odds are greater that your boss will wait until MS releases a new Outlook, with a built-in search tool and a conversation finder that will be more relevant than those in Gmail.

Re:The product *I* want to see...

[NanoGator]

"Being stuck using *shudder* Outlook at work makes me wish we had GMail mailboxes at work."

I wouldn't mind it, either. However, I'd miss my Todo list, notes, and some of the collaborative stuff Exchange offers with OL. Google has more work to do.

Holding a Box

[Josuah]

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.

Re:Holding a Box

[burns210]

It is not anything new, I don't think.

why do they get such good press

[cinnamon colbert]

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.

Re:why do they get such good press

[zerbot]

No booleans? Search terms are automatically and'ed, and you can put in OR if you want.

What do they have a monopoly on? I'm not aware of any product they have that doesn't have substantial competition.

Re:why do they get such good press

[emcmanus]

there!=their

Re:why do they get such good press

[zerbot]

They don't even have an effective monopoly. According to http://searchenginewatch.com/reports/article.php/2 156431 they only receive 48% of all searches.

The only part of that search that won't work is the wildcard. But you can use -site:florida.com to exclude a particular site. You can also do stuff like comment (ebay OR slashdot) site:com -site:florida.com

Re:why do they get such good press

[NanoGator]

"there!=their"

Function: GrammarNazi
{
a$ = ctlstring("Who gives a flying fuck?");
return(nil);
}

Re:why do they get such good press

[FooFooFoolish]

No booleans? -foo and +bar seem to work beautifully for me...

Re:why do they get such good press

[anjackson]

A basic * wildcard is supported. Try searching for something like "I * slashdot".

Geez.. slashdot is scooped by print...

[rdewalt]

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.

Re:Gmail Lockdowns?!

[chrisd]

Have you considered filing a bug, putz?

Chris

Re:Google Strategy:

[conchobar0928]

I believe you meant to say, "Resistance is futile. You will be indexed."

Re:Google Strategy:

[NanoGator]

"What are you talking about TROLL????"

You see, Slashdot loves Google just a little too much. As such, they take comments like that way too seriously. However, Slashdot also hates Microsoft. So the exact same joke would be modded +5 Funny.

Don't worry, it'll be fashionable to hate Google soon enough. In the mean time, though, you have to be sensitive to those whose biases are challenged way too severely.

Eric Schmidt at University of Washington today

[imnoteddy]

/. readers might be interested in an mp3 of a talk given by Mr. Schmidt at the University of Washington today (26 May 2005).

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.

Re:Eric Schmidt at University of Washington today

[JoeSmack]

Any slides?

Evil Skunkshop

[Doc Ruby]

Google's finally getting big enough to open an "Evil Department" - they've hired White House propagandist^Wspokesman and Carlyle Group exec Dan Senor.

Re:Gmail Lockdowns?!

[Jerivix]

Gotta agreee with you here, I never saw the lockdown coming. Unfortunately, if they ever had a person read my "I didn't do nothin" mail, they didn't respond. I checked what had changed just before I started getting locked out, and the answer startled me. Greasemonkey. I installed the script to add a "mark as read" button, and shortly thereafter (about a day), I got my first lockdown. I uninstalled the script on my machines and *presto* no more lockdown. My guess is that it's some shoddy code pinging the server to much, but I didn't look it over too closely.

Anything similar?

Note: This is not to say I don't enjoy the general attitude Google took towards the lockdown. I.E. The "Lockdown in Sector 7" page title brought a smile to my face. Until I realized I needed to use my mail. Oh well!

Re:Google Strategy:

[ozmanjusri]

That "Whoosh" was the sound of a big lump of irony travelling at high speed. Don't worry though, it was well clear of the top of your head.

Choice Quote

[fungai]

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?

Re:Gmail Lockdowns?!

[EnglishTim]

Whine Whine Bitch Bitch

Oh no! I'm using a free email service that is still in beta and it doesn't work perfectly for me!

Whine Whine! Bitch Bitch!

Re:Gmail Lockdowns?!

[sabat]

Gee, Chris, do you think calling your customers "putz" is a good idea?

Re:Gmail Lockdowns?!

[sabat]

I think I figured out what triggered mine: I had been trying Tor (tor.eff.org), the anonymizer that makes it look like you're coming from various IPs from around the world. That seems to have triggered a rule that says you shouldn't log in from a bunch of different IPs in a short time.

I never got a personal response, but Google did send a short letter with some standard explanations, and I did write them back to explain about Tor, in case they hadn't considered the anonymizer factor before.

Re:Gmail Lockdowns?!

[sabat]

Bite me, you lymie.

Gmail is not free. They show ads, and I pay for the service by having to see them. You lose on that one.

Being in beta does not mean you need to lock people out of accounts for 24 hours; an hour or less would do fine. You lose again.

Software that is in "beta" for over a year is not in beta. It's just being held back, probably because of legal issues.

Man, that was easy. I wonder why you couldn't beat us in those wars we had, way back when. :-p

Re:Gmail Lockdowns?!

[EnglishTim]

Bite me, you lymie.
It's spelled 'Limey'.

Gmail is not free. They show ads, and I pay for the service by having to see them.

So, does that mean you pay billboard owners when you drive past them as well?

Software that is in "beta" for over a year is not in beta

It is still in beta because they don't feel that they've got it into its final incarnation yet. They'll stop calling it beta once they've stopped making the kind of changes that have been causing you problems. That's why they call it beta - they don't yet want to give the kind of guarantee of stability that you would expect from non-beta software. You have evidently chosen to ignore this.

Man, that was easy. I wonder why you couldn't beat us in those wars we had, way back when.

Yes, I'm sure your blinding display of internet debating skill is directly related to the courage, spirit and vision of your forebears when they fought against the British...

Having said that, I wonder what the result of the upcoming USA vs England football (sorry, 'soccer') tonight will be... Our manager is fielding a rather young and inexperienced squad today and it'll be rather embarassing if you beat us...