Slashdot Mirror
Google's Ten Golden Rules
selvan writes "Newsweek is running an article entitled Google's Ten Golden Rules. The article, by Eric Schmidt and Hal Varian, going into the philosophy behind the company." From the article: "Don't be evil. Much has been written about Google's slogan, but we really try to live by it, particularly in the ranks of management. As in every organization, people are passionate about their views. But nobody throws chairs at Google, unlike management practices used at some other well-known technology companies. We foster to create an atmosphere of tolerance and respect, not a company full of yes men."
...unless the Chinese communists need help.
I read
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=GOOG
% of Shares Held by All Insider and 5% Owners: 35%
% of Shares Held by Institutional & Mutual Fund Owners: 38%
Number of Institutions Holding Shares: 341
insiders, 5%'s and institutions- none of those categories have any interest but in keeping the status quo..
unlease there is actual belief of serious mis-management, institutional & mutual fund holders want stability, not strife.
and they have 73% of the company....
what I find more interesting, is how unbalanced the major insiders are as to ownership.
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/81/5092.html senior VP with control of 117,075 shares
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/67/3807.html president with control of 198,604 shares
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/80/5092.html president with control of 231,124 shares
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/20/976.html officer with control of 286,566 shares
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/66/5444.html V-presdnt with control of 315,032 shares
total 1,148,401 directly held by the top 5 guys in the company.
but look who has the most.....
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
like it or not, when you're an international business you have to deal with the local laws of the country you do business in. No matter how much you or me may dislike its practices, the chinese government is the chinese government, and if folks want to get rid of it or change its policies that's going to be up to the chinese people, not to Google.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
That's wrong, or at least, the premise is incorrect. A publicly traded corporation is only required to abide by what their SEC paperwork says. For most companies, that does mean maximizing profits. But that's not an absolute rule.
In Google's SEC filings, and in most of its public statements, it says they won't be evil. Any investor in the company is assumed to have read those filings and public comments. Caveat emptor.
An accountant will tell you that "profit" is a somewhat artificial result. A complex set of corporate books allows you to attribute money to expenses, investment in future growth, savings for future tax liability, or whatever. Some companies choose to pay dividends, others choose to buy back their own stock. They have a range of options, as long as they cover themselves in their SEC filings.
They do have to play by the rules, but maximizing profit isn't necessarily one of them, and it doesn't have to mean maximizing quarterly profit.
sigs, as if you care.
To be fair, if you are referring to the "hundred zeroes" blogger (can't find his blogsite now), he did reveal some sensitive forecasts or something iirc - which he then removed from his blog.
Though it was still kinda harsh/pathetic that he got fired, seemingly just because a bunch of google employees were pissed off by the "new kid" and what he was writing. Maybe vindictiveness is not evil in googleworld.
If I had created the world I wouldn't have messed about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers
It was originally here:9 16
http://99zeros.blogspot.com/
but now that just redirects to here:
http://blog.plaxoed.com/
Read more about the posts he made here:
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/050126-083
The problem was that he revealed details about his compensation. Details that he then retracted(to me, indicating potential legal trouble if he didn't retract them).
For what it's worth, I had some contact with him IRL(in college) and found him to be a bit of a jackass. Egotistical, arrogant, self-centered, all that stuff.
How is it evil? Just because you don't believe in a validity of a certain way of governing (attempting to strictly control information) doesn't mean that it's evil.
I'll accept that--while I personally may find the entire concept of communism (or at least the way it's actually been implemented thus far) to be "evil," I understand that others may disagree. After all, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" does indeed sound like a wonderful way to live, if impractical.
However, when discussing the Chinese government in particular, I think just about any reasonable person would agree that "evil" fits the bill. Here's a good example of why.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
I just came from a place (TrippLite) that treats it's employees this way stacking them and packing them. Except for a select pamperd few TrippLite treats people like disposable napkins and the empoloyees know it and do the minimal amount of work to get by and the product shows it with huge return rates and customer dissatisfaction. Now the place I'm currently at treats people with respect and except for a select few people excel and try to do what's best for the company. The work loads and output from people are much better and higher. It's not just the lack of space but a general disregard for dignity which people can sense when you stack them like logs and have double standards.
i don't think anyone said that. the point is, for a public company, the goal is to maximize profits, period. if the company's actions happen to match some philosophy, well that's nice, but it's only a side affect. if you have any doubt, read this as reported by slashdot some months or so ago.