Google's CEO Clears the Air

prostoalex writes "Google CEO Eric Schmidt sat down with PC Magazine to discuss some of the current issues swirling around Google, such as China and censorship, growth of the video content on the Internet, Microsoft's planned move into online ads, working with AOL and Internet neutrality." From the article: "Schmidt was quick to say that the acquisition of Writely was not meant to create a competitor to Microsoft Office, which he said solves a complicated and important problem of work productivity. Writely is a server-based editing system where you can move your files around, he said, and there are places where a rich text editor is useful in Google."

Comments

I don't agree totally...

[garcia]

"The technology we have is incredibly empowering to citizens," he said. For all the countries we don't like, he suggested we might their change behavior more by giving their citizens PCs, fast connections, and access.

It doesn't empower citizens of countries that do everything they can to proxy out that information. While I 99% agree with what Google did in China, I don't agree that giving citizens PCs, connections, and access will stop their governments from doing what they do.

Fuck, the USA is supposedly "free" and "open" and we have quite a bit of the population with access and yet we just let our leaders take FAT SHITS in front of our faces and then smile when they waft the stentch towards us.

Simple Survey

[webword]

Do you trust Google less today than one year ago?

Feel free to explain why. My point of the "survey" is that I think people trust Google less now than in the past. It is taking more and more effort for Google to keep the hearts and minds of the world. There is more speculation. There are more conspiracy theories.

Re:Simple Survey

[ajs]

No one said that Google is saving the Chinese from their lot, but the fact of the matter remains that their logic is sound: they can either give no information to the Chinese or give limited, but otherwise accurate information to the Chinese. There is no "give what we want to the Chinese" option. Given that, I don't see how Google's choice was one that violates their creedo.

Oh, and about "do no evil". Let's keep in mind why they put that in their S1: Every public company MUST do everything in their power to execute their business plan to the best interests of their stock holders. They can be held responsible for stockholder lossess if it can be proven to a court that they did not do so. Google introduced a rather clever loophole: they stated in their S1 (the legally binding form of the business plan (among other items), submitted to the SEC) that they would "do no evil". This is an audacious move, but Google's value at IPO time allowed them to take several liberties that other companies would not have been able to afford, and they took them in ways that clearly benefited the consumer (both this and the dutch auction format which other companies including Slashdot's parent had done in the past).

How did it benefit the consumer? If Google reaches a point where they are losing market share, and the only hope to regain it is to violate the trust of users (in a legal way), they could do it (and might; no one claims to know what anyone else will do for sure), but they do not HAVE to! That's a fundamental difference between Google and (almost?) all other public companies. Because of that little phrase, they don't HAVE to do anything which could be construed as "evil" in order to prevent shareholder suits because the shareholders were warned up-front of the risks.

If you took this to be some sort of warm-and-fuzzy marketting speak, you would be correct... IF it had been in a press release or on a Web site. The fact that it was in a filing to the SEC changes everything, and actually hurts Google (there is some (probably unmeasurable) impact to their valuation because of that phrase), but there's nothing that the shareholders can do about it... for now.

In the end, though, people spend too much time focusing on that phrase. It's meaningless. Google's actions speak far louder than their S1. They have been the first search engine to inform the public of government actions that threaten privacy. They have contributed massively to open source software. They have pushed back (though not eliminated) the steady tide of the advent of banner ads (something that I never thought I'd see!) They have kept Google Groups alive for years, even though it MUST be a money sink. They've been a force for standards compliance.

Overall, Google may or may not "do evil", but I see strong evidence that they AREN'T EVIL.

Personal info as target

[msbmsb]

Also from the article: Schmidt said he saw Writely and other server-based tools as another way to collect and organize the world's data. "All the world's information includes personal information," he noted.

I was a little surprised to not see anything else in there really about privacy concerns, except that users "need to trust that the information won't be abused by Google or by governments".

Torrents are not illegal.

[babbling]

Torrents are not illegal.
The bittorrent protocol is not illegal.
The bittorrent method of distribution is not illegal.
Torrent websites are not illegal.

The distribution, without permission, of files that fall under current copyright is illegal in most, but not all, places in the world.

Furthermore, searching for torrents of files that fall under copyright is not illegal. Downloading the torrents themselves might be illegal, I'm not sure. Downloading the copyrighted material itself, without permission, is always illegal. This has nothing to do with it being a torrent.

I'd say you can safely search for "torrent"...

Re:Torrents are not illegal.

[naught]

all of those things are true. however, if you were a media lawyer, which words in someone's google search history would you be looking for? whether the purpose you're using them for is illegal or not, the path is the same.

Re:Torrents are not illegal.

[soupdevil]

Those of us who want to clear the good name of Bittorrent should do things like seed our favorite Linux flavor, and get our music from places where artists share freely under the Creative Commons license.

Misinstructed by the example of Cuba

[amightywind]

To those who talk about embargoing filtering technology to China or other regimes that restrict political information, Schmidt said that personally (not as a Google executive) he was instructed by the example of Cuba. He said the embargo there hasn't worked, with Castro still in power, and with the Cuban people living with technology form the 1950s.

This is a tad self-serving. The Cuba embargo has failed to bring down Casto because domestic Cuban opposition has been crushed. It is non-existant due to fear, just like China. The Cuban standard of living continues to slouch to the 19th century because their economy is subject to the manipulations of one man! What is the US, as home to 10's of thousands of Cuban refugees, supposed to do? Prop Casto up? At least the US government has the guts to treat Castro like the pariah he is.

Mr. Schmidt's high thinking solution is nothing more than to act as the Maoists information jailer, or worse, be their stool pigeon. Hard to see how that leads to a better future in China. But ofcourse we know Google is not operating will the goal of higher ethics. They are making a buck. Do no evil?

Re:Misinstructed by the example of Cuba

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. Schmidt's high thinking solution is nothing more than to act as the Maoists information jailer, or worse, be their stool pigeon. Hard to see how that leads to a better future in China.

It is equally as hard to see how google NOT being present leads to a better future in China. I would argue that nothing some internet search company does is going to affect politics as usual in China, so let's all just gain a little perspective here.

Re:Misinstructed by the example of Cuba

[TopShelf]

While the analogy is a bit of a stretch, the Cuban embargo is still a collosal failure. It hasn't achieved its objective, and doesn't show any signs of doing so in the forseeable future. Why not end it? Just to avoid giving Castro the satisfaction and PR? That's an awfully petty reason to keep a neighbor impoverished.

I would think that free trade and closer US/Cuba ties would help the anti-totalitarian interests there in the long run.

Re:Misinstructed by the example of Cuba

[KingJoshi]

Insightful? More like flamebait.

First, you said yourself that "the Cuban standard of living continues to slouch". Don't you think the embargo is partly to blame? Don't you think that possibly lifting that embargo would help those very same people? And doesn't that mean the plan is a failure?

I'm sure Google has many Chinese researchers. And I'm sure most Chinese people in China would prefer to have Google with censoring then no Google (as those are the only two options really). So you're condemning Google for offering a service in China which also explains that the results are censored (which most other search engines there don't do) when that action does no harm to you and benefits the Chinese, yet you want them to not offer the service which would have no affect upon you and not benefit the Chinese either. Really easy for you to decide no?

Google's ways...

[bogaboga]

> ...the acquisition of Writely was not meant to create a competitor to Microsoft Office...

This is how they denied the Gmail in the first place. They even denied working on Google video at first...what haven't they denied in the past and then lived to defend when products came to the market?

This is one situation where I do not belive what the CEO says.

They (Google), could sell a Google Appliance (with Writely installed), that wirelessly allows users to access Writely and other services. This can be a very useful thing for medium sized companies in that they will not have to install any software on their individual systems. Now, when it comes to Writely, I wish there was a way I could move a table to anywhere in the document being edited. Google should improve on this and solve other bugs too.

CEO trying to have it both ways-

[Tominva1045]

This CEO is trying to have it both ways- support the stock holders desire to grow the company by putting the company foot in China (hoping for future business opportunities) while trying to not tick-off the Western world user-base.

It's quite Ferengi of him- and I respect that.

Plus watching him juggle all these balls at the same time is quite entertaining.

Re:Creepy:

[xiando]

i find myself suddenly not wanting to ever search on the word 'torrent' again.

BitTorrent is a LEGAL protocol. It can also be abused, just like http and ftp. In light of reality, your statement is like saying "I'll never browse the web again" (yes, there are websites with illegal content, but that doesn't mean you should stop using http..). It should also be mentioned that a lot of the documentaries available using BitTorrent goes against everything the government and predominant media would have people believe - and THAT'S in reality why the protocol is being demonized!

It's about information control, NOT "pirated movies" as the mainstream media would have people think.

It's always been about the business.

[ah.clem]

"He said the decision of how to act in China was "one of the most controversial decisions the company has ever made," and it took over a year of internal arguments before the company came out with its policies. "It is a hard call, but it is a clear call" to do business in China, he said, and do as the Chinese government requires it to."

And again, greed wins out over morality. Do business, no matter what the cost. What a sad fucking state of affairs.

ah.clem

Re:It's always been about the business.

[why-is-it]

And again, greed wins out over morality. Do business, no matter what the cost.

But Google is a publicly traded company now, and there is no place for morality. The board is obligated to act in the best interests of the shareholders. Since there is money to be made in China, Google follows the official party line.

I'm far too cynical to be disappointed any more. Corporations exist to make money and limit the liability of the owners. I'd say that they would kill people if it paid well enough, but we already know about the tobacco industry...

Unfortunately, morality, ethics and integrity are empty rhetoric, the real goal is to enhance shareholder value.

Wait, only not

[Vlad2.0]

Your argument (if you can call it an argument) doesn't make sense, and here's why:

Other companies (hereafter, content providers) supply video and whatnot for Google to display on Google Video. Content providers own this content, but don't want to pay for a distribution system when one (Google Video) is already in place. At the same time, content providers don't want to give their stuff away for free (a la your typical Google Video clip). Like any company they want to make a profit and protect *THEIR* content.

So Google has a choice: They can either 1) Accept the content providers content with the provision that
they include DRM to protect said content, or 2) Not offer the content at all. Period.

Since Google would probably like to turn a profit on things like Google video (duh), they choose option #1. Sadly the software is XP/2000 only (which makes me sad), but their *requirement* to protect the content is understandable.

I don't see how you connect this to a trust issue. It's not Google's content to trust you with. It is the content provider's content and their decision of wether or not to trust you. So if you have a trust issue with anyone, it's with the people who own the content. In this case, don't shoot the messenger.

Now, with Gmail on the other hand...

Disappointment sets in

[eSavior]

In a related area, Schmidt said that while the two companies weren't going to offer full interoperability between their instant messaging networks anytime soon, users could expect a single tool that give you access to both Google Talk and AIM in ways similar to how Trillian treats multiple IM networks.

I really hoped all the interoperability talk meant more than a multiprotocal client. It would have been nice for google to put up a jabber server that would allow the jabber world to instant message AIM users say via @aim.com addresses (I hear Apple's iChat works like that). Oh well, thanks google for adding nothing to the instant messaging landscape that gaim/trillian/etc didn't add years ago.

An Open Question:

[Vlad2.0]

Why do companies absolutely insist on keeping records of everything? (I make (temporary) exceptions for the following: backups, absolutely non-identifable data for site monitoring and traffic flow, and security logs).

If I ran an ISP/Service provider and a customer clicked the delete button I'd make sure that stuff was either erased immediately or very very soon (such as a cron job which expunges selected emails every half hour). I can understand logging something like, safe, people trying to telnet or SSH into a system of mine, but not every page view of my site. Why bother? Is it a legal requirement? Are they just trying to cover their collective asses? Sounds like a shitload of work for absolutely zero payoff (other than pissing your customers off...which really isn't a payoff at all.)

Click fraud?

[ROBOKATZ]

Apparently these "journalists" didn't bother bringing up important issues like click fraud. I suppose though, they are as much a part of the conspiracy to defraud advertisers and shareholders as Google and the people operating the clicking bot nets.

Re:Creepy:

[Overly Critical Guy]

That's a myth.

Can't argue with that kind of research! Especially the way you find one single freely released movie. Wow! That totally removes the other 99.9% of PirateBay's illegal piracy, including their "Piracy is great!" t-shirts.

Seriously. BitTorrent piracy is a myth. Yes, there are a small percentage of files pirated using that protocol, just like http, ftp, e-donkey and other file transfer protocols can be abused.

A "small percentage?!" ROFL! The majority of Bittorrent traffic, like the majority of eDonkey traffic, is illegal piracy. Not only has this been proven before, it's just plain common sense. Which do you think you'll find more sources for in an ED2K search--a Linux ISO or the latest #1 music album? For every legal tracker, there are 100 illegal ones.

Talk about spinning for an agenda, man.

Re:molesting 18 MONTH olds

[Anonymous Coward]

Google does not want to comply with that?

You fall into the trap of using one extreme example while ignoring all the likely abuses that could occur (and have occurred in the past) when the government gets their hands on information they shouldn't have. It's one thing to cooperate with an investigation, but quite another to turn over everyone's search information for a government fishing expedition.