Slashdot Mirror
Google CEO Joins Apple's Board
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.'"
I like GigaOM's take:
I also hope this translates into more Mac-friendliness 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".
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
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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?
This post gets my vote for the "Most fitting poster name" of the year award.
The laws of probability forbid it!
... just threw a chair.
The bits on the bus go on and off... on and off... on and off...
...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.
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..
You just got troll'd!
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.
"And the heathens with their ways of trickery and deceit shall not prevail over the will of the righteous"
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hmmm, google is losing money? 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.
http://www.digibarn.com/collections/screenshots/Sc reenshots%20Funstuff/apple_weed.jpg
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.
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.
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.
Maybe Microsoft has a secret factory to produce more chairs. [grin]
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
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?
Property is theft.
How about monopolies or de-facto monopolies? How will you "not buy" their products?
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
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Microsoft is considered a de-facto monopoly by most. Since when does everyone on earth own a Microsoft product?
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.
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*!.
Yes, "Get Microsoft" is their shared similar values
29 mpg. YMMV.
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?!
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
"than an olympic coach choosing 100m runners based on ability and ending up with Kenyans"
/. readers 100m probably is long distance.) ;)
Kenyans are long distance runners...
(Granted for
dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
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.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Mod Parent Redundant, it's a cut and paste comment from another apple column.
>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
Awesome! An off-topic Mac fanboy troll.
Keep it real, cuz I can tell you're not a poseur, yo!
lol.
You just got troll'd!
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.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
> 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
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
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.
GPL Deconstructed
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.
"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.
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...
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.
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.
You just got troll'd!
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.
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.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
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
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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.