Slashdot Mirror


Google CEO Schmidt Leaves Apple Board

Jerod Venema writes "Today, Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt resigned from Apple's board of directors, citing conflicts of interest. Apple has released a statement that the company and Schmidt reached a decision to split ties as Google enters new markets that directly compete with Apple's iPhone and Mac operating systems. Schmidt had recused himself of portions of Apple's board meetings when conflicts of interest or anything Google-related arose. But Steve Jobs said Schmidt would have to leave much larger portions of the meetings after Google announced last month that it would enter the operating system sphere."

128 comments

  1. Google Voice Rejected by Blahgerton · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Surely this has nothing to do with Google Voice being rejected from the App Store.

    1. Re:Google Voice Rejected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No. It has more to do with a pending antitrust lawsuit by the DOJ.

    2. Re:Google Voice Rejected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Conflicts of interest made it inevitable that Schmidt would leave, but considering the timing, I wouldn't be surprised if GV being rejected was the impetus.

    3. Re:Google Voice Rejected by natehoy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Probably the latest in a long string of conflicts of interest. Schmidt couldn't really honestly get involved in the Google Voice discussions, obviously, since he represents the competition.

      As Google wants to eat more and more of Apple's lunch (and vice versa) having the same person on both Boards is almost guaranteed to be an automatic conflict. The timing of this is about right, since Google is getting into new lines of business that compete with almost everything Apple wants to do now.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    4. Re:Google Voice Rejected by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, and don't call me Shirley.

    5. Re:Google Voice Rejected by AlexBirch · · Score: 0

      the antitrust lawsuit by the DOJ is pure genius, since google has a 95% marketshare any anything!

      If they used unfair tactics, then the DOJ should prosecute.

    6. Re:Google Voice Rejected by bonch · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      It doesn't. If anything, Apple is required to reject those apps per their contract with AT&T. I know nobody will mention that, though, and the "blogosphere" (ugh) will continue to mindlessly trash Apple.

    7. Re:Google Voice Rejected by lukas84 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Apple apparently signed that contract with AT&T, so trashing them seems to be in order.

    8. Re:Google Voice Rejected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfair tactics to establish a monopoly can lead to corrective action, but establishing that a company IS a monopoly leads to future restriction. Google IS a monopoly, and they are one of the largest advertising companies in the world. This is going to lead to an expansion of Evilness, whether they like it or not!

    9. Re:Google Voice Rejected by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

      Where is it that Google has a monopoly again?

      Are you saying they have a monopoly on search and used it to unfairly take over the online advertising market?

      I'm not sure those two are linked in any way by Google, except that Google Search itself happens to use Google's own advertising.

    10. Re:Google Voice Rejected by jo42 · · Score: 1

      Where is it that Google has a monopoly again?

      Good luck trying to compete with Google in any area that they are in without having massively deep financial pockets and huge revenue from sources completely unrelated to the service or product you are trying to provide.

    11. Re:Google Voice Rejected by ukyoCE · · Score: 2, Informative

      When Google "took over" search they didn't have massively deep financial pockets or huge revenue. The other search providers (including Microsoft, of all people) very much DID have those things.

      All it requires to take over search is a better search algorithm. People can switch search providers trivially. Microsoft is using their OS and browser monopoly to try to force everyone onto their search provider every time they get a new PC or download a new browser version. Every internet providers set your homepage to a non-google search portal.

      The deck is stacked against Google. Nothing is forcing people to use Google search. People choose it because it's the best search experience out there.

      (I don't know much about the advertising end of things however, except I know that just like search there is a lot of other internet advertising out there, so I can't imagine you could call them a monopoly)

  2. But unlike Apple/ATT, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I doubt Google will pull all google-related applications from the iPhone.

  3. First thing on my mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CEO of a competitor on your board of directors? Ballsy.

    1. Re:First thing on my mind by pha7boy · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I thought Microsoft had a big stake in Apple (which would assume that someone from MS would be on Apple's board). maybe i'm wrong.

      --
      -- All this knowledge is giving me a raging brainer.
    2. Re:First thing on my mind by pha7boy · · Score: 3, Informative

      nevermind. it was 150mil stake of non-voting stock. So I guess no board of directors position.

      --
      -- All this knowledge is giving me a raging brainer.
    3. Re:First thing on my mind by nine-times · · Score: 2, Informative

      Also, I don't think it exists anymore. I may be wrong, but I assume you're referring to the stock that Microsoft bought in the late 90s, which I believe they sold after a couple years. Too bad, too, because I'm guessing the stock is worth a lot more now, and Microsoft would have made a nice little profit if they'd kept their investment.

    4. Re:First thing on my mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was never up to MS. The whole deal was sealed with two handshakes, not one. That was the beauty of it.

  4. only mp3 players left by robinsc · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well if you look
    Safari => chrome
    Mac os => google os
    iphone => android
    xserve =>google server farms

    probably the only thing he didn't have to recuse himself from would be mp3 players....

    --
    Linkedin http://in.linkedin.com/in/robinsaikatchatterjee
    1. Re:only mp3 players left by fatalwall · · Score: 1

      I can understand iphone meetings because those are solid competing products and maybe even safari(even if there is no real profit) but google os has always lead me to believe its a netbook os and has no real intent to be some ones main computer.

      How can you compare xserver(a sold product) to googles server farms that are completely in house

      if they needed a reason for mp3 players then all they would realy have to do is site that there search engine provides people with sites to bypass drm in there music

    2. Re:only mp3 players left by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 5, Funny

      turtle necks => t-shirts

    3. Re:only mp3 players left by larry+bagina · · Score: 2, Insightful

      how about the actual computers themselves?

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    4. Re:only mp3 players left by lorenlal · · Score: 5, Funny

      hippies => free spirits?

    5. Re:only mp3 players left by nxtw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How can you compare xserver(a sold product) to googles server farms that are completely in house

      Using hosted Google services is an alternative to running similar applications on a local server. For example, there's no need to have a local email/calendaring server if you use Gmail and Google Calendar. In this example, it's really OS X Server that could be conflicting with Google's services.

      But the more relevant conflict is between Apple's MobileMe and Google's collection of (free) web apps.

    6. Re:only mp3 players left by AHuxley · · Score: 2, Funny

      hippies => CIA seed money?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    7. Re:only mp3 players left by Orange+Crush · · Score: 1

      What makes you think Apple has no plans to enter the netbook market with a netbook of their own or some other device targetted to consumers who might otherwise get a netbook (i.e. the oft-rumored Mac tablet)

    8. Re:only mp3 players left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iTunes => google searching for torrents

    9. Re:only mp3 players left by RichardJenkins · · Score: 4, Funny

      I read somewhere that Apple also has a line in consumer PC hardware.

    10. Re:only mp3 players left by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Funny

      free spirits => free beer => free speech?

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    11. Re:only mp3 players left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      standard notation => made-up notation ?

    12. Re:only mp3 players left by somersault · · Score: 1

      Unless you're into PC gaming, then a netbook surely covers everything that you need to do on a "main computer". In fact I've been using one even for most of my work for the last few months (while connected to an external monitor), and it is the only computer I use now when I'm at home.

      I've got my MBP for when I need to do Windows development at work, but I'm happy to just use my netbook 95% of the time. The only difference in use between my MBP and the netbook is that I don't get all the fancy Comppiz effects, and occasionally while using a lot of tabs the netbook will have to 'think' for a bit (not sure why - it hasn't ever been close to using swap).

      --
      which is totally what she said
    13. Re:only mp3 players left by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Funny thing is, one of the reasons I want an Android phone (besides the obvious openness) is that I can load the Last.FM player and listen to music... without requiring a separate device.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    14. Re:only mp3 players left by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I of course could be wrong, but I don't think Apple will sell anything cheaper than the Mini. The margins are simply too low for them to be interested in the netbook market, even if that market continues to grow. I think Apple has demonstrated consistently in the last decade that they value margins over market share.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    15. Re:only mp3 players left by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Informative

      Since I don't rent music, iTunes adds no value.

      iTunes has never "rented" music in the resurrected Napster sense, and even in the "I call DRM renting" conniving sense virtually every piece of music sold by iTunes no no longer carries any DRM, so no matter which way you try to spin it these days your statement is simple FUD.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    16. Re:only mp3 players left by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Informative

      FYI, the two big music stores, iTunes and Amazon, don't use DRM of any kind anymore for their music.

      Video, on the other hand...

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    17. Re:only mp3 players left by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      Because the margins are too thin.

    18. Re:only mp3 players left by MasterMnd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      probably the only thing he didn't have to recuse himself from would be mp3 players....

      Hmm, so does this mean that Google's about to announce a line of mp3 players? :)

    19. Re:only mp3 players left by dissy · · Score: 3, Informative

      How can you compare xserver(a sold product) to googles server farms that are completely in house

      It isn't too hard. One just needs to realize that googles server farms are not completely in house and are also a sold product.

      http://www.google.com/enterprise/search/gsa.html

      The Google Search Appliance (GSA) provides fast, relevant search for your website or intranet. An on-premise, easy-to-deploy solution, the GSA provides your organization with high relevancy right out of the box, can be customized to meet your specific needs, and scales easily as your content grows.

      Not exactly as sexy compared to an xserve, but it is a sold product none the less.

      Google Appliance Pict
      Xserve Pict

    20. Re:only mp3 players left by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1, Funny

      Now now, your facts don't need to get in the way of his opening of his stupid-hole.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    21. Re:only mp3 players left by xant · · Score: 1

      Actually, my android phone is my mp3 player.

      But Google doesn't make laptops or keyboards yet. Looking forward to a laptop that is housed at a Google datacenter, and which I can carry around with me, and use, remotely.

      --
      It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
    22. Re:only mp3 players left by riceboy50 · · Score: 1

      There's an app for that...

      --
      ~ I am logged on, therefore I am.
    23. Re:only mp3 players left by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 2, Funny

      I read somewhere that Apple also has a line in consumer PC hardware.

      Lies! They make luxury computing products for the discerning customer. ;-)

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    24. Re:only mp3 players left by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1

      But how can you shop at the iTunes music store without an iPod/iPhone or iTunes?

    25. Re:only mp3 players left by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      That is good to hear. I still prefer to have my backup media in the higher quality pressed CD than to do the manufacturing of my backup disk myself with the far lower quality CD-Rs. That is just a personal preference though.

    26. Re:only mp3 players left by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Since the poster was responding to my statement that iTunes add no value to the iPod for me, having an iPod and iTunes is already a given as a prerequisite. Without the assumption of having an iPod and iTunes, the scenario being discussed makes no sense.

    27. Re:only mp3 players left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Dear iPhone Developers,

      It has come to Apple's attention that your application does one or more of the following things:

      - Appears to be remotely useful
      - May be excessively unique
      - Competes with something we may or may not release (thanks for the idea though)

      As a result of the violation of the terms of use for the market place, your application will be removed, rebranded, and released as an Apple app. Thanks for your $99 and your app. Please buy more of our crap. You know you will.

      Sincerely,
      Apple's iPhone violation team

    28. Re:only mp3 players left by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I have many pressed CDs, but I also have dual hard drives (one for daily use and one for backup) and Mozy for online backup. I'm fairly certain they'll survive - and I'm protected from fire, which gives me an advantage over relying on the original CDs.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    29. Re:only mp3 players left by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      You enter your credit card information.
      You buy DRM free AAC files.

      You sync the AAC files to your hardware using the software that came with the hardware developer.

    30. Re:only mp3 players left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you care to actually explain how you think iTunes rents music, considering the OP covered all of the forms of music sold (and not sold) by iTunes?

      Do you somehow consider DRM-free music sold by the Apple Store to be "renting"?

      Or if you're the GGP poster, do you seriously think iTunes adds no value even when you buy no media whatsoever from the Apple Store? I use iTunes all the time and have never touched Apple's store...

    31. Re:only mp3 players left by StikyPad · · Score: 2, Funny

      free spirits => free beer => free love.

      => free chlamydia

    32. Re:only mp3 players left by unfasten · · Score: 1

      Google Search Appliance is a single purpose server to provide in-house search services. It's basically a search program that happens to come with a server, not a server to be used for anything.

      Xserve is a general purpose server. Google only competes with Apple here if your only intention for the Xserve was to implement a custom search engine on it. Even if that were the case, the main selling point for Google in that instance wouldn't be the hardware, but in the performance of their search method compared to your own. As far as I know, Apple doesn't sell their own search algorithm so it still wouldn't be competing with Apple.

    33. Re:only mp3 players left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's the point of the netbooks they come with a contract that subsidizes the hardware at better margins because the cost is hidden.

    34. Re:only mp3 players left by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      Apple is, literally, no longer a computer company. Jobs announced the name change from "Apple Computer" to "Apple" when he announced the iPhone.

    35. Re:only mp3 players left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't want iTunes on your system then don't shop at the Apple Music Store, shop someplace else.

      Your question is like asking: "How can I buy a CD retail without using a checkout lane?"

      I hate how HotTopic has turned my favorite music into campy consumerism, so I don't shop at HotTopic. It would be completely preposterous to demand that HotTopic sell me CD's but stop carrying kitsch garbage because it affects my sensibilities or personal choices I have made for my life.

      Fair competition is consumer freedom.

    36. Re:only mp3 players left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmmm... low-fat margarine...

    37. Re:only mp3 players left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pict? Seriously?

    38. Re:only mp3 players left by TheGothicGuardian · · Score: 1

      Via iTunes on Mac or Windows, or virtualized on Linux

    39. Re:only mp3 players left by Orange+Crush · · Score: 1

      Only when they're equipped with a wireless data plan. The wifi-only varieties are unsubsidized.

    40. Re:only mp3 players left by Orange+Crush · · Score: 1

      I still don't believe they intend to simply ignore the netbook market. I think they'll try for a "high end" netbook or netbook-esque device (i.e. tablet). Not all netbook purchasers are looking solely at the low price, they're popular for the "cute" and "hip" factor too. I'd be surprised if Apple didn't see room for themselves in that segment.

    41. Re:only mp3 players left by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I think if the "Air" was more popular, they would have created a 10" model... but I don't think it is exactly setting the world on fire. I suspect netbooks are sucking sales away from low-end notebooks at this point, not the high-end stuff Apple usually targets.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    42. Re:only mp3 players left by jesset77 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I disagree. I think the primary driver for all netbook sales is the low price tag in some form or another.

      Nobody wants a "smaller, possibly less expensive MacBook".. that's what they think their Iphone is after all. The niche of the Netbook is both low cost and utility: you can log on to WiFi and get things done in a pinch. Utility is simply not Apple's style.

      Apple limits their interests exclusively to aesthetic elitism and aggressively minimalist UI, which they are proud to charge a mint for. There are simply no key points within the NetBook revolution that free them to play that tune, and as much as there may be a market for MacOS running on actually inexpensive, miniaturized hardware; that would deflate the artificially scarce value of Apple's main lines and cannibalize their markets.

      --
      People willing to trade their freedom of expression for temporary entertainment deserve neither and will lose both.
  5. mis-read title by Canazza · · Score: 2, Funny

    I thought he was just being dull at meetings...

    Given that he was leaving Apple bored

    --
    It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    1. Re:mis-read title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear god. Is that the best you could come up with? Really? ...really?

      No... really?

  6. Re:Slooooow news day, huh? by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

    don't forget the pr0n!

    --
    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
  7. Re:Slooooow news day, huh? by Sockatume · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yeah, the internal politics of two of the biggest companies in personal computing in the wake of the Google Voice debacle are of absolutely no interest to anyone. What we need is wiring diagrams, dammit.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  8. Re:Slooooow news day, huh? by Canazza · · Score: 1

    yeah, Idle's not had a new story in 4 days

    --
    It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
  9. next up, Apple switches to VirtualEarth for maps by alen · · Score: 1

    coming in iPhone OS 4

    Apple is already in bed with Microsoft and ActiveSync for iphone and Snow Leopard email connection to MS Exchange. Why not license mapping software as well?

  10. it's about time by microbee · · Score: 1

    nothing more to say

  11. Sorry Eric by Nerdfest · · Score: 0, Troll

    but that whole "Don't be Evil" thing is really starting to get in the way.

    1. Re:Sorry Eric by TimeTraveler1884 · · Score: 1

      "Don't be Evil"

      I wish people would stop propagating such silly misinformation. It read more like "Don't Panic" and it was never a motto, just a note poorly scribbled on a towel that was used as a replacement air filter for the first Google Server.

    2. Re:Sorry Eric by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html

      Read #6.

      It's more than a towel, it's their ideals.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    3. Re:Sorry Eric by dr.newton · · Score: 1

      but that whole "Don't be Evil" thing is really starting to get in the way.

      How so?

      --
      Just another proletarian malcontent.
    4. Re:Sorry Eric by Nerdfest · · Score: 1
      Well, the original post was actually meant to be from Steve Jobs to Eric, poking fun at Apple's Google Voice fiasco, which I consider at least bordering on the margins of Evil. Since the original post has been modded Interesting, Insightful, Flamebait, and Redundant, but not Funny, It was obviously poorly worded or aimed. It in no way meant that Google's "Don't Be Evil" policy was a bad idea ... I think all companies (and people) live by it.

      Beyond that, I think I'm going to give up on poking fun at Apple as I don't really have the karma for it.

    5. Re:Sorry Eric by dr.newton · · Score: 1

      Oops, sorry - I mistook it for some knee-jerk anti-Google sentiment, and wanted to know what you had to say on the matter! Glad I asked instead of responding with some knee-jerk anti-anti-Google sentiment. ;)

      It's been interesting watching Apple and Google get more negative comments on Slashdot over the last few months (or the last couple of years in Apple's case). This story makes me wonder if a part of the Slashdot community will take sides in some sort of Google vs. Apple drama. Apple does seem to have a way of getting people to defend them against criticism, both real and imagined... I guess the reactions to your comment (including mine) seem to indicate Google has a similar following here on Slashdot!

      Btw, taken the way it was intended, your OP is funny.

      --
      Just another proletarian malcontent.
    6. Re:Sorry Eric by unfasten · · Score: 1

      It's been interesting watching Apple and Google get more negative comments on Slashdot over the last few months (or the last couple of years in Apple's case).

      I think the criticism of Apple is partly because of their inherent need to have control, which clashes with a community of geeks who love to hack at things, find non-obvious/non-intended uses for them, and just generally gain more knowledge. That then boils over when, like you said, some Apple fans are so quick to jump on any criticism at all (see: Reality Distortion Field).

      Google, on the other hand, has a lot to do with privacy and their enormous databases. I also think that after seeing what happens when one company becomes too big/has too much control (Microsoft), the slashdot crowd is being a lot more vigilant to possible abuses. It seems too many people are quick to implicitly trust and not question anything for no other reason than "It's from Google", which can easily lead to bad things when left unchecked, as it did with Microsoft.

  12. Or perhaps? by TIWolfman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    He just saw a ship going down? The types of conflict-of-interest here aren't exactly rare in the Fortune 500 board member world. Regardless, this should be noted as a far larger loss to Apple than is being written about at this point.

    1. Re:Or perhaps? by Nerdfest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They're nowhere near going down. Even if they get fined for anti-trust, they'll get past it and do fine. If they're forced to open up their app store, it may even be good for them in the long run. At this point it probably is just a routine conflict of interest, but the timing adds some entertainment value.

    2. Re:Or perhaps? by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Just to emphasize here, according to the NYT, last month, in the middle of the worst recession in decades:

      Apple recorded its best nonholiday quarter ever when other electronics makers were hurting because of a downturn in consumer spending.

      They saw increasing revenue and profit in every single division of the company. Compare this to Microsoft, who last quarter saw:

      On Thursday, the world's largest software company reported its worst fiscal year since it initially sold stock to the public in 1986. Year-over-year revenue and full-year sales of Microsoft's flagship Windows software dropped for the first time.

      Microsoft saw billion dollar reductions in revenue in both the windows (Client) and office (Business) divisions, and it's xbox (entertainment) and search (on-line) divisions were actually in the red and are losing the company money.

      Apple is not a "ship going down", this statement is demonstrably false, people are even calling it recession proof. You could say that about Microsoft however and not be contradicted by facts.

      --
      Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
    3. Re:Or perhaps? by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Hardly surprising, given all the free advertising they get from the media. The sad thing is that the Apple hype will eventually lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy, leaving us with an Apple monopoly far worse than Microsoft: expensive products with yesterday's features touted as "new", and a completely locked down platform. Nice one, media!

      There are in fact other companies who are doing well - e.g., RIM, but most of the media prefers to ignore them. You'd think that a place like "news for nerds" would "think different" and focus on the interesting developments in the phone market, but instead it's just the same "Iphone news" that the mainstream media reports.

    4. Re:Or perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could say Microsoft is going down, but no one with a lick of sense would take such a position. I mean, come on - $3.05 billion in net income for the quarter and you try to imply they're sinking? You must deal with an interesting dictionary.

  13. Arthur Levinson? by Faizdog · · Score: 4, Informative

    Genentech Inc. Chairman Arthur Levinson also serves as a director on both boards. The Feds are investigating that as well. What about him? The news story keep mentioning that Schmidt would recuse himself from discussions related to Google, what about Levinson? Did he recuse himself from both Google and Apple meetings when the other was being discussed?

    Just curious.

    --
    -"Those who fought today will die tommorow."-
    1. Re:Arthur Levinson? by rsmith-mac · · Score: 3, Informative

      The FTC/DOJ would be far more interested in Schmidt since he's not just on both boards, but he's an employee for one of the companies. The primary issue they're seeking to prevent is collusion, which is would usually be accomplished by company employees sitting on each others' boards. A common 3rd party board member on two similar companies is also an issue, but it's not nearly as pressing of an issue since they aren't an employee.

      Or to put this another way, they're handling one thing at a time.

    2. Re:Arthur Levinson? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think there is even a third link with Al Gore. He is on Apple's board and at one point was a special advisor to Google.

  14. Re:Slooooow news day, huh? by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

    don't forget the pr0n!

    I don't think he had to recuse himself from those parts of the board meetings.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  15. Re:Slooooow news day, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must be new here.

  16. Schmidt's next move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think he should return to Novell and piss all over the corpse of a company that he left behind there, just to finish the job.

  17. Re:next up, Apple switches to VirtualEarth for map by shadow349 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Apple is already in bed with Microsoft and ActiveSync for iphone and Snow Leopard email connection to MS Exchange. Why not license mapping software as well?

    By that reason, Google should switch to VirtualEarth for maps. Google is already in bed with Microsoft and ActiveSync for Google Apps. Why not license mapping software as well?

  18. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why is Jobs telling the Board what to do? Isn't it supposed to be the other way around?

    1. Re:Why? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why is Jobs telling the Board what to do? Isn't it supposed to be the other way around?

      The Board tells Jobs the CEO what to do. Jobs, Chairman of the Board and major stockholder, tells the Board what to do.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:Why? by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 4, Funny

      Jobs has altered the corporate charter. The Board should pray he does not alter it further.

    3. Re:Why? by Abreu · · Score: 1

      (A few minutes later)

      -Roarrr!
      -[gasp!] -droid!
      -I think he's trying to say something!
      -Roarr!!
      -[gulp!] android!
      -I think he said android!
      -We can still save android, from the bounty hunter!

      --
      No sig for the moment.
  19. Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've always said that fucking Eric Schmidt is a fucking pussy. It's about time Apple realized that.

    -Anonymous CEO

    1. Re:Finally by Norsefire · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hi Steve!

    2. Re:Finally by csartanis · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ohh, but which Steve?

    3. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi Bill

    4. Re:Finally by dkf · · Score: 1

      Ohh, but which Steve?

      I don't know, but if I were you, I'd watch out for chairs.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    5. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Havin' seen u in a while, buddy. Miss the fantasies you sell to the uninitiated masses.

      p.s. Hope you kidney don't go before you.

  20. Re:next up, Apple switches to VirtualEarth for map by alen · · Score: 1

    apple doesn't have it's own mapping software for one. google needs a reason to keep it's eleventy billion servers running and doing something

  21. The real reason AT&T is terrified of Google Vo by Michael+G.+Kaplan · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Schmidt resigning from the Apple board was obviously necessitated by the Google/Apple/AT&T conflict that is being reviewed by the FCC. I argue that AT&T is forcing the hand of Apple. Apple has no reason to be concerned about Google Voice, but AT&T and the other wireless carriers have good reason to be terrified of Google Voice if network neutrality is applied to wireless carriers.

    In its current incarnation the worse thing Google Voice can do to AT&T is to conveniently allow iPhone users to make inexpensive international calls without going through AT&T. Google Voice uses VoIP to transmit calls, but Google is not a phone service provider.

    But what if the logical thing happened and Google became a phone service provider? And what if AT&T lost the right to cripple cell phones that use their network? And what if, in the absence of AT&Tâ(TM)s arm-twisting, Apple now allowed Google to create an optimized app?

    Given the above the following will likely occur:

    -Since Google is now a phone provider I can now port my current iPhone number over to Google. I then acquire a brand new cell phone number from AT&T. I have Google Voice forward my calls to my original number to my new AT&T number; I can now completely forget about my new number.

    When people call my old number I can now seamlessly receive the call on my iPhone. When I use my iPhone to dial a friends number the Google Voice app will automatically call a local number instead that belongs to Google and then Google will connect me to my friends number. My friend's caller ID will see my original old phone number!

    Since the phone is no longer crippled full use of WiFi will be enabled. Whenever you are in a WiFi hotspot all calls made either from or to your iPhone will go over WiFi. You can seamlessly use your iPhone at home making a limitless number of free calls. Does AT&T have spotty reception in your house? Problem solved! You don't even have to pay hundreds of dollars for AT&T's idiotic upcoming femtocell. The capacity of the cellular network is also improved as so many people are now bypassing it.

    -Let's take this further and apply the potential of Google Voice to the international traveler. Let's say that you plan on going to several European countries and you want to take your iPhone; you will be robbed blind by AT&T if you casually used your phone.

    But what if before you paid Google a nominal fee to use your phone in any country you might potentially go to? Google voice should be able to download onto your phone the SIM card data for a locally purchased pay-for-use SIM card. Each account will have one minute of talk time on it. The moment you arrive in a country your iPhone will automatically use that cell phone time to call a local Google number; Google will then add local minutes to that particular account. When you call a US number your phone will actually dial a local Google number that will then use VoIP to allow you to call anywhere in the world at the cheapest possible rate. People in the US will seamlessly reach you by calling your usual number. If you need to give your phone number to locals who don't want to make an international call to reach you then you can give them the local SIM phone number. Once again WiFi calls will be free and seamless.

    -Let's apply this again to the US. Your iPhone can contain SIM card info from multiple providers so that your phone can seamlessly switch between providers based on signal strength/capacity/price.

    The FCC is also considering forcing the large cell phone providers to sell capacity to smaller providers at non price-gouging rates. Google can purchase bandwidth at a far cheaper price than a private individual can. Now this iPhone with the Google Voice app can pick the cheapest/best cell service available at a particular location. (I picture more combination GSM/CDMA phones being sold).

    The cell phone companies, for the first time, will be forced to let an honest market decide the price of their services instead of their abusive oligopoly-driven price gouging. The consumer will get a much better product at a much cheaper price. It is easy to see why all of the wireless providers would be terrified of such a future.

  22. May be good news for Android by Zebedeu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm happy for these news because rumours have it that Google didn't implement some features such as multitouch in Android at Apple's request.

    Now that they aren't buddy-buddy anymore, maybe Google will say fuck it and implement those features anyway (much as Palm did with the Pré).

    Looking forward to that multitouch, and hopefully for those spring animations when a list reaches the end (in Android there isn't any visual feedback when you reach the end of a list except for the mini scrollbar on the right).

    1. Re:May be good news for Android by BiggoronSword · · Score: 1

      Sounds a bit like a stretch. I guess anything's possible. I can certainly hope though.

      I don't think anybody really knows why Google chose to omit multi-touch functionality in the Android OS.

      --
      interactive hologram, or it didn't happen.
    2. Re:May be good news for Android by mjwx · · Score: 1

      happy for these news because rumours have it that Google didn't implement some features such as multitouch in Android at Apple's request.

      The FTC/DOJ is forcing this move, Schmidt is doing it voluntarily in hopes of reducing the heat. This does not mean that Google and Apple are going to stop co-operating. Although as an Android phone owner I'd very much like to see less Apple influence over the product.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  23. Re:The real reason AT&T is terrified of Google by AudioInfecktion · · Score: 2, Informative

    Let me make some corrections to your observations. Google voice does not use VOIP at all, for anything. Making a call from a cell phone through google voice sends the call request via a data connection, to which googles servers initiate two calls. One to your cell phone, and another to your party. The google voice software on the cell phone intercepts the incoming call and answers it, and then waits for the other party to pick up... If you're webapp crippled on an iphone, the calls are still routed over normal calls using normal minutes between your phone and the GV servers. Here is what is lost for each party Apple looses control over some or all of your contacts as google voice will use your google contacts, and those stored in your phone. On android, they are one and the same. AT&T looses the ability to see who you are calling and whatever aggregate crap they generate from that to sell to whoever... Why this is valuable to them or how they even have legal authority to sell it is beyond me. They also loose 50% of the SMS revenue from the account as outbound SMS can be done over data.

  24. This is all about Andriod by indymike · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is all about Android, which is poised to knock off the iPhone this fall as over 18 new devices hit the market (from Motorola, Samsung, LG and HTC). Android is the game changer, and both Google and Apple know it.

    --
    -- Mike
    1. Re:This is all about Andriod by kklein · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Android is the game changer, and both Google and Apple know it.

      Yes, 18 new devices; 18 ways for them to suck differently. You don't really get why Apple products do well, do you? You're one of those people who think it's the aesthetics, right?

    2. Re:This is all about Andriod by indymike · · Score: 1

      I get Apple fine, thank you. Apple has had a fabulous run the past six years, and they do make incredible products. No different than in the past where Apple has: * Dominated, then lost the microcomputer market in the late 70s and early 80s. * Dominated, then lost the GUI powered computer market in the mid 80s. * Dominated, then lost the PDA market in the 90s. Android vs. iPhone feels a lot like PC Clones vs. Apple from the 80s, or Wintel vs. Mac in the 90s. I think Android compares much better to iPhone than a Wintel box did to a Macintosh. Oh, and yes, I've used both Android and iPhone. iPhone certainly has more polish, but I have to say that the very few restrictions on apps going into Market and Android's ability to allow apps to multitask really makes it more useful.

      --
      -- Mike
  25. Re:The real reason AT&T is terrified of Google by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

    As far as VOIP goes I think the GP poster was alluding to the way things are headed. If you get used to dialing through Google Voice it will eventually be trivial for Google Voice to determine if it should use VOIP or the cell network and chose whatever is cheaper.

    My contact list is already 3-way synced with my iphone, google contacts, and address book. It works surprisingly well.

    SMS revenue for AT&T is huge. All the cell phone companies screw you in their own way, AT&Ts is through SMS. Any other way to cut out AT&T to reliably send and receive SMS messages is something they would stop immediately.

  26. Yes, you're being a little paranoid by DJRumpy · · Score: 2, Informative
  27. old steve is back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    next up... he screws engineers out of money and lies to his own workers

  28. Re. SMS by cheros · · Score: 1

    Any other way to cut out AT&T to reliably send and receive SMS messages is something they would stop immediately.

    They can't stop the cheaper alternative called email unless they do something stupid with their data plans. They're fresh out of luck - the world moves on (thankfully).

    It's actually quite fun to see major monopolies suddenly lose their ability to gloriously rip people off - especially since they have been behaving like it's an entitlement.

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
    1. Re:Re. SMS by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

      I don't see email taking over very soon since a lot of phones sold still don't support it. You also have to sign up for an email address and give that out on top of your phone number.

      SMS does short messaging better than anything else out there and that is why email hasn't overtaken it. Email is also not a very immediate medium. Part is admittedly perception, but part is also how email works. Things like IM and SMS are more like live conversations. If anything, functioning IM programs on mobile devices will overtake SMS before email will.

    2. Re:Re. SMS by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      Maybe we should be extremely thankful that SMS is so expensive. If it were as cheap as email, spamming would become an issue. As it is now, the price does cull the spam.

    3. Re:Re. SMS by cheros · · Score: 1

      Good point - especially since there is no way NOT to receive SMS. I get a nice demonstration of SMS spam courtesy of O2 (UK operator) - every time I am as much as NEAR a border I get all their marketing about international call charges.

      It's so bad I'm considering changing operator for when I'm in the UK..

      --
      Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  29. Rehttp://apple.slashdot.org/:only mp3 players left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    iTunes you need to access the store.

    You don't need an iPod/iPhone to either access it, nor buy or use the music you download.

    With either a Mac or PC, you can play the content, and put it on whatever other device you want to play it with. The latter may require converting to some other format than AAC, but event that's covered in iTunes.

  30. Twenty real reasons he resigned--according to Woot by moronikos · · Score: 1

    From: http://www.woot.com/Blog/ViewEntry.aspx?Id=8910

    Don't believe the disinformation doublespeak about why Google CEO Eric Schmidt resigned from the Apple Board of Directors this morning. For the story the Applo-Googlo-controlled media doesn't want you to hear, check out the following straight-ish dope leaked by our sources on "the inside". (What those sources are inside of, we're not saying.)

          1. Too busy now that gmail is out of beta
          2. Nervous about the Apple board's new zero-tolerance meth policy
          3. Couldn't afford the gas for the Google-to-Apple monthly commutes
          4. Just about to crush Apple with gTunes. Oops, did we just leak that?
          5. Preparing to run for governor of Alaska
          6. Can no longer deny that the Zune is the future
          7. Just felt that they'd grown apart: "It's not Apple, it's me"
          8. Tired of lecturing Millard Drexler about his foot-odor problem
          9. Somebody keeps eating his pudding out of the break-room fridge
        10. Offended about the tetherball court being removed at AT&T's request
        11. Confused about how outsourcing works, he's going to serve on the board of some company in India
        12. Won't have time now that he's playing bass for Nickelback
        13. Upset that Steve Jobs refuses to release his real birth certificate
        14. Now he can get that Palm Pre he's been eyeing
        15. Never really forgave the Klingons for the death of his boy
        16. Board meetings interfered with his plans to camp out for opening night of The Twilight Saga: New Moon
        17. Decided to dedicate his life to finally finding a cure for fan death
        18. Could no longer stand the anxiety of hiding his forbidden love for Steve Wozniak
        19. Was only ever in it for the advance copy of Snow Leopard anyway
        20. Couldn't resolve the conflict over which company was going to buy Woot

  31. Well, you know what they say... by inode_buddha · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Schmidt Happens"

    --
    C|N>K
  32. Awkward symptom by oldhack · · Score: 1

    This story is all over the net, and seems to me pretty odd that this is so newsworthy. Boards are stuffed with CEOs, hence varying degree of conflicts of interests, direct and indirect, and I would have thought such shuffling should be routine, not so newsworthy. The fact that it is not routine perhaps is a symptom of lousy corporate governance that underhandedly enshrines old-boys club.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  33. They have monopoly on traffic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've worked in an internet advertising company and seen large amounts of statistics from a lot of customers.

    I can say that in most cases, Google decides whether an online store will prosper or not. It is not about which one has the best products or prices, it is which one is the best that people can find very easily. Most of people only click some of the first three results, about 90% never go to second page when they search for something.

    Combine that to the fact that in a large majority of online stores (by number of stores, not necessarily by business made. Sites such as Thinkgeek - though that specific one was never our client - with very strong brand of course change this a bit but most of the online stores don't have that luxury) most of the traffic (and thus trade) comes directly from Google search and adwords or adsense.

    Honestly, in the situation where we are in, Google can completely ruin businesses because if you don't benefit from their service but your competitors do, there are no real alternatives. It is monopoly in my eyes.

    And really, it does cause a lot of problems.

  34. Re:Slooooow news day, huh? by bigngamer92 · · Score: 1

    Wiring Diagrams! I want to hear some Microsoft FUD! Maybe add in that Ballmer made a statement about Shmidt saying that he would, "...totally be able to outdistant Shmidt in a shot put competition".

  35. Re:next up, Apple switches to VirtualEarth for map by mjwx · · Score: 1

    Apple is already in bed with Microsoft and ActiveSync for iphone and Snow Leopard email connection to MS Exchange. Why not license mapping software as well?

    Because compared to Google Earth, Virtual Earth is terrible. That being said, Virtual earth is not that bad it's just nowhere near as good as Google Earth. Also MS wont likely have a bar of it, ActiveSync licensing is used to further Exchange sales, what back end product does a Virtual Earth license serve.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  36. Who are you calling a PrÃf©? by BancBoy · · Score: 1

    Potty mouth!

    --
    [UID-HeinzIntel]
  37. It's nice to see by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Its nice to see someone taking their responsibility of their job so seriously, I know many who even if they were
    in conflict with another contract or job, they would still go through with it, just because they would have to get caught and prosecuted...and this guy is not even really that up in arms about missing meetings...I guess you can say he has some dignity!

  38. Where's the conflict of interest? by Stewie241 · · Score: 1

    I don't see how there can be a conflict of interest here - Apple is a hardware company, not a software company.