Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google CEO Schmidt Leaves Apple Board

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the slightly-less-billions dept.

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."

13 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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
    2. 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.
    3. 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

  2. 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."
  3. 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.
  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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
  7. 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.

  8. Yes, you're being a little paranoid by DJRumpy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually there was talk of him resigning from the board long before the Google Voice app was rejected.

    Even more chatter prior to that due to conflict of interest on various topics dating back to Feb of this year

    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/06/03/justice_department_investigating_hiring_practices_of_apple_others.html
    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/05/04/ftc_investigating_antitrust_ties_between_apple_google.html
    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/02/10/multi_touch_omitted_from_android_at_apples_request_report.html

  9. 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)