Slashdot Mirror
Why Eric Schmidt Left As CEO of Google?
Edsj writes "According to The New Yorker: 'Schmidt, according to associates, lost some energy and focus after losing the China decision. At the same time, Google was becoming defensive. All of their social-network efforts had faltered. Facebook had replaced them as the hot tech company, the place vital engineers wanted to work. Complaints about Google bureaucracy intensified. Governments around the world were lobbing grenades at Google over privacy, copyright, and size issues. The “don’t be evil” brand was getting tarnished, and the founders were restive. Schmidt started to think of departing. Nudged by a board-member friend and an outside adviser that he had to re-energize himself, he decided after Labor Day that he could reboot. He couldn't.'"
You heard it here first.
or at least not clearly right. Context from TFA:
This doesn't mean that Schmidt wanted to move away from "don't be evil", he may have just been worn out from trying to uphold it for as large and diverse a company as Google is.
Because everybody is a corporation?(!)
Corporation as a construct are intended to behave in psychopathic manors. Most people on the other hands are not psychopaths,
Actually you can't. You can only sue them claiming they are not acting in accordance with the company bylaws. Google's bylaws allow for significant activity that is not in the benefit of, or might even be contrary to, the economic benefit of its shareholders. If the shareholders don't like that they shouldn't have bought the stock.
Why lolcats added to headline proofreading department?
No, the whole thing is a PR sham to make you believe that the change doesn't mean anything. Now, the 'good guys' are back in charge.
Puhleeze.
This is an over-capitalized corporation trying to convince the world that the stock price is ok, don't sell, don't short, believe in the magic, etc.
Speculation about Schmidt's change is pretty meaningless. He left Sun. He left Novell. Now he's in semi-retirement at Google.
Next.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Because everybody is a corporation?(!)
Corporation as a construct are intended to behave in psychopathic manors. Most people on the other hands are not psychopaths,
Then that's a problem, because with the economy as it is I don't think we have the resources to design and build psychopathic manors large enough to house each corporation. Plus, the work required to ensure that each manor was sufficiently psychopathic... nevermind the environmental impact statements...
-- Joren
10 years as CEO of a Fortune 500 company isn't a bad record. The average is 6.5 years. Schmidt leaves with Google much larger than when he started, profitable, and in good condition. He's done far better than the CEOs of most of the Fortune 500 in the last decade.
They had the choice of obeying China's laws or being shut down, and they were shut down. I see where you're coming from, but it's not like they wilfully tried to continue running while breaking the law, or attempted to hide what they were doing - they were open about their position, and China responded. To say they were ignoring the laws implies (to me, at least) that they were trying to get away with doing so, rather than making a direct and public stand. Agree with it or not, that's the difference between crime and civil disobedience.
I viewed the China censorship affair as a large corporation ignores a country's laws because it was powerful enough to be above the government.
Another deluded fool thinks a business is more dangerous than a authoritarian state. The current government of China is a long term threat to the freedom of the world in a way that no mere business can ever be.
Governments are far more dangerous than corporations. Governments have the power to deprive you of your life, liberty or property...literally. The governments have the armies and the guns, remember? In fact, since we are on the subject of China, wasn't it Mao Zedong who said that, "Political power flows from the barrel of the gun"? Indeed, I am often frustrated by those who fail to grasp the irony of advocating for more government power to regulate individual economic activities without realizing that those same powers invariably destroy the individual liberties and freedoms which they claim they want to protect and preserve. They cannot have it both ways. They are either being disingenuous, as those with an anti-freedom progressive agenda often are, or naïve or both. As much as I distrust the motivations of some corporations I distrust governments even more . So I view Google's defiance of the Chinese government as a victory for freedom and individual liberty. In my opinion the governments of the world need to be taken down a notch or two, if only to remind them that it is the people who are sovereign, not the governments elected by them. Too much government control, too much nanny state and too much power over people's lives is the real danger. Those who continually seek to enhance the power of the state over the individual should be careful what they wish for; they might actually receive it and if they do, they will deserve it.
--stock options: Facebook is/was pre-IPO. If you want to get rich as an engineer you would work there. You will never get that rich at Google.
--freedom: Google is a large company and it is hard to get stuff done. Facebook is small.
--Google is perceived as no longer being the place where the best work.
Governments have the power to deprive you of your life, liberty or property...literally.
So do corporations.
C.f., the Banana Wars and the United Fruit Company, and the "privatization" of the Iraq war. Oh, and let's not forget the US railroads in the 19'th century. Among other things.
I love how you guys try to absolve corporations of their sins. The doublethink in your head must be nearly crippling.
--
BMO
Sigh. Not this shit again. Is China the evil villain now? I wasn't paying attention to Faux News. I am still at EyeRaan as the Axis of Evil chapter. In my non-American view, the US is the short, medium and long term threat to freedom in the world. The last global economic meltdown originated from there. The most Draconian laws (copyright, intellectual property laws, RIAA etc.) emanates from America. America can and did invade any country it likes on any pretense and get away with it. It can kidnap, imprison without trial and torture anyone regardless of nationality and get away with it. It has nuclear, chemical and biological weapon stockpiles that at any moment could fall into the hands of Sarah Palins and their ilk. It has mercenary fanatical soldiers who will carry out any order, even shooting civilians in cold blood. And worst of all, Americans still believe that they are the good guys. This belief is what scares me. Historically, China on the other hand had not much interest in the outside world other than the buffer zones around it. China want to become a world player but from what I have seen, it does not want to become the world police, judge and executioner.
This beta nonsense is getting out of hand. Can't they complete anything?
Governments have the power to deprive you of your life, liberty or property...literally.
So do corporations.
For a corporation to do that, two conditions must be met first:
1) there must exist a government
2) that government must be corrupt
Without a corrupt government, corporations do not have the powers you mention.
Without any government at all, let's say as happens in some parts of Africa, no corporations exist.
Google's PR problems started at the same time that Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp saw them as a serious competitor for the advertising dollar. That is why "Governments around the world were lobbing grenades at Google" after Murdoch went around the world talking to governments about the evils of the net and most likely calling in favours. Even the streetview wireless thing was really a non-event until it was blown way out of proportion by the Murdoch press.
Efficiency often has a moral trade off. Why have 5 men do the work if it can be done by one robot? The robot will save money and be more efficient at the expense of giving 5 people work. If the company decided not to be efficient it would shortly fail to be competitive.
It would be vastly more efficient for me to shoot my neighbor and take his food, than have to go to work every day to earn my food. It would be vastly advantageous to me to run around raping women, than having to spend the time and resources to woo one in the traditional way.
These are sociopathic statements, when stated by an individual, but are valid corporate logic. It is more efficient to lay off 90% of my workforce, than to pay them a living wage. It is more advantageous to screw over 3rd world countries to sell fruit or designer water to American and Europeans, than it would be to have an ethical policy and treat people fairly.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey