Google CEO Schmidt Leaves Apple Board 128
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."
only mp3 players left (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....
Re:Google Voice Rejected (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:First thing on my mind (Score:4, Informative)
Arthur Levinson? (Score:5, 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.
Re:Arthur Levinson? (Score:4, 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.
Re:First thing on my mind (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sorry Eric (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html [google.com]
Read #6.
It's more than a towel, it's their ideals.
Re:only mp3 players left (Score:5, 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.
Re:only mp3 players left (Score:4, 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...
Re:only mp3 players left (Score:4, 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 [google.com]
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 [wikimedia.org]
Xserve Pict [wikimedia.org]
Re:The real reason AT&T is terrified of Google (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, you're being a little paranoid (Score:3, Informative)
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 [appleinsider.com]
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/05/04/ftc_investigating_antitrust_ties_between_apple_google.html [appleinsider.com]
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/02/10/multi_touch_omitted_from_android_at_apples_request_report.html [appleinsider.com]
Re:Google Voice Rejected (Score:3, 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)