"Leaving" or not, there's no way he or the trio or the board would allow the notion that he'll be leaving in the post. I side with the author. I just don't think he would be stepping down if he intends to be the chairman for more than a few years. Also, if history is any indication, before he joined Google, he only assumed the role of chief strategist for a year or so after relinquishing from Novell's CEO position.
The one place I see him going is Microsoft since he was credited to have turned Novell around during his CEO years there. No one would argue his abilities at Google as well. Microsoft desperately needed someone more capable than a car salesman. In some ways, it would also be a more challenging task (and something new) for him to turn Microsoft around than for him to compete with FB and Apple at Google. One thing for sure, Microsoft would be incredibly lucky to get him since I don't envision anyone else capable AND willing. My 2nd guess would be Facebook, but I don't think Mark wants that unless he truly sees him as a more capable CEO.
In order for Schmidt to go to Microsoft, Ballmer would have to be forced out. I don't see that happening, given the success of win7, the xbox 360, and potentially wp7. I think wp7 would have to be an unmitgated failure for the board to consider pushing him out.
I agree that Schmidt would be a better choice than Ballmer, but I don't see Microsoft's board making that push barring some sort of catalyst.
"In order for Schmidt to go to Microsoft, Ballmer would have to be forced out"
Not only that, but Schmidt would also have to win the confidence of Microsoft veterans, some of whom have been rumoured to have CEO ambitions (e.g. Sinofsky). Despite his stellar credentials, this may be harder than it looks. Ray Ozzie (whose vision and ideas would probably align with Schmidt's) stepped down as a CSA after all. And I am not sure if Schmidt understands the consumer space well enough to drive Windows, Windows Phone and Xbox. I am not sure he gets business well enough to drive Office either. He gets engineering, and that helped him lead Google this far, but engineering is not enough if you want to lead companies such as Microsoft and Apple.
Yes, win7 was a success, but weighted with Vista's failure & its 5 years to debut, I won't call it so. wp7? we still have to wait it out, but again, it'll have to be weighted along with Kin's billion dollar failure. xbox360 does not define Microsoft. I think you're looking more at what he did, which isn't much in the past 10+ years, in terms of both market penetration (except for IE, but it's declining) and in terms of market capital, instead of what could have been done in hands of more capable person. If Eric Schmidt or say Steve Jobs were running Microsoft in the past 10 years, I don't think Microsoft would languish as is. If the board had been doing its job, it had to have planed his exit for years. Why it hasn't happened yet could be lack of better candidate or lack of excuse like HP's dismiss of Hurd.
I think it's hard to even begin to understand how deeply the Sherman Act has shaped the last decade at Microsoft. One man's languishing is another's staying out of trouble while continuing to rake in massive profits.
If they were going to force him out they would have done so after Vista/Kin. There are plenty of people inside MS who would have been suitable for the position, and there've been capable CEOs on the market in the last 4 years.
To say Schmidt turned Novell around seems a pretty generous reading. Certainly Novell didn't return to broad industry relevance as they were trying to.
I believe Eric Schmidt is stepping down because he believes doing so is what is best for Google. And I believe his reason has little to do with whether or not he thinks that he is the right person for the job or that Larry Page is the better candidate.
I think Eric believes that it is time for Google to get a real CEO because he has been the CEO in name only.
C is for Chief and Eric was never the chief since he was not the person who gets to make the final decision.
E is for Executive and Eric never spends much time executing because he was too busy herding cats.
O is for Officer and Eric was not able to look out for the interest of all the shareholders, just the two largest ones.
The one sentence answer is that Google is no longer the top dog, and he doesn't seem to have the steam to weather through the storm. I feel like after the whole Google/Verizon deal, the writing was on the wall.
Google ramped up huge to where they are now, Facebook has been ramping up as well - but as Google enters maintenance mode with all of its service and tech - Facebook is still in a massively growth oriented position.
Even if they're new user adoption slows, or even stops - the number of products based on their data-set alone, for their 500MM users that can be built is huge - and the value of those products even larger.
This is why all the defections from Google have occurred.
They built an amazing foundation for the internet at Google, now they will build upon that with far more specific and deep information of the user base and how they are all related to each other
What facebook has is something that is required for the true "semantic web" which has been talked of for decades. Very very deep and specific information on every aspect of it's users interests. This is something that Google thought it was going to accumulate - but the problem is that from googles view, every person is a silo of interests - where they would have to do a lot of correlation on the back-end (which they have done) through their varied products.
Facebook, rather, has built a true interest portal and people are throwing ever single bit of human interaction data they can right into i - and linking it all up for facebook.
There is a very very interesting future (albeit scary) if facebook doesn't fuck this up.
Edit: typed this before you add detail, which adds weight to your argument. Thanks.
I don't think so.
Google's revenues 2010: $29,321,000,000
Facebook's revenues 2010: < $1,000,000,000
Google is also solving much more challenging technical problems (not to dismiss the smart people at Facebook, but Facebook is really only interesting because of its extreme scale. Except for that, it's pretty much a CRUD app)
2) I think the best analogy is to 2003. At that time, when people started to talk about Microsoft vs. Google, I was like, "huh? What do you mean? Google does search and MS makes operating systems."
It was after the IPO, with Gmail, that Google moved on from being a category killer in search to just demolishing so many other verticals (Gmail, Maps, Docs and more recently Chrome, Android) and taking the throne from MS.
If history repeats, it will be over the next two years -- probably when Facebook launches social search, and it's really good -- that the game will have decisively shifted.
PS: I'm sure you didn't meant it this way, but pointing to the revenue scoreboard is what Microsoft employees did and still do when talking about MS vs. Google. MS still makes more money than Google and always has. The top dog title is about mindshare/rate of growth/poaching ability in addition to revenue.
I agree. Thinking about the recent goldman deal it makes me think if perhaps it could be legit! Is it possible that goldman is expecting facebook to become the de facto ad platform?
Wouldn't you say that Android is currently the biggest competitor to the iPhone?
Apple & Google are both pretty big companies and will likely be competing in the same space given the number of products they both own. Apple's iAds are a direct competitor to Adsense on mobile devices, Apple TV/Google TV, etc.
I agree that the appearance of revenues at this point make people dismiss facebook - but also take note of the very very high level talent they have been snatching up and the circle of advisors they have.
Give it 3-5 years. You will see Googles revenue slow/plateau a bit - but if Facebook can do what it thinks it can do with its userbase and dataset, it is going to be very interesting.
Also, I predict that Facebooks revenues will not skyrocket -- but rather their influence, reach and stranglehold on way too many aspects of on-line life will take deep root.
They will likely begin an acquisition play very soon which will be focused on payments, security, retail/ecomm and analytics.
While google has been a gateway to the internets information - I see facebook trying to be a funnel/traffic-cop to your online relationships interests and transactions.
I wouldn't be be surprised if facebook bought something like square.
I think that before Facebook has the chance to monetize the information they have on their users they will need to start lobbying for less privacy and we have already seen the pushbacks from its user base.
That being said, I have to agree that Facebook still has a lot of places to go, but I wouldn't put it past Google with new leadership at the top to come out fighting and bring a few new tricks to the table.
I look forward to what the future brings. Just for all that is holy get rid of the damn Facebook connect crap.
It seems to me that people are always valuing Facebook by its potential, whereas Google is judged by its actual performance (which isn't exactly slouching, numbers-wise).
Who exactly anointed facebook top dog on the web and how exactly was this measured? I keep seeing this claim floating around, but very little justification for it.
As far as wealth-creation goes, Facebook doesn't even compare to Google. Facebook is great, and has huge potential, and may find ways to make money head over fist, but it is fundamentally a toy. There are no ways to create value directly from it, only to piggy-back on the number people using it. Sure, there's the occasional community and event management that takes place there, and as far as social communication goes it's really unequaled (I talk to most of my friends on facebook), but this does not feed anybody.
Google on the other hand has both feet firmly planted in the internet infrastructure. At this time there are more people using them directly then any other web service, for both work and personal reasons. They create real and tangible value. They actually make money for the people using them.
This is a big difference. Sure, for the lonely entrepreneur it doesn't really matter if his startup is about lolcat pictures - as long as he gets enough visitors, he's set for life. But in the grand scheme of things it actually matters if you're dealing in lolcats or create real value. It wouldn't scale otherwise.
Facebook is in a great position and will surely be quite influential in the next 5 years, but I think they'd have to do more before they could be called 'top dog'. Really I don't think any single corporation is in that position. Some people make hardware, some do software at different levels, then there's the government - and they're all interdependent.
Much as I despise Google's Minority Report style vision for the future where personalised advertising is plastered all over everything, and their evil actions regarding privacy...
... and much as I am allegedly a huge Apple fan ...
I still think it is unfair for people to compare the effectiveness of Eric by comparing Google's performance to Apple's performance.
Google is operating in a mostly saturated market (online search and advertising) in which they have a Microsoft style almost total monopoly. You just don't get spectacular growth numbers in those scenarios. Doesn't mean you can't squeeze the monopoly position to make great profits of course, but those profits aren't going to increase exponentially year after year without cease.
Apple on the other hand has been recently expanding into new markets (okay, some older ones too, and some borrowed and some blue) at an enormous rate. People laughed at them when they said they would enter the phone market. People laughed at them when they said they would enter the tablet market.
In fairly short order, they've totally disrupted and defined those two markets. Now personally I believe that their dominance in those markets will be short lived, but I think they will continue to lead the direction of those industries long after their market share has dropped below 10%.
Google's done what? They have a really nice e-mail service... but apart from that and the search/advertising thing what do they do? Oh, they bought youtube and slapped ads all over it... yeah... great work guys, but not exactly what I'd call innovative. Oh, they have a browser and a smartphone... but again not especially innovative.
I dunno, I just expected more from the 20% time of a bunch of PhDs sitting around?
Android is the biggest cellphone OS on the market. Chrome is the best browser and it is growing at an extremely fast pace. ChromeOS is well on it's way (it won't compete with the MSFT or AAPL but it has it's niche). Gmail is the best free mail service available (and it definitely was revolutionary, think back to when it was just released). Google AdSense changed the way people monetize on the internet. Google Search was the biggest revolution in the history of the internet. Google Maps/Earth was also a huge revolution and is used by so many different services and software on the internet and on cellphones. Google Documents? Google Voice? Please, Google owns the internet.
Sure, Google may not have any hardware revolutions such as Apple, but when it comes to the internet, Google creates and makes possible the most innovative ideas.
I don't think you really read what I wrote, or maybe innovation means something different to you.
Edit: oh, I see the problem, either you're trolling or don't know the history of products earlier than Google. Nice try Sergei.
===
I know in the PC industry if you can add one more tick to the extensive feature list it is regarded as massively innovation, but I wouldn't call it innovation, and it certainly isn't disruptive.
The only things gmail did differently from other free email services was that they changed the way threading was done, and they added good search that worked (edit: I want to make it clear that I'm not denigrating that, going back to my work Outlook account after using my private gmail account was enough to nearly make me cry - not so much because gmail was utterly amazing, but because Outlook was utterly crap). Neither of those things is disruptive, so I wouldn't really call it innovation. Similarly just about everything else you mention is a minor improvement on something that went before, or something 'cool' (example: Google Maps/Earth) that Google has failed to do much with because the bean counters from the ad division starve it of resources.
Sure Android and Search and Adwords are big - note that I very carefully made a distinction between being big and being innovative. The problem with Android and Chrome is that they are "me too!" things, where they copy other people's innovations rather than doing anything particularly new. I could announce that I was doing a new browser, and nobody would think that it was breath-takingly original... they'd be like "oh yeah, another web browser... whatever".
Note that copying what other people have done is how most of the computer industry works. Apple copied Xerox, Microsoft copied Apple etc. Don't get too upset about it or you'll drain your Reality Distortion Field's batteries too soon. (But hey, at least the Google RDF has replaceable batteries!)
Visicalc was innovative, but I'd rather have the bank balance of Excel than Visicalc :D Even Excel was relatively more innovative than anything Google has ever done, because it was the first spreadsheet with a modern interface rather than being command-line driven. What'd Google do? Oh, we take a spreadsheet and put it online. Yawn
"the biggest revolution in the history of the internet"
Google search isn't even innovative let alone disruptive because there were a great many search engines before them. Oh, they have a 'special' algorithm. Big whoopy do.
Google AdSense changed your life huh? Must be a true believer :D Anyway, glad that you can cash those big fat cheques from Google every month, good for you. :D
While I don't follow your thinking about google, I think that the "special" algorithm for search, at least the original one (pageRank) is not that special. Other people had the same ideas even before - what really made it so successful is their use of commodity hardware IMO, and that was only possible no sooner than late 90ies because linux became good enough (licensing any proprietary unix for 1000s machines would have been difficult). This and the corporate culture - it seems they manage to hire a lot of very talented people, not just engineers, from early on. That's pretty hard to do.
My memory may be a bit rusty on this, but as I remember it in the pre-pagerank days Google were just aggregating the highest results from a bunch of other search engines such as Alta Vista (?) and Yahoo (?) ... which seemed pretty scummy.
As for my 'thinking' on Google, here's the way I see it. I see people giving money to Dell. I see people giving money to HP. I see people giving money to Adobe and Microsoft ($deity only knows why). I even see people giving money to Apple.
When was the last time I saw someone buy something from Google? I've met two or three people with Android phones. yeah, so Google gets what - a $10 royalty? Don't spend it all at once!
Which then raises the question: who/where/when/what on earth is paying for all this 'free' stuff that Google gives away? Surely it must be the advertising!
And if advertising is really the only thing they have bringing home the bacon, eventually the bean counters from advertising are going to run the company (if they don't already). Google maps is awesome, but I never once paid for the privilege... how did they afford to put all those cars on the road eh?
What I see is things like Google buying youtube, and then making it worse by slapping ads on it. I view Google as a modern day King Midas. But they don't turn things to gold, what they touch gets covered in advertising instead.
Secondly, I have noted several instances where Google has been very 'cavalier' (to be generous) with the truth
(no we're not sniffing your wifi. Okay, we're sniffing your wifi, but only accidentally. Okay, we're doing it systematically and deliberately, but we're not storing it. Okay, we're storing it, but nothing important. Okay we're sniffing your passwords, are you happy now?!?!?!)
also privacy (Eric saying he doesn't believe in it - has he been snorting the Zuckerman again?), or even lives
(see also: Chinese dissidents being sold up the river to Beijing by Google)
Google was bending over big time for the oppressive regime, until China tried to hack them, when they suddenly grew a backbone and started standing up to them. That's not character. That's not 'not being evil'.
===
NB: me saying Google is not perfect is not the same as saying that some other company is perfect. what I was saying originally is that not only is it unfair to compare Google to Apple because of Apple's unusually good current results, but also they are different kinds of companies, working in mostly different markets (fundamentally Google is an internet based advertising company, and Apple is a media/hardware company - comparing them is like comparing a biotech stock with Walmart, it just doesn't make sense.
Moreover, one of the primary differences in their financial results is that Google is in a saturated market, but Apple is not. It is hard to be a 'growth stock' in a saturated market where you already have a massive monopoly.
Your first point about Google aggregating results from other search engines, please provide a source.
You've met two or three people with Android phones? You must not get out very much because Android passed the iPhone in total monthly activations a while back and just passed them in total phones on the market.
Buying YouTube and slapping ads on it? That was inevitable, whether or not Google bought them, there comes a time in every websites life when it needs to be monetized to it's fullest potential.
As for the whole wi-fi/china/privacy ordeal, you really know how to sensationalize a story. You happen to post on Reddit?
I wasn't commenting on your comparison of Google and Apple, I agree that they are very different companies. But when you say Google isn't innovative, that is not true. Sure, most of their ideas are improving on other companies ideas but that doesn't make it any less innovative. Do you know why so many people are starting to use Chrome? Because it is a fucking perfected browser. The changes Google made were very minimal, but now every browser company is following suit. Going by your logic, no company is innovative because they all just improve upon one another's ideas. Think back to when Gmail was just released. The major competitors were Hotmail and Yahoo. Do you remember their offering? 25mb of space, fucking horrible layout, slow as shit, email search was non existent, and the spam... Oh the wonderful spam.
Sure, Google might be currently receiving a huge chunk of their income from advertising. But with the market control that Google currently has, they can offer any product/service and people will hand over their cash no questions asked. Google has established itself as a trustworthy company that provides amazing products for cheap/free. You mention that every company is selling something except Google. Is Facebook selling anything? Weren't they just valued at $50 billion? Their stock is going public next year? Hmmm... So much for needing a product to sell. Sure, I think valuing Facebook at $50 billion is retarded as fuck but the fact of the matter is, in todays day, information is worth more than any other commodity. And Google has a shit ton of information.
Thanks for your reply. No, I do not post on Reddit. I was looking for a place that wouldn't just descend into one line witty put-downs.
On that basis, even though I disagree with you and think you're way too deep in the Google-cool aid ( :D ), I will vote you up, because I acknowledge your time invested deserves a reward.
It seems like every year I rediscover that arguing with strangers on the internet is pointless. This year I got there by Jan 22 ... a new personal best. Wish you all the best.
Heh, nothing wrong with a bit of debate, as long as it doesn't end in flame wars. Halfway through writing my above post I stopped and thought, is this really worth it? Will I prove anything with this post? And I decided to finish my thoughts because I really was interested in what you have to say in response to my "arguments". Anyways, thanks for not resorting to childish arguments and put-downs like on other sites.
