I think the only thing these companies have to worry about is anti-trust allegations. Apple is a hardware company with some of the highest brand loyalty around, and Google is a software company with emerging loyalty. They both cater to somewhat different markets, and they both stand to gain more by working together than lose (Microsoft is the one who stands to lose the most due to their creative synergy). Unless of course there is anti-trust legislation, in which case they could both lose a lot.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google CEO Eric Schmidt to Discuss Role on Apple's Board in Wake of Chrome OS Announcement
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My thoughts exactly. Like you said it seems that Microsoft has the most to loose out of all this, more so than Apple.
MobileMe or iTunes Store/App Store? All we know regarding the server farm in NC is that 1)it's going to be built and 2)Apple is going to build it. Anything else at this point is pure speculation. However, I am not above providing my own speculation and the services I mentioned are either currently really slow or they are rapidly expanding, making additional servers necessary.
Having Schmidt on the board is a classic case of keeping your friends close and your 'enemies' closer.
Check out Fake Steve's take on this (glad he's back instead of the crappy 'serious' column he tried for a while)...
http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2009/07/lets-all-take-deep-breath-and-get-some.html
Remember, since Apple is not going to go with netbooks (the target for the Chrome OS), the conflict is with MS, not Apple.
Check out Fake Steve's take on this (glad he's back instead of the crappy 'serious' column he tried for a while)...
http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2009/07/lets-all-take-deep-breath-and-get-some.html
Remember, since Apple is not going to go with netbooks (the target for the Chrome OS), the conflict is with MS, not Apple.
I also wanted to bring up John Gruber's point on the matter (emphasis mine):
Remember this is the same Steve Jobs who got all of the major record labels to agree to flat iTunes pricing, which was only given up when all of the music went drm free. The same Steve Jobs who negotiated the iPhone trademark away from Cisco. Steve Jobs who, after being stood up by IBM (3.0GHz G5, anyone), gave IBM the middle finger and left for Intel.
So if Steve Jobs doesn't want Schmidt on the board, Jobs won't hesitate asking him to step down. And I think there's enough mutual respect there, that Schmidt would do it to preserve the business (and likely personal) relationship.
Of course, if the SEC intervenes, it will happen regardless of what Jobs, et. al. think
daringfireball said:
Remember this is the same Steve Jobs who got all of the major record labels to agree to flat iTunes pricing, which was only given up when all of the music went drm free. The same Steve Jobs who negotiated the iPhone trademark away from Cisco. Steve Jobs who, after being stood up by IBM (3.0GHz G5, anyone), gave IBM the middle finger and left for Intel.
So if Steve Jobs doesn't want Schmidt on the board, Jobs won't hesitate asking him to step down. And I think there's enough mutual respect there, that Schmidt would do it to preserve the business (and likely personal) relationship.
Of course, if the SEC intervenes, it will happen regardless of what Jobs, et. al. think
I still think Apple WILL be releasing a Netbook. Even a Tablet will be close enough for illustrative purposes. Both wouldn't necessarily have powerful processors or graphics - so Tablet ... Netbook .... same thing as far as I'm concerned.
Even if you are right about Apple not releasing a Netbook, there is still the conflict of Android vs. iPhone. One might also argue Google Maps and Safari - Google search could also be perceived as dubious.
you got the point! these people will never become apple customers. though they are pissed by vistas bugs and viruses and may consider to switch to mac, now they got a second option in chrome. this is where apple may get hurt.
The ongoing development of OSX Snow Leopard has me convinced Apple is coming out with a multi-touch Pad.
All of this. All of this reminds me of when Real.com's director was with Microsoft before MS had a media player in it's O/S.
Microsoft simply allowed Real to work with them. Then they ripped them off then they sent Real on it's way. Then a few months later
MS had windows media player. That was the beginning of the end for Real.com.
Sadly I saw this same scenario happening when Schmidt joined Apple's board.
So in reality who would be ripping off whom. It's a two-sided coin. Schmidt may be leaving because Apple has taken some stuff from Google too.
Map integration etc. What will become of that ?
In any case Schmidt needs to go.
Let's be honest, Apple's board is not your typical Fortune 500 board. While Apple's board members are qualified and well respected in their own industries, they serve as almost figureheads with Jobs and company running the show.
"The Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 prohibits a person’s presence on the board of two rival companies when it would reduce competition between them."
That's not what's happening here. If anything, it's spurring competition since Google offers a WebKit browser, a phone operating system and a browser-based netbook operating system.
The only group that should concerned with Schmidt's role is shareholders. And they would only be concerned if Schmidt was actively trying to prevent Apple from moving into spaces that Google already competes in.
Obviously, that's not happening. It's not as if Schmidt or any other board member (other than Jobs) dictates company direction or product development. Schmidt serves on Apple's board simply because Steve Jobs wants him to. While I'm sure he acts as an adviser, his main role is essentially symbolic.
Move along FTC.
"The Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 prohibits a person’s presence on the board of two rival companies when it would reduce competition between them."
That's not what's happening here. If anything, it's spurring competition since Google offers a WebKit browser, a phone operating system and a browser-based netbook operating system.
The only group that should concerned with Schmidt's role is shareholders. And they would only be concerned if Schmidt was actively trying to prevent Apple from moving into spaces that Google already competes in.
Obviously, that's not happening. It's not as if Schmidt or any other board member (other than Jobs) dictates company direction or product development. Schmidt serves on Apple's board simply because Steve Jobs wants him to. While I'm sure he acts as an adviser, his main role is essentially symbolic.
Move along FTC.
IMHO...Take it with a grain of salt!
ok how do you make money from your OS? You get royalty money from pc vendors ala MS. How does Google make its money? Off of ad revenue.They have elaborate profilers behind the scenes that monitor you like a lab rat.Their info is worth billions! Now to get into a full swing OS game will take billions, which Google has but it will also take a commitment by the pc vendors. They would have to allot a certain amount of pcs just for Google cause MS ain't gonna have no ****ing Google OS along side their **** out the box. So Google would have to spend billions on an ecosystem to compete with the highly entrenched and institutionalized world of MS. Good luck. Oh, then Google would have to battle MS in court to get them, to open up code so they can easily cross platform with then. Got to think of the consumer right? Good luck. By then MS would have bought Yahoo and all hell would have broken loose as MS starts yanking ad mulla from Google. There goes Google's stock price.
You get the picture. Good luck.
I'll stick with Apple thank you.
ok how do you make money from your OS? You get royalty money from pc vendors ala MS. How does Google make its money? Off of ad revenue.They have elaborate profilers behind the scenes that monitor you like a lab rat.Their info is worth billions! Now to get into a full swing OS game will take billions, which Google has but it will also take a commitment by the pc vendors. They would have to allot a certain amount of pcs just for Google cause MS ain't gonna have no ****ing Google OS along side their **** out the box. So Google would have to spend billions on an ecosystem to compete with the highly entrenched and institutionalized world of MS. Good luck. Oh, then Google would have to battle MS in court to get them, to open up code so they can easily cross platform with then. Got to think of the consumer right? Good luck. By then MS would have bought Yahoo and all hell would have broken loose as MS starts yanking ad mulla from Google. There goes Google's stock price.
You get the picture. Good luck.
I'll stick with Apple thank you.
It's not how much control they have it's in the information they are privy to. It will be interesting to see what comes out of this if Apple was not aware of the Chrome OS up until the other day.
No. There's no overlap. Both companies are going to be making operating systems, but there's no overlap there.
Why? He seems to be a nice guy.
There are many rumors that he will be voted into the board anyway.
man overboard
Google's OS will be like a ship. The moment it comes out it will start to take on water and we all know what happens after that.
ABANDON SHIP!!!
Google's OS will be like a ship. The moment it comes out it will start to take on water and we all know what happens after that.
ABANDON SHIP!!!
Legal Standards.
I know it may not be the best place for it, but I am currently studying for the bar exam and found this topic very interesting. Here are some basic tenants of the law of corporations. In actuality, as a member of a board of directors, Schmidt may owe more duty/loyalty to Apple than his own company.
Duty of Care
"A director owes the corporation a duty of care. He must act in good faith and do what a prudent person would do with regard to his own business."
Duty of Loyalty
"A director owes the corporation a duty of loyalty. He must act in good faith and with a reasonable belief that what she does is in the corporation's best interest."
Some key examples of breaching a duty of loyalty is an interested director transaction (probably not applicable), Competing Ventures, and corporate opportunity. A director cannot usurp a corporate opportunity through a competing venture or exploiting a corporate opportunity. If he does, the corporation is entitled to the profits from that breach of the duty of loyalty.
So, whether or not people think Chrome OS/Android are wise/feasible ventures, it's clear that the overlap is a major problem for Schmidt, and, in turn, Google. He has a responsibility to step down from the board of Apple or Apple's shareholders have a responsibility to kick him out. If neither happens, perhaps Apple could go after the profits from the ventures or the Justice Department could do the antitrust dance, as others have suggested.
I know it may not be the best place for it, but I am currently studying for the bar exam and found this topic very interesting. Here are some basic tenants of the law of corporations. In actuality, as a member of a board of directors, Schmidt may owe more duty/loyalty to Apple than his own company.
Duty of Care
"A director owes the corporation a duty of care. He must act in good faith and do what a prudent person would do with regard to his own business."
Duty of Loyalty
"A director owes the corporation a duty of loyalty. He must act in good faith and with a reasonable belief that what she does is in the corporation's best interest."
Some key examples of breaching a duty of loyalty is an interested director transaction (probably not applicable), Competing Ventures, and corporate opportunity. A director cannot usurp a corporate opportunity through a competing venture or exploiting a corporate opportunity. If he does, the corporation is entitled to the profits from that breach of the duty of loyalty.
So, whether or not people think Chrome OS/Android are wise/feasible ventures, it's clear that the overlap is a major problem for Schmidt, and, in turn, Google. He has a responsibility to step down from the board of Apple or Apple's shareholders have a responsibility to kick him out. If neither happens, perhaps Apple could go after the profits from the ventures or the Justice Department could do the antitrust dance, as others have suggested.