Sidebar Sidebar
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

serialtoon said:
Forgotten? It's everywhere!
Click to expand...

well that was probably a little exaggeration ;)

what i meant was that the shine wore off it pretty quick and it didnt seem to "take off" as much as it was hyped before the release.

i have nothing against Google and i hope they are successful but my guess it will become linux like. meaning it can be great and very useful and free all at once but will most likely not become any competition for windows or apple.

a couple of years ago i took my laptop that i use for work exclusively as well as personal and put linux on it (ubuntu) and this forced me to learn it. i kept it exclusively for a little more than 6 months but eventually went back to mac and xp for the ease of use. i then went fully mac since then with just windows installed for those few programs or devices that require it which is very seldom that it is needed. i learned that if you like the freedom of linux but at the same time often want something to just work without repositories or command lines then OS X is the only solution as it to me is kinda like linux on steroids.

good luck to google. competition is always good.

im sure this post with have many disagreeing especially with the linux comments but just my thoughts.
 
jaw04005 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Apple has a mobile phone OS (+phone)
Google has a mobile phone OS

Apple has a productivity suite (offline)
Google has a productivity suite (online)

Apple has a graphics application (offline)
Google has a graphics application (online)

Apple has an operating system
Google has an operating system (coming)

Apple has online tools via mobile me (email etc)
Google has online tools (email etc)

At the rate they are going Schmidt can sit on discussions/decisions relating to the iPod, Mac hardware (laptops/desktops), general financial issues and not a whole lot more, and this is assuming that neither company actually has hidden conflicts due to potential products we are not aware of.

I would say that if there is not enough there to cause a true conflict on interest, if i were an Apple shareholder I would at least question whether or not Schmidt should continue to be paid as his current level of compensation or not. With as much recusing as would seem to be needing to do, he should at least take a pay cut to remain on the board as the shareholders are not getting the full value for money.

In this case, I don't know if there is enough true conflict for him to resign, but in these types of matters it is just as much a matter of the perception of conflict as there is the actual amount of conflict. Many public figures have been forced to resign for much less..and of course.. much more.
 
Well maybe not ...

... such a good things after all. Apple and google have been going hand in a hand for sometime. But as a long time Apple/Mac user (+15 year) I at least have learnt to appreciate the greatness of apple/mac. With a house full of macs i don't really want Google to know my business just because I use mac. Don't get me wrong, I use google every day as there is no better option but they tend to keep more information than they ever need if the purpose, was only the provide a good search engine.

the closer google and apple gets, the interaction between pc (personal computer) and internet (sevdo public domain) gets and this is the area where google lives, monitoring of the public domain for the purpose of profiteering on the information gathered.

Google is scary and apple is not (at least not yet) please apple if I could ask for one thing is stay away from them and in the long run you will be better off.

ps I have never worked for either comanyjust made use of them for a very long thing ds
 
Hi
fletch33 said:
i have nothing against Google and i hope they are successful but my guess it will become linux like. meaning it can be great and very useful and free all at once but will most likely not become any competition for windows or apple.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly. A great, free primarily Windows alternate best suited for certain uses and / or hobbyist. No significant threat to Windowa or Mac OS.
 
denverpaul said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is why everyone hates lawyers, no one was really talking about money....
 
fletch33 said:
i learned that if you like the freedom of linux but at the same time often want something to just work without repositories or command lines then OS X is the only solution as it to me is kinda like linux on steroids.
Click to expand...

os x is not remotely "free" in the linux sense of the word
 
Dumb move by google, and what does Schmidt think is going to happen...apple say to him, "Oh thats okay even though you decided you wanted to compete against us you can still make decisions that affect our company." I think that this will backfire big for google if it really turns out to be a competitor.
 
It's interesting Google Analytics gets a stream from each Safari user.

With this guy off the board does that sever this link for Goggle?

Additionally with all the verticalisation of the markets (from user down through applications to the phone OS) these companies are making themselves the new IBMs.
 
jbernie said:
At the rate they are going Schmidt can sit on discussions/decisions relating to the iPod, Mac hardware (laptops/desktops), general financial issues and not a whole lot more, and this is assuming that neither company actually has hidden conflicts due to potential products we are not aware of.

I would say that if there is not enough there to cause a true conflict on interest, if i were an Apple shareholder I would at least question whether or not Schmidt should continue to be paid as his current level of compensation or not. With as much recusing as would seem to be needing to do, he should at least take a pay cut to remain on the board as the shareholders are not getting the full value for money.
Click to expand...

Apple shareholders re-elected him this past Spring as as director. Clearly, they're not concerned.

Jobs and company may feel that Schmidt's knowledge in certain areas and his role as an adviser to Apple outweighs the potential loss of trade secrets with regards to Apple products.

Schmidt has been in the business world a very long time. I personally don't believe he's leaking information back to Google about future Apple product development. I'm fairly sure that would be illegal anyway. Again, his role on the board is purely as an adviser and symbolic.

If Jobs feels otherwise, he'll ask him to leave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back