Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Businesses Google Technology

Eric Schmidt Out, Larry Page In As Google CEO 185

Posted by timothy
from the as-if-you-care dept.
jfruhlinger writes "Google surprised just about everybody at its earnings call by announcing that Eric Schmidt, who had served as company CEO for more than a decade, would be stepping down and that cofounder Larry Page would take over. Schmidt will stay on as chairman and provide 'technology thought leadership,' whatever that is. When Schmidt, an old Sun hand, joined Google in 2001, it was seen as a move to turn the scrappy upstart into a mature company; now on his Twitter feed Schmidt proclaims that his 'adult supervision' is no longer needed."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Eric Schmidt Out, Larry Page In As Google CEO

Comments Filter:
  • Not unforeseen (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bsDaemon (87307) on Thursday January 20, 2011 @05:48PM (#34945928)

    With all the bad press from stupid shit that Schmidt has said in recent years, this isn't exactly an unforeseen turn of events. If Larry Page has been thumbing his nose at the world at large with his blatantly anti-privacy statements, he's been much more quiet about it, as I haven't heard anything to make me automatically suspicious of him.

  • by BitterKraut (820348) on Thursday January 20, 2011 @05:59PM (#34946088)
    I don't see how this could be a smart move for Google. Page and Brin may have become too big for their boots, but I suspect something else. Perhaps Schmidt will follow Steve Jobs to lead Apple.
  • by Lemmy Caution (8378) on Thursday January 20, 2011 @06:07PM (#34946202) Homepage

    Perhaps because Google has been playing catch-up for too long, and Schmidt's strategy has been too caution, too safe, too corporate. There have been a lot of failures and disappointments coming out of the Googleplex recently, and Google needs to recover some of the optimism and energy of its earlier years. Morale is rather low; a lot of their best researchers have left. The "always in beta" aspect doesn't work anymore, because it contradicts their "the cloud is ready for primetime" narrative.

    A big change was needed. I'm just surprised they did it.

  • by rsborg (111459) on Thursday January 20, 2011 @06:40PM (#34946550) Homepage

    DuckDuckGo [duckduckgo.com] :-)

  • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Thursday January 20, 2011 @06:58PM (#34946754) Journal
    JWZ wrote that the beginning of the end of Netscape was when they stopped hiring people who were there because they wanted to change the world, and started hiring people who were there because they thought it was a cool place to work. I've visited Google offices a few times in the last couple of years, and everyone I've asked has told me that they're there because it's a cool place to work...
  • by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Thursday January 20, 2011 @07:17PM (#34946948)

    I interviewed there a few times (separate occasions). it IS a cool place TO BE. to work? not sure, but certainly VERY comfortable to BE.

    I am quite sure its why most people are there. that and they can turn a blind eye to the fact that they are the power behind 'ad[vertising] men'. yup, just a newfangled advertising company. but its VERY cool to be on that campus, eat free lunches (gourmet, really), collect free cool phones and toys and have super company name recognition.

    but how many *believe* in what they do, or the ulterior motives of the megacorp? do they realize that they help the Big Co eat away our privacy? they look the other way and plan what they'll have for lunch.

    easy to understand if you've been there or even been around it.

    but again, few who see what the company is really about would be behind it. if it wasn't such a comfy status-clad place, few would want to contribute to what google is actually about.

    (data collection on you and targeted advertising. you think that's all noble lofty stuff? really?)

  • by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Thursday January 20, 2011 @07:58PM (#34947224)

    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/google-mocked/ [wired.com]

    "If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

    What's more interesting is the next piece:

    But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines, including Google, do retain this information for some time. And [...] we're all subject, in the US, to the Patriot Act, and it is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities.

    Schmidt is telling us that Google is being served PATRIOT Act notices without breaking the law and telling us that they're being served. It's a pity everyone is hung up on the nothing-to-hide idiocy. Of course, it's little wonder we're missing the important pieces when served up ham-fisted attacks by the likes of Consumer Watchdog.

  • Sell GOOG (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BulletMagnet (600525) on Thursday January 20, 2011 @07:59PM (#34947236)
    Hmmmm....Maybe Schmidt sees the handwriting on the wall, like he did with the last employer he left....
  • by martin-boundary (547041) on Thursday January 20, 2011 @08:34PM (#34947542)

    It's a pity everyone is hung up on the nothing-to-hide idiocy.

    The reason everyone is hung up on that "idiocy" is that Schmidt is a hypocrit.

    It's all right for him to tell others that they should kiss their privacy goodbye, but when his own privacy is breached in the same way, he doesn't think twice about retaliating with all of google's resources [cnn.com].

    Moreover, it's a bit rich for the CEO of a search company to claim that privacy can't be respected by search engines, when he's making the rules as CEO. Corruption starts from the top, and he's responsible for a lot of bad choices Google has made towards privacy in the past and present, and that "idiocy" tidbit sums up his actions pretty well.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 21, 2011 @03:43AM (#34949770)

    but how many *believe* in what they do, or the ulterior motives of the megacorp?

    Most of us do, and this is coming from someone who works directly on ads. Does Google make money on advertising? Yes, of course it does. But how is that a bad thing again? I love search, I love gmail, I love maps, I love Android, I love Chrome, I love docs, I love youtube, and I love all the other free services those ads pay for. Some of these services are largely there to support or defend the ads market (oh hi Android), but not all of them. Because of those same targeted ads you hate, Google has more money than it knows what to do with, and a lot of it goes towards ambitious ways of trying to make the internet better for no reason other than to make it better.

    Now, I understand that slashdot is full of cynics, especially when it comes to big organizations that have access to people's data. Fine. But when you're on the inside and see that all the horror stories about the evil things Google does with your data are so off-base as to be funny, it's a lot easier to believe in the company.

    Anyway, believe what you want, but Google employees are well equipped to get jobs anywhere we want, and Google isn't the only place offering nice perks. If we actually saw things the way you did, we would leave.

% "Every morning, I get up and look through the 'Forbes' list of the richest people in America. If I'm not there, I go to work" -- Robert Orben