Back in the 1980s, Wall Street played a game on Microsoft's duo of Gates and Ballmer, demanding "grown-up supervision" for the then 20-something computer software duo.
Fortunately, Bill and Steve did not take the hint (get lost). They kept their stock, kept control, isolated a succession of adults, and finally came out the other side, billionaires and still in control to this day.
Well, I think Google has now outgrown its grownup.
Larry Page and Sergey Brin not only founded Google, but set many of its most important standards. They understand Google's corporate direction in their bones. But, like Gates and Ballmer back in the day, they were forced by Wall Street to get "adult supervision" in the form of Dr. Eric Schmidt.
Schmidt is, at heart, a computer scientist, and a good one. He is known as the "Father of Java," for his work on that language while at Sun. Then he went to Novell, and nearly rode the thing into the ground. (This should have been a hint, boys.)
What Schmidt has done at Google is to bureaucratize the hell out of it. (Evan Williams was just one victim. Sorry again, Ev.) He buried Blogger, he still hasn't come out with a real blog search solution, and he has taken Google into lots of "me-too" directions, an exception being Google Maps (and I think the folks he bought via Keyhole get the credit for that).
Now his paranoid, corporate mind set has started to do real damage.
This is a time in Google's history when it is vital to remain transparent. It's only advantage over Yahoo and Microsoft is it isn't like them. So when Dr. Schmidt shuts-out News.Com reporters, because they happened to use Google to find out things about him that he'd prefer remained translucent, he is doing major economic damage.
Reputation and credibility are all on the Internet, and Google's has been taking too many hits lately.
It's time for the grown-ups to go, and for the founders to take back control of the ship.
Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for over 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the "Interactive Age Daily" for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age, and dozens of other publications over the years.
1. Tom Cunningham on August 8, 2005 09:47 AM writes...
I don't think what Schmidt is doing is wrong at all. News.com didn't just look for information he'd prefer not out there - they went ahead and published a bunch of it in a meandering article that had absolutely nothing to do with personal information available in Google's search index. The article talks about security, Google Desktop, Google storing searches, and Google Maps - not about what Google indexes.
Kind of reminds me of the article about the woman who runs groklaw, other than the fact that news.com didn't actually post a picture of Schmidt's house or bash his mother.
"Major economic damage" is what the playboy article almost caused Google during their quiet period. Not talking to the muckrakers at CNET is just smart business practice.
Permalink to Comment2. Jim Hedger on August 8, 2005 02:00 PM writes...
I agree with Dana on this one. While the CNET article might have been rambling, the fact they were able to draw information on Schmidt and use it to demonstrate how easy it is to find personal information on Google is a kin to journalists testing security at airports and other public areas by transporting fake devices through security check-points. The public has a right to know when its security is compromised. While the prank might be somewhat childish, it serves to prove a point, as did the publishing of information on Schmidt.
Banning CNet is an implied threat to other journalists and might constitute an attempt at "info-chill" in which journalists are afraid to print stories for fear of losing an important source. The info in the CNet story was factual and found with Google's own tool.
Permalink to Comment3. PXLated on August 8, 2005 04:30 PM writes...
This sure is geting play...it will pass. Don't worry Mr. Schmidt, c|net doesn't have a monoply so you really don't have to worry much.
Permalink to Comment:-)
4. pwb on August 8, 2005 09:15 PM writes...
I agree that CNet was well-within all bounds of propriety in searching for info about Schmidt through Google. That the article may have been meandering is obviously irrelevant.
I'm not sure it's totally akin to trying to pass fake bombs through airport security as that could be illegal.
I think it's akin to a journalist finding public information and putting it in an article.
Permalink to Comment5. Tommy Ward on August 10, 2005 10:27 AM writes...
I think Google is wrong here. Companies refusing to talk to journalists, to retaliate for writing unflattering things about them are not standing up for what is right, but for what is expedient. In t he long run, it should bite the companies where it hurts...at least I hope so.
What this shows is a little bit of lie to the fiction that Google is something more than just another company. The "do no evil" motto aside, they are just another corporation. The millions of Internet users who have put them on a pedestal as something more seem to be misplacing their trust.
I use Google searches daily also, but have no illusions about their trustworthiness. If it came down to the bottom line, I'm sure that any data about me that they could sell access to without breaking laws would be sold. I'm not sure that it makes any difference whether Schmidt is at the helm or not.
Permalink to Comment6. Fazal Majid on August 15, 2005 03:35 AM writes...
There is only one father of Java, and that is James Gosling.
Schmidt was an exec at Sun, not an engineer, and the Valley scuttlebutt is he repeatedly tried to kill the project, it's only when it started to get traction that he stepped in front of the parade to claim credit.
Permalink to Comment7. Fazal Majid on August 15, 2005 03:39 AM writes...
There is only one father of Java, and that is James Gosling.
Schmidt was an exec at Sun, not an engineer, and the Valley scuttlebutt is he repeatedly tried to kill the project (as did Bill Joy), it's only when it started to get traction that he stepped in front of the parade to claim credit.
Permalink to Comment