Google's Schmidt resigns from Apple board
In a move that comes as little surprise, Apple announced Monday that Google CEO Eric Schmidt is resigning from its board of directors.
"Eric has been an excellent Board member for Apple, investing his valuable time, talent, passion and wisdom to help make Apple successful," Apple CEO Steve Jobs said in the release. "Unfortunately, as Google enters more of Apple's core businesses, with Android and now Chrome OS, Eric's effectiveness as an Apple Board member will be significantly diminished, since he will have to recuse himself from even larger portions of our meetings due to potential conflicts of interest. Therefore, we have mutually decided that now is the right time for Eric to resign his position on Apple's Board."
Google CEO Eric Schmidt
(Credit: Elinor Mills/CNET News)Schmidt had been on Apple's board for almost exactly three years, since August 2006.
In May, Google confirmed that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was planning to hold discussions concerning potential conflicts of interest related to Schmidt's presence on both companies' boards of directors. Google's chief legal officer, David Drummond, said at the time that Google did not believe there was a problem with the situation.
Schmidt has said repeatedly that he recused himself from Apple board discussions pertaining to areas in which the companies' interests overlap--the iPhone, for example, given Google's work on the Android operating system for smartphones. But the similarities grew more difficult to reconcile when Google announced the development of its Chrome operating system, which will compete directly with Apple's OS. (The companies already own competing Web browsers, Apple's Safari and Google's Chrome.)
Last month, Schmidt said that he was planning to discuss the future of his role on Apple's board given the advent of Chrome OS.
More recently, potential competitive turf became evident when Google's third-party applications for the iPhone--which comes preinstalled with Google Maps--started to get well-publicized scrutiny from Apple. Google's location-aware service Latitude, for example, has been restricted to a Web-based app rather than an installable one, and a Google Voice telephony app was outright rejected by Apple.
Last week, a report surfaced that the Federal Communications Commission had sent letters of inquiry to Apple, Google, and iPhone carrier AT&T concerning the blocked app.
The Federal Trade Commission, meanwhile, is also looking into the relationship between Apple and Google. On Monday, the FTC said it would continue that inquiry even with Schmidt's departure from Apple's board.
"We have been investigating the Google/Apple interlocking directorates issue for some time and commend them for recognizing that sharing directors raises competitive issues, as Google and Apple increasingly compete with each other," Richard Feinstein, director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition, said in a statement. "We will continue to investigate remaining interlocking directorates between the companies."
Last updated Tuesday at 4:38 a.m. PDT with FTC statement.
Caroline McCarthy, a CNET News staff writer, is a downtown Manhattanite happily addicted to social-media tools and restaurant blogs. Her pre-CNET resume includes interning at an IT security firm and brewing cappuccinos. E-mail Caroline. 
Mr.Dee is far from an Apple fanboy trust me.
It'll be interesting to see which of the two (Apple or Google) that the other Microsoft fanboys hate the most, and this article helps suss that out (err, if they respond to it, that is).
Why hate anyone? There's no need for that from what I can see. Looks like an amicable parting of the ways between the twocompanies.
I find myself asking that question a lot when I read these boards...
And you seem to be against Microsoft, whose founder is the most philanthropic fellow in the world.
And if you ask Microsoft "how it plays out", they'll probably tell you this: "It plays out with our OS on over 90% of computers worldwide".
Sick of this Schmidt
While they do compete in the mobile arena, Google's main competitor on the net/lap/desktop market obviously isn't going to be Apple or OSX, so I could almost see the two as being friendly in that market still.
They compete in the mobile area.
They compete in the browser area.
They compete in the OS area (if Chrome OS comes out)
And there's news just last week about Google looking to buy up a music service as well.
There's a lot of areas they compete in.
You must have missed the part where I wrote "While they do compete in the mobile arena..."
"They compete in the browser area"
Nobody said otherwise... where did you get the impression that I did?
"They compete in the OS area (if Chrome OS comes out) "
Again, you may want to re-read what I wrote, specifically the sentence containing the word "main" up there.
Google's main (there's that word again ;) ) competitor isn't going to be Apple when it comes to operating systems. Why? It's simple... Google isn't going to be parking its OS onto high-end gear, just as Apple doesn't bother with low-end gear. The competitors at the low-end are as follows:
* Linux (e.g. Ubuntu, SuSE, Fedora, etc).
* Windows.
Google's OS will contain the Linux kernel, so it'll make Google a mixture of competitor and symbiont w/ Linux.
This leaves Windows as the main competitor.
If you can show otherwise, I'd like to see how.
"Again, you may want to re-read what I wrote, specifically the sentence containing the word "main" up there. "
I didn't say you did. I was just pointing out areas they do indeed compete in. You may have missed that point in your rush to make a post that... well, missed the mark entirely. Perhaps you may want to re-read what I wrote as well? :)
Then can Albert Gore. He has no business on a technology company's board. Pure politics.
I now have a good reason to never buy anything Apple.
Apple is a JOKE. Plain and simple.
Uh, okay?
Amen
Looks like you're reading into comments content which isn't there. Go back and reread it carefully. You misunderstood or made assumptions that weren't there.
Next is GV Mobile... which Apple stated "duplicated features" If that was the case, then there should be a whole slew of apps that need to be recalled and rejected. There's a lot of map apps out there, a lot of VoIP apps... I would imagine that Joost duplicates YouTube. There's other calendar apps out in the app store, plenty of weather apps, note apps etc... There's a lot of apps that duplicate the basic default apps / features that come standard on the iPhone. So this whole duplicate features reason is complete BS!
Why doesn't Apple just come out and tell everyone what the standards are? If they will approve a Baby Shaker app, but reject an eBook that has one paragraph about sex in it... I mean come on! There's no consistency in what they allow and disallow. I've said it a million times, why is it OK for certain things to be allowed in the video and music side of iTunes but not in the app side? Why the hypocrisy when it comes to apps? I see Watchmen on the main Movies page of iTunes and there are several cases where there's obvious shots of big blue man's hanging wang... but heaven forbid an app show a nipple or link to the Karma Sutra! So why is it ok for profanity, sex, nudity and violence to be all over in movies/music but instaban when it comes to apps?
I think that's what devs want to know. Besides, I thought the whole issue would be cleared up when we got PARENTAL CONTROLS with OS 3.0!!! What was the point of parental controls?
But given that Apple rejected Latitude for an incredibly lame reason, then a few days later, rejects GV Voice, it would almost seem like the Apple / Google relationship was crumbling... pointing to a nice little exit strategy by Schmidt and then have the PR chime in with conflict of interests memos getting dropped to news agencies around the world. Just my theory!!!
I agree with you on the Wal Mart analogy... it's basically the same one that Trent Reznor made, saying that Wal Mart wanted to censor his CDs, but at the same time they don't censor movies. This is how the App Store sadly works. Censor the apps, but leave the movies and music full of the very same content that will get an app rejected.
I'm just basing my opinion on what Apple's reasoning was for the rejection of both apps. Latitude would confuse iPhone users thinking it was Maps and GV Voice duplicates features. I'm just saying that if they are going to go with the duplicates features and confusion excuse, there's a whole slew of other apps that need to be removed.
I would imagine part of the conflict of interest is that Apple does not seem to be interested in opening up... and does not seem to be interested in allowing Google to develop apps for the iPhone.
iPhone is HARDWARE... with a port of OS X to run on it. Android is software that can be made to work on various types of hardware. Since the only way to get the mobile version of OS X is to buy an iPhone, then Android doesn't really compete. It's the handset makers who are competing with the iPhone.
Does anyone really use Safari who isn't on a Mac? I don't see Chrome really competing with Safari since it's not available for OS X 'yet' so maybe when it becomes available, then it might be a different story. The only people I know who have Safari on their Windows machines are the ones who got duped into it by an iTunes update that snuck it in during the update. I don't know of one person who actually meant to install Safari.
After the rejection of Latitude and GV Mobile by Apple, I would have stood up, gave the board the one finger salute and tell Mr. Jobs where he can stick his iPhone.
Despite their size and relative limitations, netbooks are still computers. There are already consumers out there who consider a netbook more than adequate for 100% of their computing needs. As netbooks become even more powerful, that number is bound to increase.
Any move to netbooks potentially can have a negative effect on "regular" computer sales, including Apple's own. Apple paints itself as THE alternative to Windows. But ChromeOS is an alternative as well, and runs on far more affordable hardware when compared against anything comparable in Apple's lineup--now and even into the future, unless Apple suddenly makes a significant "paradigm" shift in its business model and marketing approach, i.e., makes their computers far more price competitive.
Apple has long had its cache of "security" and "stability" vs the typical, comparable Microsoft Windows box. It DOESN'T have that marketing ploy to play against ChromeOS, the new kid that's yet to show up on the block. Any laptop--netbook or standard--that ships with ChromeOS potentially steels a sale away from Apple as much as it does from Redmond. And should Google ship ChromeOS on desktops, that only exacerbates the scenario.
That's how Google's ChromeOS competes with OS X, and that's where the conflict of interest lies.
until Apple releases a netbook or notebook in the sub $500 range, it will not compete. if and when Google pushes ChromeOS to run on desktops, workstations etc, then perhaps... but I highly doubt that ChromeOS will excel in areas where OS X does such as creative production. I don't see Final Cut really working on ChromeOS and I doubt Adobe is going to duplicate it's product line to work on ChromeOS as well. Really we won't know what to expect until it's out, but right now, I imagine it's just going to be great at what it was designed to do... run internet apps on an underpowered netbook.
If I had to pick between a $350 netbook running ChromeOS or a $500 MacBook Air 'lite edition' I would probably spend a little extra cash and go with the MacBook Air 'lite edition' But since You can't buy an Apple laptop for really under $1000 (ok $999 + tax) then Apple does not even come close to competing with those in the market for netbooks since price is the key factor.
I agree with you... until ChromeOS comes out, it's all speculation, so there's really no real valid way to proclaim that ChromeOS is a direct competitor to OS X. I don't really see any flavor of linux being a real threat to OS X because the people who use linux are an entirely different breed than those who use OS X.
this is the only argument anyone's ever made about chrome OS and OSX competing that makes sense. And it's true that they aren't competing as much because of it but the fact is that a computer is still a computer and netbooks aren't different enough from larger notebooks to not be competing with them. Price is just a part of a computer, different prices don't mean two computers aren't competing. And make_or_break is right in saying that if google causes more people to buy netbooks, those are people that might have otherwise bought a mac, especially if those people just want security and stability and don't want windows, and if that happens google is gaining and apple is losing and that means they're competing
the android/iphone thing you said is just dumb, people don't seem to understand sometimes that when companies compete, they're competing for CUSTOMERS. google wants people to buy handsets with android on them and apple wants people to buy the iphone with OSX. Customers want a good phone and the software running on it makes a difference in their purchase. So google improves android to get more people to buy android phones and apple improves OSX mobile to get more people to buy iphones, and that right there is the very essence of competition.
Let's be honest... most people are buying netbooks based solely on price. If the Macbook Air was around $500-600, then it could be taking away from a lot of netbook and low-end notebook sells... but it's not... it's over $1000 and that's a big turn off for people who are buying netbooks.
When and if ChromeOS develops into something more robust than just a browser based GUI and is able to do a lot more things than just Google Apps, and then starts making it's way over to notebooks, then I think you would have a case.
I don't think ChromeOS is going to take off like other Google products have. Personally I think most people are afraid to leave their safety zone, which is why it's harder to find netbooks running any said flavor of linux.
Until ChromeOS comes out, there's really no way to say really if it's a competitor or not... I'm just saying that until Apple starts selling netbooks, as it stands, ChromeOS will not be a competetor because Apple works in a totally different sector of the market. ChromeOS will definitely be going after Windows XP on the netbooks... I just don't see ChromeOS making a big dent because people tend to stick with what they are familiar with.
When ever we go out!
The people always shout, "Nobody ever likes your Shimdt!"
[CNET editors' note: Prohibited content deleted.]
I have seen your comments get punted by CNET's editors as well, so you don't really have much to say on that front. Heck, I've had my comments edited as well. Don't read into it what you can't see.
Yup, they should have allowed Google Voice... why not at least release it for the iPod Touch?
Yes, they should drop the exclusive thing with AT&T (which is why i dont have an iPhone)
And hey, i still use an Apple laptop... with a OS X and windows on it too when i need it. If Chrome OS has anything useful... i'll use that as well. Why is everyone limiting themselves?
If something has value or some use (and we all know the risks of viruses/spyware, etc but accept them if the reward outweighs the risk).... Who cares what OS/Browser/Search engine the other guy is using...
More and more Google competes with Apple - no ChomeOS shouldn't be a competitor against OSX but Google's overall intention is to push more applications to the web and away from traditional desktop.... again, more web use... more $$$ for Google.
$heeit had no business on Apple's board... they are frienemies/Coopetition.
Keep your friends close but your enemies closer.
The bottom line is Android will beat the "Walled Garden" approach that is Apple.
The Google Voice fiasco , with FTC/FCC looking into Apple is just one example of many more to come that will hurt Apple in the long run.
A long time ago , Apple also had a very popular desktop computer(s) only to lose BIG TIME to MSFT.
Same holds true here. Android will win. Remember...this is VERY early in the smartphone era.
As far as operating system concerned OS X is merely Linux/Unix kernel with Apples custom UI. Since Apple is using same hardware as MS, with exception of processor support (Apple only uses Intel) and Google planing to use same strategy.
Apple still claims that they have superior hardware and charge higher price. However it is possible to get Linux or Windows box with same specs for less. The only time it could be the same when building Windows box from scratch and paying full retail for OS.
If Apple has such a great OS why don't they start selling it to other computer makers?
- by AppleSuxLeo August 5, 2009 1:49 AM PDT
- ANDROID FTW !
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(60 Comments)