Eric Schmidt's glass-half-full look at tech

Lots of smart people are concerned about how quickly technology is changing virtually everything it touches in the world, but count Google's Eric Schmidt among the optimists.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt

(Credit: James Martin/CNET)

Schmidt would agree that technological change has happened so fast over the past few decades that it's almost impossible to appreciate the long-term effects of that change, he told attendees at The Atlantic's First Draft of History Conference Friday in Washington, D.C. But he said he feels that while it's true that such change can be used against the world, it's important to remember that the combination of access to knowledge and cheap powerful computers can also spur people to new heights.

"If you live in a little group of terrorists, you can decide that the whole world agrees with you. (But) the same is also true of optimists and people who want to change the world," he said.

Schmidt touched on a variety of topics during his 30-minute interview, which was streamed live online, with James Fallows of The Atlantic:

• Governments could improve their ability to make "gray-zone decisions" by opening up information and debate to a wider circle of voices, Schmidt said. It's so easy in the current world to create "disinformation" that the best way to tackle a complex subject is to have a wide circle of people discussing the possible effects of a decision as to minimize the impact of that disinformation.

• The print-based news industry is doomed, Schmidt said, but the silver lining is that an emerging Internet-based news industry could have a bright future because of its ability to sell "products that are highly targetable, and products that are highly targetable are highly advertisable."

• "I start everyday by assuming that people don't appreciate how fundamental the Internet is," Schmidt said, when asked about his and Google's efforts to support investment in broadband Internet connections, which is currently being debated in Washington. Fast Internet connections should be a national priority but complicating the matter is the fact that opening up fast connection to the home will negatively impact a lot of existing businesses, such as the cable industry.

• Schmidt expressed his hope that the settlement in the Google Books case is approved, but the settlement he referred to will likely be different from the one that will emerge as the parties involved revise the terms of that deal ahead of a status conference next week with a federal judge in New York.

• He also expressed support for Arthur Levinson, a Google board member who is also a board member at Apple. Schmidt stepped down from his role on Apple's board earlier this year amid concerns the companies had grown into competitors as well as scrutiny from the FTC. The FTC is still looking at whether Levinson's service on both boards in an issue, but when asked if Levinson would have to step down from Google's board, he said, "I would hope not."

[wylbur]

I guess he likes the connected world when CNET isn't using it to find out where he lives!

[BrettGlass]

Some of the remarks above are highly ironic.

Eric Schmidt knows from personal experience how easy it is to "create disinformation." He's used about 10 million Googlebucks to buy himself the chairmanship of an inside-the-Beltway lobbying group called the "New America Foundation," making it -- in essence -- a wholly owned subsidiary of Google. The group bills itself as a "public interest" group, but in reality supports things -- such as regulation of the Internet -- that would help Google. (Such "astroturfing" is becoming more and more common, and Schmidt himself is a practitioner of it.) Google is also funding other "astroturf" groups in DC, and giving out big political contributions, to get government to do its bidding. The most dangerous effort it's making is (again) to regulate the Internet. The regulation is sold under the misleading title of "network neutrality," but it's really anything but "neutral." It gives Google a big edge -- at the expense of ISPs and consumers.

Schmidt also claims that the print news industry is doomed, but neglects to mention that Google has had a large hand in dooming it. By aggregating the content, Google has diminished its value.

And it's quite clear why Schmidt would favor the "Google Books" settlement: it would give his company a monopoly on work which it didn't create and didn't pay for. Without the permission of the authors or their families.

In short, all of Schmidt's remarks are very self-serving. Google may claim that its motto is "do no evil," but these are in fact an evil company and an evil man.

[AriWilson]

FULL DISCLOSURE: The man above works for an ISP.

I'm also not sure how net neutrality hurts consumers. Or how aggregation hurts values. The value of websites has certainly gone up since Google started aggregating them, correct? Your assessment of the book settlement is also deeply flawed and certainly not monopolistic (if you feel like scanning these books and obtaining a legal settlement, you have every right to do so) and Google has made every effort to contact the authors.

[bigpicture]

First of all it is not ?do no evil? which indicates an ?action? and therefore its measurement in terms of relative merit is very subjective. It is ?don?t be evil? which indicates ?personal intent?. If you don?t know the difference between these then to use an analogy: Jesus had the best of intentions toward the public but they crucified him as being an "evil" criminal along with two thieves.

Secondly the internet is going to be a primary tool of a future ?just society? (not to be controlled by the purveyors of disinformation, primarily the US Government) and that is why its control is finally in the hands of the global community. But Google does not own the internet infrastructure, Google sees its business model as the ?providing unrestricted access to content and information? (even disinformation) and this is too important of a public service to leave its future in the hands of idiot politicians and corrupt special interests lobbyists, who are all about generate revenue not by quality of product or by competitiveness in the marketplace, but by CONTROL.

They are lucky that I am not the CEO of Google or I would tell them to jamb their books where the sun don?t shine and then spend the next ten years through the corrupt legal system blocking their every attempt to market them. Because if you are going to make judgments about ?evil? the opposition to Google books IS ALL ABOUT GREED the American Way. But they are about to reap what they have sown (tried to export to the rest of the world) in a big way.

But then probably unlike the Google CEO I would meet ?evil intent? with ?evil intent and action?. Neither the ?do no evil? or the ?don?t be evil? would apply. PS. The ?don?t be evil? was just a euphemism for ?don?t be MS?.

[mibollma]

"Schmidt also claims that the print news industry is doomed, but neglects to mention that Google has had a large hand in dooming it. By aggregating the content, Google has diminished its value."

Wouldn't that mean that search engines destroy the webs value since they aggregate it?
I know it's the publishers argument but i can't follow you or them here.
The publishers are making the content available its not google forcing them to put anything online.