Eric Schmidt's hypothetical "evil room"
Imagining life at Bizarro Google.
Schmidt says consumers would revolt if Google started acting evil. Photo: Google
On Wednesday morning Google (GOOG) CEO Eric Schmidt and co-founder Sergey Brin met with a group of reporters and talked about a number of issues, from the outages its Gmail service has experienced to its efforts to digitize books to the company's culture.
Schmidt repeatedly deflected questions about the competition, saying Google prefers to focus on, well, Google. (In response to a question about Microsoft (MSFT) CEO Steve Ballmer's assertion that adoption of Google's Chrome operating system amounts to little more than a "rounding error," Schmidt quipped: "I don't respond to Steve Ballmer questions.")
But Schmidt did offer a long explanation of why Google isn't Microsoft — like when it comes to hemming customers in to its technologies and systems.
"There are many, many reasons why we are not going to be like Microsoft," he said. "The first has to do with the culture of the founders, the culture of the company, the value systems.
"The second has to do with the majority of the users, and usage is one click away from moving to a competitor, which is not true of more embedded platforms in high tech. It is very difficult to move out your database system, it is very difficult to move out of Windows, for technological reasons whereas it is quite easy to move out of these online services."
He then began a riff on Google's "Don't be evil" motto, in which he talked about a hypothetical world, let's call it Bizarro Google, in which the executives decided to use their power for the dark side. "If somehow we went into a room with the evil light…and we announced an evil strategy, we would be destroyed," he said. "There is a fundamental trust relationship between Google and its users."
Schmidt added: “We have not yet found the evil room on our campus."
Schmidt and Brin cited example after example of how the company fights for consumers, and how innovation at Google has unlocked new products and services in entire industries. A favorite example is Google's Android operating system for mobile devices. (The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Dell (DELL) will build a mobile phone for AT&T (T) using the Android platform.) Brin noted that it wasn't until Google released its software development kit for Android — a set of tools that allow developers to create applications for Android-powered phones — that Apple (AAPL) enabled third parties to build applications for the iPhone.
But whether such pro-consumer behavior means Google is always on the side of angels is a topic that the tech giant's competitors would gladly debate.
Does Google really believe that they spurred Apple on to develop iPhone SDK? Android was announced in November 2007; Apple declared their intention to provide a third-party SDK the month before.
And trying to steal the copyright of every non-American author via US courts is not evil? Google is the quintessential example of a Jedi Knight who has succumbed to the dark side of the force and now seeks to rule all.
Google's relationship with China is evil…
…but even worse is the kind of rationalization that led them to believe it's not.
But it should already be clear in the way that Mr. Schmidt conducts his interview (sanctimoniously refusing to answer whatever questions he pleases ) that as with many corporate executives reality is simply whatever Mr. Schmidt wants it to be.
Give me a company that sells cigarettes and guns any day over a company that fools itself into believing it's something it's not.
At least the former is honest about what it does.
There is nothing hypothetical about google's evil room.
From blatent plagiarism, first of web content and now of books, google's mission is to steal the intellectual property of the entire planet and present it as if owns it.
Add to this that most of it's ad revenue comes from the equivalent of Craig's List adult services ads and you see there is really no question where google stands.
For google's customers, the goodwill comes from the free not from the 'do no evil'
Not sure why you guys are slamming google. They start projects and give them out to the public for no cost to better the world. I dont see any other companys giving anything out/researching unless its so they can get tax cuts. Good on em once agian.
not evil?
Caving into the demands of censorship of the Chinese governement and turing over user data
extreme evil
The comments pretty much reinforce for me that conspiracy theorists are apparently incapable of rational thought. This article is about Google's "Do No Evil" motto. The press conference was probably a bit longer than the snippets of information provided in the article. Do you see the difference?
Blogging is ruining journalistic integrity, and the geeky masses are losing their reputation for discerning intellect.
I see, somehow violating copyright laws is not a violation of trust. (Have you ever looked at the books on google? There are very large sections of the books, not just a few pages – thus the lawsuits.)
"Brin noted that it wasn't until Google released its software development kit for Android — a set of tools that allow developers to create applications for Android-powered phones — that Apple (AAPL) enabled third parties to build applications for the iPhone."
Did Brin also note that Windows based mobile devices already supported 3rd party applications? Great innovation! Who would have thought, an OS that includes a kit for developers!
I find this laughable. Not evil? How about data mining?
Just read a few of Google's EULA's and the "Do no evil" motto goes right out the door. Their Google Chrome EULA is a perfect example. They force you to have it auto-updated. You're technically not allowed to use Chrome unless you allow it to be auto-updated. Nothing on my PC auto-updates because that's how things BREAK! They also state that in the future they may put ads IN THE BROWSER itself. Their EULA's go on from there. Do yourself a favor and actually read the EULA's for once. They're quite enlightening.
"Do no evil" my tail end. They're just like every other large corporation. In the end it all comes down to money and if they have to stomp on the little guy they won't care.
Hmmm,
Can't find an evil room in any of your houses? That's funny. If all your houses lack windows, perhaps you need to turn on a light or two.
It appears this comment was removed. I've posted it back and give the author credit!
Schmidt and Bren, here's what's Bizarro, it involves your first proposed acquisition of a publicly traded company. Under NDA, you hide your customer relationship with them for over a year. You cap the stock price at your low ball offer, while 36 hours later they announce their first ever profitable quarter. You forbid them from shopping the company for a fair price. You forbid them from licensing their VP8 tech to other new customers. How does this deal fly…..I'll tell you how. In your 'most evil' deed in this deal, you serve millions to the interim CEO, board members and key engineers with employment contracts, retention bonuses, severance payments, vesting existing BOD options, purchasing BOD restricted shares and then add grants of thousands of GOOG restricted stock units….all of this to gain their stamp of approval on the paltry offer. Google, you have clearly used your power to put the screws to On2 shareholders and these backroom deeds will get world wide attention. This will put a bright light on what is indeed an 'evil strategy'. Here's a flash for you, in On2 shareholders, there is NO fundamental trust in ANYTHING Google!
Posted By Bruce, Auburn Hills, MI: October 7, 2009 9:05 PM
It's not their fault about what happened at YouTube before they acquired YouTube (google "The Fourth YouTuber") — and I don't really blame Brin, specifically, but whose fault is it when Google erodes privacy and enables criminal activity? If we don't hold them responsible, then who IS responsible for that sort of "evil" that, indeed, Google does.
Schmidt and Bren, here's what's Bizarro, it involves your first proposed acquisition of a publicly traded company. Under NDA, you hide your customer relationship with them for over a year. You cap the stock price at your low ball offer, while 36 hours later they announce their first ever profitable quarter. You forbid them from shopping the company for a fair price. You forbid them from licensing their VP8 tech to other new customers. How does this deal fly…..I'll tell you how. In your 'most evil' deed in this deal, you serve millions to the interim CEO, board members and key engineers with employment contracts, retention bonuses, severance payments, vesting existing BOD options, purchasing BOD restricted shares and then add grants of thousands of GOOG restricted stock units….all of this to gain their stamp of approval on the paltry offer. Google, you have clearly used your power to put the screws to On2 shareholders and these backroom deeds will get world wide attention. This will put a bright light on what is indeed an 'evil strategy'. Here's a flash for you, in On2 shareholders, there is NO fundamental trust in ANYTHING Google!
Interesting that Eric Schmidt needs to spend significant time explaining why Google is not *really* evil…
Could it be related to the significant negative press they are receving on SideWiki, as well as the controversial Google book deal?
By not allowing On2 to announce a Google as a customer from 2005 forward, and a host of other indiscretions…not the least of which is screwing On2 shareholders with a shorted down .60 per share offer..Ole Schmidt shouldn't have to look too far to find the Evil Room, unless he's visually impaired…
All tech companies are in business of making money and they use all sort of strategies to win customers and partners. Google is no different than Apple or Microsoft or IBM. In fact Google gets more aggressive in making money then most other companies