
Matt Cutts: Clarifying a couple points - pavs
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/clarifying-valleywag-comments/
======
jacquesm
> Suffice it to say, I don’t believe that Google “must sacrifice user privacy
> to grow.”

That may be so, the fact is though that google is already in the posession of
more privacy sensitive data than it probably should have.

So even if google may not need users to sacrifice more privacy in order to
grow, maybe they should focus on how to return some of their users privacy and
not shrink.

And the 'Eric Schimidt works for $1 / year' is a red herring, of course he
doesn't, it's just that tax on equity is lower than a tax on salary, which is
why plenty of big time CEOs and other high functionaries take a symbolic
salary.

Steve Jobs does just the same, Larry Ellison does too, and neither Jobs,
Ellison nor Schmidt are philanthropists so there is no need to try to portray
them as such.

It's just clever marketing and tax breaks.

~~~
dschobel
Practically speaking though, I doubt that another 200 or 300k in base salary
would make a dent in these guys' tax liabilities.

You also have to concede that it is conceptually appealing that their
compensation is directly tied to the performance of the company.

~~~
jacquesm
Their 'base salary' could be in the millions, and then it definitely does
start to make a difference.

I really think that given the amount of publicity around these 'symbolic'
salaries that it is really a marketing ploy.

"performance" of the company is in the hands of many people, not just the CEO,
that's just symbolism.

And it also is a risk to portray it as such because that would mean that if
the CEO should have an accident or become incapacitated that it would be
curtains for the company.

edit: in 2006, before the $1 symbolic payment Steve Jobs for instance took
home a whopping 647 million $US.

~~~
dschobel
The $647m figure was stock grants and he did indeed make $1 in base in 2006.

[http://www.forbes.com/2007/05/03/ceo-executive-
compensation-...](http://www.forbes.com/2007/05/03/ceo-executive-compensation-
lead-07ceo-cx_sd_0503ceocompensationintro_print.html)

Again, outside the finance world, 7 figure base salaries are quite rare.

~~~
jacquesm
Ah ok, the source I had was not splitting it out at all, just mentioned that
he had that much compensation. Thanks!

------
covercash
Heh, the title is a little link bait-y given the recent Mahalo debacle.

~~~
jacquesm
There wouldn't be much to 'clarify', only a single bit change somewhere in a
google table would do all the clarification needed.

Yes, we do enforce our terms of service across the line, and no there are no
exceptions even when there are investor ties between companies.

So much said with a single bit...

------
blasdel
I had no idea that Eric Schmidt had written lex!

~~~
ErrantX
I literally just learned this the other day (in that "create a programming
language" book posted on here). I always had the impression Schmidt was a
"business guy" - Lex is a very solid bit of engineering.

------
izendejas
I await his responses to my questions. My posts are stuck in the moderation
queue. Not sure how it works, but the timestamps on mine come before two he's
already approved/posted.

If he doesn't post my questions and address them, I'll share them here (via
screenshots). I am not attacking Google or him, I'm asking legitimate
questions about their opt-in by default policies, which I think do sacrifice a
privacy in the name of profits.

~~~
Matt_Cutts
Hi Ignacio, I was watching a movie with my wife, but I just approved your
comments. Here's what I replied to your comment over on my blog:

"I hope you guys can invest more on privacy and take the heat." Ignacio
Zendejas, I think Google has invested more on privacy than most other
companies. I'm not aware of any advertising company that has done as much on
the Google Ad Preferences page (e.g. to the point of writing a browser
extension to opt-out of ads even when people flush cookies). The Dashboard
page is also pretty rare in terms of bringing information into one spot.
Earlier this year we also flipped on default HTTPS for Gmail too. I'm not
aware of any other major webmail provider offering HTTPS after login
authentication, let alone turning HTTPS on for every Gmail user by default. It
takes a major investment to offer HTTPS by default, and it only costs money --
it doesn't generate any revenue for Google.

------
jasonwilk
I just did a simple search for Mahalo on the article. I didn't find it, so I'm
assuming my questions aren't going to be answered. fail

