
Eric Schmidt: On April 4th I Will Step Down, Larry Page to be CEO - andre3k1
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/update-from-chairman.html
======
moultano
From my (very limited) perspective, this seems to be mostly publicly
clarifying the roles they were already effectively serving in their ad hoc
division of labor for a while.

Larry has been the most involved in the technology details, Sergey has been
the most involved in the blue-sky new projects, and Eric has been the most
involved in the interaction between Google and other entities (as well as very
high level direction.)

~~~
powrtoch
Agreed. It seems like it may just be a PR move... Larry doesn't have Eric's
growing reputation for slight creepiness. People might like the idea (whether
it's true or not) that he's the one making all the calls.

~~~
leoc
But on the other side of the coin, this makes it a bit harder for Good Czar
Larry to hide behind nasty old Eric Schmidt whenever Google does something
inept or morally questionable.

~~~
borism
well maybe that's the point?

~~~
mmaunder
I'm reminded of the quote "If you have something that you don't want anyone to
know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.".

~~~
angstrom
Santa Clause?

~~~
raganwald
You can't fool me, there ain't no Sanity Clause--Chico Marx, "A Night at the
Opera"

------
scrame
From a programmer nerd, Schmidt has the most enviable resume.

The entrepreneurs admire Jobs and Gates, but Schmidt worked his way through
Bell labs, PARC, managed the release of Java, was CTO of Sun, CEO of Novell,
and brought google from a well executed grad school project to dominate the
internet. He turned down a job with the Obama administration to be the
governments CTO.

He also did all that as an academic, after getting a Ph.D. from Berkeley.

He has gotten some bad press doing PR for google recently, but the man has
been kicking ass in enviable positions since I was a toddler.

After all that, yeah, good on him. Take some time off.

~~~
smikhanov
Absolutely. Would like to add that he has never been a founder, always a hired
gun.

~~~
scrame
Yep, he's on the short list (with Ballmer) of people who are billionaires
through stock grants without being co-founders or heirs.

------
kloncks
Great tweet from Eric Schmidt on the subject:

 _Day-to-day adult supervision no longer needed_

~~~
DanielRibeiro
The link for the tweet:
<http://twitter.com/#!/ericschmidt/status/28196946376130560>

This one was the best satirical one:

 _Larry Page has just ousted Eric Schmidt as Mayor of Google on
@foursquare.<http://bit.ly/hQGNRe> _

Link: <http://twitter.com/#!/pourmecoffee/status/28198140209270784>

~~~
bl4k
A foursquare joke? what is this, 2010?

------
gokhan
Bell Labs, Xerox PARC, Sun (CTO), Novell (CEO), Google (CEO)... Quite
impressive.

 _As indicated by page 29 of Google's 2004 S-1 Filing Eric Schmidt, Page, and
Brin run Google as a triumvirate. Eric Schmidt possesses the legal
responsibilities typically assigned to the CEO of a public company and focuses
on management of the vice presidents and the sales organization._
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt>)

Google was always a different company. And we should not evaluate this move as
if HP's CEO is stepping down, or IBM's etc. After all this time, I believe
Larry can make it. Interesting times.

------
dirtyaura
Great news! I'm definitely a Larry fan, this means that Google will continue
do crazy, risky, potentially world-changing projects in the future too.

------
lionhearted
Most underrated executive of all time? Google's been incredible under his
tenure, blown away the wildest projects, and yet Schmidt's press has been kind
of neutral to bad... actually, that doubly sucks because it seems like people
get upset when he says true-but-uncomfortable things instead of just giving
politically correct non-answers.

I think as time passes, his reputation's going to grow even more... that was
one of the greatest decades of any company ever.

~~~
greyman
Hmm, I feel differently. My basic perception is that under his rule, Google
somehow lost its focus and transitioned from the indispensable service to just
a product company. Put another way, currently it is easier to live without
Google that it was 10 years ago (but to be fair, I can't say if that is due or
despite Schmidt's leadership).

~~~
NickPollard
Isn't Search pretty much the only thing Google was known for before Schmidt's
tenure? Everything from Gmail to Android to Chrome to Maps to Self-driving
cars has been developed whilst Schmidt was CEO.

When Schmidt joined, Google was a search company. A damn good search company,
but still just search. Now they're a phenomenally influential technology
company, who's products affect billions of lives every day. The fact that they
didn't just sit on piles of cash but have used it to revolutionize field after
field of endeavour is a striking achievement in diversification.

~~~
greyman
I agree with what you say, and I also don't want to play down Google's
achievement. I just wanted to say that imho currently Google doesn't own any
technology that would be truly indispensable - for any of their product, I can
use competitor product without losing that much value.

Yes, 10 years ago they were "still just search," because that was the
indispensable way to navigate the internet, it was a core technology. During
the last five years, the focus has shifted so "just search" is not that
important anymore, but Google somehow didn't evolve, but instead has been
developing new and new products. And while some of them are very good, in the
future they all can be replaced by the competition. Google is just not
essential for the Internet anymore, or at least that's my feeling.

~~~
horia314
And it's a good thing for us that this is the case. Every time we say we wish
a company dominated a field (like many of us say regarding Apple or Google) we
basically say we wish it to be a monopoly, or close to it. For the most part,
Google has grown in search, maybe not as fast as it did in it's beginnings,
but grown none-the-less. It's competitors have grown as well, and maybe that's
one of the reasons it doesn't seem like it's doing such a good job :
competition is stronger and the difference between search results is not the
way it used to be. Again, for me, this is a good thing, and we should be so
lucky, to have globally, 5 or 10 companies duking it out in each major
technology field, where we currently have 2 or 3 evolving incrementally.

------
scottkrager
I wonder if this has more to do with media relations than anything else.

Schmidt had some major media slips & blunders in 2010, it just doesn't seem to
be his thing.

------
dusing
Seems like Larry is done with CEO school, and ready to lead his company. It
would have been hard to get this far without Eric Schmidt

~~~
jacquesm
Who knows where they might have been, it could even have been better.

~~~
bl4k
They probably would have never made a dollar, but it would have been _awesome_

(btw, Larry and Sergey bought Android without telling Eric, to give you an
idea of what could have been)

~~~
maxawaytoolong
That's pretty interesting. Do you have a cite? Android (the company) was
essentially designed as something to sell to Google. I wonder if the guys at
Android bypassed Schmidt because they knew he'd be a tougher sell.

~~~
bl4k
He said it during a press event in New York. There were ppl live blogging in
the room but somehow nobody picked up that part of what he said, but I
remember at least one person tweeting it.

He said it in passing, while talking about the Google mobile strategy (the
summary of what he said was "we sort of fell into this business, nobody really
understands it just yet (mobile ads) or how big the opportunity will be")

I agree Android was setting itself up for an acquisition, same as what happen
with Danger. They were probably aiming for a carrier or large non-Apple
manufacturer.

~~~
jemfinch
So there was press, lots of live-blogging witnesses, and what would be an
incredibly interesting statement by Eric Schmidt, and you can't find any
record of it?

I'm sorry, but the most likely theory in this case seems to me to be that
you're misremembering things, than somehow a whole room of other people were
simultaneously rendered incapable of recording or publishing a very
interesting quote from Eric.

------
redstripe
No mention if he keeps his role of Chief Dismisser of Privacy Concerns

~~~
haberman
This meme is based on a few isolated and misinterpreted quotations. Let's take
an earnings call, where we would expect him to be showing his true colors as
someone who purportedly doesn't care about privacy:

Q: How does Google think generally about leveraging user data, both to better
target ads and how to stay competitive with those like Facebook and Microsoft
and Yahoo that are leveraging data possibly more so than what Google is today?
And I think this is particularly relevant for using search data for your
display business but, would love to get your thoughts on that.

Eric Schmidt: "We have a pretty strong opinion that we're not going to do very
much of it. The reason is that we take our end-user data privacy incredibly
seriously and the trust that people have with respect to giving us that
information, both their search histories as well as other pieces of
information, they get very upset, very, very quickly if we, in their view,
misuse it.

"So, what we typically tell people is we're not going to do the kinds of
things that you could do with this, in particular use it to generate sort of
strange ads against your history and things like that, without your explicit
permission. And we probably, in many cases, won't do it forever."

\--Q3 2010 Earnings Call, October 14, 2010 [http://www.123jump.com/earnings-
calls/Google-Q3-Earnings-Cal...](http://www.123jump.com/earnings-
calls/Google-Q3-Earnings-Call-Transcript/41199/281)

This kind of quotation doesn't get press, but it's essential if you really
want to get a balanced picture of what Eric says about privacy.

~~~
nocman
"... And we probably, in many cases, won't do it forever."

You will have to excuse me for not being terribly excited about the words
"probably" and "in many cases".

He sounds to me like someone who is saying exactly what he thinks people want
him to say, and then throwing in a couple of qualifiers that pretty much leave
the company open to doing whatever they decide to do in the future. If someone
calls Him on it, well he did say "probably", and "in many cases"

Now I don't know Eric Schmidt from Adam, but I did watch the interview where
he said "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you
shouldn't be doing it in the first place." (yes, I listened to it in context,
the quote is not the only part I heard). While that quote perhaps does not
mean all that people have made it out to mean, I still find it deeply
disturbing -- especially coming from the (now "former") CEO of a company which
is in such a great position to abuse their collected information if they
decide to.

Yes, perhaps Schmidt was only trying to cover the company's collective rear
end for when federal laws require them to disclose information, but if so, He
has done an extremely poor job of convincing me (and obviously many others in
the world) that such was his intention.

~~~
haberman
> You will have to excuse me for not being terribly excited about the words
> "probably" and "in many cases".

He said categorically that it would not happen without the user's permission.
And then went on to further say that it probably would not happen at all (even
_with_ the user's permission). The last sentence was further _limiting_ the
scope of what Google will do, not expanding it.

> He sounds to me like someone who is saying exactly what he thinks people
> want him to say

He is talking to investors, not privacy advocates. He is saying the opposite
of what investors want to hear. Investors would want him to say "we are
sitting on a high-value treasure trove of marketing information, and of course
we will use it to enhance the value of our ads products whenever we can."
Instead he is saying exactly the opposite of what would increase Google's
perceived value.

> Yes, perhaps Schmidt was only trying to cover the company's collective rear
> end for when federal laws require them to disclose information, but if so,
> He has done an extremely poor job of convincing me (and obviously many
> others in the world) that such was his intention.

What about the fact that his very next sentence was: "If you really need that
kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines -- including Google -- do
retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we
are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible
that all that information could be made available to the authorities."

Google is not the only search engine that keeps logs, and any US company that
keeps logs is subject to government subpoenas. This is reality. If Eric or any
other search engine CEO told you differently, they'd be lying to you.

~~~
nocman
Sorry, I just got back to this thread.

> > You will have to excuse me for not being terribly excited about the words
> "probably" and "in many cases".

> He said categorically that it would not happen without the user's
> permission. And then went on to further say that it probably would not
> happen at all (even with the user's permission). The last sentence was
> further limiting the scope of what Google will do, not expanding it.

That totally depends on how you read that entire (2 short paragraph) response
-- you can take it with an optimists viewpoint and say he really is saying
they have no intention of ever abusing that information. But I'm sorry, if
that truly was his intent he chose his words _very_ poorly. "And we probably,
in many cases, won't do it forever." can easily be taken to be applied to his
entire comment, and that doesn't inspire confidence in me that I can take his
comments for what I perceive he _wants_ me to take them to mean.

Yeah, I'd like to live in a world where I can take the word of business
executives at face value, and never be concerned that what they appear to be
saying may not be what they are actually saying. However, life experience has
shown that the world I live in is not such a world.

> > He sounds to me like someone who is saying exactly what he thinks people
> want him to say

> He is talking to investors, not privacy advocates. He is saying the opposite
> of what investors want to hear. Investors would want him to say "we are
> sitting on a high-value treasure trove of marketing information, and of
> course we will use it to enhance the value of our ads products whenever we
> can." Instead he is saying exactly the opposite of what would increase
> Google's perceived value.

Regardless of the audience that was immediately before him, Schmidt knows his
words will be out in public view. I was not arguing that he was telling
investors what they wanted to hear, I was arguing that he could be telling
users of Google's search engine what they want to hear. If you are trying to
project the message that Google won't abuse data they've collected about you
regarding your browsing habits, as a Google executive, you will try to make it
sound like that is true no matter what forum you are in -- if there is
significant chance that the public will hear about it. I still say there is a
decent chance of Schmidt wanting to have it both ways here -- wanting the
public to believe Google won't abuse the data, but still leaving the
possibility that they can change their policy in the future (while, of course,
intending the public to believe that that will never ever happen).

> > Yes, perhaps Schmidt was only trying to cover the company's collective
> rear end for when federal laws require them to disclose information, but if
> so, He has done an extremely poor job of convincing me (and obviously many
> others in the world) that such was his intention.

> What about the fact that his very next sentence was: "If you really need
> that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines -- including Google
> -- do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example,
> that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is
> possible that all that information could be made available to the
> authorities."

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say here. I wasn't arguing that
Schmidt was not trying to cover Google's legal responsibilities (in fact, I
totally agree that he _was_ trying to do that). I was arguing that he has not
convinced me that covering said responsibilities was the _only_ thing he was
trying to do (I put the "only" in the first part of the first sentence, I
should have also said "only intention" at the end of the second sentence).
Bottom line is I am not convinced that Schmidt has zero intentions of allowing
Google to exploit data gathered about individual's use of Google's search
engine (and anything they can tie that use to) for financial gain.

------
ntoshev
I like the image of the self-driving car he chose as an illustration of who
drives Google.

------
bluegene
Leaders of the two major players, Apple and Google, are taking a back seat now
at the same time. It'll be an interesting watch from here

~~~
brudgers
The difference is that Google will be run by a founder (again). That's not the
case with Apple, where no matter how its spun, Jobs leave is generally
perceived as a negative. Given the way the Apple announcement was handled, it
would not surprise me if their timing was in part to steal Google's thunder.

~~~
hugh3
That gives me a great idea. Woz for CEO!

~~~
yannickt
Woz would be terrible as a CEO.

~~~
brudgers
Maybe Ron Wayne is available. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/25/ron-
wayne-apples-lo...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/25/ron-wayne-apples-
lost-fou_n_625657.html)

------
alexandros
I wonder if this was in the plan all along. Schmidt acting as front-man until
one of the founders has learned enough and garnered enough respect to credibly
take over.

------
sterling
I'm sorry, but this is not "publicly clarifying" anything. This new is huge.
My guess at the real reason is this: Google created and continues to dominate
the global market for low-priced ads - but it isn't doing enough to retain
that dominance by either innovating in search, developing content networks
(like Facebook or Amazon) or by taking control of new platforms (which is hard
to do).

~~~
cyrus_
They took control of the Youtube content network. They serve the ads for most
of the world's biggest websites, and they have a solid foothold in mobile. I
don't think Google is in any trouble.

They really just need to make a compelling social product that appeals to the
masses, not just tech geeks.

I suspect Schmidt dropped the ball on buying Twitter at some point, and Buzz,
Wave, etc. were all duds. He's great at selling ads, so they've put him in
charge of that while the cofounders work on future product development.

------
staunch
> _Sergey['s]....title will be Co-Founder._

I can just imagine the conversation. "So, Sergey, you're okay with Larry
taking the CEO title, what will yours be?"

"You can call me 'Co-Founder', bitch"

~~~
hugh3
If I were Sergey, I'd make sure that my title was just "Sergey".

~~~
staunch
I just think it's funny that they probably wanted Sergey to pick a standard
big company management title for the press release, like "President of
Products" or similar. He went with "Co-Founder".

~~~
hugh3
Any standard big-company management title other than "CEO" or "Chairman of the
Board" is beneath CEO level.

"Co-founder" makes it clear what his position is: power without any official
duties. Pretty sweet deal.

~~~
bl4k
His first request was "Super Co-Founder"

~~~
dougk7
I love the way Google functions in respect to top management

------
evolve
Despite the cordial collaborative tone of the blog post, it seems the picture,
taken today, tells it's own story.

Forget for a moment who is who and just consider the picture.

There are two dudes in the 'self driving car', sitting in-sync with arms wide
open. There is also another guy with crossed arms who is next to, but not in,
the 'self driving car'.

Can you guess where Eric is in the picture?

Review the picture again and make your own conclusions..

[http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_7ZYqYi4xigk/TTirzCdsGgI/AAAAAAAAHW...](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_7ZYqYi4xigk/TTirzCdsGgI/AAAAAAAAHW0/syTLBoNuYJg/s1600/L100288-clean.jpg)

------
andrewljohnson
I bet this means Eric is on his way out. He'll stay on for a year or so, so as
not to rattle investors, and then he'll leave the company.

~~~
Devilboy
I doubt it, he's too young to be doing nothing. He'll come to his senses and
stay on!

~~~
andrewljohnson
After I posted this comment, the New Yorker came out with an article quoting
an insider who agrees with me. It's a pretty straightforward thing... happens
all the time.

------
eapen
Me thinks Eric Schmidt will replace Steve Jobs (for now) to restore confidence
in Apple when Steve steps down.

~~~
redthrowaway
He's not leaving Google, or at least there's no indication that's the case.
They're just refocusing on their strengths. Also, why on Earth would Jobs want
that? That'd be like grooming Gates to take over for him when Scully fired
him.

Jobs will find a product guy to take over, and that's not Schmidt.

~~~
eapen
Schmidt was previously an Apple board member and had to resign due to conflict
of interest but he is capable of restoring stockholder confidence once Steve
Jobs steps down. He would still have to resign from Google if he took the
position (which his current statement doesn't support) but I don't expect an
equally capable product guy to replace Steve. Schmidt could also help
facilitate strategic relationships between the two companies again.

------
toisanji
I wonder how much of this is due to some of the bad decisions Eric Schmidt has
made with google.

~~~
mdwrigh2
What decisions made by Eric Schmidt would you consider "bad"?

~~~
siglesias
Leading a decade of mediocre home-grown products (save for Gmail)?

EDIT: Name one hit Google product Schmidt oversaw (again, save for Gmail) that
wasn't an acquisition. This is supposed to be a company of innovation.

EDIT 2: I regret the use of mediocre. I'm sure the technology, like everything
that comes out of Google, was top notch. Certain products though, like Buzz,
Wave, and TV, and the bizarrely bifurcated-from-Android Chrome OS, lacked a
degree of oversight and discipline before launch that ended up hurting their
brand in the space of consumer products. I also think something to consider is
that this culture of acquisition has to be very bad for their employee
turnover rate.

~~~
jonknee
Being able to execute upon acquisitions and bring them to Google-scale is
nothing to scoff at. Example, Android. Despite the Gruber's of the world
thinking it is an iPhone rip off, Google made the acquisition (of a very small
company--the Android we know today was quite simply built by Google) in 2005.

Update: Also, thought of a few... Translate, Chrome, Talk, and Reader. I'm
sure there are more, definitely if you include ones based on acquisitions
(Analytics, Earth, Apps, etc).

~~~
spullara
You have seen Android pre-iPhone, right? At that time it was a Blackberry
ripoff.

<http://news.cnet.com/2300-1037_3-6230132.html>

------
siglesias
Tried and true: founders make terrific CEOs.

EDIT, Context being tech: Hastings, Ellison, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Jobs, Gates.
I'd say Google was a company in the spirit of these before WorldCom, Enron and
Countrywide Financial.

~~~
jonknee
Except when they don't... Angelo Mozilo, Bernie Ebbers and Ken Lay (among many
others) come to mind.

~~~
siglesias
Bravo on conjuring a list of relevant counterexamples. Surely boards on
product companies will look to the Enron scandal when assessing whether a
founder has the competence or vision to lead a company.

~~~
jonknee
They are criminally liable to do the due diligence assessments to make sure
the books aren't being cooked, so yes I would hope at minimum the board is
actively trying to prevent an Enron.

~~~
siglesias
No, what was pertinent to the discussion was whether vision outweighs direct
experience in this industry, which is not entirely obvious. I would say that
vision is a trait that is generalizable to technology startup founders. Your
counterexamples reference accounting fraud, the proclivity of which is not
tied or correlated in a significant way to being a founder. A valid
counterexample would reference the need for experience trumping vision in a
startup founder's performance as CEO.

~~~
jonknee
Simply put, you said "founders make terrific CEOs". That's just not true. Some
do, some don't (because they steal, manage poorly, whatever).

~~~
siglesias
You took what I said out of context and used cases of criminal accounting
fraud as counterexamples. That's totally missing my point, which was pointing
to character traits that founders have that outsiders with more traditional
experience lack. The discussion of experience versus vision in tech leadership
is critically important and worth exploring in a deep way.

You weren't pointing to traits specific to founders when you replied. You took
a very broad interpretation of what I was saying and provided a counter to
that broad interpretation. There's nothing particularly insightful or relevant
in doing that.

------
dmoney
My guess is this is aimed at stopping Google from hemorrhaging engineers in
Facebook's general direction. "Look, we've got a programmer in charge again!"

~~~
donaq
Eric Schmidt _is_ a programmer. He was one of the authors of lex.

------
gwern
Farewell, Eric! As you slowly leave Google with your $5.5 billion, we'll
always remember you for... for.... uh, those thingies you did so well.

------
ry0ohki
I just can't picture Larry as CEO of one of the largest corporations in the
world, I'm frankly surprised he'd want this!

~~~
rpetrov
Me neither. He's obviously amazingly talented, however, he has always struck
me as shy/inarticulate/"slow"

Watch this talk he gave a couple years ago:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFb2rvmrahc>

Doesn't strike me as CEO material, especially for a company like Google.

~~~
anigbrowl
He doesn't come across to me that way, but I see what you're getting at. He's
not overtly charismatic or a gifted orator, but he has so much substance that
he can demand the patience and consideration of his listeners - and I think
this gives him important leverage in conversations with financial analysts on
earnings calls, and suchlike. In recent years the concept of leadership seems
to have become constricted into a narrow spectrum with motivational speakers
at one end and General Patton at the other.

Good link in other respects too: an insightful look into his priorities,
motivations, and thinking patterns. The insight and ideas that he inherited
from his father are particularly interesting, and worthwhile. While visions of
a better world over the long term have to be tempered by present promises to
shareholders, I think it's important to be able to articulate the purpose and
goals of a firm beyond simply maximizing quarterly growth.

On a related note, here's a 2001 Charlie Rose interview where Larry Page &
Sergey Brin discuss what it's like to run a search engine that handles 100m
queries per day, and more importantly why they had just brought Eric Schmidt
on board. <http://www.charlierose.com/view/content/3017>

------
bakbak
I guess Google is going to be more focused on PR (and lobbying) and will be
way more aggressive than ever before - in simple lingo , they wont take
anymore bullshit (from all sort of heavy weight and nasty competitors) and
even more than that they will stop them even before they think to do anything
against google ...

Don't be Evil to Customers and Shareholders !!!

But be as Evil as possible if (and Only if) someone tries to screw you !!!

~~~
bakbak
i would appreciate courtesy if you explain your reasoning for downvoting me
.... Eric Schmidt now a dedicated resource, he will be strong force for
external PR also he will see that no one gets Evil to Google and their vision
(which is not to be evil to other) provided everyone plays a fair game ...

------
barredo
Does Eric Schmidt steps down because Larry Page is a more open standard as a
CEO?

------
stevenp
Hopefully this is not another "Jerry Yang as new CEO of Yahoo!" thing.

------
coverband
I think one of the two founders just wants more face time...

------
brown9-2
I've always wondered when a change in the "triumvirate" would happen and what
impact it would have on public perception of Google, but somehow I also
imagined it would be one of the co-founders leaving the company first.

------
erikstarck
Why April 4th? Symmetric date. Hidden meaning? :)

~~~
jtbigwoo
Many companies set their calendars using 13-week quarters. April 4 is the
fourteenth Monday of the year.

------
slowpoison
How much I wanted the date to be 3 days earlier!

------
jgervin
Is looking to fill the vacancy at Apple?

------
dikkat
Eric is joining Apple when Steve leaves.

------
arrowoftime
His Page rank just went from 1 to 1.

------
jw84
Sometimes people switch out from being CEO to being chairman because it's just
more fun being the globe-trotting-jet-setting-lunching-with-Obama guy
schmoozing and closing deals and partnerships than being the tedious
micromanager.

Just saying.

But it's also fun to fantasize, speculate, and gossip about really rich and
important people.

~~~
Tycho
It's the 'problems we'd like to have.'

------
yanw
Wow. Back to the original CEO then.

Eric is still around and filling an important role (basically doing what he
used to mostly do, he just doesn't have to sit in on earnings calls anymore):

 _Eric Schmidt will assume the role of Executive Chairman, focusing externally
on deals, partnerships, customers and broader business relationships,
government outreach and technology thought leadership--all of which are
increasingly important given Google's global reach. Internally, he will
continue to act as an advisor to Larry and Sergey._

~~~
bootload
_"'we’ve only touched one percent of what' social can be within search."_

Brin was quoted above in the google earnings address, _"We’ve Touched 1
Percent Of What Social Search Can Be"_ ~
[http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/20/sergey-brin-weve-
touched-1-...](http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/20/sergey-brin-weve-
touched-1-percent-of-what-social-search-can-be/)

 _"... Eric is still around and filling an important role ..."_

I think this could be a bigger adjustment than you think. Google under Schmidt
has not gained ground on social search and in effect dropped the ball. An
important lesson running a product on the open Internet. Google with the
massive financial and technical lead can loose ground and revenue to
competitors.

------
napierzaza
But you still know all my secrets? Or is it Larry Page from now on?

------
rottendevice
My birthday present!

~~~
ebaysucks
Happy Birthday!

------
chollida1
Larry becoming CEO sounds like the same path that Bill Gates had.

Found a company and become it's CEO.

When it's time for the company to "grow up", bring in a well respected CEO who
can structure the company for growth and stability while teaching the young
founder.

When the founder has learned the ropes he takes over again as CEO.

~~~
johns
Gates was CEO from the beginning of Microsoft until he became Chief Software
Architect prior to his retirement. Ballmer became CEO after Gates. There was
never a gap between founding and CSA where someone else was CEO of MS.

~~~
chollida1
Hmm how about that, it looks like you are correct:)

I though John Shirley was the CEO for most of the 80's:)

------
sdoowpilihp
My initial reaction was that this was just another Google April fools joke.

~~~
helium
I think it needs to be the 1st of April for it to be an April fools joke,
right?

~~~
cperciva
For most of us, yes. If Google wants to do an April fools joke on April 4th,
all they need to do is edit the index so that the top result returned for
"April fools date" claims that April fools' day is April 4th.

~~~
BrandonM
That would actually be a great April Fools' Day joke for Google, to change a
few obscure indexes, especially one related to April Fools'.

