
The day Google founders asked Steve Jobs to be CEO - lotusleaf1987
http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/36534/google-bosses-wanted-apple-boss
======
ecommercematt
This "article" is misleading. The video which this link-bait inaccurately
describes states "they visited Steve Jobs just to meet him because he was a
hero of theirs and they said to John Doerr after the meeting 'Why can't he be
our CEO?'" (The section of the video pertaining to the CEO hiring starts
around the 24 minute mark.)

The video makes it seem as if that question was basically a joke and also that
it wasn't ever directly posed to Steve Jobs. I resent being lied to by the
puff piece, but it is interesting to think about how such an outcome would
have changed things (bmelton's thoughts being an example).

------
kainhighwind
Wow, how flattering to Schmidt.

I'm not terribly fond of him, personally.

Not surprised that Jobs was unwilling to give up a hardware business. The
profit margins might be worse but it's less volatile.

~~~
philwelch
_Not surprised that Jobs was unwilling to give up a hardware business._

I'm not surprised Jobs was unwilling to give up a business he built (twice!)
for a business someone else built.

------
bmelton
Google would, quite obviously, be a VERY different company with Jobs on board,
and I honestly doubt that Google would be anywhere NEAR as close to
'cataloging the world's information' as they are now with Jobs in charge.

Google has been quite happy to acquire when it made more sense than building
it in-house.

Google has been quite happy to spread into entirely new markets. Apple shares
this, sort of, but all their growth has gone into media markets, and Google
has gone into some VERY un-sexy spaces.

Google is more than happy to throw together a minimum viable product and
release it, as they have with Wave, GMail, their numerous other 'beta'
programs, etc. I can only imagine how much Jobs would have slowed this
process, making sure that everything was just perfect.

Mostly though, Google has way too many pots for Jobs to have had his hand on
everything, which likely means that they wouldn't be shipping a tenth of what
they are.

Apple's release schedule is slow, but generally worth the wait -- Google
'ships early, ships often', as so many of us advocate, sometimes to great
success, and sometimes to early failures.

In many ways, Google still operates like a start-up, and Apple, in my opinion,
does not.

~~~
lotusleaf1987
I agree with everything you said except the fact where you said that Apple
doesn't act as a start-up, see here:
[http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/jun2010/id20100...](http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/jun2010/id20100610_525759.htm)

Apple has refocused their strategy on core products, in contrast to Google.
Encouraged openness and debate. And finally, created cohesion across business
units. Apple is a different beast than Google, but I don't think that because
they operate in differing ways that makes one more of a start-up than another.

~~~
bmelton
Perhaps I misspoke, but I essentially meant it in regards to the way they
launch new products. In more ways than not, Google is ultramegacorp. They're
buying companies left and right, striking deals with Telecoms and sitting on
who-knows-how-many companies' boards.

But, when it comes to launching something new, they definitely have no qualms
about throwing the proverbial pasta against the metaphorical wall, and seeing
if it sticks, hypothetically.

