or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google founders wanted to hire Steve Jobs as company's first CEO
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google founders wanted to hire Steve Jobs as company's first CEO

post #1 of 53
Thread Starter 
Google cofounders Larry Page and Sergey Brin considered hiring Apple CEO Steve Jobs as the company's first CEO, according to a new documentary.

After interviewing a dozen unsuitable candidates during Google's early years, Page and Brin went to meet Jobs, a personal "hero" of theirs. The pair then asked investor John Doerr, "Why can't he be our CEO?"

The anecdote comes from an episode on Page and Brin from the Bloomberg documentary series "Bloomberg Game Changers." Earlier this month, the Bloomberg series, which looks at "today's most influential leaders," aired an episode on Jobs.

Page and Brin eventually hired Eric Schmidt as the CEO in 2001. Schmidt later served on Apple's board of directors, until increasing competition between Google and Apple led Schmidt to resign in 2009. Google's entry into both the computer and mobile operating system markets caused a conflict of interest.

"Eric has been an excellent Board member for Apple, investing his valuable time, talent, passion and wisdom to help make Apple successful," Jobs said, in announcing Schmidt's resignation. "Unfortunately, as Google enters more of Apple's core businesses, with Android and now Chrome OS, Eric's effectiveness as an Apple Board member will be significantly diminished, since he will have to recuse himself from even larger portions of our meetings due to potential conflicts of interest. Therefore, we have mutually decided that now is the right time for Eric to resign his position on Apple's Board."

Though Apple and Google maintained a close working relationship for years, tension has developed between the two companies. According to The New York Times, Brin and Page considered Jobs a mentor of theirs and were regular visitors to Apple's Cupertino, Calif., campus, but the relationship allegedly turned sour when Google introduced Android, with Jobs left feeling betrayed. In July, Page accused Jobs of "rewriting history" through his suggestion that Google caused the animosity between the two companies.
post #2 of 53
Imagine what Google would be like if Steve Jobs ran the company.
"In March we told you 2011 would be the year of iPad 2, and it is, but we're starting 2012 early." - September 2011

~Ireland

Such a true sig
Reply
"In March we told you 2011 would be the year of iPad 2, and it is, but we're starting 2012 early." - September 2011

~Ireland

Such a true sig
Reply
post #3 of 53
I actually recorded that program last night and was shocked when I saw that. They said they couldn't have Steve Jobs as their CEO because they didn't think he would leave Apple to run Google.
post #4 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coolaaron88 View Post

Imagine what Google would be like if Steve Jobs ran the company.

He would never have accepted. But it would have 'looked' a lot better and been 'better' designed if he had. Did anyone see the docu on Jobs, by the way?
post #5 of 53
He won't have to leave Apple to run a search engine based company like Google once they get that cloud finished. They moved into one of his markets first, so I think turnabout will be fair game.
Just thinkin...
post #6 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coolaaron88 View Post

Imagine what Google would be like if Steve Jobs ran the company.

Self-centered and commercialized?
post #7 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

Self-centered and commercialized?

So, no different then.
post #8 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

Self-centered and commercialized?

Yeah. I am so happy that Google is others-centered and non-commercialized.
post #9 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coolaaron88 View Post

Imagine what Google would be like if Steve Jobs ran the company.

No Android fragmentation.

And they'd actually know how to do a UI.
post #10 of 53
Google's fine the way it is. We need some company to promote diversity. Like Apple did in 1984.
post #11 of 53
He was already well into the iCEO position at Apple. These guys were delusional to think Steve would want to head an online Search Engine company.

Schmidt matches their dull personalities, to a tee.
post #12 of 53
Steve went back to Apple, but really "Apple" was going to morph into NeXT, and Steve's ideas of a new Walkman. Which is exactly what happened. He would never have let Apple die, if they didn't invite him back he would have bought it when it was dead. No one had a chance to hire him, let alone Google.
post #13 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by crisss1205 View Post

I actually recorded that program last night and was shocked when I saw that. They said they couldn't have Steve Jobs as their CEO because they didn't think he would leave Apple to run Google.


I doubt he would have. I think running Apple is something sentimental to him. It's also revenge for kicking him out in the first place...
post #14 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

Self-centered and commercialized?

Google's not commercial? Apple products aren't geared towards customers? Get over yourself.
2011 13" 2.3 MBP, 2006 15" 2.16 MBP, iPhone 4, iPod Shuffle, AEBS, AppleTV2 with XBMC.
Reply
2011 13" 2.3 MBP, 2006 15" 2.16 MBP, iPhone 4, iPod Shuffle, AEBS, AppleTV2 with XBMC.
Reply
post #15 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore View Post

Google's not commercial? Apple products aren't geared towards customers? Get over yourself.

Google is much more egalitarian. Much like Apple was in 1984. But just like Apple, eventually Google will probably become the figure in the screen, rather than the hammer-thrower.
post #16 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coolaaron88 View Post

Imagine what Google would be like if Steve Jobs ran the company.

Yeah. Imagine a world where Java would actually be good. Or would Google be running on Objective-C?

Not sure that it would have worked though. Steve Jobs has always focused on products over services. Mac, Pixar Films, Next Cube, iPhone, iPad... then look at the services MobileMe... sure not bad, but most of the value is through integration with Apple products.
post #17 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Schmidt matches their dull personalities, to a tee.

Perfect comment mdriftmeyer!

Other than their stock price...I'm not that impressed with Google...I guess their Search is ok but all their other SW attempts pale in comparison to Apple...

Google's offerings are disjointed at best, albeit free! Thanks but no thanks.

Best



PS. Google is the Coca Cola of this generation and what do they sell..hmmm, crap!

PSS. What say you, Dick Applebaum, Quadra 610?
post #18 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

Google is much more egalitarian. Much like Apple was in 1984. But just like Apple, eventually Google will probably become the figure in the screen, rather than the hammer-thrower.

"Egalitarian" doesn't mean sweet f all. "Egalitarian" doesn't move product and doesn't do anything for anyone's bottom line. It's a philosophy. And it either translates into $$ or it doesn't. It either translates into a superior User Experience or it doesn't. Apple's philosophy has always been making tech that is user-centric. That hasn't changed.

If you're producing great products that customers love . . . then you're producing great products that customers love.

"Open", "closed" . . . makes no difference. Apple is the same as it was in 1984. They're just a lot bigger now and have taken the fundamentals that have made the Macintosh great and applied it to other products.

Apple has ALWAYS been a closed ecosystem. For example, originally, the hardware architecture of the Macintosh was so closely tied to Mac OS that it was impossible to boot an alternative operating system. The original Macintosh had no room for internal expansion options - no other cards or devices could be installed, nor could the graphics capabilities be upgraded. Actually, it took special tools just to get the case open.

In fact, Apple is more open *today* than it has ever been in the past. They support open web standards, pass technologies and code back into FreeBSD, and they support a variety of open source projects. The key to their success however, is maintaining tight control over aspects of their products that are critical to the user experience. Same as always. And this strategy works like a charm. It's a shame others are unable to follow suit and continue producing a lot of mediocre fluff and in some cases, downright garbage.

The only people worried and making a fuss about whether Apple is open or closed or slightly ajar is the usual geek contingent that infests Apple fan sites and tech sites at large, who assume that everyone else outside their bubble actually cares. The market at large doesn't care. All consumers want are great products that work, look good, and allow them to get things done in style as quickly as possible. That's all. All other considerations that are of a supposed higher order are really not in their field of view, nor do they need to be. They vote with their wallets at the end of the day, and they're opening them up to Apple in greater numbers each quarter. That's all that counts.
post #19 of 53
I was unaware "egalitarian" meant "intent on ceaselessly collecting as much information about everyone as humanly possible, by as many means as possible, all the time, everywhere, in order to sell it to advertisers so they might better burrow into our brains."

I wonder what "appalling amoral predatory bastards" means.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #20 of 53
the nerve of these two! Steve as CEO of Google?????

ARE THEY NUTS?????
post #21 of 53
Vote for steve jobs as businessperson of the year!


http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...oll/index.html
post #22 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by 801 View Post

They moved into one of his markets first, so I think turnabout will be fair game.

This is a piece of fiction that Jobs created and is now repeated by every Apple fan. Fact is that both companies decided to get into smartphones at about the same time (2005) - that was when Google bought Android and Apple started work on the iPhone.

Of course Apple came up with something original while Google at first copied the Blackberry and then later (when they realized that the iPhone design was the way to go) they copied Apple. You can accuse Google of being un-original but they certainly didn't "move into one of Apple's markets."

- HCE
post #23 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by HCE View Post

This is a piece of fiction that Jobs created and is now repeated by every Apple fan. Fact is that both companies decided to get into smartphones at about the same time (2005) - that was when Google bought Android and Apple started work on the iPhone.

Of course Apple came up with something original while Google at first copied the Blackberry and then later (when they realized that the iPhone design was the way to go) they copied Apple. You can accuse Google of being un-original but they certainly didn't "move into one of Apple's markets."

- HCE

You think Apple started the iPhone in 2005? They conceived, designed, wrote a completely new os inteface, fitted out production, and made carrier partnerships for a product category they had never been close to before in 2 years. I guess Jobs and Co. are bigger miracle workers than us lowly Apple zealots thought.
post #24 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

"Egalitarian" doesn't mean sweet f all. "Egalitarian" doesn't move product and doesn't do anything for anyone's bottom line. It's a philosophy. And it either translates into $$ or it doesn't. It either translates into a superior User Experience or it doesn't. Apple's philosophy has always been making tech that is user-centric. That hasn't changed.

If you're producing great products that customers love . . . then you're producing great products that customers love.

"Open", "closed" . . . makes no difference. Apple is the same as it was in 1984. They're just a lot bigger now and have taken the fundamentals that have made the Macintosh great and applied it to other products.

Apple has ALWAYS been a closed ecosystem. For example, originally, the hardware architecture of the Macintosh was so closely tied to Mac OS that it was impossible to boot an alternative operating system. The original Macintosh had no room for internal expansion options - no other cards or devices could be installed, nor could the graphics capabilities be upgraded. Actually, it took special tools just to get the case open.

In fact, Apple is more open *today* than it has ever been in the past. They support open web standards, pass technologies and code back into FreeBSD, and they support a variety of open source projects. The key to their success however, is maintaining tight control over aspects of their products that are critical to the user experience. Same as always. And this strategy works like a charm. It's a shame others are unable to follow suit and continue producing a lot of mediocre fluff and in some cases, downright garbage.

The only people worried and making a fuss about whether Apple is open or closed or slightly ajar is the usual geek contingent that infests Apple fan sites and tech sites at large, who assume that everyone else outside their bubble actually cares. The market at large doesn't care. All consumers want are great products that work, look good, and allow them to get things done in style as quickly as possible. That's all. All other considerations that are of a supposed higher order are really not in their field of view, nor do they need to be. They vote with their wallets at the end of the day, and they're opening them up to Apple in greater numbers each quarter. That's all that counts.


I think this is the most thoughtful and concise description of Apple I've seen.

There's more, though, to the Apple mystique!

I don't know if I can describe it in a way that does justice to what you have posted. The normal way, would be to intermingle my comments among yours -- in effect, chopping your post into pieces. That would defeat the purpose.

Rather, I think it is better to leave your post intact, and re-quote some of your points. It's almost as if you are telling a story, and I am whispering in your ear "be sure and tell them this, too..."


"Apple's philosophy has always been making tech that is user-centric. That hasn't changed."

Whisper: Apple releases the best products they can, with the best [mass-produceable] technology, the best timing, and the best price/value available -- with an inferred promise of more to come, Rather than implement something badly, or lacking style -- Apple will do nothing at all -- or just leave those bits out.



"If you're producing great products that customers love . . . then you're producing great products that customers love. "

Whisper: With Apple, many are buying a brand, and implicitly supporting Apple to continue to produce products that they will love and buy.



"All consumers want are great products that work, look good, and allow them to get things done in style as quickly as possible. That's all."

Whisper: With an Apple product the customer gets a well-made product that does its job with style -- and "well-made, with style" are always in fashion. It seems as if Apple is daring the customer to become vested in the Apple Ecosystem and even invested in AAPL.


.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #25 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by HCE View Post

This is a piece of fiction that Jobs created and is now repeated by every Apple fan. Fact is that both companies decided to get into smartphones at about the same time (2005) - that was when Google bought Android and Apple started work on the iPhone.

Of course Apple came up with something original while Google at first copied the Blackberry and then later (when they realized that the iPhone design was the way to go) they copied Apple. You can accuse Google of being un-original but they certainly didn't "move into one of Apple's markets."

- HCE

STFU



Yes, that's exactly what you said, but how can you dismiss it as if it wasn't important? They moved into Touchscreen Smartphones AND copied Apple in the process. It's no piece of fiction really.

iPhone 4S 64GB, Black, soon to be sold in favor of a Nokia Lumia 920
Early 2010 MacBook Pro 2.4GHz, soon to be replaced with a Retina MacBook Pro, or an Asus U500

Reply

iPhone 4S 64GB, Black, soon to be sold in favor of a Nokia Lumia 920
Early 2010 MacBook Pro 2.4GHz, soon to be replaced with a Retina MacBook Pro, or an Asus U500

Reply
post #26 of 53
instead they just put Shmidt on the board and stole ideas!!
post #27 of 53
I love how you all are experts on exactly what Jobs was thinking at the time. How the fuck do you know he would have bought apple if it collapsed and not made him CEO? Bloody hell, this forum is actually full of morons that cannot take an objective viewpoint on anything
post #28 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

PS. Google is the Coca Cola of this generation and what do they sell..hmmm, crap!

And they sell TONS of that "crap" worldwide.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #29 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by 801 View Post

He won't have to leave Apple to run a search engine based company like Google once they get that cloud finished. They moved into one of his markets first, so I think turnabout will be fair game.
Just thinkin...

In search, the hardware is trivial. It is all in the software and the database.

Building hardware will not make Apple competent in search.
post #30 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

No Android fragmentation.

.

C'mon. iOS is currently fragmented. You need the right version for your particular device. Not all software will run on all iOS devices.

It even impacts iTunes. Look at your app library. It is split into fragments: "Iphone, iPod Touch and iPad Apps" are first, and then the apps start again, alphabetically, with "iPhone and iPod touch Apps". So to find the app you are looking for, you need to look in two different places.

I don't own an iPod Touch or an iPad, and yet my apps are in fragmented irrelevant categories. If I did own an iPad, likely I'd have software that worked with the iPad, but would not work with any of my other iOS devices.
post #31 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-J View Post

C'mon. iOS is currently fragmented. You need the right version for your particular device. Not all software will run on all iOS devices. It even impacts iTunes. Look at your app library. It is split into fragments: "Iphone, iPod Touch and iPad Apps" are first, and then the apps start again, alphabetically, with "iPhone and iPod touch Apps". So to find the app you are looking for, you need to look in two different places.

I don't own an iPod Touch or an iPad, and yet my apps are in fragmented irrelevant categories. I wish that iOS were only one, rather than being fragmented as it currently is.

Android would fare no better if Jobs were in charge.

To state, in light of android, that iOS is "fragmented" is very, very stupid.
post #32 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuisDias View Post

To state, in light of android, that iOS is "fragmented" is very, very stupid.

But to think that iOS is not fragmented is to deny reality.
post #33 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-J View Post

But to think that iOS is not fragmented is to deny reality.

Sure, but the issue is not fragmentation per se, but fragmentation as a problem, and the problem within iOS is pretty much minimal, next to non-existent. Everything is very clear, all apps will tell you if it works in your phone, ipod or ipad or not, every phone has been updated to the latest iOS, etc.

In android, there is also a push towards bringing older phones to the latest android builds, but it's not that big, it's usually very cumbersome and late, etc. The fact that the most share of android is of the latest builds is more due to the fact that smartphone sales are booming rather than good software support from the moment you buy the phone.
post #34 of 53
I don't think Steve is a one-size-fits-all CEO . . . put him in any company and it has Apple-like success? Apple is his creature and he is its. Look at his record while out of Apple. He continued to show he had good instincts by creating the NeXT OS and buying Pixar. But NeXT had nowhere to go until he and it reunited with Apple.

To look at this from the opposite angle, consider the hired gun CEOs that stood in Steve's place while he was gone. None of them was able to do what Steve did when he came back to where he belonged. Steve and Apple? Joined at the hip.

He might have been an okay CEO at Google, but I think he would have pushed it in a NeXTerly direction and/or got bored and left.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #35 of 53
Talk about 'rewriting history.' I think this is a lie to elevate their position.

Google, you're the new Microsoft. Don't pretend otherwise.
post #36 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye in Fla View Post

You think Apple started the iPhone in 2005? They conceived, designed, wrote a completely new os inteface, fitted out production, and made carrier partnerships for a product category they had never been close to before in 2 years. I guess Jobs and Co. are bigger miracle workers than us lowly Apple zealots thought.

Please google "Wired iPhone article". You'll find an article from Wired magazine that talks about the history of the iPhone. As per that article (and other sources), Apple started work on the iPhone in February 2005.

- HCE
post #37 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by davesw View Post

Vote for steve jobs as businessperson of the year!


http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...oll/index.html

Huh? Where's Ballmer in the tournament bracket? I couldn't find his name?
post #38 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by HCE View Post

Please google "Wired iPhone article". You'll find an article from Wired magazine that talks about the history of the iPhone. As per that article (and other sources), Apple started work on the iPhone in February 2005.

- HCE

From the article you linked (emphasis mine):

Quote:
February 2005, he got together with Cingular to discuss a Motorola-free partnership. At the top-secret meeting in a midtown Manhattan hotel, Jobs laid out his plans before a handful of Cingular senior execs, including Sigman. ... Jobs had reason to be confident. Apple's hardware engineers had spent about a year working on touchscreen technology for a tablet PC and had convinced him that they could build a similar interface for a phone.

and

Quote:
Since 2002, when the idea for an Apple phone was first hatched, mobile chips had grown more capable and could theoretically now support some version of the famous Macintosh OS.

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #39 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukeskymac View Post

STFU



Yes, that's exactly what you said, but how can you dismiss it as if it wasn't important? They moved into Touchscreen Smartphones AND copied Apple in the process. It's no piece of fiction really.

The difference is that Steve Jobs seems to imply that Google somehow betrayed Apple by moving into the smartphone space after Apple. The fact is that both companies tried to get into that market at about the same time - only thing was that Apple's approach was innovative and Google's approach was derivative.

- HCE
post #40 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

From the article you linked (emphasis mine):



and



.

It does not count how long Apple had been playing around with touchscreen technologies. The actual work on the phone started in 2005. It is also quite likely that Google were planning their entry into smartphones some time before 2005 as well. What matters is that they bought Android in 2005.

There is nothing particularly controversial in the point I am making. I just don't buy the "google betrayed apple" accusations. I fully accept that Google copied the iPhone.

- HCE
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google founders wanted to hire Steve Jobs as company's first CEO