Google founders wanted to hire Steve Jobs as company's first CEO
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.
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.
Comments
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?
Just thinkin...
Imagine what Google would be like if Steve Jobs ran the company.
Self-centered and commercialized?
Self-centered and commercialized?
So, no different then.
Self-centered and commercialized?
Yeah. I am so happy that Google is others-centered and non-commercialized.
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.
Schmidt matches their dull personalities, to a tee.
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...
Self-centered and commercialized?
Google's not commercial? Apple products aren't geared towards customers? Get over yourself.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I wonder what "appalling amoral predatory bastards" means.
ARE THEY NUTS?????
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...oll/index.html