4 ms·

Matt Cutts: Clarifying a couple points

23 points by pavs 17y ago

jacquesm 17y ago
> 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 17y ago
  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 17y ago
    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 17y ago
      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-lead-07ceo-cx_sd_0503ceocompensationintro_print.html http://www.forbes.com/2007/05/03/ceo-executive-compensation-... Again, outside the finance world, 7 figure base salaries are quite rare.
      - jacquesm 17y ago
        Ah ok, the source I had was not splitting it out at all, just mentioned that he had that much compensation. Thanks!
covercash 17y ago
Heh, the title is a little link bait-y given the recent Mahalo debacle.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  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 17y ago
I had no idea that Eric Schmidt had written lex!
- ErrantX 17y ago
  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.
jasonwilk 17y ago
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
izendejas 17y ago
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 17y ago
  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.

23 points by pavs 17y ago

> 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 17y ago
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 17y ago
  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 17y ago
    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-lead-07ceo-cx_sd_0503ceocompensationintro_print.html http://www.forbes.com/2007/05/03/ceo-executive-compensation-... Again, outside the finance world, 7 figure base salaries are quite rare.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      Ah ok, the source I had was not splitting it out at all, just mentioned that he had that much compensation. Thanks!

covercash 17y ago

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

jacquesm 17y ago
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 17y ago

I had no idea that Eric Schmidt had written lex!

ErrantX 17y ago
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.

jasonwilk 17y ago

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

izendejas 17y ago

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 17y ago
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.