4 ms·

Most likely he was cast aside so Google can cozy up better with the Trump administration. Schmidt was close with the Clinton campaign, which Trump himself noted

Most likely he was cast aside so Google can cozy up better with the Trump administration. Schmidt was close with the Clinton campaign, which Trump himself noted when they met: http://www.siliconbeat.com/2017/12/22/time-right-eric-schmidt-leave-alphabet-chairman/ http://www.siliconbeat.com/2017/12/22/time-right-eric-schmid...

zitterbewegung 9y ago
Are you serious? Why can't it be that the CEO under performed and couldn't manage their increasing costs to pay Apple and Mozilla. Also, that they can't seem to sell consumer electronics unless they are low margin phones?
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  Because Schmidt isn't the CEO. (note that I also don't really think its politically motivated either, but that's certainly more likely than thinking that Alphabet is underperforming).
Aloha 9y ago
I think this conceptually holds as much water as a colander. Schmidt has been on his way out for a couple years - it appeared to have been part of a planned transition.
- alphonsegaston 9y ago
  I think he was on his way out to a post in the Clinton administration as Google’s man on the inside. He’s mentioned his political ambitions in several interviews/profiles. When that didn’t pan out, they didn’t see much use in keeping him around, especially in light of Trump’s penchant for grudges.
- somecontext 9y ago
  For some context, this article in the New York Times presents essentially the same theories/discussion: https://nytimes.com/2017/12/21/technology/eric-schmidt-google-alphabet.html https://nytimes.com/2017/12/21/technology/eric-schmidt-googl...
gkgicccj 9y ago
I don't necessarily agree but or at all but the downvotes have made this alternative opinion too light to read. Chill out people. Google isn't some benevolent entity. They've recently been on a hiring spree for Republican lobbyists (which most here consider much more evil than democrats). Personally I think both parties are not that different.
- eidjdnekwo 9y ago
  >Personally I think both parties are not that different. It frustrates me greatly to see comments like this. It's worth taking a moment to even briefly skim the official platforms of the two major parties. They are profoundly different on a enormous range of substantive issues and policies. Perhaps there are some issues on which the two parties agree, and certainly there are many political positions which neither party represents. That hardly means that the two parties are "not that different."
  - gkgicccj 9y ago
    It's not about policies. Policies are entirely different but equally self serving. I'm astounded that there are blacks living in ghettos but Nancy Pelosi shuts Govt down for people who are pondered to by speaking Spanish but paraded as having known no other culture and assimilated.
  - andrewflnr 9y ago
    The thing that makes them "not that different" is how they both make jokes of their official platforms by their actual decisions.
  - GhostVII 9y ago
    I kind of agree, in the sense that they are similarly ethical/reasonable. Their platforms couldn't be more different, but I don't see one party being evil and corrupt and the other party being good, which is what often seems to be the opinion online.
  - tyingq 9y ago
    That's true for many issues like taxes, entitlements, gun control, immigration, healthcare, abortion, environment, etc. However, it probably fair to say both parties have most candidates skewed to the middle on many of those issues. Lining up strongly with the party on all of those things doesn't win elections usually. And it's also fair to say both parties have members that will betray those base positions for wealth or power. I can see why someone would call them similar based on frustration with a two party system that rewards moderates.
taneq 9y ago
Suggesting, as that article does, that dating outside your marriage "in the age of #MeToo and the spotlight on sexual harassment in the workplace, might be problematic for Alphabet" is a heck of a leap. Leading a possibly non-monogamous lifestyle is sexual harrassment/assault? Wow.
- somecontext 9y ago
  The New York Times is happy to make that "heck of a leap" as well, albeit with slightly more cautious wording: https://nytimes.com/2017/12/21/technology/eric-schmidt-google-alphabet.html https://nytimes.com/2017/12/21/technology/eric-schmidt-googl...

zitterbewegung 9y ago

Are you serious? Why can't it be that the CEO under performed and couldn't manage their increasing costs to pay Apple and Mozilla. Also, that they can't seem to sell consumer electronics unless they are low margin phones?

joshuamorton 9y ago
Because Schmidt isn't the CEO. (note that I also don't really think its politically motivated either, but that's certainly more likely than thinking that Alphabet is underperforming).

Aloha 9y ago

I think this conceptually holds as much water as a colander. Schmidt has been on his way out for a couple years - it appeared to have been part of a planned transition.

alphonsegaston 9y ago
I think he was on his way out to a post in the Clinton administration as Google’s man on the inside. He’s mentioned his political ambitions in several interviews/profiles. When that didn’t pan out, they didn’t see much use in keeping him around, especially in light of Trump’s penchant for grudges.
somecontext 9y ago
For some context, this article in the New York Times presents essentially the same theories/discussion: https://nytimes.com/2017/12/21/technology/eric-schmidt-google-alphabet.html https://nytimes.com/2017/12/21/technology/eric-schmidt-googl...

gkgicccj 9y ago

I don't necessarily agree but or at all but the downvotes have made this alternative opinion too light to read. Chill out people. Google isn't some benevolent entity. They've recently been on a hiring spree for Republican lobbyists (which most here consider much more evil than democrats). Personally I think both parties are not that different.

eidjdnekwo 9y ago
>Personally I think both parties are not that different. It frustrates me greatly to see comments like this. It's worth taking a moment to even briefly skim the official platforms of the two major parties. They are profoundly different on a enormous range of substantive issues and policies. Perhaps there are some issues on which the two parties agree, and certainly there are many political positions which neither party represents. That hardly means that the two parties are "not that different."
- gkgicccj 9y ago
  It's not about policies. Policies are entirely different but equally self serving. I'm astounded that there are blacks living in ghettos but Nancy Pelosi shuts Govt down for people who are pondered to by speaking Spanish but paraded as having known no other culture and assimilated.
- andrewflnr 9y ago
  The thing that makes them "not that different" is how they both make jokes of their official platforms by their actual decisions.
- GhostVII 9y ago
  I kind of agree, in the sense that they are similarly ethical/reasonable. Their platforms couldn't be more different, but I don't see one party being evil and corrupt and the other party being good, which is what often seems to be the opinion online.
- tyingq 9y ago
  That's true for many issues like taxes, entitlements, gun control, immigration, healthcare, abortion, environment, etc. However, it probably fair to say both parties have most candidates skewed to the middle on many of those issues. Lining up strongly with the party on all of those things doesn't win elections usually. And it's also fair to say both parties have members that will betray those base positions for wealth or power. I can see why someone would call them similar based on frustration with a two party system that rewards moderates.

taneq 9y ago

Suggesting, as that article does, that dating outside your marriage "in the age of #MeToo and the spotlight on sexual harassment in the workplace, might be problematic for Alphabet" is a heck of a leap. Leading a possibly non-monogamous lifestyle is sexual harrassment/assault? Wow.

somecontext 9y ago
The New York Times is happy to make that "heck of a leap" as well, albeit with slightly more cautious wording: https://nytimes.com/2017/12/21/technology/eric-schmidt-google-alphabet.html https://nytimes.com/2017/12/21/technology/eric-schmidt-googl...