BrandDunk

Andy Beal wrote a really good piece in today’s Marketing Pilgrim that “translated” Google CEO’s interview answers into their true meaning.  A few of the better excerpts are below, and here is the link to read the entire piece.  The scary thing is how spot on Andy’s translation was of Schmidt’s answers, he takes the spin off everything he said.

I love the innovations that come from Google, but it really seems that Google is slowly (slowly, I said) morphing into Microsoft.  You know, the big, powerful, all-knowing corporation that controls our online experience experience and costs us tons of money.  This is the thing that Google has always tried not to be, but I’m not sure they can avoid going in that direction even if they do continue to innovate.

I like Microsoft too, but you have to admit they always cast in the role of “mean, evil corporate giant” to Google’s “we’re a really cool company” and Apple’s “we’re a really, really cool company”.  Testament to Google morphing into the next Microsoft, I am actually a little nervous to critcize Google (in this case passing along some humor at the expense of their CEO) on the open internet.  I hope Google doesn’t decide to drop my site (or TC) from their searching rankings.

– Below is from Andy Beal’s site Marketing Pilgrim–

Please let us forget “don’t be evil”

Schmidt said “Don’t be evil” is meant to provoke internal debate over what constitutes ethical corporate behavior, rather than representing an absolute moral position.

“We don’t have an ‘Evilmeter’ we can sort of apply — you know — what is good and what is evil,” Schmidt said

Marissa Mayer said much the same back in April, and it appears that Google would rather we let it off the “evil” hook. It seems like “don’t be evil” was great for Google, while it was a young start-up, looking for publicity, but now it’s all grown-up, it’s clear the motto restricts Google too much. My question to Schmidt is this; why is Google so keen to step away from “don’t be evil?”

Stop calling us a “one trick pony”

Schmidt reaffirmed that the company’s primary goal is not to make money selling ads, whether it is banner ads or ads on Web searches, online video, TV and mobile phones.

“The goal of the company is not to monetize everything, the goal is to change the world … We don’t start from monetization. We start from the perspective of what problems do we have,” he said

OK, I’m scratching my head on this one. I mean, seriously. Does Google really expect us to believe that the company’s primary goal is not making money? If that’s the case, why isn’t Google.org the main focus? Why not give away all of its profits to countries that need more than just personalized search? Things like water and food are a little more useful than a search engine that remembers you like Italian food.

We prefer an independent weak Yahoo

“We think an independent Yahoo is better for competition, for innovation and so forth,” Schmidt said.

…and besides, if Yahoo and Microsoft merged, the combined entity would dampen our plans to make money change the world.

I’ll spy stay on the Apple board for as long as I can

Still, Schmidt reiterated that he must occasionally be excused from Apple board meetings…”I’ve only done this once or twice, so it’s not as common as it sounds,” Schmidt said.

Schmidt was asked whether the increasing competition between Apple and Google on the mobile front might ultimately prompt his resignation from Apple’s board. “It has not so far,” he said.

Schmidt maintains that Google’s Android will be “quite different” from Apple’s iPhone. Still, it will be tough for Schmidt to remain on Apple’s board, once Android is nipping at iPhone’s heels.”