MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

The future looks interesting which ever way you look at it. Apple inc. without Google and Google without Apple inc.

Will Google manage to keep its development curve without the osmosis of ideas seeping in from Apple as a result of that seat?

Will Apple considers Googles interests if that seat is gone?

Does Apple need Google to champion its Webkit development?

Does Google need Webkit or will they go and develop their own system?

Questions, questions and lots more questions....

Answers, answers and lots more answers...But....who will provide them? I wonder

agree w/ mdn take for most part BUT Google is a pretty powerful partner to have & their are definitely benefits to having them aboard. If he is privy to trade secrets/technical data that would help Google that should be addressed though..

Having said that, i don't see Schmidt as being an unethical person..maybe i'm just being naive

Jul 10, 09 - 08:07 am Comment from: ron

Why have the expense of a board member who cannot attend many of the meetings. Save the money for your investors Apple.

This is interesting, I think that Google may be able to do to Microsoft what Microsoft was afraid of Netscape doing to them, making the operating system almost irrelevant. And... there's no way for MS to kill them off with anti-competitive actions. Bet they're sweating in Redmond.

Jul 10, 09 - 08:19 am Comment from: aaplsaur

@Ron

AAPL doesn't give money to its investors.

Jul 10, 09 - 08:37 am Comment from: Demon

Schmidt needs to go and if he doesn't see it then he's just stupid.

Google should work with Apple to sell a Google PC version of Mac OS X ..

Jul 10, 09 - 08:57 am Comment from: Steveeee

Hey man, don't you think the guys at Apple are stupid? Let them decide whether Schmidt stay or go, OK?

Jul 10, 09 - 08:58 am Comment from: cwa107

Although I agree with the MDN take, I don't think most people understand what the Google OS is or why it doesn't directly compete with either Windows or OS X.

The Google OS will essentially be a minimalistic Linux kernel that has just enough power to launch the Google Chrome browser, which will act as the user interface. There will not be a desktop as we understand it today. Everything will be web based, your start page will probably be a variation of iGoogle. All apps will be web apps and likely driven by Google Gears for offline accessibility.

This OS is basically tailor made for the low-end market to bundle with netbooks both big and small. Apple doesn't play to that market, and Microsoft will probably be edged out of it.

Regardless, I don't think Eric Schmidt should step down for that reason alone. I do agree that when Android was initially released, that would have been the right time, as Android is direct competition for the iPhone and mimics a lot of the iPhone marketing strategy.

Just my $0.02.

Jul 10, 09 - 08:59 am Comment from: Wha

Schmidt doesn't need to be on Apple's board in order for Google and Apple to collaborate on technologies. They can still have communication without Apple having to spill all of their beans to a now competitior.. can I ask why can't Apple have someone on Googles board, too?

The future of most computing will be done via a web browser and the heavy processor lifting done either at home or office, or using someone else's servers. Like Apple's new server farm or Googles.

This is because processors can't be made to go any faster or house many more cores because of the heat issue.

So say goodbye to GPU's and hello to integrated graphics combined with low power processors for ultra thin MacBook Airs with no hard drive, no SSD, no superdrive and on board RAM/storage and SDXC and USB 3 ports.

Also of course it could work over a improved 3G network as only the results and requests need to be transfered over the 3G network, not the processing power.

So as the shift of processing power will go from your computer to "their cloud" or even to your own computer at home via Xgrid or something.

Apple and Google are working together to bring this future around.

It will limit what one can do with a mobile computer, set to what apps "they" will allow you to use. Mobile office apps etc.

If you want more, you have to buy a home computer in addition to the mobile computer.

Jul 10, 09 - 09:11 am Comment from: MacTony

It would be like having Ballmer on the the board.

"This is because processors can't be made to go any faster or house many more cores because of the heat issue."

You just declared the end of the age of Moore's Law, and, of course, you are wrong. If this were true, it was headline news everywhere.

Maybe I am not enough of a visionary to see why Chrome will be the next great thing. From what I understand you operate a system that is essentially in a cloud. That is all great and everything for syncing everything but what if there are clear skies (no connection to cloud)? Because of this, Chrome seems like a secondary OS. An OS you would essentially run in your browser. If that is the case then I would think it would be best for Apple and Google to cooperate with each other. It would kind of be like iPhone plus Android, together they chip away faster at the phones that already have a big head start in market share, yet of the two the iPhone is more dominant. I think this would be true as well for an OS, they both chip away at Windows faster together, yet of the two I would think/hope Apple would maintain a lead on Google.

Jul 10, 09 - 09:45 am Comment from: DogGone

I imagine Google already having the basics of an operating system up and running. They have Android which could be based on that.

There is potential for Google to have a lite OS for netbooks etc and snatch that market from M$.

I could also see Apple doing the same thing. They already have the OSX for the iPhone and Snow Leopard will apparently be smaller in size.

The killer for M$ would be if Apple developed a system for running PC apps in OSX. How many people / businesses would jump ship if they could use their old legacy PC programs on a Mac? Parallels is okay, I use it everyday for work but I still can't get copy and paste to work between the two systems.

Jul 10, 09 - 10:20 am Comment from: twilightmoon

"Schmidt should have been gone the day Android was announced. If Schmidt and Apple fail to do the right thing and Schmidt remains on the next ballot for Apple's board, shareholders should vote against Eric Schmidt."

Because of course MDN knows more about why Apple wants people on its board than Apple does.

As far as "decreasing the competition between them" seriously? That's the best argument people can come up with? And does it really look like Google is holding back their "competition" ?

Schmidt (if he was a ethical person) should have gone BEFORE they announced a operating system. The minute Google made the decision to do a OS he should've removed himself. Meanwhile he's sitting on the board at Apple and nobody's asking for his head. Fox meet Henhouse.

Jul 10, 09 - 10:59 am Comment from: Olmecmystic

For me, I don't mind Schmidt being on the Apple board for now. The reason is look at the number of things that have come out of Apple and Google since he came on board that are a pain in M$'s ass. The question becomes, "Can the pace of those things continue even with Eric Schmidt not on Apple's board any more?"

This new thing, the Chrome OS, targeted directly at netbooks is a shot across M$'s bow and I love it. Apple and Google are taking the new markets (smartphones/netbooks) away from M$ before M$ can dominate and monopolize them. Even if Vista SP2/Windoze 7 is a smashing success, so what? That's old school. What is M$ doing in the new areas of computing (mobile/the cloud)? (Cue the crickets sound effects).

Whether Schmidt continues on Apple's board or not, I don't want the attacks on M$ from above and below to stop. M$ thinks Google is the problem and here comes Apple with the iPhone/iPod touch. Then they start running commercials against Apple and along comes Google announcing the Chrome OS.

Are there any chairs left to throw in Redmond?

Peace.
Olmecmystic

Doesn't the board keep minutes for the meetings? Seems like if Schmidt is recusing himself for the talk through, he would still get the complete information via the minutes. Time for him to leave.

Jul 10, 09 - 12:14 pm Comment from: NCIceman

For balance, put Jobs or Cook on Goggle's board. Otherwise he should go.

I think Apple knows what it's doing- if he's there, there's a good reason. What surprises me, though, is that since he's there, why are we still waiting for Google's browser? Maybe Apple prefers to limit the major competition to Safari with just Firefox.

As John Gruber noted over at Daring Fireball earlier this week, “I don’t understand why so many outsiders are concerned about this. If Steve Jobs and the other members of Apple’s board think Schmidt’s spot on the board poses a competitive conflict of interest, they’ll ask him to leave. If they don’t, then what’s the problem? Does [anyone] really believe he has a better grasp of Apple’s competitive position versus Google than Jobs? Does [anyone] think Jobs is too shy or polite to confront Schmidt?”

Jul 10, 09 - 10:19 pm Comment from: The Other Steve

Schmidt has known about Chrome OS for some time all the while sitting in on Apple board meetings that he shouldn't have been anywhere near.

The only thing NEW is that Schmidt and Google have come clean.

The other side of me keeps saying "but Steve Jobs want's him," but this is just too big.

Jul 11, 09 - 01:38 am Comment from: G4Dualie

It's time for schmidt to leave the rink.

Here is a novel idea...why not substitute Schmidt with Ballmer? Ballmer would be a great asset to Apple no doubt.