[Macworld.com]

Rick LePage says that while Eric Schmidt's addition to the Apple board is intriguing, it doesn't mean an Apple-Google marriage is in the offing. [more]

[Moof_in_Charge]

I am extremely disappointed by the writers view on the impact of Eric Schmidt's presence. I am further troubled by the parallel drawn between Google and Intuit. While in its own rights Intuit is a force in its market place, its market place is hardly that of Google, Google is a strategic fit, while Intuit is more complementary. For all the Author knows, the Intuit CEO is why Intuit bothers with the Mac at all!
You can be hard at work to try and draw a parallel between Intuit and Google, The excitement is not about simply making software titles to run on your Mac. The request for Googlepack for the Mac is absurd.
Having Google in your corner is a huge asset and to sit here and try and contemplate its magnitude with a shallow 500 word conclusion is a disservice to the Mac community and Apples direction.
Sorry to be harsh, but stop writing like youre inside your Mac looking out! This is not about software, products and cool. This goes beyond that!
Steve Jobs, YOU ROCK, this almost makes up for Scully /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[donikatz]

actually, i think Rick is right on with his cautioning. a board member of one company sitting on another's board happens all the time and does not necessarily mean any magical synergy is going to happen in the near future or at all. people are definitely overblowing this. that said, the article was pretty simplistic and more of a blog byte than i would have expected. still, much better than the above post which doesn't give a single example or back its argument at all.

[Chris Breen]

I'm with Rick on this one as well. Al Gore's on the Apple board. You seen Apple's environmental ratings lately?
The fact is, Steve Jobs is the power at Apple.

[griffman]

Hate to ring the "me too!" bell, but ... dinga dinga dinga. Who sits on your board has more to do with how you wish the company to appear to the public than it does with any behind the scenes deal making. In many ways, having someone on the baord from a potential partner is a bad thing -- it's a potential conflict of interest. If Steve brings an expensive but potentially industry-changing deal with Google to the board for approval, Eric would have to excuse himself from the voting, due to the conflict of interest (how can he vote impartially if approving some deal would mean mega millions for Google?).
-rob.

[uchuugaka]

ding ding ding, me too me too.
google is not exactly armed to the teeth with Cocoa programmers...
the site for their Dashboard widgets says they can't respond to feedback because they're so busy working on all 3 of those widgets, even thought they all mostly just leverage existing APIs... with Dashcode, their 1 cocoa programmer will be freed up a bit I hope. Though the intel switch probably has the attention of many Google geeks, I don't know if it dazzles them.

[booga]

Quote:

---

a unified front against the (in my opinion, overblown) hegemony of Microsoft

---

The only thing I disagree with is the parenthetical comment. For a company who has just sworn to dump billions of Windows and Office profit dollars into an anti-iPod venture for which they do not intend to make any immediate profit-- only attempt to hurt Apple, apparently-- I'm bothered by the dismissal of Microsoft's monopoly power. How can one compete against a company who has no interest in making profit because they can illegally leverage an existing monopoly? Anything that hurts Microsoft helps Apple at this point.

[Nobody]

Moof - I'm with you. Such small opinion pieces do not inform the readers. No investigative work, no serious background work, no "leg-work" . . . just one writer's short subjective opinion provides no quality information. One should expect more from Macworld.
The only Apple insiders who knows are the ones working INSIDE Apple - not wanna-be aPPLE insiders looking from the outside.
Jobs did not get Schmidt on the board alone. The board did - although Jobs is one of the eight members. Jobs is "just" the CEO. Not the chairman. On the surface Jobs does seem to be the "it" within the Apple walls. Regardless - legally speaking - Job's responsiblity is also to answer to Campbell and the Apple board with everything he sets in motion, and technically speaking the board can at its will kick Jobs to the curb when deemed appropriate . . . which it did once already. Historically Apple did bad without Jobs. One would think they would think twice before hiring and firing any members or executives now and in the future.
All other issues aside - just the synergy the Apple and Google brands collectively make up in the public or consumers eyes, may prove positive for both companies.

[Nobody]

Quote:

---

I'm with Rick on this one as well. Al Gore's on the Apple board. You seen Apple's environmental ratings lately?
The fact is, Steve Jobs is the power at Apple.

---

I understand your sentiment, but the fact is - Steve Jobs is just the CEO. Not the Chairman. Chairman Campbell is the power legally, technically and structurally.

[Chris Breen]

Quote:

---

Steve Jobs is just the CEO

---

Uh huh. Now let's imagine this scenario -- either Jobs or Campbell has to go. Which departure do you suppose will tank Apple's stock, bring forth a chorus of "Apple's through!" from the press, and elicit a general "now what!?" around the Apple campus?
Now tell me who has the real power.

[Nobody]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Steve Jobs is just the CEO

---

Uh huh. Now let's imagine this scenario -- either Jobs or Campbell has to go. Which departure do you suppose will tank Apple's stock, bring forth a chorus of "Apple's through!" from the press, and elicit a general "now what!?" around the Apple campus?
Now tell me who has the real power.

---

Let me repeat: Chairman Campbell IS THE power legally technically structurally. Apple is a public corporation. It follows the rules like every other corporation is supposed to. I am speaking in legal terms here.
Rockstar status is nothing over Campbells power and the board as a whole. Jobs is of course a board member, but that does not make him a singular power. If the directors were forced to vote Jobs or Campbell off the board, the board probably would ask Campbell to go (sitting outside looking in - my subjective op). However, the board may not do that -- remember the first time Jobs was fired by the board??? Then he was even the Chairman and CEO.
Jobs, however, is probably one of the main reasons Apple is doing well (my op), but he is not the only one steering and shaping the entire ship, and he has to answer every move he makes to the board and to Campbell legally, technically and structurally.
I personally believe that the media in general over the years has helped elevate Jobs to his "rockstar" position, and being Jobs he has not rejected that exposure. I think Jobs has been good for the brand and product he co-invented, and hope he will stay on forever (even as a ghost) for the company's benefit as a whole.

[Dan Frakes]

Quote:

---

that said, the article was pretty simplistic and more of a blog byte than i would have expected.

---

Quote:

---

Such small opinion pieces do not inform the readers. No investigative work, no serious background work, no "leg-work" . . . just one writer's short subjective opinion provides no quality information. One should expect more from Macworld.

---

Repeat after me: This was a blog entry... This was a blog entry... This was a blog entry... /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[McDavies]

What companies is Steve Jobs on the board of? Anyone know?

[griffman]

Other than Disney (via the Pixar purchase), I don't know.
-rob.