Charlie Rose

yrogerg123  05/02/2009 04:21 AM Report

That was an excellent interview. Schmidt is a really interesting guy. You can't help but be optimistic about the future when you listen to just how knowledgeable he is about the world's trends. For a CEO of one of the world's more successful companies, he's way more interested in talking about the state of the country and the world at large, and his optimism is very refreshing. Awesome.

GOOGLE1984GMAILKGB  04/09/2009 01:55 AM Report

The truth is that GMAIL is the Nouveau KGB Snoop Tool CIRCA 2009 United States. CARE OF: Alberto Gonzales School of Justice and Paybacks. GMAIL ROUTINELY SNOOPS ON YOUR EMAIL!! Watch YouTube!

veggie_lover  03/12/2009 10:55 AM Report

Maybe it is just me , but I never click on online ads. I find most irrelevant and annoying. When I shop online, I usually buy from amazon.com based on the customer reviews, or I go to niche online forums to see what products the experts their recommend. If I do click on an online google ad, it is usually by accident!

I suspect many advertisers are using google adwords just to try it out. I too tried them out for my online business, but abandoned it after testing it for a year. I had much better success by focusing on getting my pages to rank higher in the normal search listings. I suspect with the recession depening, many businesses are going to pull the plug with google ads to save money.

I do realize there are some businesses that are succeeding with google ads. But the whole system seems very hit or miss. This is not exactly the kind of prooven business model that is the hallmark of a successful and established corporation.

In conclusion, I think google is a bubble waiting to burst. I can't stand all their self aggrandizing products and services. I wish they would just focus on what their customers want and not on what they think the internet should be.

pxlpark  03/11/2009 12:44 PM Report

@REMant spot on.

While Mr. Schmidt came across as a very intelligent, personally I could not figure for the life of me why he looked so smug, considering it is not as if Google hasn't been one of the biggest wastes of resources and technology ever seen, outside of defense contracting.

They are ahead not because of some elegant, brilliant or clever evolution, but simply like the Russian space program, if you through that much money at a lawnmower, and if you strap enough fuel to it, it too will get into space.

davidhagar  03/10/2009 04:52 AM Report

One of the things discussed was Google auto-generating questions before an interview. I wonder if there is interest in having viewers suggest questions before an interview? Maybe a twitter post or email to send everyone to a pre-interview web page. Wouldn't even have to be too far in advance, just an hour or so.

ShalomFreedman  03/10/2009 03:30 AM Report

On the one hand it was a pleasure to listen to Eric Schmidt update on recent Google and other technological developments. On the other hand he was given the present global economic situation a bit too optimistic to be true. He spoke about the massive wealth- creation which the new Information Era has brought about. But he should also have said a word about the fifty trillion plus lost in the last part of 2008, the Meltdown which is going to bring much much suffering in the world. He was also glib in speaking about the nuclear proliferation threat, the world terror threat.

esantoro  03/09/2009 07:03 PM Report

Ditto what REMant has written. Bravo! Bravo!

REMant, can you recommend some reading that helps to articulate further many of the points you bring up in your recent post below?

I dislike Schmidt's naivete, intentional or unintentional, as well. He raises the issue of how it is possible that much of this technology can impede deep critical thinking and comprehension but simply assumes that the same technology will provide assistance in that regard, meanwhile the various bells, hoops, and whistles that Google must create to attract advertisers will simultaneously distract netizens from greater critical awareness of how to function the best one can in this burgeoning Brave New World. And I wish Charlie would stop referring to such tools as the "Best and the Brightest," for doing so assumes a specious truth that very well may not be the case. I'm sure the elites of Nazi Germany were also considered the "Best and the Brightest" of their generation.

We need real leadership in this country. The folks who have made Google into the search engine that it is have done a great job, but that great technical skill stands apart from the dubious business ethics which Schmidt prattles on about.

It's very educational to listen to people like Schmidt and pay attention to what they leave out of the conversation out of either ignorance, unwitting socialization, or conscious intent.

I would like just once for Charlie to have a follow-up interview with a guest who brings up credible claims against such narratives.

To get the ball rolling, and to help Charlie out the next time he asks "Why didn't anyone see this coming?" this is worth considering:

Gore's _The Assault on Reason_

And here is an article I think bears some relevance:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/20/adam_curtis_interview/

infogypsy  03/09/2009 05:58 PM Report

What a great interview! It's very refreshing to hear someone speak who says things like "people always want to loo for what's wrong' (that's a paraphrase) - I very much appreciate his clear, direct thinking. Keep putting on guests who are creating rather than reporting on the discourses of life.

REMant  03/09/2009 02:49 PM Report

I dislike this guy, who strikes me as unctious and very much in a West Coast mold that conflates doing good with personal gain, and have typically Whiggish notions about progress and primitivism. Regarding the latter, only children entertain the idea that each successive generation improves the world. This is Progressive education with a vengeance. I don't, for instance, think students invent much of anything. But I do think they are part of what has been an important demographic for established business.

Since Google is a business like many others whose services depend to a great degree on a lack of understanding, it makes little sense either to say that its goal is education. Education does not increase the div of labor; it increases individual ability. Statistical or collective intelligence are indeed different, but historically, statistical research has been used by Whigs to further their agenda, and has hardly been objective, asking questions like how can we stop prejudice or poverty, rather than what are they and why do they exist. In a word the whole idea is Orwellian.

Thursday I asked how you searched for news and the answer appears to be that you can't, but rely on the expression of opinion through social networking sites, which at least given the excess of funds they have at present, removes any restraint and is dangerous. Lately they have become the focus of attention for Trojans and other malware, as well. If news becomes delivered in this way we will have reverted to the purely subjective papers of centuries ago, a trend I already see happening in the print media, itself.

Google has also caused an explosion of bogus and useless sites aimed only at the delivery of ads, which they try to counter by searching and ranking and so the utilitarian side of what they do is completely at odds with the money side.

With regard to some other utterances:

The increase in computing power has seemingly only served to allow less efficient programs to be written and wouldn't be needed with better written programs. Computer prices remain amazingly stable, as they do for many other goods, because demand and inflation are usually kept in balance by the Fed for just that purpose.

The Cuban missile crisis did not occur because of bad communication between the US and the USSR, but because the American defense establishment didn't follow the president's orders and remove missles from Turkey, and because some Americans have insisted on isolating Cuba. I don't see social networking improving that, anymore than I see the US improving Cuban lives were it to be gone tomorrow.

The US is better off in this downturn, yes, but that's because the centralization of banking and business brought about by the profligate creation of money and credit in the interest of American domination of world trade, sometimes mislabeled globalization, has given ppl in other countries little option but to return the money created here in hope of getting any benefit from it. This always happens and it happened in the Great Depression, as well, deepening it. It is certainly incompatible with the idea of improving and rebuilding this country or the world in the long run since it was exactly this Ponzi operation which created the crisis.

DOS  03/09/2009 11:42 AM Report

Well done.

When you asked about email privacy at google, the answer was trust me, nobody spies. A point was made about the possibility of Obama's email being hacked during the campaign and it was dismissed. Thought for sure you would have brought up Sarah Palin's Yahoo email being hacked during the campaign. Don't really buy the trust issue. Privacy needs to be protected.

Also China censorship was a key topic not addressed.

mattsweden  03/09/2009 04:31 AM Report

I am extremely disappointed that Charlie didn't ask Mr. Schmidt about Google's censorship in China. It seemed like he was so close too. This omission made me realize that the interview was really a PR showcase instead of a serious inquiry into Google's practices.

buckwuz  03/09/2009 01:27 AM Report

great, great interview. eric came across as a very thoughtful and intelligent person. but i have to say i'm extremely surprised at eric sounding so comfortable with what i've always considered google's flimsy revenue model. 98% reliance on advertising is alarming, considering that google's advertising model is still extremely primative and is in fact a bubble that will deflate slowly. agreed it has generated boat loads of cash for a few years now but its only a matter of time till advertisers realize that a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of their text and banner ads (which are the majority of google's ads) actually result in additional sales. in fact on most sites they're an eyesore and its safe to say vast majority of people dont even notice the ads when they're viewing online content or doing searches.

i do like that he understands how primatively information is organized on the web. its a massive massive opportunity and somehow no company's really got anything of note there. we're still in the age of looking for occureences of text patterns and ranking by popularity as the best result. i never get to any of the links in the 86th page in my search results. and so if i want new info on the same topic, its pretty cumbersome to find (date filter is the only option and that doesnt work too well)

anyways, i think google has the talent to be a top notch software products company. for some bizzare reason they're not actually selling good products and instead making money on something very tangential - annoying ads.

phall  03/08/2009 11:24 PM Report

I found Eric very informative. There were moments when I wanted Charlie to Follow up or just let Eric finish some of his thoughts, but overall it really was a great interview. I think it was important to listen to Eric when he said we gave the illustration of teaching and search, fantastic. Additionally Charlie's final question regarding Tech people being different got an honest answer from Eric

wwilkie  03/08/2009 02:37 PM Report

I found the interview practical for those of us who are not HI TECHS.

3% to 5% of the "Gifted and Talented" who are TWENTY PERCENTERS are in rural towns across America.

Take a look at www.design-corps.org Should Google help make this new National Service Corps a reality but with the goal of making US rural culture a subculture of innovation and design?

pjb  03/08/2009 01:31 AM Report

You assume technologists are more liberal, because you live in California.

sprintluvr  03/07/2009 10:34 PM Report

My 2-year-old Sprint HTC Titan phone (Windows Mobile, FTW!) already "does TV". It can get SprintTV (~30 channels) over the 3G, or it can use Slingbox or Orb to stream video and audio from my home server (and can tune in to channels using my cable box there). Or I can use MobiTV to get channels from around the world. And in Asia and Europe, phones already come with digital receivers to grab broadcasts over the air.

i think Eric needs to get out more. Or get a new phone that doesn't suck.

esantoro  03/07/2009 08:38 PM Report

I'm usually quick to be cynical about so much these days. Since RONN was the first to let it rip, I can't hold back myself. Snake Oil Salesman, indeed. Very aptly put. It all boils down to this: Google will sell as many netizens as possible to advertisers. PBS' motto is that it is independent and not out to please advertisers. Google is all about advertisers, who will drive the content. We've been there and have done that, and are still doing it with mainstream television. Please, let us not ask in twenty years ridiculously naive questions about why no one had seen our problems coming. Ninety percent of the opinion makers are not PLACED in their positions because they are able or willing to see origins with and independent mind. They are PLACED in their positions precisely because they will not challenge or are unable to challenge the core issues and values of the status quo.

Charlie is starting to ask some slightly uncomfortable questions of such guests, but he lets the questions go too easily. What I'd like to see in the future is a round table of conflicting views on such issues. If not a round table, then a companion interview within the same week that exposes neglected facets of current interviews. Too many of Charlie's interviews just drift off into the ether,not enough bite to really grab an issue and toss it around. But that's how one "monetizes" journalism, I suppose. Otherwise, fewer listeners will want to download the interview to their Kindle.

Orwell and Eliot, where are you when we need you?

WHIMPER, WHIMPEr, WHIMPer, WHIMper, WHImper, WHimper, Whimper, whimper, whimpe, whimp, whim, whi, wh, w.................................................................................................... ....................................................................................

..................................................................................................... ...............................................................................................

...................

RONN  03/07/2009 06:25 PM Report

Snake Oil Salesman in Digital Age......

activebiz  03/07/2009 03:44 PM Report

Excellent interview.

The creative "sparks, naturally happening" - are out there, but like the needle in the haystack.

Not everyone is willing to relinguish their idea 100% to Google.