It has been announced recently that Dr. Eric Schmidt, currently the CEO of Google, is joining Apple’s Board of Directors. Boards are responsible for overseeing management, protecting shareholder interests and overall strategy.
The move has been hailed as a signal of future partnership between Google and Apple in their joint fights against Microsoft. I have to admit it basically looks that way to me too. I would even go so far as to say a Google-Apple alliance poses the biggest threat to Microsoft’s continued dominance on the desktop, ever.
I’ve always wondered why some Boards have an even number of members, what with the possibility of vote tying. They must have some other method of resolving those situations when they inevitably crop up.
Steve Jobs is obviously an exception to most rules, but it’s rare to see someone in management on the Board in a public company, because of the inherent conflict of interest. I think Jobs is invested in Apple long-term though, so that’s no doubt why he gets away with it.
Re: ties – due to abstentions, even if you had an odd number, ties are possible. ;)
Also, if a clear majority does not go in favour, then motions fail – so technically a tie is a “loss” for whoever’s pushing a motion through.
What do you think about the move itself?
Comment on the main topic actually discussed instead of the minor point? It’s like your pushing me to discuss the primary indicator instead of the secondary (2500 UFE writers laugh, 6 billion people shrug).
I have nowhere near enough insight into determining what Google-Apple are up to. ;)
The symbolism is huge – the real effect, on the other hand, is questionable – I don’t see this making any huge changes anytime soon. Will we see more Google Gadgets that work on special Apple gear (iPods)? No idea… would it really have much of a deep effect? I don’t really see it. Or maybe I’m sleepy (take that, earlier fling with insomnia!). :)
Haha… Primary, secondary. Classic. ;)