In my opinion, this is an excellent article because of the attention given to both Schmidt's remarks and the reporter's individual insights. Wired could have easily misquoted / twisted Schmidt's words, as seems to be the practice these days, yet instead the reporter included Schmidt's corrections in the piece. Very objective reporting. Can all articles be like this?
It's not uncommon to get corrections/clarifications from the subject when writing an article about them. That it's so explicit in this article I don't necessarily take as objectivity, but as more stylistic choice to show Mr. Schmidt in a certain way, as perceived by the author. Which is fine, it's a good article.
The title of the article is "Inside Google: Eric Schmidt, the man with all the answers" and for the sake of the HN and its quality, lets stop giving fanboy spins to the articles.
Historically, Wired have reported that a technology is the next big thing just before it has sunk without trace. They are excellent industry forecasters, just not the way they imagine...
So the article talks a lot about the culture of Google - striving to solve the world's problems (or a tiny subset of them at least), rather than worrying about monetization. A culture apparently instilled by the attitudes of the top three execs, judging from the kind of things they say.
But does anyone buy this? I know many see Google as a threatening monopoly, not to be trusted, given the level of influence the company has on the internet. I could cite comments by many, say in reaction to the announcement of Google's upcoming OS - along the lines of "No way I'm moving from one overpowered monopoly to another".
On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be many ways Google could impose a vendor lock-in in the way Microsoft could for example.
1) Effective ROI can translate (scarce) user time slices to a successful business not subject to ("industrial") models. Put in terms of an OS, Dr. Schmidt is effectively comparing Google's core competency (search) to a OS level service (such as networking) that will see sustained growth specifically because of the increased adoption of internet apps (FB, T, etc.).
2) VCs should consider recruiting senior business minded technologists to head young hacker ventures instead of MBAs.
I do not want google to tell me where my keys are. I have eyes and a brain to navigate and remember thank you very much. However, when I say what can I do if I am diagnosed with some illness, I want goggle to show me some sites saying that I need to exercise, or perhaps some diet site, or maybe some site saying I should not drink, and not sites about how someone else lost their mind and jumped out of the balcony.
I think the quality of google search is falling. So many times I search and I get countless of irrelevant results and I would rather google showed me what I want them to show me rather than go on about my keys. I do not even understand why would google want to focus on telling me where my keys are. They seem to be loosing it and slowly moving to some cooko land. The world is not yours to save google!
Go back to basics and try and improve search and make my results more relevant and try and find those cool hidden articles and stop going on about my keys.
You assume that search has gotten worse but provide no objective data to back it up. Could it be that you are using search today differently then you used search years ago?
Could it be that you've read a large majority of the existing hidden articles that you deem cool?
The only significant change has most likely been in how you use Google. Instead of just searching "Ubuntu" you may now search "site:ubuntuforums.org nvidia glx1800".
Yes perhaps I should have not assumed that. What I meant is that search is not so good as to worry about such abstract and pointless things as where are my keys.
Search should focus on giving relevant results to queries we actually search.
