Wall Street vs Silicon Valley: The Chasm

21 January 2011

As the story goes, Eric Schmidt is not just changing titles, he will be leaving Google soon enough.  Do not cry for him too soon, he will be set with a payoff approaching $335 million bucks.

Ice forms On Google’s Wall Street Analysts

Those who have lived the Silicon Valley dream, the last twenty or thirty years, have to chuckle when we hear the titans of Wall Street attempting to spin the world of technology into a neat little package to tuck into their portfolios so they can rip off companies and their prestigious workers.  Yesterday’s rip rap on CNBC’s Fast Money was nothing if not a ROFLMAO Kind Of Day.  Beginning with Karen Finerman’s comment that Google, and I paraphrase, “needed an adult,” and then the show’s lowbrows posturing on whether or not shareholders would bless or sanction the decision.  The talking heads put on a show guessing whether or not analysts would even question the decision or not, then when someone’s ear hack let them know they hadn’t even gotten to that point in the conference call, they admitted of course they would question it.  Finerman’s savvy, notwithstanding her seemingly libelous air brushed bio image, in Silicon investments over the years is most notable for not understanding why Mr. Softy’s antics might affect their stock price.  Apparently, the fact that the share price, ostensibly, hasn’t moved in ten years has not been probative for the tall attractive and only humble person on the show.

In The New Yorker’s article by famed media spinster, Ken Auletta, he asks, “Was Schmidt pushed or did he jump?” And immediately answers his own question by saying “both.”  Auletta notes that the Google/China debacle, covered here, there and everywhere, wore down the veteran, and his comment may have shed light on Finerman’s patronizing trope, by reminding us of Schmidt’s early sarcasm when he, “joked that he provided ‘adult supervision,’ and was never shy about interrupting the founders at meetings to crystallize a point.”  Auletta details the condescending tone of Schmidt’s reign as #3, but misses the mark by joining the NY set thinking that Google was beholding to anyone, or that Larry and Sergey cared a byte about what the jocks of Manhattan thought.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Is Your Business Ready for Its First Server?
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

However, Auletta, unlike most of the East Coast head cases covering Silicon Valley, notes that Facebook is not a concern to the brilliant duo from Stanford.  Page he explains was the anointed business head and has prepared for that role since childhood.

Naturally, everyone is covering this adventure, and, naturally, since Google is the 800 lb. gorilla, they are all saying the same thing.  We thought we’d give you a couple of quotes from commenters we felt were worthy of your time and hopefully a laugh:

From Washington Post:



“Google’s problems are similar to those of Fair Issacs and the credit reporting bureaus.

“They get their algorithm or collection method formulas slightly wrong, but are unable to modify them.  Google has this odd method of displaying data that often places one persons name next to another person’s words, ie., a systemic search engine display error, which they are either unwilling or unable to correct.
“So they continue creating search engine display results in which the words of one writer/speaker are placed after some completely different, usually unrelated person.
“These results get copied and reproduced making a larger and larger portion of their database hilariously erroneous.
“It’s similar to the problem in the US credit reporting system which over relies on faulty algorithms to predict risk, except that the algorithms don’t do this in any precise way, but instead justify ridiculous interest rates,e.g., 30% on money the bank got for free from the Fed available on the market for 3-5%.

“Legalized RICO-size institutionalized fraud and theft.”


From  Business Insider :

rex woodall:

“What about Schmidt’s comment that Google TV “will ruin your evening” ? Hardly a Jobsian product introduction.”


This is our favorite for now … from Huffington Post:

quiviran :

“In a statement, Schmidt observed he, Page and Brin had been ‘talking for a long time about how best to simplify our management structure,­” and looking for ways to “speed up decision making.’
“This is code for Schmidt truying to talk the geeks into giving him more power. They didn’t and he’s leaving. Brinn and Page invented the Google motto “Don’t be evil”. Schmidt never got the message. From industrial espionage as an Apple board member to public attitudes about personal privacy that would send chills down anyone’s spine, he seems to be evil looking for a place to happen.
“There is no contest between FaceBook and Google. They are two different things. Schmidt thought Google needed a browser. Why? Schmidt got the idea of a phone from Apple and tried to steal the concept. Why? Does anyone really trust important documents and the content of their e-mail to Google? Why? How could you feel comfortabl­e with that? It’s already creepy enough with Google peering into every page click and adjusting the ad content. Ewww.
“This is a good thing. Maybe the motto will have some meaning again.
“This is good news.”


Let us know if you’ve a better take on all of this and maybe you’ll be the next winner of a free Silicon Valley dinner on NetHawk Interactive, Inc.


Leave a Reply