AllThingsD » Sergey Brin

End of an Era: Google's Very First Employee, Craig Silverstein -- Technically, No. 3 -- Leaving

Kara Swisher — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:01:58 +0000

Google’s very first employee, Craig Silverstein, is leaving the company to join the high-profile online learning phenom, Khan Academy.

News of the departure first appeared yesterday in a line in a newsletter on education-tech entrepreneurship EdSurge, and the search giant confirmed the departure to me.

[UPDATE: Here's a statement from a Google spokesperson -- and not CEO Larry Page (classy and appreciative of others as ever!, Larry!) -- on Silverstein's leaving: "Craig's been with Google since the early days. He was instrumental in the development of search and made numerous contributions to Google over the years. We wish him all the best at the Khan Academy and know that he will do great things to help them promote education around the world."]

Silverstein, who was actually Google’s No. 3 employee — that would be after its pair of founders, Page and Sergey Brin — has had a variety of technology jobs at the company over the years since it was founded in 1998.

But his first — helping them build the famed and lucrative search engine itself — was perhaps his most important. An experienced techie, Silverstein worked with Brin and Page on Google, from their dorm rooms as Ph.D. students at Stanford University, to their garage days, to the giant and diversified behemoth it is today, with tens of thousands of employees.

Currently, he has been working on a variety of projects, including mentoring engineers.

Having spent some time with him over the years, I can tell you that he’s a lovely and adorkable guy, whose infectious enthusiasm and joy of tech has always embodied what I always refer to as “Good Google” (as opposed to, well, you know).

Silverstein will simply be a developer at Khan Academy’s Mountain View, Calif., offices, but I have emails for more details in to all parties.

Speaking of party — IMHO, Larry and Sergey should throw him a really nice one. Really nice — it’s well-deserved.

Here is Silverstein’s cute goodbye email to staff that I obtained (natch!):

[I couldn't possibly remember everyone who I should be sending this mail to, so please feel free to spread the word to anyone I missed!]

It is with decidedly mixed feelings that I announce, after more than 13 years, that I’m leaving Google. My last day will be Feb 10. I’ll be joining the Khan Academy as a developer.

Some of you thought this day would never come (as one person once put it: “Will you die at Google?”), and it was an extremely difficult choice. I am as passionate about Google’s mission now as I’ve ever been, and as proud of the work we’re doing to achieve it. While a lot has changed at Google over the years, I think we’ve done a remarkable job of staying true to our core mission of making the world a better place by making information more accessible and useful. I am looking forward to pursuing that same mission, though in a slightly different way, at Khan.

I’m extremely grateful to have had the opportunity to work with such smart, passionate, and interesting people — not just a few, either, but (almost :-) ) everyone I worked with. I’m grateful not just that I had so many co-workers I could respect, but even more that I had so many that I could count as friends. I will miss that most of all, and I hope you will continue to be in touch. I also accept lunch invitations!

When I write my massive 4-volume autobiography, “Craig Silverstein: the Man Behind the Legend,” I will devote an entire volume to my years at Google. I can’t emphasize enough how meaningful my time at Google has been, and how meaningful all of you have been to it. I mean it literally when I say: all the best,

craig

And here’s the video of a speech Silverstein gave at the University of North Carolina in 2008, about Google’s origins:

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

Wikipedia's Pledge Drive Ends -- So Do Those Jarring Testimonials!

Tricia Duryee — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 00:35:22 +0000

The Wikimedia Foundation’s annual fundraising campaign concluded today after the nonprofit raised $20 million from one million donors worldwide.

The end of the pledge drive also means the end of those fundraising banners on every page that highlighted editors who contributed to the site.

Against the site’s normal black-and-white page design and absence of ads, the contributors’ color photos popped from the page and certainly fulfilled the goal of pulling readers up to the plea.

And while their absence won’t exactly be mourned by readers, it will deprive us of some entertaining juxtapositions, such as the one at right, with the visage of an earnest volunteer looking like an illustration accompanying the Wikipedia entry for a “Saturday Night Live” skit featuring Justin Timberlake called “Dick in a Box.”

Wikimedia said it will use the funds to buy hardware, develop new features on the site, expand mobile services, provide legal defense for the projects and support volunteers.

The site now employs 97 people and plans to spend $28.3 million this year on expenses.

The remainder of funds will trickle in throughout the year in the form of grants and other donations, such as ones from Google co-founder Sergey Brin and 23andMe co-founder Anne Wojcicki’s Brin Wojcicki Foundation, which gave $500,000 as part of the campaign in November.

In a letter thanking donors, Wikimedia Executive Director Sue Gardner wrote: “We’re the #5 most-popular site in the world — we operate on a tiny fraction of the resources of any other top site. We will use your money carefully and well, I promise you.”

More Internet Heavy Hitters Speak Out in SOPA Saga

Lauren Goode — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:53:15 +0000

In an open letter to Congress this morning, a group of prominent Internet engineers has spoken out against the Protect IP Act (PIPA) and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which are under consideration in the House and Senate. The group argues that censorship of Internet infrastructure will cause network errors and security problems, and points to China and Iran as examples. The letter comes on the heels of yesterday’s opposition in an Open Letter to Washington from other tech heavyweights, including Sergey Brin, Jerry Yang, Reid Hoffman and Jack Dorsey.

Top 10 Reasons Google's Founders Want to Restore That Airship Hangar (Comic)

Nitrozac and Snaggy — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 20:04:39 +0000

Here is the latest comic from our Joy of Tech friends at Geek Culture, Nitrozac and Snaggy. Joy of Tech appears three times a week in the Voices section of this site.

Google's Top Brass Willing to Pay Up to Save NASA's Hangar One

Ina Fried — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 17:13:00 +0000

Google’s top three executives want to save Hangar One, NASA’s iconic Moffett Field airship house. Larry Page, Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt are willing to pay the $33 million price tag in full, as long as they can park their eight private jets there once the revamp is done. NASA is said to be weighing the offer, according to the Mercury News.

Wikipedia Gets $500K from Brin and Wojcicki -- But What It Really Wants Is Small Donors

Liz Gannes — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 19:40:48 +0000

Google co-founder Sergey Brin and 23andMe co-founder Anne Wojcicki’s Brin Wojcicki Foundation just gave $500,000 to the Wikimedia Foundation as part of its annual fundraising drive.

On Wednesday, the first day of this year’s campaign, Wikimedia pulled in $1.2 million, the most it’s ever raised in a day, from 61,000 individual donors, the most it’s ever had in a single day.

The foundation’s annual budget is $28.3 million, and it tries to raise most of that from small donors. Last year’s drive drew more than 500,000 donors, most of whom gave $25 to $30, said Wikimedia spokesman Jay Walsh.

Tech Leaders Make Forbes' Most Powerful People List

Tricia Duryee — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 18:21:36 +0000

Forbes has compiled a list of the 70 most powerful individuals, and along with some of the world’s leading politicians and religious leaders, tech leaders made a strong showing.

The top four most powerful people are politicians, including Barack Obama in the top spot. At No. 5 is Bill Gates, who ranks high for his philanthropic role as co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Some of the other tech leaders and their rankings:

5. Bill Gates, co-chair, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

9. Mark Zuckerberg, founder, Facebook.

30. Sergey Brin and Larry Page, co-founders, Google.

40. Jeff Bezos, CEO, Amazon.

42. Robin Li, CEO, Baidu.

44. Li Ka-shing, chairman, Hutchinson Wampoa.

58. Tim Cook, CEO, Apple.

60. Masayoshi Son, CEO, Softbank.

Zuckerberg Tops Fortune's 40 Under 40 List

Liz Gannes — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 11:00:34 +0000

This year Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg ranks first on the Fortune 40 under 40 list, moving up a spot to displace 2010′s top pick, his mentor Marc Andreessen, who no longer qualifies.

Following Zuckerberg in the No. 2 spot is Google CEO Larry Page, who’s been broken out from his usual pairing with co-founder Sergey Brin. Brin’s down at No. 11 this year, followed by fellow Googler Marissa Mayer at No. 20.

Entirely absent from the 2011 list are Twitter co-founders Evan Williams and Biz Stone, who shared the No. 3 spot in 2010. They’ve since left the company and are back undercover working on new start-up projects together at Obvious.

Other featured techies this year include Jack Dorsey of Square and Twitter (8), Spotify’s Daniel Ek (18), Groupon’s Andrew Mason (27), Foursquare’s Dennis Crowley (28), Dropbox’s Drew Houston and Arash Ferdowski (29), Facebook’s Carolyn Everson (35), Opower’s Dan Yates and Alex Laskey (36), and Instagram’s Kevin Systrom (39).

The 40 under 40 issue hits newsstands on Oct. 24.

Google+ Will Allow Pseudonyms, Support Google Apps Users, Launch Platform. When? Soon.

Liz Gannes — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 21:49:31 +0000

Google+ will soon accommodate pseudonyms, said Google+ head Vic Gundotra, acknowledging one of the loudest criticisms of the new social network. “It’s complicated to get this right,” Gundotra said, begging for a little time to figure out a way to use nicknames and handles without dramatically “changing the atmosphere” of Google’s new social network.

As for fixes to other big complaints about Google+? They’re all in the works, Gundotra said, asking for patience like his colleague Bradley Horowitz did last week.

Support for Google Apps users is coming “in a matter of days,” Gundotra said. When will tools for brands be available? “It’s a little bit longer than days,” he said in an interview today at the Web 2.0 Summit.

As for a developer platform? That’s on the way, perhaps at Google’s I/O developer event next spring. “We don’t want to do anything haphazard” to change the platform after developers come to depend on it, Gundotra said, in a thinly veiled dig at Facebook and Twitter.

Google co-founder Sergey Brin appeared onstage alongside Gundotra, where he said Google+ has been “instantly compelling” for him, with its Circles model a better fit for his preferred ways of sharing.

Brin said he was initially skeptical of Circles being “too complicated” and tried to argue against them in internal discussions, but now he loves them and personally uses dozens of them.

Gundotra was pointed in his critique of Facebook’s new frictionless open graph, which shares users’ activities automatically. “We do not believe in oversharing,” he said. “We have a different philosophy; we think curating matters.”

“From a philosophical standpoint, there is a reason why every thought in your head does not come out of your mouth,” he said.

What about that leaked memo, in which Google engineer Steve Yegge accidentally publicly complained that Google+ should have been a platform at launch before it was a product?

“I would be lying to you if I told you that wasn’t a bad day,” Gundotra said. But he said the memo was a rare representative glance at Google’s internal culture, which is brutally honest.

Brin, meanwhile, was dismissive of Yegge’s memo. “I didn’t make it past the first 1,000 pages myself,” he said.

As for the critique that Google+ must compete with Facebook’s overwhelming network effects, Gundotra argued that so many Internet users already use Google for other reasons, they will eventually find their way to Google+.

As for whether the 40 million-plus people who have signed up for Google+ are actually using it, Gundotra repeated a stat from last week that 3.4 billion photos have been uploaded to the service since it launched.

Now What? The Post-Jobs Era in Tech.

Kara Swisher — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 13:17:29 +0000

As Steve Jobs famously said to rival Bill Gates of Microsoft in a joint interview with Walt Mossberg and me in 2007, “You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.” And perhaps what is most amazing about Jobs was his longevity.

Not in life, of course, which was cut tragically short at 56 years, with his last years focused a lot on the cancer that would ultimately defeat him.

Actually, by longevity, I mean how the iconic entrepreneur continued, until the very end, to have an enormous impact over all of technology and especially in Silicon Valley.

It is easy to see that Jobs has been the single consistent tech tastemaker and true-north icon — even in the frantically changing, what’s-new-is-best atmosphere that too often prevails in the industry.

The list of tech and media arenas he changed via innovative thinking and, more importantly, action, is long — from graphics to design to touchscreens to smartphones to tablets to animation to ease of use to apps to quality to, well, you get the idea.

The hits seemed nonstop: The Macintosh. The iPod. And iTunes. The MacBook. The iPhone. The iPad.

And it is no stretch to say that even the brightest lights in tech and media always watched what he did and were influenced by him, reacted to him, changed because he changed.

In many ways, it was because Jobs never seemed to waver.

Let’s be clear, this is not an easy thing to do, to keep sailing on your own course, often against the prevailing winds, and not be swayed.

Perhaps that is the thing that Jobs most exemplified — a stubborn unwillingness to adjust who he was, maintaining an integrity of purpose and vision when others could not.

It is certainly what has made him — and by extension, Apple — so special. Of course, it is not that he was not difficult, capricious and cutting at times. But even that he owned.

So who and what does tech look to now for that kind of inspiration?

Certainly, at this moment, there is no one leader to fill Jobs’s outsized shoes.

The founders of Google, Larry Page and Sergey Brin? Quirky, curious, arrogant, but so, so prosaic.

Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg? Still forming, so awkward and not yet the leader he might become.

Jeff Bezos of Amazon? Certainly creative and bold, but utterly lacking in the moxie and style of Steve.

I could go on and not get to anyone even slightly close — there’s no one with the kind of charisma that makes it impossible to look away.

It’s called inspiration, a quality so lacking in all parts of this world, making it hard to imagine any replacement for Jobs.

And, in a way, why should we try to find one?

As Jobs himself said in his memorable “Stay hungry. Stay foolish” speech at Stanford University, right after he recovered from his first bout with cancer:

When I was 17, I read a quote that went something like “If you live each day as if it was your last, someday you’ll most certainly be right.” It made an impression on me, and since then, for the past 33 years, I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself, “If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?” And whenever the answer has been “no” for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something.

Remembering that I’ll be dead soon is the most important thing I’ve ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life, because almost everything — all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure — these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart.

No reason at all. So, as we all wish Jobs could have done, let’s live on.

And so will Steve Jobs. As AllThingsD Web guru Adam Tow said about the innovative Siri voice control feature in the latest iPhone 4 — introduced earlier this week without Jobs being there to present — perhaps Siri stands for: Steve is right inside.

Yes, indeed. Because his DNA lives in all of Apple. And, of course, in Silicon Valley and in tech, forever and always.

But we move on, too, so here is a video I did yesterday with WSJ.com on what impact Jobs’s death may have on Apple and whether the company will remain an innovator and market leader:

[ See post to watch video ]

RELATED POSTS:

Samsung, Google Cancel Launch Event Out of Respect for Steve Jobs

Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert Say Goodbye to Steve Jobs

An Accountant’s Soul Presides Over the P&L at Apple

New York Times Crossword Honors Steve Jobs With Puzzle Written by Quora Engineer

For Steve (Comic)

Walt Mossberg Reflects on Life and Career of Steve Jobs for Fox Business (Video)

Apple Shares Rise

Steve Jobs Biography Arrives in October, a Month Early

Now What? The Post-Jobs Era in Tech.

Thoughts on the First Day of Apple’s Post-Jobs Era

How Will Apple Shares Fare Today?

Tributes to Steve Jobs, in Pictures

The Three Irreplaceable Qualities of Steve Jobs

Walt Mossberg: The Steve Jobs I Knew

Remembering the Life of Steve Jobs

Steve Jobs in His Own Words

Barack Obama On Steve Jobs

Tech and Media Titans Pay Tribute to Steve Jobs

Steve Jobs’s Appearances at D, the Full Video Sessions

Bill Gates: “I Will Miss Steve Immensely”

Steve Jobs Through the Years: Highlights and Clips From the D Conference

Steve Jobs Has Died

Steve Jobs Full Coverage »

Tech and Media Titans Pay Tribute to Steve Jobs

Liz Gannes — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 01:08:24 +0000

Apple co-founder Steve Jobs’s death today at the age of 56 has given many of his peers reason for pause. Here are their tributes.

Google co-founder Sergey Brin paid tribute to Jobs’s “passion for excellence,” while co-founder and CEO Larry Page said he appreciated Jobs’s advice past and present.

Google Chairman Eric Schmidt said in an emailed statement:

Today is very sad for all of us. Steve defined a generation of style and technology that’s unlikely to be matched again. Steve was so charismatically brilliant that he inspired people to do the impossible, and he will be remembered as the greatest computer innovator in history.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg thanked Jobs for being “a mentor and a friend.”

Here’s his status message:

Pixar’s John Lasseter and Ed Catmull said:

Steve Jobs was an extraordinary visionary, our very dear friend and the guiding light of the Pixar family. He saw the potential of what Pixar could be before the rest of us, and beyond what anyone ever imagined. Steve took a chance on us and believed in our crazy dream of making computer animated films; the one thing he always said was to simply ‘make it great.’ He is why Pixar turned out the way we did and his strength, integrity and love of life has made us all better people. He will forever be a part of Pixar’s DNA. Our hearts go out to his wife Laurene and their children during this incredibly difficult time.

Here’s Disney CEO Bob Iger’s statement:

Steve Jobs was a great friend as well as a trusted advisor. His legacy will extend far beyond the products he created or the businesses he built. It will be the millions of people he inspired, the lives he changed, and the culture he defined. Steve was such an “original,” with a thoroughly creative, imaginative mind that defined an era. Despite all he accomplished, it feels like he was just getting started. With his passing the world has lost a rare original, Disney has lost a member of our family, and I have lost a great friend. Our thoughts and prayers are with his wife Laurene and his children during this difficult time.

In a tweet, AOL co-founder Steve Case called Jobs “the most innovative entrepreneur of our generation.”

I feel honored to have known Steve Jobs. He was the most innovative entrepreneur of our generation. His legacy will live on for the ages.

October 5, 2011 4:36 pm via Twitter for iPhone ReplyRetweetFavorite

@SteveCase

Steve Case

Bill Gates said: “I will miss Steve immensely.”

Twitter CEO Dick Costolo tweeted that Jobs had gone beyond raising the bar.

Once in a rare while, somebody comes along who doesnt just raise the bar, they create an entirely new standard of measurement. #RIPSteveJobs

October 5, 2011 4:58 pm via webReply RetweetFavorite

@dickc

dick costolo

Netscape co-founder Marc Andreessen said in an emailed statement, “Steve was the shining light of our industry — he showed us what was possible … He set the bar.”

Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes said:

The entire Time Warner family mourns the loss of Steve Jobs. The world is a better place because of Steve, and the stories our company tells have been made richer by the products he created. He was a dynamic and fearless competitor, collaborator, and friend. In a society that has seen incredible technological innovation during our lifetimes, Steve may be the one true icon whose legacy will be remembered for a thousand years.

RIAA CEO Cary Sherman said:

Like all music fans, we are saddened to hear of the passing of Steve Jobs. Steve was a larger-than-life personality — passionate about music and one of its biggest fans and advocates. He was a true visionary who forever transformed how fans access and enjoy music. With the introduction of the iTunes software and other platforms, Steve and Apple made it once again easy and accepted to pay for music. His legacy will live on, long past his all-too-short time on earth.

New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg said:

Tonight, America lost a genius who will be remembered with Edison and Einstein, and whose ideas will shape the world for generations to come. Again and again over the last four decades, Steve Jobs saw the future and brought it to life long before most people could even see the horizon. And Steve’s passionate belief in the power of technology to transform the way we live brought us more than smart phones and iPads: it brought knowledge and power that is reshaping the face of civilization. In New York City’s government, everyone from street construction inspectors to NYPD detectives have harnessed Apple’s products to do their jobs more efficiently and intuitively. Tonight our City — a city that has always had such respect and admiration for creative genius — joins with people around the planet in remembering a great man and keeping Laurene and the rest of the Jobs family in our thoughts and prayers.

Electronic Arts CEO John Riccitiello said:

Steve was one of a kind. For many of us working in technology and entertainment, Steve was a new kind of hero that lead with big, bold moves and would not settle for less than perfection. He is the best role model for a leader that aspires to be great.

News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch:

Today, we lost one of the most influential thinkers, creators and entrepreneurs of all time. Steve Jobs was simply the greatest CEO of his generation. While I am deeply saddened by his passing, I’m reminded of the stunning impact he had in revolutionizing the way people consume media and entertainment. My heart goes out to his family and to everyone who had the opportunity to work beside him in bringing his many visions to life.

Warren Buffett said: “He was one of the most remarkable business managers and innovators in american business history.”

Former Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz (full interview at the Wall Street Journal):

It’s the ultimate sadness … He was a very special person, and he didn’t get to where he was by having people like him all the time. He got to where he was because he had a vision and a purpose. It’s easy to try and please everyone, but he kept to his principles.

AT&T Chairman and CEO Randall Stephenson:

We are saddened by the passing of Steve Jobs. Steve was an iconic inventor, visionary, and entrepreneur, and we had the privilege to know him as partner and friend. All of us at AT&T offer our thoughts and prayers to Steve’s wife, family, and his Apple family.

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer:

I want to express my deepest condolences at the passing of Steve Jobs, one of the founders of our industry and a true visionary. My heart goes out to his family, everyone at Apple and everyone who has been touched by his work.

Google has posted a Jobs memorial on its homepage:

Conde Nast President Bob Sauerberg:

Steve was a great visionary and innovator. He invented paid digital content and we are grateful for that. His products over the years have been key in the development of high quality Conde Nast content. Our companies have always be aligned on unique design and high quality. Conde Nast sends sincere sympathy to his family and our friends at Apple.

Mike Lazaridis and Jim Balsillie, co-chiefs of BlackBerry maker Research in Motion, said:

“Steve Jobs was a great visionary and a respected competitor. We extend our deepest condolences to his family and to all of the employees of Apple.”

Hewlett-Packard CEO Meg Whitman said:

“Steve Jobs was an iconic entrepreneur and businessman whose impact on technology was felt beyond Silicon Valley. He will be remembered for the innovation he brought to market and the inspiration he brought to the world.”

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos said:

“Steve was a teacher to anyone paying attention, and today is a very sad day for everyone who cares about innovation and high standards.”

RELATED POSTS:

Samsung, Google Cancel Launch Event Out of Respect for Steve Jobs

Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert Say Goodbye to Steve Jobs

An Accountant’s Soul Presides Over the P&L at Apple

New York Times Crossword Honors Steve Jobs With Puzzle Written by Quora Engineer

For Steve (Comic)

Walt Mossberg Reflects on Life and Career of Steve Jobs for Fox Business (Video)

Apple Shares Rise

Steve Jobs Biography Arrives in October, a Month Early

Now What? The Post-Jobs Era in Tech.

Thoughts on the First Day of Apple’s Post-Jobs Era

How Will Apple Shares Fare Today?

Tributes to Steve Jobs, in Pictures

The Three Irreplaceable Qualities of Steve Jobs

Walt Mossberg: The Steve Jobs I Knew

Remembering the Life of Steve Jobs

Steve Jobs in His Own Words

Barack Obama On Steve Jobs

Tech and Media Titans Pay Tribute to Steve Jobs

Steve Jobs’s Appearances at D, the Full Video Sessions

Bill Gates: “I Will Miss Steve Immensely”

Steve Jobs Through the Years: Highlights and Clips From the D Conference

Steve Jobs Has Died

Steve Jobs Full Coverage »

Portrait of the Billionaire as a Young Man

Voices — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 07:01:04 +0000

A new project I have just started is going to generate personalized movie ratings for users. The way it works is as follows. You rate the movies you have seen. Then the system finds other users with similar tastes to extrapolate how much you will like some other movies. It is currently written entirely in Python.

From a resume purportedly belonging to Sergey Brin, circa 1996

Zuckerberg Tops Vanity Fair's "New Establishment" List Again (And Look Who's No. 40)

Kara Swisher — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 04:00:13 +0000

Vanity Fair magazine put out its high-profile “New Establishment” list of the top 50 people, who are “an innovative new breed of buccaneering visionaries, engineering prodigies, and entrepreneurs, who quite often sport hoodies, floppy hair, and backpacks.”

The hoodie part would be referring to Facebook CEO and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, who topped the list — which is in the just-released October issue — for the second year in a row.

The Vanity Fair list was packed with Silicon Valley luminaries.

The No. 2 spot went to the hopelessly conjoined twins at Google, CEO Larry Page and his co-founder Sergey Brin. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos was No. 3, followed by newly born CEO Tim Cook and top product guy Jonathan Ive of Apple at No. 4, with Twitter creator and Square founder Jack Dorsey at No. 5.

Interestingly, super-VCs Mark Andreessen and Ben Horowitz clocked in this year at No. 6.

The digitally fast-forward Lady Gaga was the top woman on the list at No. 9, in front of “Harry Potter” author J. K. Rowling at No. 16.

And, clocking in at No. 40? Why, me and my partner-in-crime at AllThingsD, Walt Mossberg. He is apparently a “kingmaker” of tech and I do “juicy exclusives.”

That actually is pretty accurate. More importantly, we were ranked higher than Justin Timberlake and Ashton Kutcher. In other words: Mission accomplished!

We also beat the Angry Birds dudes at No. 49, whom my two kids would nonetheless have voted tops over their mom any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

In addition, Vanity Fair broke off a list of 25 “Powers That Be,” which is made up of a lot of longtime “New Establishment” folks, as well as another list called the “Hall of Fame.”

“These are the people who have shaped the world we live in today — and continue to wield enormous influence,” said Vanity Fair, which translates into dustier moguls.

Topping the powers-that-be, of course, is Apple’s co-founder and Chairman Steve Jobs. And outgone Google CEO and now Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt is now enshrined in the hall of fame.

As Walt and I head to a good table at the Minetta Tavern to meet the cool peeps for a celebratory drink, here is the official press releases from Vanity Fair:

FACEBOOK FOUNDER MARK ZUCKERBERG TOPS VANITY FAIR’S NEW ESTABLISHMENT LIST FOR THE SECOND YEAR IN A ROW

Sergey Brin and Larry Page Take No. 2 Spot, Lady Gaga Jumps to the Top 10 of Tech-Dominant List

NEW YORK, N.Y. — “The Age of Information gives way to a burgeoning Age of Technology,” announces Graydon Carter, remarking on the “seismic shift in interest and influence” that has occurred in the 17 years that Vanity Fair has been ranking America’s power players. The magazine’s 2011 New Establishment list identifies the top 50 of an innovative new breed of buccaneering visionaries, engineering prodigies, and entrepreneurs, who quite often sport hoodies, floppy hair, and backpacks.

Mark Zuckerberg, founder of the inescapable social-networking site Facebook, maintains his perch at the top of Vanity Fair’s 17th annual New Establishment List ranking for the second year in a row. With a possible I.P.O. on the horizon by 2012, which could value the company anywhere between $50 and $100 billion, Facebook has enough clout to worry even the unshakable Google. Zuckerberg is still the youngest person ever to top the list.

Sergey Brin and Larry Page, co-founders of Google, are in the No. 2 spot this year, closing in on Zuckerberg as they jump up one spot, from No. 3 in 2010. Eric Schmidt, who appeared on the list last year with the duo, has since been pushed out of the C.E.O’s office, replaced by Page. Despite reports of an anti-trust investigation, Google has been setting its sites on Facebook by concentrating on strategic initiatives, such as engineering social-networking features.

Rounding out the top five are Jeff Bezos, of Amazon, at No. 3, Tim Cook and Jonathan Ive, of Apple, at No. 4, and Twitter and Square founder Jack Dorsey, at No. 5.

Lady Gaga makes an appearance for the second year in a row. Coming in at No. 9, she is the highest-ranking woman on the list, in front of J. K. Rowling at No. 16, Sheryl Sandberg, of Facebook, at No. 26, Angela Ahrendts with Christopher Bailey, of Burberry, at No. 30, Natalie Massenet at No. 32, and Kara Swisher with Walt Mossberg at No. 40. At 25 years old, Gaga is also the youngest person on the list — not a surprise for someone whose fans managed to crash Amazon’s servers in their desperation to download her third album.

Youthful energy is spread throughout this year’s list with 15 members under the age of 40, including Zuckerberg, Brin and Page, Dorsey, Lady Gaga, Andrew Mason, Sean Parker, Ryan Kavanaugh, Jeremy Stoppelman, Ashton Kutcher, Dennis Crowley, Daniel Ek, Mikael Hed and Niklas Hed, and Justin Timberlake.

There are 14 billionaires on the list: Zuckerberg, Brin and Page, Bezos, Mark Pincus, Michael Moritz, J. K. Rowling, Jim Breyer, Reid Hoffman, Herbert Allen III, Yuri Milner, Robin Li, Parker, and Peter Thiel.

Five member of the New Establishment are actively involved in space exploration, including Brin, Elon Musk, Bezos, Thiel, and Dennis Crowley. Eight of the New Establishment nominees can count themselves members of the ever growing Stanford Mafia; they include Brin, Page, Reed Hastings, Jim Breyer, Hoffman, Musk, Thiel, and John Hennessy.

The New Establishment, Vanity Fair’s annual ranking of the top leaders of our time, is made up of owners, creators, buyers, thinkers, and innovators — the movers and shakers in the worlds of technology, media, business, politics, entertainment, and fashion. These men and women are the taste-makers and trendsetters, opinion formers and agenda creators, not to mention empire builders. Entry into the ranks of Vanity Fair’s list is based on a number of factors: wealth, influence, and philanthropy, as well as such intangibles as vision and the x factor.

The October issue of Vanity Fair will be on newsstands in New York and L.A. on September 1, and nationally and on the iPad September 6.

THE VANITY FAIR NEW ESTABLISHMENT

1. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook
2. Sergey Brin and Larry Page, Google
3. Jeff Bezos, Amazon
4. Tim Cook and Jonathan Ive, Apple
5. Jack Dorsey, Square, Twitter
6. Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, Andreessen Horowitz
7. Reed Hastings, Netflix
8. John Lasseter, Pixar, Walt Disney Animation Studios
9. Lady Gaga, singer
10. Dan Doctoroff, Bloomberg L.P.
11. Dick Costolo, Twitter
12. Mark Pincus, Zynga
13. Jim Breyer, Accel Partners
14. Tim Burton, Johnny Depp, and Graham King, Movies
15. Michael Moritz, Sequoia Capital
16. J. K. Rowling, Harry Potter
17. Trey Parker and Matt Stone, South Park
18. Reid Hoffman, Greylock Partners, LinkedIn
19. Herb Allen III, Allen & Co.
20. Judd Apatow, Apatow Productions
21. Jay-Z, Roc Nation
22. Todd Phillips, Green Hat Films
23. Yuri Milner, DST Global
24. J. J. Abrams, writer, director, producer
25. Robin Li, Baidu
26. Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook
27. Andrew Mason, Groupon
28. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, television
29. Mark Wahlberg and Stephen Levinson, Leverage
30. Angela Ahrendts and Christopher Bailey, Burberry
31. Elon Musk, Tesla Motors, Space X
32. Natalie Massenet, Net-a-Porter Group
33. Paul Graham, Y Combinator
34. Sean Parker, entrepreneur
35. Fred Wilson, Union Square Ventures, Flatiron Partners
36. Peter Thiel, Founders Fund, Clarium Capital Management
37. Peter Jackson, Wingnut Films
38. Ryan Kavanaugh, Relativity Media
39. Mike Allen, Politico
40. Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher, All Things D
41. John Hennessy, Stanford University
42. Jeremy Stoppelman, Yelp
43. Ashton Kutcher, actor, investor
44. Tyler Perry, director, producer, writer, actor
45. Dennis Crowley, Foursquare
46. Kevin Ryan, Gilt Groupe
47. Daniel Ek, Spotify
48. Henry Blodget, Business Insider
49. Mikael Hed, Niklas Hed, and Peter Vesterbacka, Rovio
50. Justin Timberlake, singer, actor

STEVE JOBS HOLDS THE TOP SPOT ON VANITY FAIR’S LIST OF THE POWERS THAT BE

Embattled News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch in the Top 5

NEW YORK, N.Y. — This year Vanity Fair inaugurates a list of the Powers That Be. These are the people who have shaped the world we live in today — and continue to wield enormous influence. Many are longtime New Establishment members, and their destinies are intertwined with the members of this year’s New Establishment.

Steve Jobs, of Apple, holds the top spot on the list of the Powers That Be. Since Jobs took control of the company 14 years ago, the stock’s share price has risen more than 6,500 percent. At the height of the debt crisis in late July, Apple had more cash on hand than the U.S. government.

Bernard Arnault, of luxury-goods company LVMH, ranks in the No. 2 spot. As an overseer of countless enduring luxury brands, Arnault has left his mark on the industry. Last year he spent $2 billion to accumulate a 20 percent stake in family-controlled but publicly traded Hermès.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg is No.3 on this year’s list while News Corporation chairman Rupert Murdoch comes in at No. 4. The tumultuous News of the World scandals this year have shaken the media baron, but also shown his staying power in the face of just about anything. Brian Roberts and Steve Burke, of Comcast, NBCUniversal, who recently acquired the U.S. media rights to the Olympic Games through 2020, are No. 5.

Jill Abramson is the highest-ranking woman out of six on the list, at No. 9. She is followed by Angelina Jolie with Brad Pitt at No. 11, Sue Naegle with Richard Plepler and Michael Lombardo at No. 15, Anne Sweeney with George Bodenheimer at No. 22, Bonnie Hammer at No. 24, and Arianna Huffington with Tim Armstrong at No. 25.

Because some power is permanent, Vanity Fair nominates a number of regulars to the Hall of Fame this year. Warren Buffett, of Berkshire Hathaway, joins Barry Diller and Diane von Furstenberg, Tom Ford, actor Tom Hanks, and designer Karl Lagerfeld. Network impresario Oprah Winfrey, Jeffrey Katzenberg, of DreamWorks Animation, and talk-show host Charlie Rose all make the ranks as well.

The October issue of Vanity Fair will be on newsstands in New York and L.A. on September 1, and nationally and on the iPad September 6.

THE POWERS THAT BE

1. Steve Jobs, Apple
2. Bernard Arnault, LVMH
3. Michael Bloomberg, mayor, New York City
4. Rupert Murdoch, News Corporation
5. Brian Roberts and Steve Burke, Comcast, NBCUniversal
6. François-Henri Pinault, PPR
7. Bob Iger, Walt Disney Company
8. Jeffrey Bewkes, Time Warner
9. Jill Abramson, The New York Times
10. Steve Ballmer, Microsoft
11. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, movies, philanthropy
12. Diego Della Valle, Tod’s
13. Roman Abramovich, investments
14. Mickey Drexler, J. Crew
15. Richard Plepler, Sue Naegle, and Michael Lombardo, HBO
16. Larry Gagosian, Gagosian Gallery
17. Harvey and Bob Weinstein, the Weinstein Company
18. Marc Jacobs, designer
19. Lorne Michaels, Saturday Night Live
20. David Zaslav, Discovery Communications
21. Jean Pigozzi, investments, art
22. George Bodenheimer and Anne Sweeney, Disney Media Networks
23. Vivi Nevo, NV Investments
24. Bonnie Hammer, NBCU Cable Entertainment and Cable Studios
25. Tim Armstrong and Arianna Huffington, AOL Huffington Post Media Group

HALL OF FAME

Edgar Bronfman Jr., Warner Music Group
Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway
Ron Conway, angel investor
Philippe Dauman, Viacom
Barry Diller and Diane von Furstenberg, IAC, DVF
John Doerr, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
Larry Ellison, Oracle Corporation
Tom Ford, designer/filmmaker
Ted Forstmann, IMG Worldwide
Tom Freston, Firefly3
Brian Grazer and Ron Howard, Imagine Entertainment
Tom Hanks, actor
Jeffrey Katzenberg, DreamWorks Animation
Vinod Khosla, Khosla Ventures
Karl Lagerfeld, Chanel
Ralph Lauren, Polo Ralph Lauren
John Malone, Liberty Media
Ron Meyer, Universal Studios
Leslie Moonves, CBS
Ronald Perelman, MacAndrews and Forbes
Miuccia Prada, Prada
Charlie Rose, talk-show host
Eric Schmidt, Google
Terry Semel, investor
Oprah Winfrey, OWN

(Full disclosure: Readers who look closely at the list will notice that all things ATD senior editor Peter Kafka is listed as a contributor. This is true! Also true: Peter wrote biographical entries for several people on the list, but has zero input on its composition. He tells us he had no idea that we were being considered for inclusion, and we believe him. He also says that had he been asked for his opinion, he would have voted for us, his bosses, to be included. We also believe that.)

Exclusive: Max Levchin to Leave Google as Slide Is Shut Down

Liz Gannes — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:35:07 +0000

Slide, the social apps company that Google bought just over a year ago for about $200 million, will be dissolved, and its well-regarded leader Max Levchin will depart Google, sources close to the matter told AllThingsD.

Google confirmed the departure today.

“Max has decided to leave Slide and Google to pursue other opportunities, and we wish him the best,” said a Google spokesperson. “Most of the team from Slide will remain at Google to work on other opportunities.”

After being acquired, Slide had operated as an independent unit out of Google’s San Francisco office, maintaining existing apps like SuperPoke Pets and experimenting with new ones such as messaging app Disco and photo-sharing app Photovine, which was released only last week.

The apps, none of which were extremely popular, will be sunsetted over the next few months.

The news was announced to employees at an all-staff meeting in San Francisco this afternoon, sources said. A source said that some of the Slide team is expected to land at YouTube, which is also operated independently within Google. Slide has about 100 employees, with not too much attrition in the last year, said that source.

Although Slide as an independent start-up had not matched its lofty expectations and valuations — at as much as $500 million in a 2008 funding round — its acquisition brought Google some key assets: Social Web expertise at a time when it was dearly needed, and Levchin, who famously founded PayPal.

But that was last August. Since then, Google has entrusted its social efforts to two of its existing executives, Vic Gundotra and Bradley Horowitz, who led the team that created Google+. Levchin was left on the fringes with Slide as an autonomous subsidiary, reporting to Google co-founder Sergey Brin.

In addition, at the time Slide was bought, Google CEO Larry Page had not yet reassumed leadership of the company he co-founded. In April, Page consolidated and streamlined Google’s product structure into seven distinct units. And even though the social team may have been the natural fit for Slide, the two were not integrated.

In addition to Levchin, Slide head of product Jared Fliesler also plans to leave Google, and has accepted a position with former Slide colleague Keith Rabois at payments start-up Square, sources said. (Rabois had joined Google only very briefly after Slide was bought, before jumping ship to work with Twitter co-founder and creator Jack Dorsey at Square.)

Levchin has also been an active angel investor, is chairman of the board of Yelp, and — congrats to him and his wife — is expecting his second child next month.

Larry Page Might Be Bill Gates+, But He Wants to Be Steve Jobs

Kara Swisher — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 17:12:09 +0000

Let’s face it: Everyone in Silicon Valley — one way or another — fashions themselves as the next Steve Jobs.

And why not? Both the professional and even personal story of the legendary Apple CEO — which will be chronicled in November in a major book — are the stuff of tech legend and envy: Iconic, in charge, decisive, elegant, innovative, phoenix-like and visionary.

And, of course, more than just a little bit terrifying.

So why not Larry Page, too, and why not now?

One issue: By temperament and action — by which I mean genetically hyper-competitive and hammer-time aggressive — he’s been more like Microsoft’s Bill Gates, who has been the Yin to Jobs’ Yang in their deeply interconnected careers over the last decades.

As I wrote before Page took over again as Google’s CEO earlier this year:

After our first interview in 2001, my notes on the encounter had this one line underlined and in all caps:

LARRY PAGE=BILL GATES.

It was not meant as an insult, but I can tell you I never wrote such a note about Page’s co-founder, the jokey and affable Sergey Brin.

Even then, Gates had a fearsome reputation as a manically competitive exec, a cutting manner to those not as smart as he clearly is and a reputation as a very tough and often eviscerating boss. (And all that was also my experience whenever I was interviewing him.)

While much wonkier, friendlier and more of a sensitive new-aged male, Page, it seemed to me, had the exact same obvious drive and aggression as Gates.

The latest incarnation of that has been Page’s move — bold for now and we’ll-see later — to buy Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion, which Google announced yesterday.

By all accounts, Page was the key driver of the deal inside Google, where he now reigns firmly.

Although neither Gates nor Jobs has used acquisitions much as a key weapon in their arsenals, the size and scope of the deal is pure Gates: A focused, overwhelming and competitor-scaring display of might that speaks of industry dominance and play-to-destroy aspirations, masking what is also very reactive.

If Page’s doubling down on mobile reminds you a bit of Gates’s “Internet Tidal Wave” memorandum in 1995, that’s because the move-now tone is the same.

And, also, in that it is more than just a little bit sneaky. Case in point: Google’s yammering on about the importance of Motorola’s patents in the deal. While the patent love is true and an important element, bolstering Google’s own weak portfolio, it’s also a bit of a feint by the search giant, which can simply never come out and say what it is actually up to.

Which is to be the dominant and overwhelming player in the mobile market that Google sees as critical to its future.

“The company obviously wants everyone to focus on the patents, but its ambitions are so much larger in mobile,” said one person close to the situation. “So it underplays as it overplays.”

Indeed, in the time I covered Google, it has always been my experience when the search giant insists stringently on one thing, Page and others are playing a more complex version of “Star Trek” three-dimensional chess.

As the New York Times’ DealBook noted correctly:

If there’s any question about Google’s motivation to own a handset maker rather than just a portfolio of patents, consider this: InterDigital, a licensing company that owns some 8,000 wireless patents and has another 10,000 patent applications being processed, has been up for auction. Many industry insiders were sure that if Google were serious about acquiring a portfolio of patents, InterDigital would be its target. The company’s market value is only about $3 billion and it doesn’t come with all the baggage of Motorola’s handset business.

That’s exactly right, because Page’s ambition is about Google playing a big part in the mobile market — which is humanity’s next critical platform in computing — for its interlocked ecosystem of Google products — from its flagship search to social networking via Google+ to Gmail to its latest Google Wallet initiative to Google Maps to Google Voice.

In other words, it’s a Google world and we all just live in it.

At the heart of it is a desire to make and completely control the object at the center of the virtuous circle: The mobile device, whether it be a smartphone, tablet or whatever doodad you might wear around your neck.

In fact, as I also remember from Google’s earliest days, Page did sport a lot of such contraptions back then, such as a communicator of some sort he once joyfully showed off to me that allowed him to reach Brin quickly. Later, it was a kind of pollution sensor that took its place.

My recollection from that time was that Page adored such objects, visibly inspired by the idea of digital devices that delivered a myriad of helpful and smart services to users as they moved around the world.

You know, like an Apple iPhone, the ground-breaking technical achievement that Jobs rendered unto the world less than a decade ago, changing everything.

With Android and Page’s firm backing, Google quickly and smartly jumped partway into that market with its powerful and fast-growing mobile operating system.

Now, like Jobs, I have no doubt Page wants to own and control the whole value chain to solidify what Google started several years ago and which is its best hope to vault into the next era of computing.

It’s a leap that Gates and Microsoft largely failed at, not for lack of trying — something else Page has to have taken note of.

So, perhaps by making things — maybe even beautiful things like Jobs — Page will transform himself from a Gates into a Jobs.

Or, more likely, a little bit of both.

Until that reckoning, here is a terrific video of Spock playing 3D chess with Captain James T. Kirk — and, yes, he does look freakishly like Page here:

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

What Is The Eric Schmidt Google Era? (Video)

John Paczkowski — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 05:07:59 +0000

Google Chairman Eric Schmidt himself provided the answer to that question in the opening night session of D9. During a wide-ranging interview with co-hosts Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher, Schmidt talked about handing adult supervision of the company to co-founder Larry Page, the “Gang Of Four” companies dominating tech today, Google’s social networking missteps and a decade spent growing the company from quirky start-up to industry leviathan.

[ See post to watch video ]

Windows Use at Google Evidently One of Those 20 Percent Things

John Paczkowski — Wed, 11 May 2011 22:27:18 +0000

If Google is phasing out internal use of Microsoft Windows, it’s taking its time with the transition. Asked during a Wednesday I/O Q&A what percentage of Google employees still use Windows machines at work, co-founder Sergey Brin hazarded a guess and it was quite a bit more than you might think.

“I’d guess maybe 20 percent,” he replied, noting that most use Windows 7. “I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with Windows. It has a lot of great security features.”

An interesting remark, given reports that Google has been actively moving employees off Windows as part of “a security effort.” That said, the company clearly has big hopes for its Chrome OS internally and feels the wider deployment of Chromebooks within the company will make things easier for everyone by eliminating the complexity of managing their computers.

“Chromebooks are a new model that doesn’t put the burden of managing the computer on yourself….I think that’s just a much easier way to compute. Ultimately, the most precious resource is the user’s time….I hope next year to be able to report that we have a very small percentage of our employees using anything other than Chromebooks.”

[Image credit: oneWeb20]

Google Execs Talk Chrome, Chromebooks

John Paczkowski — Wed, 11 May 2011 18:14:08 +0000

The second day of Google’s I/O conference brought with it a raft of Chrome-related announcements and nearly as many questions. In a Q&A session after Tuesday’s keynote, a panel of Google executives did their best to answer them. Fielding questions this morning: Google co-founder Sergey Brin; Sundar Pichai, SVP of Chrome; Linus Upson, VP of Engineering; and Directors of Product Management Ian Ellison-Taylor and Caesar Sengupta.

How do you reconcile this new Web-based model of computing with the ones we use currently?

Pichai: We are focused on creating unique computing experiences based on the Web. This is a very different model, but it will naturally co-exist with other models of computing.

Brin: I think it’s just a much easier way to compute. Ultimately the most precious resource is the user’s time.

How will you market the Chromebook?

Pichai: We look forward to getting the word out about Chrome and the Chromebook, but our partners will market their specific devices.

Have you given any though to making the Chrome Web Store available on other browsers?

Upson: Yes, we’ve been talking with other browser developers, like Mozilla and standards bodies so that over time we’ll be able to have the Chome store available on other browsers.

What did you learn from the beta? What are the trade-offs you have to make with this sort of computing?

Pichai: Just from a personal experience, giving it to my family and friends, it’s amazing to see how much they used it….We’ve given it to children, my daughter has one. Overall, the feedback has been positive….There have been some criticisms, the file system which we’ve now resolved….People have said they’d like the devices to be faster, which is why we’re using this new Intel processor….And we’re constantly improving Chrome itself, so the devices are just getting better. But with the Cr-48s, the response has been overwhelmingly positive.

What sort of support infrastructure have you put in place for Chromebook subscriptions?

Sengupta: It’s effectively the same service and support plan that we’ve been offering our enterprise customers through Google Apps.

Pichai: [Anecdote about getting a Chrome laptop up and running in 4 minutes] End to end this is a very different experience from a support standpoint. Since you’re not installing software on the computer, it tends to work a lot better….One of the costly parts of enterprise computing is provisioning new computers. This is something that we’d like to see go away.

What percentage of Google is still on Windows?

Brin: “I don’t have an exact number for you. I’d guess maybe 20 percent, but I’d have to get back to you. … I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with Windows. It has a lot of great security features. But I think the complexity of managing your computer is really torturing users … It’s torturing everyone in this room. It’s a flawed model fundamentally. Chromebooks are a new model that doesn’t put the burden of managing the computer on yourself. I hope next year to be able to report that we have a very small percentage of our employees using anything other than Chromebooks.”

Why should Chromebook users trust Google with their data?

Brin: This model doesn’t say ‘just trust Google’. You’re free to use other services. … You are trusting Chrome and Chrome OS to protect you against malicious things. You can go to any Web site out there. The Chrome team’s job is to make sure those sites can’t do malicious things to you.

Your CFO recently said that everyone that uses Chrome is a “locked-in” user. Can you comment?

Pichai: He misspoke. There is no lock-in. You can change your settings at any time.

Will Chromebooks be SIM-locked?

Sangupta and Pichai both note that it’s very easy to swap out SIMs on the Cr-48 and the same will be true of the Chromebook.

What’s the Chromebook hardware upgrade cycle look like?

Pichai: The current enterprise plan is for three years, so at the end of three years you’ll get a new Chromebook. But there is warranty support as well, so if something goes wrong with the device before that we’ll obviously replace it.

Any details on that $500 million DOJ charge?

Brin: “Fortunately, since we changed roles a few months ago, I don’t have to deal with filings, and the DOJ, the SEC or other acronyms.”

Is there competition between the Android and Chrome teams?

Pichai: Our goal is to focus on the users and bring the best ideas forward. We share common code and infrastructure with the Android team, but the final product is two different visions.

A final question: Aren’t you creating a sort of walled garden on Chromebooks by creating a Google-centric experience

Pichai: We are presenting the Web. I cannot imagine a more contextually open design. Everything is a link away….If you want to use Yahoo Mail, you just add a bookmark….I think this is really one of the most open operating systems around.

Last Time Larry Was CEO: Google Parties in 1999 (Video)

Liz Gannes — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:30:26 +0000

Sergey Brin’s flannel overshirt, Larry Page’s side part and a whole lot of happy, wholesome nerds were on display at one of Google’s staff “TGIF” meetings from 1999, captured for posterity on video. The company’s former director of consumer marketing and brand management for Google, Doug Edwards, recently wrote a book about his experiences, and has now posted this clip from an early TGIF when the company had fewer than 60 employees. Skip to the end to see Sergey give Larry the ultimate birthday gift: a gamer chair.

Seven Questions for Rajen Sheth, Who Wants To Put Chrome OS on Your Desktop

Arik Hesseldahl — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 13:50:08 +0000

There’s something about Rajen Sheth that makes him want to attack seemingly immovable objects. Five years ago, who would have thought there was any point to offering an alternative to the one thing that everyone has installed on their workplace PC, whether it’s running Windows or Mac OS: Microsoft Office.

When he first joined Google nearly seven years ago to start its enterprise division, Gmail was barely out of the gate and Blogger was the search giant’s most notable acquisition. What could Google offer enterprises that they weren’t already getting from Microsoft and Oracle and IBM and scores of other established software and hardware vendors?

The answer? An alternative. Sheth pitched Google’s trio of senior executives–Eric Schmidt, Larry Page and Sergey Brin–on the idea of experimenting with standard office applications–a word processor, a spreadsheet–that operated entirely within a browser. The product evolved into Google Apps, and while Microsoft Office still dominates the enterprise desktop, it’s widely accepted that Google Apps has made some important inroads against it: 3 million businesses use it in some way, and some 30 million people use it in their businesses.

Aside from the scores of companies, governments and non-profits that have adopted it, there are millions of college students using it, attracted by the zero-dollar price tag. Microsoft has responded with its own cloud-based office offering, Office 365, but its clear that Redmond’s traditional grip on the enterprise desktop isn’t quite as tight as it once was.

Now Sheth has an even bigger target in mind. If Office isn’t so sacred, why does Windows have to be? As the Group Product Manager Chrome OS for Business, he makes an interesting argument that the Redmond-centric world of corporate desktops is quietly nursing a desire for change. Where will it come from? A combination of cloud computing, and a desktop that’s stripped down to nothing but a browser. I talked with Sheth by phone earlier this month and my first question was about his education.

NewEnterprise: You did your undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, but now you work in software. Circuit design wasn’t for you?

I realized I liked software a lot more than hardware. But I was most of the way through with electrical engineering at Stanford. So I did my masters in software.

Does having been educated first on hardware give you a different perspective on any of the work you’re doing at Google?

It is actually relevant. A lot of what I’ve done involves software and user-facing interfaces, but it also involves a lot of infrastructure. When you look at VMWare, which is where I worked before Google, it’s about what you can do with a combination of hardware and software and change the game. It’s similar with Google Apps. It’s a big set of user-facing applications, but the big thing is the cloud computing infrastructure that’s underneath. The fundamental question is about how you wire computers together in the most efficient way possible. That is really the bread and butter underneath Google Apps. And finally with Chrome OS it’s the same question: What can you do to the form factor of the hardware if you’re really only running a browser on it. The background in hardware has served me well.

So you joined Google about seven years ago with the mission of creating something–you basically had a blank sheet of paper–that Google could offer the enterprise. And your first idea got shot down. What was it?

At the time I joined Google the enterprise division was literally 25 people. We had a few engineers and salespeople, and we brought in a manager, Dave Girouard. I came in with the explicit mission of starting something else within Google that was to be aimed at businesses. And that something else was completely undefined. When I was still at VMware, a friend sent me a Gmail invite, and I started using it, and it was better than my corporate mail. I thought it could be a very interesting enterprise product. After I joined, I pitched Eric, Larry and Sergey on the idea of putting Gmail into an appliance and shipping it out to corporations. They didn’t go for it. I went back six months later, with some new insight, specifically that we could use our server architecture to make it easier for businesses and educational institutions to deploy and manage email, and that from there we could move up-market to deploy applications. We got exactly one engineer to work on that.

It was very much like running a start-up. I was the product manager and was tasked with starting this new business and we went through all the classic things that a start-up does. Building the product, building the team, selling the vision to an early set of adopters–San Jose City College was our first college customer and Northwestern and Arizona State followed after that. We started small and incubated it within Google. We did a lot of experimenting with that small team to see what was viable and eventually we were able to get more resources to make it bigger.

So how does the Google Apps experience compare to your new role in building a business around Chrome OS for businesses?

It’s very similar. In Chrome OS I’m back in start-up mode. Essentially I’m trying to build a vision. We have a small team of people that all sit together in one area, building out the business model, and we’re trying to start small and grow from there. One way to look at Google is as a closed confederation of start-ups. All these teams are empowered to build something that is visionary. But we all have a lot of leverage behind us, and so we’re able to do a lot more than we ever would have been able to do if we were a small company.

I see a potential problem there: Don’t all these start-ups within Google run the risk of creating independent silos or fiefdoms that aren’t all on the same page? We hear a lot of criticism of the silos at companies like Sony or even Microsoft. Even at Google, there’s Google Voice, which is a great product but doesn’t really fit with anything else, though I understand it eventually will. But how do you avoid this silo problem?

It’s a great question, and its something we’ve thought about a lot. There are basically two extremes. The first extreme is on one hand you have different teams doing things completely different from each other. The other extreme requires that everything be integrated extremely well together. We tried to find a happy medium. The benefit for one is that you can move quickly. But if you do the other extreme, you slow down innovation. Your project may take several times longer. One big advantage is the Google infrastructure is all there. You don’t have to think about user authentication or how to store files. That’s all done for you, so everyone is using the same infrastructure. A lot of the parts you need are there and you just build on top of them. You can never strike a perfect balance, but we think ours is pretty good.

So what’s your mission with the Chrome OS?

My mission is to bring Chrome to business and to ask how we make it something that can reshape the enterprise desktop. The thing that was really intriguing for me, is that cloud computing has done so much for businesses. You don’t need to think about deploying the hardware, you can just turn things on. You don’t need to worry about massive up-front payments for hardware, you can just pay monthly for what you use. And your applications just keep getting better. In my mind the cloud really stops at the desktop.

The desktop is tremendously hard to manage. It costs a lot to maintain, most of the cost for a business is all in the maintenance. It doesn’t get better over time, it gets slower as you use it. I think there’s a huge opportunity to bring the principles of cloud computing to the desktop. It gets better, and it’s fast and secure. That’s the vision. We think we can do that because we have a unique operating system. It’s just a browser that’s completely stateless. As a result of that, you can boot up in 5 to 10 seconds. And no matter where you go, you log in, you have your entire desktop. If the system breaks, that’s not a problem, you just jump on to another system. If you lose it, it’s not a problem because its stateless.

There are people who would say its crazy to try and dislodge Windows as the operating system of choice for businesses, and yet you think you can do it. What kind of results have you seen so far?

If you just have a browser and take out everything else, life gets a lot simpler. And this is why I think that the desktop OS is ready for a radical change much like the enterprise applications were a few years ago. One thing we’ve found is that very significant portions of the population are using only a browser right now. Those trends show that this area is ripe for a change. If you look down the line in three years, the majority of those business users will use only a browser. We created this pilot device called the Cr48, which is a notebook with Chrome OS installed on it. We received 50,000 applications from businesses interested in trying it, and we now have thousands deployed in the field. We have companies like Intercontinental Hotel Group, Virgin American and Groupon using them for different things. We’ve even heard from the US Army Intelligence Office. We heard from a lot of companies we didn’t expect interest from.

I think you’ll see some early adopters, groups of users within companies, this year. Some companies’ pilot programs want to do large roll-outs to call centers and to customer service reps and some want to roll them out to mobile sales people. Many will find that it makes sense to them because it brings the cost down. No one wants to pay to have to fix a system that’s broken because two applications are in conflict with each other. No one wants to pay to go patch an operating system. That kind of thing is going to become a lot easier with Chrome OS.

How Google Killed GDrive and Spiked Its Skype Acquisition

Liz Gannes — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 11:00:52 +0000

This weekend I spent some time reading Steven Levy’s “In the Plex,” an account of the history of Google based on Levy’s deep embedding within the company (see Kara’s video interview with Levy from last week). The book as a whole is captivating, so I thought it might be worth highlighting a couple anecdotes about internal Google conflicts that previously never saw the light of day.

Levy relates that Sundar Pichai (the recently appointed SVP of Chrome who has been leading Google’s software projects for years) spiked Google’s GDrive storage service just prior to launch because he thought it was out of line with the cloud-based future. (Both Pichai and GDrive leader Bradley Horowitz spoke to Levy directly for his book.)

Google was about to launch a project it had been developing for more than a year, a free cloud-based storage service called GDrive. But Sundar had concluded that it was an artifact of the style of computing that Google was about to usher out the door. He went to Bradley Horowitz, the executive in charge of the project, and said, “I don’t think we need GDrive anymore.” Horowitz asked why not. “Files are so 1990,” said Pichai. “I don’t think we need files anymore.”

Horowitz was stunned. “Not need files anymore?”

“Think about it,” said Pichai. “You just want to get information into the cloud. When people use our Google Docs, there are no more files. You just start editing in the cloud, and there’s never a file.”

…Eventually they won people over by a logical argument–that it could be done, that it was the cloudlike thing to do, that it was the Google thing to do. That was the end of GDrive: shuttered as a relic of antiquated thinking even before Google released it. The engineers working on it went to the Chrome team.

In another longer section, Levy describes how Google product manager Wesley Chan, who had pushed for the company’s GrandCentral acquisition and was leading development on Google Voice, concocted and executed a plan to block Google from buying Skype, which it was seriously considering. (The timing and order of these events isn’t made explicit, which is a recurring issue through the book, but I’m a niggler for those details.)

Chan apparently bragged directly to Levy about his machinations:

With [Salar Kamangar and Sergey Brin] on board, Chan devised a plan to kill the Skype purchase. As he later described it, his scheme involved “laying grenades” at the executive meeting where the purchase was up for approval. Chan tricked the business development executive who was pushing the acquisition into thinking that he was in favor of the deal: he had even prepared a PowerPoint presentation with all the reasons Google should buy Skype. Chan says that halfway through the presentation, though, the trap sprang. Brin suddenly began asking questions that the deck didn’t address. “Who’s going to run this?” he demanded. “Not me,” said Kamangar. Craig Walker said he had two kids in school and wasn’t about to make regular runs to Eastern Europe. “What are the regulatory risks?” A lawyer said it might take months to get approval. Finally, Brin looked at Chan and asked why Google would want to take the risk to begin with. Chan dropped his defense entirely and began explaining why Google had no need for Skype.

“At that point,” recalls Chan, “Sergey gets up and says, ‘This is the dumbest shit I’ve ever seen.’ And Eric [Schmidt] gets up and walks out of the room. The deal’s off.”

Ruthless! Which of your darlings have you killed today?

Google Updates Its Management Page…By Taking Almost Everybody Off It

Liz Gannes — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 13:41:25 +0000

We’d chided Google recently for its out-of-date management page, given the departures and promotions since Larry Page took back the CEO title on April 4. Now the company has, indeed, updated its management page…by taking almost everybody off of it.

Where before, Google had listed nine people as executive officers, now it only has six, cutting out Shona Brown, Alan Eustace, and Jonathan Rosenberg. What happened to those three? Long-time head of product management Rosenberg is leaving the company; Eustace is now head of “Knowledge,” a.k.a. search, on par with six other “core product area” SVPs; and Brown is now in charge of Google.org.

By the way, none of those changes have actually been announced by Google, though when asked, the company has confirmed they have indeed happened.

That leaves the following:

Larry Page, CEO
Eric E. Schmidt, Executive Chairman
Sergey Brin, co-founder
Nikesh Arora, Senior Vice President and Chief Business Officer
David C. Drummond, Senior Vice President, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer
Patrick Pichette, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Sure, we’re obsessing about a single, mostly static Web page, but what makes these deletions more remarkable is that prior to a major clean-up last year, the management page had something like 70 people on it (here it is on the Wayback Machine).

Meanwhile, a related corporate timeline that diligently lists Google’s launches and other accomplishments hasn’t been updated since Sept. 2010.

But this seems to be the way of the new Larry Page regime: offering less information, not more.

Where's the Other Twin, Sergey Brin, Been During GoogQuake?

John Paczkowski — Sat, 09 Apr 2011 00:55:15 +0000

Newly restored CEO Larry Page wasted no time in reorganizing Google during his first week on the job, promoting seven executives–most of whom are more techie than manager types–to oversee Google’s most important divisions.

It’s definitely been a significant swing of the pendulum, one that immediately transforms the company from a cross-functional organization to an ambidextrous one and a big move that puts the Google co-founder Page at the center of the action.

But what of Google’s other co-founder, Sergey Brin? Where has he been he in all this?

No longer president of technology, the party line has Brin working strategic projects.

And that’s true, according to many sources, who say he’s been doing things such as working with entrepreneurs–such as Slide’s Max Levchin–and also on the more fast-forward computing projects at the company.

But sources also say he’s been very active behind the scenes in Google’s management streamlining.

“He’s not involved in the day-to-day so much,” said one. “But his presence is definitely felt in these executive shifts.”

“Nothing’s changed,” said another. “It’s still ‘Bosom Buddies’ up there.”

That would be the kitschy television sitcom in which two guys–a very young Tom Hanks and Peter Scolari–dressed up like ladies to live in a women-only apartment complex.

There were, of course, hijinks galore, as there have been at Google, where Page has settled into the star-making Hanks role and Brin the other guy.

And it probably always will be that way, regardless of who’s doing what.

“What do I think’s going to happen to Sergey going forward” said a former employee. “Nothing he doesn’t want to happen. Larry was always more interested in running things than Sergey and I’m pretty sure Sergey’s fine with him having all the headaches that entails.”

To give you a glimpse into that relationship, what would be better than the opening from “Bosom Buddies,” with the incredibly perfect song–”My Life” by Billy Joel:

PageYank: As New SVPs Are Born at Google in CEO Reorg, What Happens to the Old Ones?

John Paczkowski — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 07:15:40 +0000

Things are sure shaking over at Google, since the sudden departure on Monday of Jonathan Rosenberg, Google’s head of product management and one of its most senior executives.

While his exit was portrayed as friendly all around, sources with knowledge of the dicey situation said that was definitely not the case.

Instead, moving aside Rosenberg was newly installed CEO and Co-founder Larry Page’s first parry at remaking the search giant in his own image.

Moving management chairs around is one of the tried-and-true way new leaders often try to effect that kind of dramatic change and several sources said Page has been tossing them about rather than just rearranging them.

That was certainly clear in last night’s knighting of six new SVP titles upon a group of execs, all very close to Page.

The promoted in new business units: Sundar Pichai, SVP of Chrome; Vic Gundotra, SVP of social; Andy Rubin SVP of mobile; Salar Kamangar SVP of YouTube and video; Alan Eustace SVP of search; Susan Wojcicki SVP of ads.

Of them, Eustace was previously an SVP, in charge of engineering and research, and Wojcicki had recently held the title SVP of product management.

It’s all the next step in Page’s overhauling the company’s management structure, as I reported in this column earlier this week was in the works.

As I wrote:

The main theme that seems to be emerging: An elimination of Google’s more centralized functional structure–where Rosenberg was one of several manager kingpins–to one in which the individual business units and their engineers, such as its most independent Android division, rule more autonomously.

Reimagined like this, Google would become an ambidextrous organization with more powerful unit line execs, mostly engineers, doing what needs to be done to succeed, less burdened by the need to vet every little effort through various managers of Google’s powerful operating committee.

This, of course, brings into focus that fates of several other SVPs on the formal management structure list on Google’s Web site and still serving on that OC.

Leaving Eustace off, since he has a new SVP title, they are: Nikesh Arora, SVP and Chief Business Officer; David Drummond SVP, Corporate Development, and Chief Legal Officer; Shona Brown, SVP, Business Operations; and Patrick Pichette, SVP and Chief Financial Officer.

How their roles evolve or do not–all might stay as is, of course–will be the next interesting part of what I am calling PageYank:

Nikesh Arora:

In a widely read column earlier this week, investing gadfly Eric Jackson argued that Arora is probably the most vulnerable of all the senior executives at the company.

The high-profile Arora is well known both inside and outside the company as both highly ambitious and consistently pugnacious.

While that is not necessarily a bad thing to be, that style has garnered him some criticism and he is often referred to as “Darth Vader” among detractors (and even some supporters).

Still, Arora has been a consistent producer of results over his tenure, which might be all that matters. In fact, it might also make him an attractive candidate for a CEO job outside Google.

But, perhaps most important right now though, is that Arora is “definitely not part of Larry’s inner circle,” said one source, adding “and that’s a very important place to be right now.”

Incidentally, that inner circle currently seems to consist of many of those promoted last night–Kamangar, Rubin, Pichai and Gundotra–as well as search leads Udi Manber and Amit Singhal and, of course, Co-founder Sergey Brin.

And not, it seems, Arora.

David Drummond:

With Kent Walker recently promoted to an SVP title, along with being Google’s general counsel, does the company need a Chief Legal Officer or does it need to winnow down another layer of management?

As one source told me, “Why do you need a Drummond, when you’ve got a Walker?” It’s a fair point.

While also in charge of both public policy and corporate development, Drummond has been known more for benign absence at Google than for aggressive presence.

Some also suggest that the affable exec, who has been at Google since early on and is presumably very wealthy, might also not want to sign up for the long-term commitment that Page now expects of his top managers.

Shona Brown:

Before she came to Google, Brown spent a decade consulting for McKinsey and is widely credited with optimizing Google’s internal structure.

But Page is not a McKinsey guy and he’s obviously not a big fan of Google’s current management organization anymore.

That might not bode well for the legendarily sharp-elbowed Brown who most sources describe as highly strategic but also as extremely difficult to work with.

Still, if Page is tinkering with the way Google is organized, Brown might also be the one he turns to find a new structure.

That said, he seems to be fine doing it on his own and some suggest Brown will move to another role within the company rather than leaving.

Not all agree.

Said one source: “I wouldn’t be shocked to see Shona go. Frankly, I’m surprised she survived as long as she did, but then I didn’t think Rosenberg would last this long either.”

But, said another about Brown, who has previously taken time off from Google and returned: “I’d never count Shona out.”

Patrick Pichette:

He’s not going anywhere, as far as I can tell. The friendly and erudite Pichette is widely admired at the company and by Page–the most important admirer of all at Google these days.

He’s also been a smart and stable presence on earnings calls and does a job with Wall Street analysts and investors that Page is pretty much uninterested in and–more to the point–completely incapable of doing well.

Let’s be honest about the socially awkward CEO: Page’s frequently prickly and robotic style makes Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg look like Cary Grant.

Pichette stays.

As for everyone else, as Page reaches even further down into the organization at Google, it will be interesting to see where the next chair will fall.

One thing is clearest of all: Page is positioning himself as the centerpoint of the entire company.

Because make no mistake, these new autonomous divisions all report to him, in a system that mimics Apple and its legendary leader Steve Jobs.

A tough act to follow, to be sure.

PREVIOUSLY:

Google’s Page Begins Major Reorg: Engineers, Not Managers, In Charge

Product Chief Jonathan Rosenberg to Leave Google

Larry Page as CEO: Steve Jobs or Jerry Yang?

Google Jazzes Up Kansas City's Broadband

Arik Hesseldahl — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 18:43:03 +0000

Google’s goin’ to Kansas City. Well, Kansas City, Kansas. Having promised last year to provide a community with Internet access that’s 100 times faster than most people in the U.S. have today, the company named Kansas City–part of the greater metropolitan area that gave us Charlie Parker, the first Walt Disney cartoons, and where they make some pretty good barbecue–as the first place it will do it. It plans to start offering service there next year. The plan is to deliver 1 gigabit per second service over fiber optic lines to the homes of as many as 500,000 people.

More than 1,100 communities applied. One can only wonder how neighboring Topeka, Kansas, feels after briefly renaming itself Google, Kansas last year.

Kansas City is by no means a technical backwater. I visited the place in 2003 to write a profile of Garmin for Forbes Magazine. Sprint is based in the suburb of Overland Park, though I confess I’m having a hard time thinking of other examples. Google’s video on the announcement is below Little Richard’s rendition of the R&B standard written for the city.