Board members may have different areas of expertise, but they all share a fiduciary duty to shareholders (not management) to oversee the major strategic plans of the companies they serve. The iPhone falls into that category of things that all Apple board members should be concerned about (even Mickey Drexler).

And no, I wouldn’t equate the strategic importance of the iPhone with the Cocoa programming language.

Pre-emptively acting against a businesses you think may in the future act improperly or illegally, because they have power, is completely illegal, immoral and unethical even though this is the way the USA conducts itself in the world, like a delusional half whited bully more commonly known as a thug. Preemption is the realm of the weak, totalitarian governments who act to control because they can’t lead and feel powerless to influence or present an example to be emulated

Google has way too much power. Right now they abuse the little guys with their lack of transparency and their increasingly weak algorithm tweaks that don’t seem to be improving things but regularly screw small fry.

Good to know some of the people who the government actually listens to are starting to push the issue.

Google is being questioned so much because big companies are loosing big bucks because what its doing. If you research you will find other companies out there do much worse. If government is out banning abuse of power Google is way down on the list, if you think they are on the list at all.

Its not what Google is right now, that is scaring people. Its whats its becoming. One thing people have to keep in mind is that Google employees best of the best. Most of its employees are Master or PhD of some sort. They add a lot of value to its products. Google is trying to take over a lot of things but is that bad if we get cheaper or free products?

You’re completely off base here. (External) board members are brought on primarily to be experts in a particular field or come with connections. For example, Millard Drexler of J. Crew is obviously there for his retail-store expertise (and I guess he’s been doing a good job!). Do you really think that Drexler’s input on the iPod, when that was the hottest thing, was essential to his board seat? No, obviously not. Al Gore has obvious political connections, as well as some potential input on online TV or energy-related things. Gore has very limited no experience in the private sector and no techincal knowledge; surely this prevents him from having the ability to make informed decisions about some of the discussions at Apple board meetings, but that’s just fine. Some might say that the recent adding of Andrea Jung is for the NBC connections (through her board seat at GE). She knows a thing or two about sales, too. It really doesn’t matter how much she knows about operating systems, does it? Now there’s not necessarily a clear product reason for all of them — I think Arthur Levinson is just there because hes a complete badass — but the point is that is TOTALLY ok for Schmidt to not comment on iPhone-related issues; not every board member has to have input on every thing. And as you say, there is a huge conflict of interest there, and it’s only right for Schmidt to do so.

Apple has a lot of ventures and a lot of products. The iPhone may be the *hottest* one right now, but it’s not a core competency like software, their most profitable product like the normal ipod, their biggest growth (retail, music) or anything of the sort. It’s just one of many things that Apple is doing.

When it comes to designing an operating system or computer for the future, there aren’t many better sources of wisdom on what you might want to be able to readily serve than Eric Schmidt. And I’m pretty sure he knows a thing or two about handling a programming language (Cocoa) or scaling up a technology-focused business from doing great to absolutely dominant. Are you really saying that there’s no point to having Eric Schmidt on the board? Come on.

And Eric isn’t just “protecting himself”. He’s maintaining the integrity of the discussion. His leaving benefits everyone else involved not to have to worry about the conflict of interest involved and also helps him be able to go full force at Google without feeling like he might be violating some sort of agreement with Apple.

I’d bet on Apple.

… why do I feel that these words have been echoed throughout business history many many times before, and most of those times, the result has been abuse of power? (I was going to be sensationalistic and write something like: Citizen 1: “With Adolf at the helm …” but I only add it in the parenthetical for fear of invoking Godwin’s law. Nevertheless, I think the point is clear: a few individuals at the helm of a huge source of power can NEVER be trusted - that’s why democratic republics thrive and monarchies / oligarchies falter)

2. “Concentration of power is not the same as abuse of power”

… no shit. But this is a misleading defense, as it doesn’t address the actual issue. Those concerned with google’s aggregation of power aren’t concerned with that in and of itself: it’s the increased potential for google to do great harm as a result of that concentration of power. This should be obvious and not require an extended argument. A parallel would be saying: “possession of nuclear weapons is not the same as use of nuclear weapons”. Bravo. That’s not the point. The point is that, once they’re around (parallel: once the power is concentrated) the potential for harm increases dramatically.

3. “conflicts happen, ethics is more than a buzzword. get over it.”

I agree - ethics is more than a buzzword. From an ethical standpoint, I actually applaud Schmidt’s move. But I think the blog author’s point was a good one: if this invocation of business ethics necessitates you sitting out from any discussions involving a CORE COMPONENT of the company’s business … what is the point of being on the board? More precisely, I think I would say: you’ve violated the point of being on the board. If your directors can’t engage in the very stuff that is your company’s business because of conflicts, its time to find new directors. Otherwise, they’re just warm bodies. Coming from Google doesn’t get you some sort of pass.

I’ll extend it just a bit more: I think the metaethical thing for Schmidt to do (if the claims in the nyt article are true) would be to remove himself from the board, in recognition of his inability to fulfill the director role. That’s being ethical. Simply sitting out and violating your duty as a board member in the process isn’t ethical - its playing the ethics card for another end.