In terms of big companies with an overall glowing public perception these days, two seem to stand above all others: Apple and Google. And the two share a lot in common — notably, a common enemy in Microsoft, and both share two board members. The latter is apparently the subject of a new FTC investigation into possible antitrust ties, The New York Times has learned.
Specifically, Eric Schmidt and Arthur Levinson sit on the boards of both companies. And section 8 of the The Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 prohibits two companies from sharing the same board member(s), if it is going to decrease competition between the two. But, as the NYT notes, this is rarely enforced. And even if it were, it would be difficult to penalize, because the person would likely just resign from one of the boards. But it’s interesting nonetheless that the government is looking into this for a couple reasons — both involving Schmidt, who is of course, also the CEO of Google.
First, new antitrust chief Christine A. Varney, has a history of linking Google to the word “antitrust.” Last June, before she held the post, she said that Microsoft represented an antitrust threat for the last century, but that Google was the one to watch now. When she was named as the nominee, plenty pointed this out, saying that it was good that President Obama would choose someone who would take such a stance even with Obama’s close ties to Schmidt, who helped in significant ways to get him elected. More recently, Schmidt was appointed to the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
The second reason that this is interesting is again because of Schmidt. He has been on Apple’s board for a number of years, and this has presented an interesting situation recently for the two companies. When discussing the iPhone in Apple’s board meetings, Schmidt has to excuse himself, since one of Google’s key products, Android, competes with the iPhone. This hasn’t been too much of an issue in the past since just as they compete, sometimes the two companies also help one another in terms of things like apps for the iPhone. But a report a few months ago indicated that Google may have decided not to include multi-touch support in Android at the behest of Apple.
If the FTC actually decides to seriously pursue this, it could well force Schmidt to step down from his position on Apple’s board. Sure, the two sides could fight it, but it would be much easier for everyone if he just did that. But is that what’s really going on here?
Going back to the Microsoft connection; it’s hard not to jump at the opportunity to speculate that it plays a roll in this FTC inquiry. The software giant is known to have a large and powerful Washington lobby — one that has done shady things in the past. But would it really use some of its clout to demand this sort of inquiry which rarely results in any kind of action? It seems a bit unlikely, but perhaps it’s possible if it really just wants to mess with Google and Apple. But again, that’s just pure speculation. Instead, this may just be a shot across the bow of Google by the antitrust team, letting them know that despite the close ties the administration has to Schmidt, it is watching.
too many typos – i m not reading
This goog people push it to farthest possible, always. Better to rip it apart. And they always have “justifications” that can fool only fanboys and novice users.
“When discussing the iPhone in Apple’s board meetings, Schmidt has to excuse himself, since one of Google’s key products, Android, competes with the iPhone.”
Awkward indeed
Really awkward. I wonder how this whole dual-board position for Schmidt came about? Seems odd.
me niether
Perfection, its a beautiful thing.
On topic: Going on a witch hunt against Google could backfire.
Google & Apple are one of the few companies out there that both liberals and conservatives praise daily (FWIW, Karl Rove was a huge Mac fan).
Worst case scenario: Schmidt resigns as board head.
Either way, our government has better uses of their time than going after pseudo-monopolies.
Our government went after Microsoft for including their own web browser in their OS. The supposed outcry was that it limited people when in reality, the average consumer could care less about which browser they are using.
I did not see the same thing happen when OS/X started bundling in Safari? Why? Where is the public outcry about innovation and competition and freedom of choice?
Apple is starting to get to the point where it will be under the radar just like Microsoft was. It was bound to happen and Google is next.
You can be a liberal or conservative, but when the chance comes up to make a name for yourself, you are still a politician…
“I did not see the same thing happen when OS/X started bundling in Safari? Why? Where is the public outcry about innovation and competition and freedom of choice?”
(1) Apple didn’t threaten not to sell OEMs Mac OS X if they didn’t include Safari and set it as the default browser.
(2) You could still effectively use other browsers with Mac OS X
(3) You could still change your default browser
(4) You could remove Safari from your computer
In the case of (1) Apple had no one to threaten because they have no OEMs besides themselves, and so they’re lucky. Those are the breaks. Apple putting Safari on Mac OS X machines is not the same as Microsoft bundling IE.
The latent implication in your post is that no one protested because people think Apple is dreamy and can do not evil whereas Microsoft is purely evil because it was run by a nerd with a vendetta against the world to make it pay for him not being class president. I’ll note that Apple has received relatively large public criticism for the closed-ness of its i[Pod|Tunes|Phone] ecosystem. The world doesn’t have blinders on for Apple, but it certainly does help them that they make products that people actually like.
Regardless of what the actual anti-trust claim was, it was really all about other vendors trying to make Microsoft stop bundling in IE because the average person had absolutely no reason to switch to any other browser. Whether or not it was easy to do or there were any threats to the OEMs is irrelevant. The real issue was whether or not other vendors could get their software into play. If the browser was not bundled in, then the user will actually have to make a decision on which browser to use.
As far as Apple is concerned, they make good products, but they are also treated with kid gloves for some reason. If Bill Gates would have backdated some options, he’d be in jail by now or forced out of the company like the executives at Mercury Interactive were. The reality is that people seem to think that Apple’s s**t does not stink. It is evident in everything and more so in media and blogs like this one. Case in point, a couple of months ago, TC had a story about how Apple managed to sell more than 1.6 million iPhone in 4Q2008. Today, a study was released that showed that RIM sold more blackberry devices than iPhones in the 1Q2009. Where was the story? It did not appear on this blog. Is it not news worthy? Apparently not. Why? Probably because it does not put the shine on Apple.
Whether you admit it or not, Apple is dreamy. But what both Apple and Google will realize is that the SEC couldn’t care less.
Oh, and that guy that had a vendetta against the world? He has donated over 200 million dollars and raised over 2 billion dollars for charity. So much for a vendetta…
There’s no such thing as OEMs Mac OS X…
Every point made was complete nonsense. Microsoft was sued by self serving liberals like Larry Lessig in order to promote themselves. They had no concern for the law. They are a blight on the standard of truth and wisdom. Watch out, that douche Lessig isn’t done groping for power, hide your kids.
Great Read… I wonder Shmidt’s reaction is to Apple allowing Palm to run with multi-touch though, especially considering the rumor that it was pulled from Android at the behest of Apple… it seems like Google’s contribution to the iPhone has been invaluable, whereas as Apple’s contribution to Android has been along the lines of diddly-squat… what gives? Just a swipe at Microsoft?
What do you mean by Apple allowing Palm? Who is asking for their permission? You really think that Apple invented the concept of swiping a finger across a screen or pinching an image to zoom in and out?
Apple’s patent would be overturned if challenged because it is too generic. This has happened in the past and will continue to. Our patent system is outdated and heavily favored towards the big players who are able to get their patents approved faster than smaller companies even though the smaller companies filed first. It is a game that is played by companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft every day. BTW, the first Palm Devices had a feature that allowed the device to be locked when you swiped you finger across the screen. Did they steal the concept of finger swiping from Apple 20 years ago before Jobs even dreamt of the iPhone or did Apple borrow the idea from Palm? Perhaps Apple borrowed the idea from the movie “Minority Report” which borrowed the concept from actual research done at Universities about user interfaces of the future? Get my point?
Technological innovation is much more than a finger swipe. It is how you use that finger swipe and as long as Palm did not copy Apple’s execution, they have nothing to worry about.
BTW, the Palm is not the first one to do this, the Samsung Vue (my Daughter has one) also uses finger swipes and multi-touch to control the user interface. I did not read about Samsung calling Apple and asking for permission.
Varney is 100% correct. Google is a great technology company that resembles a lot what Microsoft was 20 years ago. Great technology! But eventually, Google, just like any other company, is going to have to worry about the bottom line and that will drive its decisions on how to market, sell, and most importantly compete with other companies that have competing technologies.
“Don’t be evil” is the motto of a company that was comprised of many techies when it started. Eventually, it will be run by corporate business people and not techies and then that motto will become “be evil, but don’t let others see it”.
Wait, so the two companies that are trying to compete intensely in the mobile marketplace are somehow bad for consumers? People rave over Apple’s products with intense zealotry, while I don’t think anyone here could survive without Google. The search engine stands hands and feet above the rest.
If anything is bad it’s the fact that Apple uses minimum advertised pricing (a form of price fixing) to keep the prices of their products up. But if that’s the problem, then MAP should be illegal… not Apple’s product divisions. And Google’s most valid criticism is that it summarily dismisses intellectual property concerns (it just processes the takedown and doesn’t block people from putting that content back up). But once again, Google is just doing what the law has repeatedly said it’s allowed to do.
but google is a spyware company.
Google revenue model: Free products at for the cost of your privacy.
Riley the Microsoft troll sez: “but google is a spyware company. Google revenue model: Free products at for the cost of your privacy.”
HAHAHAHA!! That’s a good one Riley!
But Microsoft charges you 300 dollars for your privacy, then cyber-criminals steal your docs anyway!
“But would [Microsoft] really use some of its clout to demand this sort of inquiry which rarely results in any kind of action? It seems a bit unlikely, but perhaps it’s possible if it really just wants to mess with Google and Apple.”
By publishing this story, you are helping Microsoft to discredit by innuendo that something illegal or corrupt is going on between the two.
This and similar stories will be published all over the world, advancing the agenda of Microsofts’ propaganda operation. That is why Microsoft willingly spends political capitol. Microsoft has been in an all-out anti-Google attack mode since the beginning of this year.
hmmm….
http://www.ipho...ogs/mobile.html
Wow, can you guys be any more transparent in your love for Redmond? What a joke. It’s getting to the point where I can get better tech analysis from Valleywag, and that is truly a sad state of affairs.
“In terms of big companies with an overall glowing public perception these days, two seem to stand above all others: Apple and Google.”
I don’t believe that’s the case at all. Perhaps you could have argued that five years ago, but I think the public are much more switched on to the realities the situation now. Neither of them has a particularly sparkling track record lately.
It sounds to me like somebody with too much power bought an iPhone and isn’t happy with it…
Seriously???
Dear Congress, stop f#cking around with college football championships, Google, Apple and all the other f#cktard things you’ve been messing around with and FIX THE ECONOMY!
Sincerely,
Someone who doesn’t care if MS, Google or Apple have a monopoly
Just one more instance of the One going after segments of the economy He does not yet control. But not to worry, since the One has said He’s going to take down the Wall Street and “1/2″ the economy. So what’s a little Google and Apple? Munch…
people….ur missing the point here. i’m gonna say this once: THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANTI-TRUST!!!!!!!!!! let’s think back to a few weeks ago and the veiled threats from murdock and his goons against google, pirate bay and related IPR issues that have followed. i don’t have time to do in-depth research into Christine A. Varney but she does have history with IPR and who knows what her links to news corp are. just on wiki you can see links to the ‘Online Privacy Alliance”, washington post and, as we know, she’s already had run-ins with microsoft. i think this comes back again to IPR and strong lobbyists in washington shoring up traditional IPR status quo with government.
maybe someone can provide some more insight into Christine A. Varney connections to various ‘interest’ groups.
I want to make it clear from the offset, I don’t use Google and I don’t particuarly like Apple’s attitudes to consumers (I see it as arrogance).
I would support some form of investigation because there are aspects of the Mac experience I feel are unfairly bias, e.g. there is no way for me to get a search engine other than Google in Safari’s search bar… WTF? Every other browser does this, what if MS stopped allowing IE to use different search engines, we’d all be raising arguments.
Wow that was hard:
Safari on Windows:
http://www.tech..._search_engine/
Safari on OS X:
http://www.maco...030514035516436
Or you can do all of us a favor and download Firefox.
No need to be defensive, oh wait, do you own Apple?
I was referring to the software allowing me to change search engine to Live.com or ANY search engine I want… not a terminal hack. I have used the hack anyway but that’s not exactly the software letting me do anything is it? It’s a trick somebody has found to circumvent their efforts.
No other browser is like this AFAIK and I think it’s justified to look into any unfair play with two companies so closely tied.
Hey, that’s not fair! I thought of the About Schmidt puns first! http://www.into...periment/?p=460