Google Annual Stockholders Meeting 2008

Google Annual Stockholders Meeting 2008

admin Articles, Blog , , , , , , , , , ,


MALE SPEAKER: Ladies and
gentlemen good afternoon. Please welcome Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer of Google, Dr. Eric Schmitt. ERIC SCHMIDT: Well good
afternoon and welcome to Google’s 2008 annual meeting
of shareholders. We’re delighted to
have you here. First place, did you all
enjoy your lunch? OK, very important at Google. I’m Eric, properly introduced. I hope everybody here has had
a chance to get registered. If you’ve not been registered
for the meeting find somebody in the corner who will make
sure you get properly registered. And we gave you an agenda, which
he should have. And a set of rules of conduct and so
forth– the usual stuff– that you find in shareholder
meetings. So at this time I’d like to
call the meeting to order. Before doing anything else,
I want to make sure that I introduce some of our
directors and officers that are here. Let’s see– we have
Paul Otellini. You want to raise your hand. John Hennessy, Ram Shriram, Ann
Mather, and John Doerr. Did I miss any of the
board members, aside from Larry and Sergey? Larry stand up. This is Larry Page. I think people know Larry. And Larry’s doing his best
impersonation of Sergey who will be here in just a minute. Sergey you just showed up. There’s Sergey. And before I say anything else,
the greatest highlight of my personal and professional
life, I think, is the collaboration that
I have with these two extraordinary people. So it’s great to be here
with my colleagues. We have a number of executives, from Google as well. I see George Reyes, CFO. I see Elliot Schrage. I saw Jonathan Rosenberg. David Drummond of course
in just a sec. Anybody else, shout out. We also have Debra Kelley,
representative of Computershare, who will act as
our inspector of elections. And Dave Cabral, a
representative of Ernst & Young, our auditors of course,
who are independent accountants. I’d also now like to introduce
David Drummond, who as I mentioned before, he’s here,
and he’s the Chief Legal Officer and Corporate
Secretary. David of course is going
to do the formal business of the meeting. And you all remember having done
this before, we’re going to do the formal business
meeting, as soon we get that over then we’re going to
go right into a short presentation from me. And then Q&A and comments that
they may have on this or any other subjects. Please don’t break the
podium here David. You’re all set? Go ahead. DAVID DRUMMOND: I’m all set. Thank you Eric. And thanks everyone for coming
and let me give you my welcome to the meeting as well. We’ll try to be quick
with the actual business of the meeting. We’ve got a Q&A session later
on that I’m sure you’re eager to get to. A quick note about stockholder
questions, as stated in the rules of conduct, stockholders
should not address the meeting until you’re actually recognized
from the podium. We’ll have, as I said, we’ll
have a question and answer period later on so you can ask
questions, that will be following Eric’s presentation. Now if you want to ask a
question during the Q&A period, a please move to one
of the microphones that we have, I think we have two,
one on each aisle, on each side of the room. And after we recognize you,
please identify yourself and your status as either
a shareholder or a representative of a shareholder
and then go ahead and ask your question. So thanks in advance for
cooperating with these rules. Now on to the formal business. I’ve received the affidavit of
mailing of Computershare, which states that the notice
of meeting and the accompanying proxy materials and
annual report were mailed to the shareholders
on March 11th. That’s all the shareholders
of record as of that date. In addition, I’ve been advised
by the inspector of elections that the holders of our
outstanding class a and class b common stock, representing
at least a majority of the voting power of our outstanding
capital stock that’s entitled to vote, is
represented today, either in person or by proxy. So as a result, we have a
quorum, the meeting is duly constituted and we can proceed
with the actual business. First item, is the election
of directors. Ten directors will be elected
at today’s meeting. The directors today will hold
office until next year’s annual meeting of shareholders
or until their successors are duly elected and qualified. Board of directors has nominated
the following persons, Eric Schmitt, Sergey
Brin, Larry Page, John Doerr, John Hennessy, Art Levinson, Ann
Mather, Paul Otellini, Ram Shriram, and Shirley Tilghman. Our bylaws require that a
stockholder provide advance notice of any intent to nominate
anyone as a director. We haven’t received any such
notice, so accordingly, I declare that the nominations
for director are closed. The next matter being submitted
to our stockholders is the ratification of the
appointment of Ernst & Young as our independent auditors
and registered public accounting firm. Our board of directors has
recommended that our stockholders ratify the
appointment of Ernst & Young. For the fiscal year, ending
December 31, 2008. The third item of business being
submitted today, is to approve an amendment to our 2004
stock plan to increase the number of shares of class a
common stock under the plan by an additional number
of 6,500,000 shares. And our board of directors has
also recommended that our stockholders vote in favor of
this amendment to the plan. Now the next two items
on the agenda are stockholder proposals. Our board of directors has
unanimously recommended that our shareholders vote against
these proposals. However, one of our founders,
Sergey Brin, who’s also a director of the company, will
be abstaining and not voting against these proposals in his
capacity as a stockholder. Now the first stockholder
proposal is being brought by the office of the comptroller
of New York City and St. Scholastica Monastery. I’d like to introduce
Mr. Tony Cruise. Mr. Cruise are you here? Great, welcome to Google. And Mr. Cruise will be
presenting this proposal. You have a total of three
minutes to make a statement in support of the proposal today. TONY CRUISE: Great, thank you. Again my name is Tony Cruise. And I’m here today using a
proxy of the office of comptroller of New York City,
which holds about $200,000,000 worth of Google stock. And I’m also here representing
Amnesty International, the largest human rights
organization in the world, with more than 2,000,000
members worldwide. So I’m here to request your
support for a proposal on Internet censorship. Concerns about Google’s
participation in the Chinese government’s restriction of
freedom of information on-line has been well documented. Including in The Amnesty
International Report undermining freedom of
expression in China. As shareholders may be aware,
Google is currently participating in a
multi-stakeholder initiative to develop a set of voluntary
principles which would guide how companies like Google
respond to censorship demands in countries like China. Amnesty International has been
participating in this initiative in an effort to
ensure the outcomes reflect a sincere commitment to upholding
the highest attainable standard of corporate
responsibility for human rights. Specifically we feel strongly
that for the MSI to be meaningful, it must include the
following: a commitment to independent monitoring and
assessment of the company’s fulfillment of the principles
that are agreed to, a public commitment to honoring freedom
of expression, transparency about filtering process used
to limit or restrict search results, including informing
users, development of human rights impact assessments that
would be disclosed publicly, a commitment to exhaust all
possible remedies and appeals before complying with state
directives that would violate internationally recognized human
rights, including the rights to free expression,
access to information, and privacy, and documentation and
public disclosure of all cases where legally binding censorship
requests have been compiled with. Our requests are echoed by the
proposal before you for a vote today which requests that
management institute policies to help protect freedom of
expression on the Internet. The proposal additionally
requests that data that can identify individual users
should not be hosted in Internet restricting countries
where political speech can be treated as a crime by the legal
system and that users should be informed about the
company’s data retention practices, and the ways which
their data is shared with third parties. Such policies and standards do
not currently exist at Google, and while we hope that the
multi-stakeholder process will result in such policies and
practices, we’ve seen little more than talk and defensiveness
from Google since these problems
first emerged. While a willingness to engage
NGOs and other experts on these issues as a useful
first step. The truth is that 18 months
later, the issue of Internet censorship in countries like
China has worsened and we still haven’t seen concrete
changes from Google. There is nothing in
the charter of the multi-stakeholder process which
precludes Google from taking proactive steps that
might ameliorate the situation while conversations about the
standardized principles go on. Therefore, on behalf of the
comptroller of New York and Amnesty International, I ask
shareholders to vote in favor of this proposal as a strong
signal to Google that expedited action on these
issues is required. Thank you. DAVID DRUMMOND: Thank
you Mr. Cruise. Sir, gentleman on my right, do
you have a statement that addresses the proposal
at hand. MALE SPEAKER: Yes. DAVID DRUMMOND: Please
identify yourself. MALE SPEAKER: My name
is [UNINTELLIGIBLE]. I have a smaller share
of Google. At first, I want thank Google,
perform better than Yahoo, to help China [UNINTELLIGIBLE] to censorship. Actually today we read The Wall
Street Journal, other Chinese writer got arrested. And I myself, is a political
refugee, I couldn’t go back to China for more than
10 or 20 years. So what I want to say is I fully
support the proposal and I want the boarding especially
when you make policy regarding the censorship especially pay
more attention on China. Because now China, we’re a lot
Internet user country. Thank you very much. DAVID DRUMMOND: Thank you very
much for your comment. The gentleman on
the other side. You have a comment addressing
the proposal? SHELTON EHRLICH: Yes I do. DAVID DRUMMOND: OK, please
identify yourself. SHELTON EHRLICH: My name is
Shelton Ehrlich, I own 23 shares of Google. DAVID DRUMMOND: Thank you. SHELTON EHRLICH: I used Google
on my computer to search Amnesty International and the
comptroller of the City of New York, and the board of trustees
of the pension plan that made this proposal. I have nothing to say on the
merits of the proposal itself. I just want the shareholders to
know that the comptroller of the City of New York
is a politician. He has two campaigns
going on today. One is condemning a
jury verdict in the City of New York. It’s as if our CFO got involved
in felony cases in Mountain View. The second thing he has going
for him to maybe rise to Mayor or Governor is a campaign to
come to shareholder meetings and criticize decent, wonderful,
corporations. It’s on his web site,
that’s his job. I have another comment on
Amnesty International. Today is the 60th birthday
of the nation of Israel. Amnesty International is one of
the leaders attempting to stop Israel from defending
itself against terrorists. Thank you. DAVID DRUMMOND: Thank you
very much sir for your participation. Now it’s time to move to the
second stockholder proposal that’s being brought to
the meeting today. This one is being brought by
Harrington Investments Inc. And I’d like to introduce Mr
John Harrington who is a representative from Harrington
Investments to present the proposal. Mr Harrington you’ve
got three minutes. JOHN HARRINGTON: Thank you
Mr. Chairman, members. I am not a politician
so you’re all safe in your seat today. I’m not advocating anything but
human rights in China and nothing but a modest proposal
to allow the Google board to adopt and amend their bylaws,
their laws of the corporation, to create a committee
on human rights. What we’re doing is, we are
looking for a constructive way to deal with human rights
issues across the globe. Not only in China, but in
Vietnam, and Saudi Arabia, in a lot of countries that restrict
the Internet and censor the Internet. Management of this company
unfortunately has shown itself to be unwilling or unable to
grasp the gravity of the issue of human rights in China and
take appropriate steps. This world must begin to
exercise its fiduciary duty. The directors of Google, and
this is directed at the directors of Google, not
management, because they have the fiduciary duty, and they
are elected by us. And I should say in retrospect
what’s really interesting is when you filled out your ballot
today you had two choices, you can either vote
yes, or you could withhold your proxy. Did you know this company
doesn’t even have majority voting. We can’t nominate directors. We can only vote in
favor or withhold. That means in a plurality voting
we can’t vote against the directors. We have no say in the way
this company is run. And there’s a lot of
similarities actually between the Chinese communist party
and the board of Google unfortunately. No, I’m seriously, we need to
think about this relative to majority rule. So we have seen the failure of,
time and time again, of our board of directors to
articulate and demonstrate morally defensible human rights
policies and this can result in significant cost
to the shareholders. Our company has come under
heavy criticism for restricting Internet content
that the Chinese government deems subversive,
that is freedom of speech and assembly. Guaranteed, by the way, by
the Chinese constitution. Which this company unfortunately
has not challenged in Chinese courts or
at the international court of justice. This is censorship and is a
violation of human rights and today’s Internet consumers
really actually don’t like patronizing companies that
violate human rights. Blatant inhibitions of free
flow of information are commonplace in the people’s
republic of China. Which I might remind all of us
is a totalitarian regime that tortures its own citizens. Google’s self censoring
technology is an important part of that policy. Google’s refusal to disclose the
search results it filters, or to legally challenge the
Chinese government on violations of its own
constitution, only furthers the abuses there. Google, along with other leading
US technology firms, have helped build the great
firewall of China. A Chinese government initiative
that restricts and monitors the flow of information
being transmitted over the Internet
within China. Google’s influential Internet
presence makes its client policy particularly
significant. China is a totalitarian,
terrorist government. Third only in its repressive
policies after Nazi Germany and the apartheid system
of South Africa. We need more than the morality
of materialistic self interest to lead us into the
21st century. I asked the board of directors
to begin to exercise serious fiduciary duty on beginning to
deal with the very modest proposal that will allow them
to deal with it, as board members and fiduciary. In creating a board committee
on human rights. Thank you very much. DAVID DRUMMOND: Thank
you Mr. Harrington. Sir, do you have another comment
with respect to the proposal– this proposal? MALE SPEAKER: Yes I say– DAVID DRUMMOND: OK
please go ahead. MALE SPEAKER: My name
is [UNINTELLIGIBLE]. I’m a shareholder of
Google Company. I fully support the proposal. I want to– [UNINTELLIGIBLE] one fact to that. When Yahoo or some other company
says this is not the company’s business, it’s
government business that is totally wrong. Because in my experience I was
expelled from China, and expelled from Japan. Now the FBI want to expel
me from America. So the government can never
do anything good for that worldwide citizenship. So I want to get support and
let the shareholder meeting know Government will
not help us. So I really need the corporation
to take that responsibility. And certainly I can see,
we can help Google. I’m a president of a US, Japan,
and China comparative policy research institute and
a humanitarian in China. So we have made connection
with China and [UNINTELLIGIBLE]. I talked with many victims from
China and they asked me to be presented them in this
meeting to tell Google management and the shareholders
to think about doing business when doing
things in China. Definitely where we need to
respect human rights, like in this proposal, that’s
my point. Thank you very much. DAVID DRUMMOND: Thank you sir. Sir. SHELTON EHRLICH: Yes, my name
is Shelton Ehrlich. I still own 23 shares
of Google. [LAUGHING] I think I remember the
motto of Google. Don’t be evil, or is
it don’t do evil. DAVID DRUMMOND: Don’t be evil. SHELTON EHRLICH:
Don’t be evil. Well I looked up Harrington
Investments using Google, and Harrington Investments is
what’s called a socially responsible fund. They refused to invest
in people who manufacture weapons. That includes one of
our big companies nearby, Lockheed Martin. It includes IBM, that makes
computers from the military. One of their other issues
is electricity from nuclear power. Now if we as a nation want
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from coal oil, and gas
fired power plants, we are going to need nuclear power. Harrington Investments
refuses to do that. Now regarding the proposal
itself, one second, if Silicon Valley companies were not to
do business in China I wouldn’t have my Macintosh
computer, I wouldn’t have my Nike shoes, I wouldn’t have a
lot of things, so who is not to be censured alone for being
in business in China. DAVID DRUMMOND: Thank
you very much. So that ends the discussion
over the proposals and the various items on the
agenda today. So because there are no further
items scheduled to come before the stockholders
the polls are now open. Now if you previously voted by
proxy you don’t need vote today unless you wish to
actually change your vote. Now let me just note that we’ve
received sufficient proxies in advance of the
meeting to know that the proposals we discussed today
will pass or fail in accordance with the
recommendations of the board of directors that we’ve made
in a proxy statement. But we want to make sure
that everyone votes. So please if you picked up your
ballot when you register today, we have some folks who
can come collect that. So we’re going to pause for a
moment in order for anyone to submit a ballot that they’ve
used to vote. And when you do that please
make sure that you hand in your legal proxies that
are part of that ballot if you have one. OK, it looks like we’ve
collected most of the ballots so I now declare the polls for
each matter that’s voted upon at this meeting closed and
direct the inspectors of elections to collect
the ballots– I guess I’ve already
done that. So the results. I’ve been advised by the
inspector of elections that the nominees for the election to
the board of directors have been duly elected. I’ve been further advised that
a majority of the shares present at the meeting, in
person or by proxy, have voted in favor of the appointment of
Ernst & Young to act as our independent registered public
accounting firm for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008. And they have voted in favor of
the amendment to our 2004 stock plan that I previously
described. So each of these proposals
has been approved. I’ve also been advised by the
inspector that a majority of the shares present at the
meeting, in person or by proxy, voted against first the
stockholder proposal regarding Internet censorship and second
the stockholder proposal regarding the creation
of a board committee on human rights. So each of those proposals has
not been approved by the shareholders today. So that ends the official
portion of the meeting and I hereby declare the formal
meeting adjourned. Eric will now make a
presentation to you about Google’s business and
we’ll have a Q&A following that, Eric. ERIC SCHMIDT: Thank you David,
and very well done. I want to give you all a brief
update on the company and the easiest way to summarize the
company’s is I think things are going well. And it’s a good message. The mission as set by Larry and
Sergey when they founded the company has not changed. What has changed is the scale
of what we’re doing. So this simple idea, born
literally in the dorm room and in the garage and all the things
that made Google is today, has served as a basis
of how we run the company. It’s really about broad goals,
broad initiatives, that change the world. That really affect many,
many people. And we have as a platform, the
Internet which of course has more than 1.3 billion users. And is growing at a couple
hundred million a year The average American Internet user
is spending 13% more time on the Internet this year
than last year. So either productivity is going
up, or down, depending on your view but is definitely
changing and we obviously benefit from that. People have a lot say
which is great. 70,000,000 blogs exists. 120,000 more created
every day. This is phenomenal. New expression, new voices,
people we haven’t heard from before, whether we
like them or not. Looks like more than half of the
new blogs are created by users who are 18 years
old or lower. So again it’s generational
as well. The number of photographs– an alarming statistic from my
perspective is that more than 10 hours of YouTube
video is uploaded every minute into YouTube. So I hope you all are spending
lots of time on YouTube. An even more interesting
statistic, is if you if you plot out Moore’s law, it would
be possible to have an iPod like advice that you click to
the equivalent of your belt, or in your purse, in some number
of years, maybe 5 or 10 years, which will have 85
years worth of video. So you’ll be dead before you
can watch all the video on this device. So it’s an amazing new world and
it’s just phenomenal and of course Google is well
position on this. Now the business of course– I don’t need to go into this,
you’ve all seen our results– business is working well. The majority of our revenues, of
course, are in advertising. The last quarter we saw a shift
from US as the majority to international for
a majority which we think it’s great. Very much a global business. Of course earnings, and cash
flow, and operating profit, track with that and it’s a
great business to be in. When you see Google and you
see this very simple user interface, which Sergey
literally designed right, himself. We’ve changed a little
bit since then. You sit there and think
it looks so easy. But in fact what’s beneath it,
these acres of servers that we have built and own and power,
which in my view are tremendous competitive damage to
the company, is very hard. We did more than 95 quality– that is search quality–
launches in the first quarter, over and over again. Whether it’s in a language
or for more information or so forth. And we work on things like
making our index bigger. So for example now, we you do
a search, you search all of the indices. You literally searched through
every piece of information, in case that relevant thing. If you went through all those
pages that Google presents you, you will in fact
see everything. Of course, it will take you
many, many minutes to get through it. We’ve also worked on performance
and relevancy. Literally getting things
to be more correct. And the eventual goal, if we
could do it, is to have exactly the right answer,
and only have one. But of course with the explosion
of information we may never get there. There may always be
multiple choices. So it’s a race between all that
information coming in and our scientists and some of the
best brains in the plant to literally figure out how
to deal with all that information. That information explosion, to
get you that very one or two or three right answers. And it’s a daunting task at the
scale that we operation in, with billions and billions
of pieces of information. With more coming, because were
also included personal information now, from your own
information and so forth. So an example of this is that we
have changed Google so that we show not just the traditional
text answers, but we now try to find the correct
images, web, audio, and so forth and video. So not only do we have to get
the words right, we’ve got to get the video right, and the
audio right, and so forth. Coldplay is a band that I can
tell you my daughters like, so here is all of the relevant
information, the best video, the best music, the best
information about what they’re up to. We’ve also been working
on personalization. And so all of the sudden these
are much more personal. With a product called iGoogle,
we can actually deliver very, very specific things that
people care about. The primary business of the
company’s advertising. We love advertising. And we think advertising is
very, very helpful to people when it’s informative and
targeted to them. We think advertising is not very
useful when it’s for a product that you’re
not going to use. It’s not relevant to you, that
you’ll never buy, why waste the advertiser’s money
and your time, which is even more important. Wouldn’t it be better if we
showed you ads that were relevant to you. And you thought that they were
interesting, or that you learned something, for you
figured out who the best suppliers are, and that’s
how we operate. So we live in an ecosystem where
users become publishers of information and then they
want to publish information, they can add our ads to
their content and make some money doing it. We have lots of stories of
people who were hobbyists in information and all of the
sudden gave up some job which they viewed as boring in order
to become the world’s expert on something that they
care a lot about. It’s a wonderful story about
innovation, and information, and empowerment about
new voices. And that model works, and works
not just in the US it works everywhere. We just recently completed
the acquisition– an incredibly important
acquisition, called DoubleClick. Roughly April 7th, we
started operating. And what it does is it allows
us to enter a much larger business that’s near the text
ads business which I’ve been talking about. It’s called the display
ads business. It’s interesting that more than
90% of our publishers have enabled display ads. So it looks like not just text
ads, but also display ads– and display ads here doesn’t
mean just little static pictures, it also means little
movies, and little stories and little things that
are engaging. And we think that a whole new
category of ads will emerge, which are narrative. Where it’s involving the car
and you’re in the car and you’re doing it and so forth. We think that advertisers will
like it and we think people will enjoy it. And remember the great
thing about our ads. If you don’t like them you don’t
have to click on them. So again you have some control
over the experience as well. We have ads formats,
by the way, coming. We have lots of things come out
with YouTube for example. Procter & Gamble, as an example,
ran five contest for Gillette, Tide, Pepto-Bismol
and Swiffer. Break up with your mop and fall
in love with stiffer. OK, I’m not in charge
of their ads. The ads worked really,
really well. Did a similar thing with gadget
ads, where little gadget programs. And
we did one for example with Honda Civics. Where you could drive it around
in the ad networks. Really, really fun, really
interesting, to see if it works. So by doing this, we
can really give people a lot more control. The same thing is also
true in apps. We started a year ago, we
change our strategy from search and ads to search,
ads and apps. Because it was clear that we had
enough technology, we had enough investment, enough
people, enough platforms, that we could begin to solve other
problems that were nearby. The problem of who stores
your email. Actually a pretty important
question for those of you live on email, as most of us do. What about instant messaging? How do we use geographic
information and that sort of thing. This shift, to shift from PC
centric to web centric applications, is the defining
technological shift of our generation. It’s not going to be done
in a year, it’s the next 10, 20 years. Google is particularly well
positioned to take advantage of this shift. And indeed you can see
competitors and so forth responding to the things that
we’re doing and actually trying to figure out how they
can participate in this too. It’s much bigger than
just Google. But we hope will happen, is that
people will move more of their information in what
we call the cloud. And what that means is that you
walk in here, you forgot your computer, or your
mobile device. And you just see a computer like
one of those, and you can get everything over there, that
you have at home, all your personal information, and
again secure, and nobody else gets access to it, and
it just works. It’s really easy to understand
when you state it that way. Why have all these different
devices and have something over here, and you
forgot over here. Why not just have everything
available to every device, very very, quickly, again with
your permission, with your passwords, in a very
secure way. That’s the promise of this
applications platform. And it’s a very profound
technological change. So along the way we say why
don’t we just entered this business and let’s figure out
how we can make some money. Because it’s good to
make money too. And so we built something called
apps for domain which is a simple way if
your business– that’s why I wanted to talk
about this– it’s a simple way for business to do
the same thing. Why should the business have-
specially smaller businesses– why should they have all these
technical people to try to keep all the computers
running. Why don’t they just have someone
like Google do it. Let the cloud do it, right, so
the business can get back to running the business. Because they probably don’t
really know that much about computers and they probably
don’t like them that much. In any case it’s not a good
use of their time, even if they like them a lot. Here is a list of interesting
Universities and companies which are beginning to
adopt Google apps. We have more than 500,000
businesses using this. That’s a sense of the
scale of this. Eventually this will be a very
large, and significant, source of revenue to our company. It’s exciting to see it
beginning to take off, as the technology gets there, as the
networks there, and so forth. Same thing is true for
mobile devices. Here you see a Blackberry,
you see a mobile phone, you see an iPhone. We have amazing results
with all of these. Access everywhere, 81% of
Internet users in Japan access the web from their
mobile phones. Even more disturbing from
my perspective. The three top books published
in Japan by circulation last year, were first published
on mobile devices. And only after they were read on
mobile devices, were turned into physical books. Shows you how far ahead
they are of us in this sort of model. And it’s coming here too. American’s send 1.6 billion text
messages a day, clearly lowering productivity. And the mobile highlights
here are phenomenal. The iPhone has done very, very
well with the search traffic because again it has a full
browser, and there’s other ones coming. And of course the YouTube stuff
is also doing well, and you can see YouTube on
all these devices. Have a similar story in maps. And I forgot to mention the
fella on iPhone his name is PegMan, he’s a Google
employee. He’s been viewed more than
10,000,000 times. He wears his little orange
suit runs around. And he’s the mascot, if you can
call him that, for street view, showing you where
you are on a street. And we actually use this, like
where do I turn left, where do I right, is at store still
there, that kind of stuff. And you can do that with all
this interesting mapping technology. So we’re moving to a
platform which is actually quite different. Because here we are, we have
these static maps, got them from satellites, bought them
from the government, that kind of stuff, why don’t we
now have end users adding things to maps. Very, very interesting idea. We can combine users
submissions, as well as the official stuff. And sometimes the users give
us better data than the government. No surprise, because the
people live there. So all of a sudden now we have a
whole phenomenon around what is called my maps. And submitting and changing and
correcting the kinds of things that you see
on our maps. And by the way we think it’s fun
here in Mountain View, but imagine if you’re in a city in
a developing country where there is no accurate map. And there never has been one. And this is the only map you’re
going to ever use, which is obviously very
good for Google. But all of a sudden it goes from
humorous and exciting, to fundamental to how people
conduct their lives in this new Internet world. So I’d like to offer to you
that a new part of our strategy is that the web is
in fact itself a platform. We have more than 40 developer
products an APIs with a big developer conference
coming up in a few weeks, up in San Francisco. We launched a package called
Google gears, which you can plug in your browser. Which allow you, for example,
to get on an airplane and still do your email. It fools it and says, hey
we’re still on a network connection even if we’re not,
and when you get off the airplane and get back on and on
the Internet it reconnect and does the right things. We have a new mobile product,
which I’ve already mentioned, called Android, with lots and
lots of developer interest. The first and most important
principle is there’s more smart people elsewhere than
there are here and we want all of them building on top
of this web platform. That’s why the web platform
become such an important foundation for the next
generation of Internet services, web services,
and all the things I’ve talked about. So to finish up, and I hope I’ve
done this not too long, because obviously we are proud
of where we are, the opportunity before us is
of the whole world. Some statistics are that the
Internet is growing in the United States, is growing faster
in Europe, it’s growing even faster in Asia, it’s
growing even faster in developing countries. So all of a sudden, here we are,
we’re very proud of what we’ve done, and the way we got
this thing kick started. But this is a global
phenomenon. And those people, simple
rule, they want the same things that we. Want They want peace, education,
food, safety, entertainment, knowledge,
achievement, and excitement. And the Internet as it spreads
gives us an opportunity to really touch the whole world. Make it safer, make it
better educated. Really bring people who’ve never
had a voice, never had information– my best example is my friend
is a computer science professor at Kenya, and Kenya
said, we love Google for computer science. I said of course you love
Google, I love Google too. He said no we use Google to
teach computer science. Why? We don’t have any textbooks. This is a PhD program. This gives you a sense of how
profound the arrival of the Internet and the power of
information, which we hope we can bring it, really does
have an opportunity to affect the world. In some really, really
fundamental ways. So with that, thank
you very much. [CLAPING] David I think we’re going to
have Larry, Sergey, myself. You guys just join us. And I think we’re just
going to have Q&A from the floor right? DAVID DRUMMOND: Q&A
from the floor. Come on guys. I’ll sit on the end here. ERIC SCHMIDT: And if you– I know you have your hand
raised, would you mind standing at the microphone
madam so that everyone can hear you. Let’s have the lady go first. MAY PHONG: My name is May Phong,
I’m a shareholder. Both DoubleClick and YouTube
are terrific acquisitions for you. I was just wondering how long it
would take to monetize them in a way that would
add significantly to the bottom line. Thank you. SERGEY BRIN: It’s probably
worth mentioning that certainly DoubleClick as a
profitable business on its own as is YouTube, depending on
exactly what you account for, we’ve been very, very fortunate
with our core business that it’s had so much
revenue and tens of billions of dollars, that it’s hard,
even for the substantial acquisitions, to be a
huge portion of that right off the bat. Nevertheless, both DoubleClick
and YouTube have a tremendous amount of display inventory. In YouTube’s case that’s our
inventory and in DoubleClick’s case that we serve and can
improve both the advertiser and a publisher experience on. So I think they both have
potential but I think for it to be a sizable part of our
revenue, you’re going to have to wait at least
a couple years. ERIC SCHMIDT: Yes sir. TONY MEZZAPELLE: Tony
Mezzapelle, shareholder. I’d like to ask about the
international sales. Only 1/3 of our revenue comes
from countries other than the US and UK, but according to a
slide I saw on the Intel site, which happens to be by Paul
Otellini, says that 80% of all Internet users in the world
come from countries other than those two. And that includes about
500,000,000 users that are in the rich countries. So what is the bottleneck the
growing international sales? Are we having problems
localizing our products fast enough or are we having problems
growing our local sales groups? ERIC SCHMIDT: A simple answer
is we’re not having problems in that area. I agree with the numbers that
you gave, which Paul I assume are roughly correct for your
view of the global structure. The difference of course,
is monitization. Because the advertising markets
in those countries are not as mature, the ad
rates, and so forth. So you take the product of
Internet penetration and the development of the Internet
advertising model in may of those country’s, Internet
advertising is also held up because of lack of credit
cards, debit cards, and overnight email, and
transportation options. The average growth
rate outside the United States is higher. As I mentioned last quarter no
non-US is now larger than US has a total revenue and we
expect that gap will continue to increase. We don’t know how much larger it
will be, but I could guess at least 65/35 maybe even
higher, eventually. Yes, sir. JACK EASTERLING: My name is Jack
Easterling and I have a couple shares also. I understand that you say that
you’re going to be bringing in 6.5 more shares, is
that correct? That you were going to be
bring to the market. What I want– DAVID DRUMMOND: Option
plan, 6.5 million. ERIC SCHMIDT: Go ahead David. DAVID DRUMMOND: You’re correct,
6.5 million shares of the stock option plan. JACK EASTERLING: So my question
is, the two young men that are sitting there, will
you please not split the stock, just keep it together. LARRY PAGE: You’re asking that
we don’t split the stock. JACK EASTERLING:
That’s correct. ERIC SCHMIDT: I think that’s the
first time we’ve had that request. [LAUGHING] SERGEY BRIN: We’ve had no
trouble honoring that thus far and I don’t expect that
anything will change in that respect. We certainly appreciate
your support. JACK EASTERLING: Alright,
thank you. ERIC SCHMIDT: Thank you. Yes sir, our good
friend Richard. RICHARD BRANDT: Richard Brandt
I’m a writter, and a minuscule Google shareholder. I was just wondering if Sergey
would be willing to tell us why he decided to abstain on
the censorship proposals. SERGEY BRIN: Yeah sure. Primarily I agreed with the
spirit of both of those proposals in their concern for
human rights and specifically human rights in China, freedom
of expression, and the freedom to receive information. I should say at the outset that
I’m pretty proud of what we’ve been able to accomplish
in China. Google, has the gentleman who
spoke earlier mentioned, has a far superior track record in my
mind than other Internet or Internet search companies do
in China with respect to making information
freely available. Having very strict policies
compared to the opportunities– compared to the government
forces that are in that country. When we entered China, and
developed Google.cn, which by the way was far later than any
others major search engine had entered, and primarily was due
to the reservations that the restrictions that we would
have to live by were not consistent with our policies. But we were able to have an
implementation, I think, that honored many of our
principles. And in fact, most of the
principals that were in shareholder proposal
number four. We restricted the amount of
search results that may have been omitted, in every case we
notified users that there’s information missing because of
your government policies. As we do also in the
US, Germany, and France, by the way. And tried an overall greater
transparency to the process. It was still a tough call,
but what we’ve seen as a consequence is in fact more
Chinese getting more access to more information. Not only that, but now we’ve
seen the local Chinese competitors, the principal one
being Baidu, whose market leader in that market, has
adopted some of our policies. So now Baidu when they omit
information because there’s some government request
regarding it, they now also label that there’s some
information missing. So despite our mixed feelings
about that market entry, I think that the end result
we’ve generated has been very positive. And in fact much of the
attention, the shareholder proposals, many congressional
bills, and what not, did arise from the publicity surrounding
that entry. Now from where we are today,
I think direction the two proposals were correct. I think that we do by the way
have an internal set of principles by which
we operate. And I don’t know if it’s– I believe it should be sort
of shareholder proposal– there are several in
there that I don’t entirely agree with. I think don’t make sense. For example, our recent launches
of BBS type services, we decided instead of having
personally identifiable information that could be
forced from us in that country, we would actually make
all information public. So when you make a post, you
know that it’s going to be identified as this is such and
such making this post. We don’t have any private
information on those services. And that’s because we didn’t
feel we could launch service which would have private
information in a way that we felt we could safeguard
it from the government in that country. These kinds of, I think, novel
approaches have enabled us to bring more information
to the country. Again, with respect
to the board proposal on human rights. I think human rights
is very important. I think there are other social
responsibility issues that we also need to think about. For example our energy usage,
carbon neutrality, for an having great environment for
other companies to operate in, and so forth. I think there’s a broader
scope there. And I think it might make sense
to have a separate– you know these people are all
very busy and so might be interested in these issues
and might be experts, and some may not be. I think there is certainly room
for us to have a group of independent people within Google
who meet regularly to discuss these questions. But I didn’t strictly support
the proposals as they were written and that’s why I decided
I would have abstain. [CLAPING] ERIC SCHMIDT: And we
welcome the debate. These are complex issues
that are important for everyone in the world. And we understand that people
can disagree on this and we welcome– we literally welcome
the discussion. Yes sir. ANDY MOORE: Hi, my name
is Andy Moore. I’m a stockholder and I recently
got into podcasting. I’m launching a new podcast
next month, Andy’streasuretrove.com. And I don’t see any services
at Google related to podcasting, and maybe I missed
it, but you’ve got YouTube, but nothing in the audio realm
aside from commercial music. Anything in the works regarding
podcasting? SERGEY BRIN: We’ve undertaken
a broader infrastructure initiative that enables us to
handle data of any type. We don’t want to have to build
specialized product that’s just for podcasts, another one
that’s just for videos. And like many of the things that
we’ve built thus far, we feel that we are now at a scale
and understanding that we can build more generic
services. We have some more generic things
out there, probably not perfect for podcasts,
as of yet. For example, GoogleSites enables
you to host content of any type because you can
have essentially file storage on their. But we have even more
appropriate more generic technologies that we’re
developing and I hope you’ll be able to see in the next
few months, six months, something like that. ANDY MOORE: Thank you. ERIC SCHMIDT: Yes sir. MARK JACOBS: Good afternoon. Can you hear me? ERIC SCHMIDT: Yes. MARK JACOBS: I’m Mark Jacobs,
I’m a patent trademark lawyer from Sacramento and
I’m a shareholder. I’ve had several clients
complain to me that when they’ve done Google searches for
their trademark, somebody else’s listing comes up first.
In fact I have specifically written to Google about this
issue and all I get back is a very nice form letter from
somebody who’s very, very low capacity underneath
the ground. And I wondered if Google is
going to take more effort to control trademark misusage
on the searches. LARRY PAGE: So this has been an
issue we’ve spent quite a bit of time on. And it’s an important issue. And while we work really hard to
protect people’s trademarks and so on, there’s also user
benefit to get competitive advertising. So for example, if you’re
thinking about buying a product actually seeing
competitive products can be really useful to you. MARK JACOBS: It’s not the issue
when you put in your trademark and somebody
else’s name comes up. It’s misleading, it’s creating
confusion, it is not advertising beneficial
to the user. They’re looking to get a
Frigidaire, and up comes Whirlpool, using a Frigidaire
trademark. DAVID DRUMMOND: Well actually,
we actually litigated this very matter. Because we think, as Larry said,
we think it’s a really important issue for users to
have competitive advertising. As it turns out, when you do
the survey you actually see what happens with users,
they’re not confused. So to take the example that you
brought up, Frigidaire, Whirlpool if you typed in
Frigidaire and Whirlpool ad came up on the side of the
search results, guess what the number one search result,
I can guarantee you, for Frigidaire would
be Frigidaire. And so– MARK JACOBS: Not
so, not so, I’m sorry, that is not correct. DAVID DRUMMOND: We’ve gone
through the Court, and as you know, we litigated this
matter against– in the Gieco matter. And of course the court held in
our favor for that, which I think was the right result. MARK JACOBS: The advertising,
I have no problem with. But I could give you a specific examples after the meeting. ERIC SCHMIDT: OK sir, you’re
being shown a result there, take a look at it. MARK JACOBS: I don’t
need a result. ERIC SCHMIDT: No,no
just take a look. MARK JACOBS: That’s fine, but
I can show you several. But I won’t belabor
the point now. ERIC SCHMIDT: There may be some
confusion on your part between the difference
in the results from Google and the ads. MARK JACOBS: Correct it’s
the results, is what I’m complaining about. ERIC SCHMIDT: OK so
let’s just review for everybody’s benefit. We have a policy which we
enforce globally, and thoroughly, that the actual
Google results are not affected by advertising. So important to understand. We thought you were asking about
the ads, the things on the right hand side. So we misunderstood you. The things in the right hand
side, it is in fact possible for advertisers to fight
over key words. And as David said, we in fact
litigated that, and we’re very happy to be won that case. But the core results, the ones
about how Google answers, in fact answer in our best ability
what we think the user was looking for, and is not
affected by advertising. MARK JACOBS: I appreciate
that. But why can’t an attorney or
somebody complains that when you go in the search results, or
you type in Frigidaire and you’re looking for information
Frigidaire that the first hit that comes up is a different
company other than the true trademark holder. That is my problem. JOHNATHAN ROSENBERG: I can
see the first result. It’s here, I don’t know if
I can project it there. But the first result is
www.fridgidarie.com. MARK JACOBS: Well I can give you
half a dozen others but I don’t want to belabor
the meeting. ERIC SCHMIDT: I understand
so thank you– this is Jonathan who runs all
of our products it actually matters that he get the
right answer here. So thank you Johnathan. But again, to the best that
our computers can do, they give the first result
based on the query. If you are aware of errors in
Google search results, there are relatively few
of that type. But they’re certainly not
inspired by Google. And remember that the actual
search index answers are not done by humans. There are no people typing
those things in. So we don’t have a way where
you can go change them by human intervention. Why don’t we move
on, thank you. AUDIENCE: [? George Bayon, ?] [? Bayon ?] Capital Partners, private
equity and shareholder. Has Microsoft or any other
private equity contact Google about buying their class b
shares, and if so, where with the board of directors
value the shares at? ERIC SCHMIDT: David why
don’t you explain– there is confusion here, over
the value of class b, which don’t trade separately. You want to talk about
how that works. DAVID DRUMMOND: Which
are class b– our structure is class
b or the private– GEORGE BAYOND: It’s not the
structure, it’s just has anyone approached Google about–
the board of directors about buying the
class b shares? SERGEY BRIN: We should probably
clarify, it’s not possible to transfer class
b shares and have them– they would convert then
to class a shares. DAVID DRUMMOND: Class b shares
are only held by shareholders before the IPO but
any attempt to– if you transfer them or tried
to sell your shares they can become class a shares. ERIC SCHMIDT: So the
scenario you’re describing it was not possible. DAVID DRUMMOND: It
wouldn’t happen. GEORGE BAYOND: I was wondering
if there was a value put on them or not. ERIC SCHMIDT: The answer is,
it’s the same value as class a because there’s no separate
market for class b and they trade one to one. GEORGE BAYOND: Thank you. ERIC SCHMIDT: Yes sir. JOE HOLMES: Hi my is Joe Holmes,
I’m a shareholder. I can understand policy
potentially not to comment on speculation, but I was just
wondering if, hypothetically speaking, two of our competitors
in the search space wanted to join forces? ERIC SCHMIDT: Were you
of two I can think of a different set? [LAUGHING] JOE HOLMES: Purely hypothetical
situation. ERIC SCHMIDT: Ok perhaps
something that was very current, as of a week ago. JOE HOLMES: I was wondering if
you could provide some color as to how our business risk
would evolve and what our responses to those
risk might be. ERIC SCHMIDT: Well, we did
have a test case of this, which was the Yahoo Microsoft
proposed merger. And we took a position that
it was bad for consumers. David wrote a blog post which
I would refer you to. I think it’s very well argued
that the combination would have resulted in too much power
around electronic mail, instant messaging, very, very
high market shares. And given the history of
Microsoft it would have been possible that could be misused,
as rough sum. I’m probably not doing justice
to your argument David. So obviously it’s good that
that’s not going to happen, at least at the moment not
going to happen. Next, yes sir. DOUG MCKENZIE: Hi I’m Doug
McKenzie, a shareholder. Thank you for your
great company. And I like to also thank you for
getting out of the medium a bit more, Eric. With you on CNBC and especially
Larry your interview in Fortune Magazine
with [UNINTELLIGIBLE] germination about how
to change the world, really excellent. I wondered if you had considered
interactive, like video game type interactive,
advertising as a way to monetize YouTube? For example, a customer or user
gets in there and they start looking at something
that’s interesting to them and then they might play with it. And it could be, for the
obvious, would be an advertisement for
a video game. But you could be driving a car,
or looking at a house, or doing a variety of other things,
where the information flow could be two way. SERGEY BRIN: Yeah, well I should
first mention we’ve also looked at just advertising
within video games, which is an emerging
market and one which we’re participating in. Within YouTube itself, I think,
you could certainly use one of our gadget ads, the new
gadget ads formats which could have embedded within
it a game. I think that’s an interesting
approach. And it could work even
beyond YouTube. I guess you know that
the YouTube viewer has flash installed. So that will give you greater
confidence that they be able to see the ad. SO it’s a good user for that. But it might apply even
more broadly. DOUG MCKENZIE: Thank you. ERIC SCHMIDT: Yes sir. DANIEL GOLDSMITH: My name is
Daniel Goldsmith and I want to speak about my experience with
the investor relations department. I don’t think they
relate well to investors or at least myself. There’s no phone number to
direct queries to so email is the way to go and my emails
never get answered. ERIC SCHMIDT: OK DANIEL GOLDSMITH: I’m willing
to help you, we if you need some help. ERIC SCHMIDT: Thank you
for that feedback. Since they’re here, maybe
afterwards we could get the specifics and on top of it. And I apologize on behalf
of the company for that. Yes sir. GEORGE DAVIS: Hi my name is
George Davis, I own five Google stocks. I go to school over the
hill in UC Santa Cruz. Got a little anecdote related
to the cloud that you’re talking about earlier. In January or so, I think,
maybe, around there, my house, me and three roommates, we ran
out of ink in our printer, and we can’t agree on whose turn
it is to buy new ink. So what we do is we write our
papers in Microsoft Word, Gmail them to our UCSU account,
and use the printers the university of California
provides us. But there’s a problem
with this. The problem is we’re using
Microsoft Word to write our papers, so my question is, by
the time I graduate, which will be hopefully fingers
crossed, two years, will Google docs be as powerful
as Microsoft Word? ERIC SCHMIDT: Sergey
and Larry. SERGEY BRIN: I think in a number
of respects Google Docs is more powerful than Microsoft
Word today. For example, the ability for
multiple people to edit the same document at the same time
and see the changes coming in, in real time. The ability to access the
document no matter where you are, whether an Internet
cafe and whatnot. There’s certainly a long list
of sort of bullet point features that’s in Microsoft
Office, some of which I think will be incorporated, and
perhaps even succeeded, like succeeded, in Google docs
and spreadsheets in the forthcoming years. And there might be some features
which are perhaps a little too niche or best left to
third parties to implement. Maybe specialized bibliographic
entries, you know there’s– those pull downs have hundreds
of entries, I don’t think we want to do duplicate
every single one. But the general direction
is to be more powerful. LARRY PAGE: I don’t read things
in Microsoft Word. ERIC SCHMIDT: Yes sir. PETER CURBIE: Yes my name
is Peter Curbie, I’m a shareholder. My question to you is about
alternate revenue streams. I don’t dispute the fact that you
have a great business and a search and would include
DoubleClick in that. But I gather from your last
quarter that you now have a revenue coming in from
print advertisements. And I was wondering what other
new revenue streams are you opening up and could you
include any word on Android in that. ERIC SCHMIDT: Well remember,
we have print, television, radio, YouTube, display
all coming. And you also want to
mention Enterprise. SERGEY BRIN: Enterprise has been
an important part, as a fraction still small, but still
important part of our revenue for number of years. And since the recent release of
Google apps for your domain also for universities and
whatnot, we really see that as an important growth
area for us. And a lot of companies,
including our own, because we’re going to use our own
stuff, have really benefited because they can really easily
and cheaply deployed email productivity software to
all there employees. PETER CURBIE: How do you make
money from that exactly? SERGEY BRIN: So there’s the free
version, which many, many people use. And then there’s a premium
version, and typically large companies want support, want to
increase storage, and a few administration features, on some
more things like that, they subscribe to the
premium version. Which is $50 a user a year. Typical, there are a few other
ways that we price to. PETER CURBIE: You didn’t
answering my question about Android, do you have
any word there? ERIC SCHMIDT: Do you want to
say anything about Android? SERGEY BRIN: Android is part of
our broader goals to enable more Internet access via
more devices, more quickly, and easily. The goal is not the revenue
stream itself, but rather by increased usage of the Internet
via mobile devices we think we will benefit. ERIC SCHMIDT: And the
revenue might be an issue, since it’s free. Android SERGEY BRIN: Yes, I
should clarify. The Android– we will be open source and free
the available to all. ERIC SCHMIDT: Yes sir. AUDIENCE: Yes, if you can get
advertising into video games, maybe you could get Grand Theft
Auto to carry LoJack ads and Ceradyne, the bullet
proof vest company. But I wanted to ask another
question, would you tell us about the wedding? ERIC SCHMIDT: Which one? There were– AUDIENCE: Both, all. ERIC SCHMIDT: Larry
and Sergey. SERGEY BRIN: I think we prefer
to focus on the business in this meeting. But we think those are pretty
good ideas for ads within Grand Theft Auto. ERIC SCHMIDT: Larry? LARRY PAGE: Whatever
Sergey said. DAVID DRUMMOND: Ok, yes sir. AUDIENCE: Yes, hi, my name is
Rea, I’m a shareholder. And for first of all, I want
to comment Google on such a great company and great
applications. I use Google for almost
everything. I just start my own blog site
last week, and I’m ready for an android based phone when
it comes out too. But my question is more of a
statement of concern about some of these world issues again
going on these days. Sergey I loved your comments
about what Google is trying to do to make information more
available in some of these countries that do do censorship,
also providing your functionality. But I’m also concerned that
because of your great success Google is probably the most
powerful tool in the world right now, and it can do
a lot of great things. I hope we’re all using it to
do a lot of great things ourselves and to help
other people too. But I’m also concerned about
these other governments of other large countries that have
different values from us, that to try to censor and
control information in ways against our values here, you’re
still trying to grow and some of these
other places. I’m just concerned if you could
find a way to become number one and make a lot
of money there but under different negotiations that you
might need to go through to modify your software to
have certain restrictions under the request of
the governments. Would you do that or what would
you do, how would you get around that? SERGEY BRIN: That’s
a good question. I should clarify our primary
goal in these countries, for example China, is not by any
means to generate as much revenue as possible. In fact, while China’s financial
performance has been strong and good it’s still
not material as a fraction of our revenue. We could abandon it tomorrow
and would not have material effect on our revenues. Our goal has really been, what’s
the most positive we can do, and thus far we felt
that by staying in the market and being revolutionary
within it, that we can do the most good. And that’s how we apply and
it’s not just China. We get blocked especially
YouTube, in many countries around the world,
all the time. YouTube got blocked in Thailand
because there were videos with people’s feet
pictured above the King. Now we could take an extreme
position saying we will not allow any video to go down and
if they don’t accept that one they don’t get YouTube at all. But on balance, we feel we bring
more to the Thai people even if we have to take down the
video of the feet over the King, by providing
YouTube there. And that’s not always
the case. In some cases maybe we feel
that we’re asked to do something that’s really
beyond our principles. And in each case, it’s
a judgment case. That’s the strategy I think we
will continue to employ. ERIC SCHMIDT: We’ve already
run over a time. So we got three more questions,
I’d like to get those questions, question,
answer, question, answer as quickly as we can. Yes sir. AUDIENCE: Yes, thank you.
my name is Robert [UNINTELLIGIBLE], I’m with
Amnesty International I’m representing the New York City
pension funds with over 720,000 shares. I just want to follow on the
China questions, and I recognize you’ve struggled
with this. And we’ve been in dialogue
with you for about 18 months now. And all I have to say is we
do appreciate that it’s difficult, but you really
haven’t come far enough. And we really do need to do
more and actually make a greater effort. And I have two specific
questions. The first is why won’t you
support the global online freedom act? Which is proposed federal
legislation which actually would help you deal with the
Chinese on this issue? And second since the Chinese
constitution actually guarantees freedom of speech,
why aren’t you actually engaged, working in the Chinese
legal system, to deal with these issues. ERIC SCHMIDT: David. DAVID DRUMMOND: On your first,
point I don’t think it’s quite accurate to say that
we we’re– actually I don’t think it’s
really accurate all to say were not supporting the global
online freedom act. We actually support the
principles there, we’d like to see legislation that addresses
the problem and make sense. I think there’s a hearing coming
up in a couple weeks in the senate where you’ll
hear our views in a more fulsome way. But we don’t actually oppose
that, and we’d like to see legislation that makes sense. On the Chinese legal question,
I think it’s an interesting one. It’s not clear to us that we
have the ability, as Google to do that, but I think it’s an
interesting idea for us to utilize the Chinese legal– or
help those who are using the Chinese legal system, to try to
ensure those rights and I think it’s something we ought
to think about doing. ERIC SCHMIDT: Richard. RICHARD BRANDT: On advertising,
Eric you mentioned print, TV, radio ads
coming up, that sort of thing, I’ve never understood
Google strength in moving essentially offline. Your strength is relevancy,
relating this to what people are doing, are interested in. Somebody reading a newspaper, or
passing by a billboard, or watching television, you
have no idea what their interests are. ERIC SCHMIDT: Well actually,
we hope to do better than that. That would be the base case, and
we think with technology improvements so we can actually,
at least do a pretty good job compared to what’s
being done today in offline. The best example is, I’m sure
you have a television at home, you probably have a set top
box, that set top box is a computer, and now that
set top boxes are connected to the Internet. With appropriate software
changes, technology work, built by Google and others,
can actually cause more relevant television to show
up on your television. It’s a small victory, but
a very fundamental one. Television industry is a
massive and very mature advertising industry, if we can
show more relevant ads, we can fundamentally enter as a new
player and really provide a better television experience
from an advertising perspective. RICHARD BRANDT: I think little
as an old print guy, it that really confuses me. DAVID DRUMMOND: Print is harder
because we don’t have a set top box to play with. But even there, we did an ad
interchange with all the major newspapers and publishers were
we actually have tried to get much better distribution
for ads. So that’s again a case we’re
trying to help them because we need them, and in particular
we need their content. And sir you have the honor
of the last question. AUDIENCE: Thank you very much. My name is Rudolph
[UNINTELLIGIBLE] I am a stockholder. I read most recently Google
was interested in the environment and I was wondering
if you give us stockholders what your
projections are and how you can help the environment. LARRY PAGE: Well yeah, we are
absolutely very, very interested in the environment. We feel that we have a
significant responsibility due to our data centers, which
use a lot of energy. And so we have very smart people
who are building those. And as part of those builds
we’re trying to do environmental things as we build
the data centers to make sure that they’re using really
green energy and so on. We also think there’s a huge
opportunity to reduce the power of green electricity to
make it competitive with coal. And we’ve made investments
in different areas, solar thermal, for example. And we’re also hiring people,
small numbers of people, to work on very exciting and very
interesting projects to really significantly reduce the cost
of some of those green technologies. AUDIENCE: One of the most
important things, that I think that Google should be targeting
is natural sources of energy in order to alleviate are problems worldwide. LARRY PAGE: We’re basically
looking at the Sun and the Earth. The heat in the earth,
geothermal power. And we’re very optimistic that
the cost of those things can be competitive with how
we generate power now. AUDIENCE: Very important
thank you. DAVID DRUMMOND: And we agree. I want to thank everybody
spending their afternoon here. We will see this year. Thanks again.

You May Also Like..

Weekend Update: Girl at a Party on the 2016 Election

Weekend Update: Girl at a Party on the 2016 Election

>>WITH THE ELECTION ONLY TWO WEEKS AWAY, BOTH CANDIDATES ARE TRYING TO GET A FINAL MESSAGE TO THEIR SUPPORTERS. HERE […]

Metro’s Holiday Shopping Guide

Metro’s Holiday Shopping Guide

Just weeks before Christmas and all across town Lights, cheer and good will – not a reason to frown. But […]

Learning Express Toy Store Conversion Program

Learning Express Toy Store Conversion Program

You’ve shown a passion for specialty toy retail, our meaningful but challenging industry. Our family of store owners share your […]

13 Comments

  1. they can add longer vids because theyve added so many. 721 vids actually so it is fair. upload more vids and you can uplaod longer vids.

  2. They only have this many views because people generally don't watch these kinds of things. And yet, people will watch them for documentational purposes, as you did yourself.

    Google's one of the good companies out there that you can count on to never disappear, so it helps to know what's going on with the stockholders sometimes; makes me want to invest a bit, but not because it'll get my really bad videos views, but because I like the company and it's affiliation with YouTube.

  3. i thought sergey was a cool guy….seems like he is very serious and not fun….pure coder …cool but needs to be cooler

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *