Did Google’s Eric Schmidt just call Apple’s Tim Cook a liar?

“Bilderberg Group regular, Google chairman Eric Schmidt just took time out to tell the BBC Apple’s claims about Google privacy are ‘largely false,'” Jonny Evans reports for Computerworld. “Here’s what he said: ‘Their claims are largely false in their description of us.'”

“What does that mean? Is Schmidt accusing Apple CEO Tim Cook of telling falsehoods/lies (ie. ‘largely false’), or is he conceding that some of Cook’s claims are true, while obfuscating the matter?” Evans asks. “Schmidt’s most chilling argument is: ‘We know far less about you than you think we do.'”

What does that really mean?” Evans asks. “I think it’s meaningless in contrast to the commitment to user privacy Apple provides.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Eric T. Mole is one slimy weasel. Yes, he’s like an oily “wole” or, better yet, a “measel.” Yuck.


Tim Cook gets privacy and encryption: We shouldn’t surrender them to Google – June 4, 2015
Edward Snowden supports Apple’s stance on customer privacy – June 17, 2015
Edward Snowden: Apple is a privacy pioneer – June 5, 2015
Edward Snowden’s privacy tips: ‘Get rid of Dropbox,” avoid Facebook and Google – October 13, 2014
Apple, others urge Obama to reject any proposal for smartphone backdoors – May 19, 2015
Apple’s Tim Cook warns of ‘dire consequences’ of sacrificing privacy for security – February 13, 2015
Apple CEO Tim Cook ups privacy to new level, takes direct swipe at Google – September 18, 2014
A message from Tim Cook about Apple’s commitment to your privacy – September 18, 2014
Apple will no longer unlock most iPhones, iPads for police, even with search warrants – September 18, 2014


    1. A familymember working at a Fortune 50 corporation dealt extensively with Google (Search Engine Optimization) and they specifially told Google that their office had been appointed as the SOLE business group to negotiate with Google for SEO.

      Sounds straightforward, right?

      They kept on finding that Google went behind their back to individual divisions within the company – – and that the company was now paying Google to compete against itself.

      Lesson of the story: Google is not trustworthy. Full stop.

      1. Curious as to what departments in a single company could and would compete against other departments in a Search Engine Optimization (SEO) situation. Are you saying there was so much redundancy in that company that departments were similar enough and had enough resources to make any difference to search results?

        1. Not really redundency, but different business units which have some overlap on common keywords.

          For example, consider the Insurance business: there’s Life, Property, Liability … but all of them will buy the keyword of “Insurance”.

          The reason why the Corporation consolidated their Google POC was because they recognized this and they were harmonizing each “Business Unit” and getting a better value for the SEO keywords that they were buying.

          Google circumvented this by going behind their designated POC’s back and making sales directly to the individual business units without the POC’s or the other BU’s knowledge.

          Granted, this did mean that internal communication within the Corporation was partly to blame for this happening, but there’s far more blame on Google’s sales group – their small local Sales group knew exactly what they were doing.

          1. I see.. So basically each department has the authority by the company to manage the SEO on their department’s pages? Sounds like the POC group really was not given the proper buy-in from their superiors to actually perform their duty. If they haven’t already, a company wide memo should go out to make sure no department other than the POC can deal with Google sales. It is not uncommon for departments of large companies to contract separately with the same vendor for the same types of products. The question here is whether it was Google that contacted each department or the departments that contacted Google simply because they had authority to do so.

            1. True, each Dept has autonomy, but the “Company Wide Memo” did set policy as being that all SEO work with Google was being centralized through the one office.

              Not only did this result in benefits of de-conflicting amongst their own Depts, but that central office also paid for the SEO, saving the individual Depts from having to pay for it on their own.

              When the duplications were discovered, it did get checked into, and it was found (repeatedly) that Google had reached out to contact the individual Depts, not the other way around.

            2. FYI, what I neglected to clearly state in the above was that Google was repeatedly notified of this Corporate Policy (and who their designated POC was), but kept on circumventing them…it simply wasn’t plausible to have been an “oops!”, particularly when it was in some instances literally the same guy from Google, merely 9 months after his last smack-down.

            3. Hmm.. One way this could be avoided in the future is simply making it so each Dept has no autonomy in regards to SEO contracts forcing Google like it or not to deal with the POC. Too bad it took this incident to make it a clear case of bad access control settings. 😛

            4. True, but within corporate politics, that’s a pretty serious inter-Departmental battle.

              The main point remains that Google purposefully exploited the situation for their own personal gain … and particuarly for large Corporations, it is foolhardy to try to believe that “cutting Google off” from such business won’t end up having ramifications. Yes, its a Racket.

  1. What Eric T. Mole said: “We know far less about you than you think we do.”

    What he was thinking: “We know far less about you than we would like, but we’re getting there.”

  2. Who do you trust Tim Cook or shithole Schmidt???

    Who has a proven track record of being dishonest and deceiving Google or Apple???

    Who do you trust Apple or Google???

    Google is a dengerously invasive and perversove company that does not give a flying shit about its users, which are the bait they dangle in front of all their business affiliates.

  3. Google: we make our money by selling ads targeted to advertisers based upon what we learn about you from your searches, emails, and other information we glean from your use of Google services

    Apple: we make our money by selling you products that you want to use; we don’t sell any information we have about you

    You be the judge.

  4. This dude is a complete idiot. He just gave Apple the greatest gift one can imagine. He publicly admitted he knows a lot about users. This is a golden gift for Apple that will have lasting effect.

  5. Eric Schidt is a proven liar. I don’t give a rat’s about anything he has to say.

    Meanwhile, Apple’s security efforts have been well vetted in the security community and its weaknesses made clear.

    As for Google’s security show:
    – They’ve been great at finding security flaws in other company’s software. I find that to be helpful. But it’s also disingenuous because:
    – Google’s own software, particularly Android, is consistently found to have terrible security. I won’t bother documenting the details yet again. DIY. The documentation of Google’s awful attention to their own security is voluminous. The only security of their own that they ever address is superficial.

    1. Turnabout is fair play.. Apple should also form a similar department to find bugs (security and otherwise) in their own as well as other companies products. They certainly have the resources for it. Maybe even setting it up in places considered ‘tax havens’ for Apple to defray any further tax avoidance claims.

      1. Why not? Except of the tax haven stuff. I’d rather my government instead pulled its head out of its backside and actually welcomed foreign made profits into the USA for a change. Apparently, that’s too sane an idea for them. Instead, they’re busy turning over my country’s governing to an international corporatocracy, i.e. ‘Fast Track’, TTP and TTIP. So incredibly lazy and stupid.

  6. ‘We know far less about (treating you honestly) than you think we do.’” You are not our income suppliers, just the fodder that works the machine.

    Google: Don’t do evil, it’s our job…

      1. In the past, real media people would proofread what they publish and actually used commas to separate a list. They also could express themselves without emoticons.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.