Eric Schmidt to step down as the executive chairman of Alphabet Inc.

“Eric Schmidt will be stepping down as the executive chairman of Alphabet’s board of directors and transitioning to technical advisor, the company announced,” Jillian D’Onfro reports for CNBC. “He will continue to serve on the company’s board.”

“Schmidt first joined Google as CEO in 2001, back when the company only had several hundred employees, and become its executive chairman 10 years later,” D’Onfro reports. “He maintained that role when Google restructured to become Alphabet in 2015.”

Eric Schmidt“‘Larry, Sergey, Sundar and I all believe that the time is right in Alphabet’s evolution for this transition,’ Schmidt said in a statement,” D’Onfro reports. “In his new role, he’ll likely advise the company’s urban development arm, Sidewalk Labs, its deep learning efforts, and its healthcare spin-offs, Verily and Calico.”

D’Onfro reports, Alphabet expects that its board will appoint a new, non-executive chairman at its next meeting in January, meaning that it will join the ranks of Apple and Microsoft as major companies with non-executive chairman.”

Read more in the full article here.


MacDailyNews Take: Once Eric T. Mole was ejected from Apple’s Board of Directors, his value to Alphabet greatly diminished.

Schmidt & Co. do know evil.

Google’s Eric Schmidt wore staff badge at Hillary Clinton’s ‘victory’ party – November 16, 2016
WikiLeaks emails show extremely close relationship between Clinton campaign and Google’s Eric Schmidt – November 1, 2016
Eric Schmidt-backed startup stealthily working to put Hillary Clinton in the White House – October 9, 2015
Why Google really, truly, deeply hates Apple – May 30, 2014
Prior to Steve Jobs unveiling of Apple’s iPhone, Google’s Android didn’t support touchscreen input – April 14, 2014
Before iPhone, Google’s plan was a Java button phone, Android docs reveal – April 14, 2014
How Google reacted when Steve Jobs revealed the revolutionary iPhone – December 19, 2013
Apple to ITC: Android started at Apple while Andy Rubin worked for us – September 2, 2011
Google Street View cars grabbed locations of cellphones, computers – July 26, 2011
Consumer Watchdog calls for probe of Google’s inappropriate relationship with Obama administration – January 25, 2011
FCC cites Android ‘openness’ as reason for neutered ‘Net Neutrality’ – December 22, 2010
U.S. FCC approves so-called ‘net-neutrality’ regulations – December 21, 2010
Google CEO Schmidt: If you don’t like being in Google Street View then ‘just move’ – October 28, 2010
Consumer Watchdog ads mock Google CEO Eric Schmidt (with video) – September 2, 2010
Google CEO Schmidt: Change your name to escape ‘cyber past’ – August 18, 2010
Wired: Google, CIA Invest in ‘future’ of Web monitoring – July 29, 2010
37 states join probe into Google’s questionable Wi-Fi data collection – July 22, 2010
Google Street View Wi-Fi data included passwords and email – June 18, 2010


  1. “Once Eric T. Mole was ejected from Apple’s Board of Directors, his value to Alphabet greatly diminished.”

    And once the puppet he backed so thoroughly lost the U.S. Presidential election and along with it his preferred version of so-called “net neutrality,” not to mention protection against potential antitrust investigations, his value dropped completely to nil.

    1. The view of Net Neutrality you oppose is the preference of Sir Tim Berners-Lee who developed the World Wide Web.

      I agree with you that Shillary is a grifter, but then so is Drumpf. Did not vote for either one.

      1. Don’t be a pawn. Think for yourself for a change. Do some research. Form your own opinion instead of having it dictated to you.

        Start here:

        Boiling “net neutrality” down to its essence the argument is about whether the people who own the connections to the customer, the broadband and mobile airtime providers, can treat different internet traffic differently. Should we force them to be neutral (thus the “neutrality” part) and treat all traffic exactly the same? Or should they be allowed to speed up some traffic, slow down other, in order to prioritise certain services over others?

        We can (and many do) argue that we the consumers are paying for this bandwidth so it’s up to us to decide and we might well decide that they cannot. Others might (and they do) argue that certain services require very much more of that bandwidth than others, further, require a much higher level of service, and it would be economically efficient to charge for that greater volume and quality. For example, none of us would mind all that much if there was a random second or two delay in the arrival of a gmail message but we’d be very annoyed if there were random such delays in the arrival of a YouTube packet. Netflix NFLX -0.12% would be almost unusable if streaming were subject to such delays. So it might indeed make sense to prioritise such traffic and slow down other to make room for it.

        You can balance these arguments as you wish: there’s not really a “correct” answer to this, it’s a matter of opinion. But why are the content giants all arguing for net neutrality? What’s their reasoning?

        Here we need a modicum of economics: profits flow to whoever controls the scarce resource. As long, that is, as those who control that scarce resource are able to vary their prices so as to monetise that scarce resource. The owners of the latest must see movie are able to charge Netflix very much more for the rights to stream it than the owners of Rocky XXII are. We wouldn’t be surprised that Led Zeppelin gets a better deal from YouTube than my sister’s choir does.

        Move forward to the time when bandwidth providers are able to discriminate between different traffic and its providers. If bandwidth were unlimited then, it being not a scarce resource, net neutrality would be the normal order of things. If we all had 100 gigabit cables into our homes then there would be no possible argument about whether that Netflix movie should arrive faster, or less interrupted, than the email. However, that’s not the world we are in, bandwidth is, to some extent at least, a scarce resource.

        Thus, if those who own that bandwidth were able to price discriminate then they would: and this would mean some portion of the revenues of those services would move over from the content providers to the bandwidth providers. Some part of your Hulu or Netflix subscription would be paid to the internet providers, some part of Google’s YouTube advertising revenue would move from Google’s coffers to, say, Comcast’s. And quite clearly this is something that those content providers would prefer did not happen: thus the arguments in favour of net neutrality.Tim Worstall, Forbes, July 15, 2014

        1. The reason you are wrong is that the internet is and should be a public utility. Like electricity, your water, and the land line phone.
          This insures that greedy companies cannot rule the country side.
          Public utility means government OVERSIGHT.. not control but oversight

        2. I have done the research and the Republican argument is specious at best.

          People like Ajit Pai equate wireless internet with wired internet despite the fact that the data caps on wireless are far too small to compare to a wired service. I get 1 TB from Comcast at over 100 MBps for well under $100 a month- try getting a TB from any wireless carrier for less than 10X that amount and at that speed.

          There is competition among wireless carriers, but not among wired for the overwhelming majority of Americans. Knowing this, it is ludicrous to equate availability of multiple wireless carriers and on wired carrier to a competitive market- you will not be streaming 4k videos on your AT&T or Verizon wireless for long before getting throttled or billed for a data overage.

          I would also point to the fact that Comcast deleted it’s old “pledge” to customers regarding Net Neutrality the day Pai scheduled the FCC vote. Hmmm.

          Now go do your homework.

      2. And repeatedly downvoting comments to ludicrous levels (everyone can tell what you’re doing) is a sign of mental illness. Get that looked after, okay?

    1. Wouldn’t be a surprise, although given his personality, I wouldn’t have been surprised if Steve Jobs was accused either. Silicon Valley is no better (probably worse) than Hollywood in terms of having a lot of powerful a**sholes that think lots of money entitles them to do what they want.

  2. “Technical Advisor”? Now there is an adjective I’d never have associated with Schmidt: “technical”. His knowledge of the underpinnings of any of the technologies pursued by Alphabet/Google is minimal at best. Maybe he’s just “technically” an advisor and really an advisor in name only.

    He’s still on the board. His legal control is slightly lessened, but his influence on the board has likely barely diminished, if at all. Nothing substantive will change until he’s completely off the board and gone from any executive position.

  3. Eric Mole Schidth.

    Master of espionage.

    Should be publicly tried and sent to prison ….. placed right next to Babas cell.

    No single individual has brought more damage to Apple than this scum bag .

Reader Feedback

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