Google: Schmidt Hasn't Considered Quitting AAPL Board
Speaking to reporters at a press briefing ahead of the company's annual meeting taking place this afternoon, Google (GOOG) CEO Eric Schmidt said he hadn't considered resigning from the Apple (AAPL) board in response …
Context & Ripple Effects
Eric Schmidt's answer comes against the backdrop of a long-established press dynamic: CNET profiled his defensive briefing style back in March 2008, and the pattern holds here — asked directly whether the growing questions around his Apple board seat had pushed him toward resigning, he flatly said the thought hadn't crossed his mind.
The setting matters as much as the denial: Schmidt made the remarks at a press briefing held just hours before Google's annual shareholder meeting (confirmed for that afternoon), meaning the dual Google-Apple directorship was being probed publicly on a day when both companies' governance was already under shareholder scrutiny.
First-order effects
- Schmidt keeps his Apple board seat for now, explicitly rejecting the exit option in front of reporters rather than deferring or declining comment.
- The denial puts the burden back on whoever raised the resignation question — critics of the interlocked Google-Apple board seats must escalate their case rather than wait for a voluntary departure.
Second-order effects
- Apple and Google are increasingly competing in consumer products — Apple's active 2009 iPhone pipeline (beta testing, a rumored next-generation iPhone for WWDC) sits alongside Google's ambitions — so every public defense of the shared seat raises the stakes for how both companies justify it to shareholders.
- If the questioning continues at successive meetings, either company can defuse it unilaterally by asking Schmidt to step down, turning a courtesy seat into a live governance decision.
Third-order effects
- The episode points toward tightening norms around interlocking directorships: as companies whose executives once sat comfortably on each other's boards drift into direct competition, expect shareholders and governance watchdogs to treat such seats as conflicts requiring recusal or resignation rather than harmless collegiality.
The trend: Interlocking directorships among erstwhile allies are becoming untenable as those companies turn into head-to-head competitors, forcing boards to choose between personal ties and competitive independence.