NIKESH ARORA: Well, thank
you very much, Jamie, for
hosting a wonderful panel.
And to our panelists, and
of course to [? Roberta ?]
for a wonderful performance.
With the rising cost of
Zeitgeist this year, we
figured we'd try and find
multi-talented speakers who
could fill in for
entertainment.
So, this was your entertainment
for the evening,
ladies and gentlemen.
It is hard to top off a day
like this, where we started
with the Prime Minister and
we had [UNINTELLIGIBLE]
and a whole host of
wonderful people during
the day, as speakers.
I did say there was nobody
from Google, but I guess
I wasn't accurate.
There will be somebody
from Google.
I'm going to invite our
Chairman and CEO, Dr.
Eric Schmidt, to come
please take the stage.
And he has a special
surprise for us.
ERIC SCHMIDT: Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
That panel, and the Minister,
reminds us why we're alive.
It's so great that you
were here, and so great
that we could do this.
And so great for you all to
spend your whole day and
tomorrow with us, as well.
As a quick summary of Google:
In the last year, since we
were here last year, we
talked about Search.
Lots and lots of Search
improvements, lots of new
products in the Search.
Lots of interesting and
unanswered questions about
Search that we're working on.
Advertising.
Many more advertising
technologies, many more
advertising ideas.
Much deeper, much more powerful
notions of how to get
advertising messages
to consumers.
And, of course, the
acquisition of DoubleClick.
The emergence of a new whole
strategy for Google, involving
applications called cloud
computing, with tremendous
implications of how people will
store information,
and so forth.
The sum of all of that is
what we're doing now.
And rather than having me talk
about it, I thought it'd be
much better to bring my two
colleagues, who have shown up
in matching shirts,
matching shoes.
Sergey and Larry.
One woke up in Russia, one
woke up in London, and
they dressed the same.
[APPLAUSE]
We should take one minute to
thank Nikesh, Lorraine, DJ, all
the people who put such a
tremendous amount of effort
to make this all happen.
And especially with the
evening's activities
ahead of us.
A phenomenal job,
Nikesh and team.
Thank you.
So, rather than having us
speak, people have comments
or questions-- we have
microphones-- on any subject.
Anything you all care
about to discuss.
We're happy to
answer questions.
OK, we have a question.
Unfortunately, you don't have a
microphone because Sergey-- OK,
here-- we're working-- oh,
here's a microphone over here.
OK, good.
Progress.
AUDIENCE: Hi, I'm Brian
McBride from Amazon.
I just wondered if you could
talk about your thoughts and
implications of Yahoo! and
a Microsoft get-together.
SERGEY BRIN: Test.
Test, test.
Oh.
Yeah, what do you mean?
Yahoo!
Microsoft?
ERIC: Sergey, you
were traveling.
SERGEY BRIN: I was traveling.
I actually did-- this on-going
saga-- I did-- I was surprised
to find out when I flew in
today that there was some new
developments that I have yet
to be fully briefed on.
ERIC: By me.
SERGEY BRIN: By you.
So, Eric, why don't you?
I can think of no better time.
ERIC: OK.
Let's see.
A couple of things.
There's been rumors that
Microsoft is going to do
another approach at Yahoo!
We've taken a position that the
markets are more competitive,
creativity is stronger, it's
better for consumers if
Yahoo! remains independent.
David Drummond, who's here,
wrote-- I thought-- a pretty
persuasive blog, given the
history of Microsoft and its
behavior, that that was
a pretty good outcome.
And I think we stand by
what David has to say.
Do you agree, Larry, or
have you had a chance
to look at it yet?
LARRY PAGE: Yeah.
No, I agree.
ERIC: OK.
Great.
With us, you never quite know.
Let's see, you had a question?
Yes, sir.
AUDIENCE: Hi.
It's Marco from [? Dada. ?]
A personal question,
to each of you.
What's the single technological
thing that excites
you the most today?
The one you like the most?
SERGEY BRIN: I got this kind of
strange thing at home recently.
I bought this really
big monitor.
It's kind of quad-HD.
So, it's like 4,000
by 2,000 resolution.
And it was very, very hard to
get and actually make it work
with a computer and whatnot.
But I finally have gotten
it working and it's
kind of interesting.
It makes you-- it changes how
you can work if you actually
have a really big high
resolution display that size.
So, that's one toy, if you
will, that I'm playing with.
LARRY PAGE: You can't
really see if you have
Windows at the top.
You can't really see them
because they're too far away.
SERGEY BRIN: Well, yeah.
But then you drag
them to yourself.
You do.
It's true.
ERIC: Larry, Larry?
LARRY PAGE: Oh, that's
a hard question.
Actually, one of the things
I've been really excited about
that we've been working
hard on is Street View.
Which is now, you know, it's
been shown in Europe a
little bit, and so on.
And driving in general, I
think, is a very, very
interesting thing
for computers.
So, one of the things I did,
I visited this thing called
the Grand Challenge.
Which was, basically, it was a
contest for $5 million, for the
car that can drive
itself the best.
With no people
inside, by the way.
And they're actually
amazingly good.
They basically simulated a
city, and the cars just
drove around all day.
And the best cars actually
drove all day with
basically no errors.
In traffic.
So, they had human drivers
wearing helmets and stuff,
driving around with them,
and hoping the cars
wouldn't run into them.
But I think the possibilities
for some of these technologies
are just amazing.
There's about 1 million people
a year that die in auto-related
accidents, and certainly we can
do better than that now
that we have computers.
So, for me it's just seeing
things that you didn't think
were possible that computers
can do, and thinking about what
the possibilities of those are.
AUDIENCE: Thanks a lot.
ERIC: A question over here.
AUDIENCE: Yes, Hi.
I was just wondering if you
would like to comment about
what you're doing on
alternative energies.
LARRY PAGE: Oh, sure.
So, we recently launched
this initiative called
RE less than C.
It's kind of a geeky way of
saying that we want renewable
energy to be cheaper than coal.
And the reason behind this is
kind of interesting for us.
We had all these data centers
that were launching all the
time in all parts of the
world to serve our users.
And they basically
use a lot of energy.
And so we have people shopping
around for electricity and
buildings and space and so on.
And what they notice is that
basically all the electricity
is generated by coal, in
a wide variety of places.
And that's the cheapest
energy that we have.
And in places like China, of
course, that's what they're
primarily building:
coal-fired plants.
And it has a lot
of implications.
It's really a dirty technology.
A lot of carbon emissions
even besides it being dirty.
And we started and we wanted
to make green data centers.
So, we said, well, we should
really do better than this.
And we started talking to all
the companies in the space,
which-- there are many.
There's a lot of investment.
And it's actually
very promising.
There are many, many
technologies in solar and in
wind and in geothermal, that
can really make energy cheaper
than we get it now from coal.
And do it at a scale
that's similar to all
the energy we use today.
So, we can imagine making
renewable energy that's
cheaper than we produce now.
And doing it at a scale that's
as much energy or more energy
than we produce today.
And that's really about getting
people to work on that now
rather than 5 years from now.
There's a lot of investment in
producing expensive green
energy, but if you talk to the
people who are doing that and
say, well, can you make
it a lot cheaper?
They say, yeah, we can probably
do that, but we're going to
work on that five years from
now, once we finish the
expensive green energy.
And what we've been doing is
making some investments and
hiring people, and telling
them to start working on
that now because the world
can't wait for that.
So, that's-- I think-- is a
really exciting area for
us and one that could
really be a big thing.
Go ahead.
AUDIENCE: Kent Nichols
with askaninja.com.
Could I get each of you to go
on record as to if you're
for ninjas or pirates?
LARRY PAGE: I'm for whatever
the opposite of Sergey is.
SERGEY BRIN: I guess if
I had to choose, I'd
probably take the ninja.
ERIC: But this is a
serious question.
He seriously asked you.
Are you sure?
SERGEY BRIN: Ah, no,
I'm not certain.
What happens after I
choose one or the other?
I'm imagining someone jumps
from behind the stage.
AUDIENCE: Yeah, I mean, a
ninja could be anywhere,
but, you know, pirates
are about-- Mr. Schmidt?
ERIC: I'm too old.
AUDIENCE: I see.
Thank you.
ERIC: More questions?
Yes, sir.
AUDIENCE: I have a question.
[UNINTELLIGIBLE]
from [UNINTELLIGIBLE]
Turkey.
You're shown as the best
example when it comes to an
innovative company, and I
had the chance to visit
headquarters last year.
I'm not sure about the
innovation part, but the
environment, it's great.
And my question is, we hear
a lot in the news about
why Google is innovative.
And there are a lot of good
things said about the company,
but two examples are given the
most, which is 20% of people's
times are spent on
personal projects.
Which might actually help
Google in the future.
The second one is 10% of the
money is usually spent on what
you call the [UNINTELLIGIBLE]
projects, if I
remember correctly.
My question is, whose
idea were those two?
The second question is, were
there any similar ideas which
you weren't able to implement,
which you're sorry about?
And the third question is,
again in the media, there's a
lot of discussion going on
about now that you are
becoming-- or you're growing--
you are having problems with
some of these implementations.
Do you plan to change those or
do you think these are the
core values of Google, and
you want to keep those?
Thank you.
SERGEY BRIN: OK.
I'll do a little bit
about the history.
I came up with the numbers but
I think the concepts were all
shared between all of us.
I just decided to
quantify them.
ERIC: Actually, what happened
was I didn't believe Sergey.
So, he-- we were in a
management off-site-- and
Sergey actually stood up and
proved, mathematically,
the numbers.
And since no one understood
the math but Sergey, it
was obviously correct.
LARRY PAGE: That is an
accurate rendition.
SERGEY BRIN: I think it's--
so, there are two rules we
have at Google, kind of.
One is called the 20% rule,
that's for individuals to spend
a portion of their time working
on-- not their main projects--
but other projects that are
useful to Google, that they
take the initiative on.
And the other is similar
sounding, but that's
the 70/20/10 rule.
And that's how we divide
our overall resources
of the company.
Not just financially, but
also headcount, and whatnot.
And we want to spend 70% of our
resources working on our core,
which we generally defined as
search and ads, but now
probably apps fit into
that category, as well.
20% of our effort go
to adjacent areas.
For example, maybe, Android
is an example of that.
And 10% is things that are
completely unrelated.
Anything goes.
And, like renewable energy.
Though obviously we use a lot
of energy, but it's kind
of in the 10% category.
And the idea is to
strike a balance.
There are two ways
companies can go.
They can get so fragmented they
go from doing one thing to 25
different things, and then
they're not focused.
At the same time, they could
become myopic and not try new
areas at all, where you might
do well and you might have
great resources and
ideas for them.
So, the idea behind our rule
was to kind of set the balance.
And I didn't prove the exact
numbers, but the fact that we
should always maintain a
roughly constant ratio I did
have a mathematical
argument for.
And that you shouldn't have the
10%, the out-there things,
dwindle, say, down to 1%, as
you become a very large
company-- as I think does
happen to large companies
often-- I think that
was pretty important.
ERIC: And the other part of the
question was the issues that
have been written about today,
about the scale of the
company, and are those--
are those in discussion?
LARRY PAGE: I think, you know,
as we get bigger-- every time
we double in size, kind of,
everything changes-- most of
the things we're doing
don't work anymore.
And that's happened to us a
number of times already.
Things like we're much
more global now, so time
zones are a huge issue.
Like Eric's been yelling
that you can't meet with
Europeans after noon or so.
And those are actually real
issues for us, like we have
to--
ERIC: He means after
noon in California.
LARRY PAGE: U.S. Yeah, sorry.
ERIC: That was not a
reference to siesta.
[LAUGHTER]
LARRY PAGE: Europeans are
very cranky after noon.
ERIC: After lunch.
LARRY PAGE: But we've had, I
mean, those are real issues.
Like, we've had to rearrange
how we do our meetings and with
what people and what times,
and things like that.
And there's just-- it sounds
kind of trite-- but there's 100
issues like that that you need
to address as the
scale changes.
And it's, I think, it's
always a challenge to
keep up with those.
You're always-- in a
sense-- you're behind.
What you need to be doing
at any given time around
communications and
organization and all that.
I think we've had a lot of
computer systems that have
really helped us
do that, though.
We have something called the
project database, which
basically contains what
everybody's doing.
So, anybody can look at a
project and you can see who's
working on it and what their
milestones are and so on, and
that's been really helpful.
We also have an automated
system that makes sure people's
reviews get done, their
performance reviews and so--
they're peer reviews-- so
they're based on your peers.
And your managers and everybody
makes written feedback, and the
system collects all that
together and there's a process
by which it gets reviewed.
But I think having a little bit
of automation around some of
the basic tasks of the company
have really helped us scale,
but it's always a challenge.
ERIC: Question?
AUDIENCE: My name is
Mark [? Menesse ?]
from Paris.
You've been part of a huge
revolution, as we did, but
in a micro proportion.
I wanted to know following
to you, what is the
next revolution?
SERGEY BRIN: Oh, boy.
OK.
I'll throw out one idea.
But, you know, my guess
is as good as anyone's.
Nanotechnology?
That might be a good one.
I don't know, maybe you
should ask the ninja.
ERIC: Larry?
The next revolution?
LARRY PAGE: Oh, it's probably--
ERIC: After you get finished
with all those cars
with no drivers in it?
Are people going to be
sitting in the back?
LARRY PAGE: Actually, I mean, I
think any of the things that
are speculated on being the
next revolution, you know,
biotechnology, nanotechnology--
many, many, many different
areas-- any of those could
be the next revolution.
But generally nobody's
working on it.
So, one of the things I've been
trying to do is to get more
people working on things
that could really matter.
So, the question I like to ask
people is, is the project
you're working on going
to change the world?
And, you know, you sort of ask
people that question, and I
think you end up with some very
small percentage of the
population, like .00001%,
that's really working
on those things.
So, the rate at which we
accomplish those changes
is very, very slow
because of that.
And this is Sergey's
point in the large.
So, how do you get the world
allocating 10% of its resources
to the sort of wacky things
that we're clear if they
would work they would
change the world.
And that number is
.00001%, instead of 10%.
And, from my standpoint, I
think we've got to get more
people into engineering
and into technology.
Because that's where we've
seen really big changes.
You know, we don't all have
to farm now, because we have
technology to do farming.
And that's true for
many different areas.
I mentioned driving already.
There's a lot of labor used
in driving that doesn't
need to be used that way.
So, you can kind of look at the
different areas and say, where
can we really make
a big impact?
And how do we get
people to do that?
So, I think the quick answer is
you can decide which area is
going to be the breakthrough
by actually working on it.
ERIC: The other debate that we
have all the time, where I'm
always the loser, is that Larry
and Sergey say, we have all
this money and cash now, what--
we should be taking more risks
than we did when we
were a start-up.
Because when we were a
start-up, we were like, about
to go bankrupt all the time.
SERGEY BRIN: 10% of a big
company is a lot more risk
than 10% of a small company.
ERIC: Anyway, I always
lose this battle.
Yes, sir.
AUDIENCE: My name is
Mohammed [? Al-Jassan ?]
from Jordan and Google launches
so many different applications
and features, and I was just
wondering what sort of criteria
do you look at before launching
a new application or a feature
on Google's many sites?
SERGEY BRIN: OK, good question.
Yeah, how do we launch new
products and features?
Typically, the initial ideas
are kind of born out of a
brainstorm, or somebody puts
together a demo and eventually
they'll get a go-ahead
to start to build it.
Once we've developed it enough,
we will typically test it by
putting it out to, say, a small
percentage of our user base.
Certainly for existing products
like Search, we'll just put it
through a series of tests, and
we'll measure, you know, how
many-- how much more quickly
were people able to find
information using this thing?
Do they come back more or less
often as a result of that?
Things like that.
And once we're confident that
what we've built has a good
benefit, then we'll go
ahead and launch it.
ERIC: Go ahead.
AUDIENCE: Just to continue with
your theme of innovation.
You've recently had a few
high-profile departures
from Google.
Do you worry that maybe as you
become a bigger company, the
people who want to do that 10%,
who want to make a real impact
in the world, feel like they'll
have a better chance of doing
it outside Google, rather
than inside Google?
SERGEY BRIN: I think we've had
departures recently that have
been more highly-profiled, but
we actually-- you know, in
overall attrition, when I think
about it-- we're actually
roughly just as we've
been all along.
We've had very high level
people leave in the past, I
just think-- don't think it
got noticed quite as
much in the press.
But the important part of the
question is can people really
feel free to innovate?
And we've recently started to
have-- we have a group of about
5 initiatives that we let run
somewhat more independently.
Kind of just to experiment with
other models and also allow
people who have a solid track
record within Google, once
they've demonstrated a success,
we say, you know, OK, you're
going to do this a little
different than we normally
do it, but we're going to
let you have a go at it.
Like I said, we have probably
about 5 such things
going right now.
And I think, as a result, these
people are able to better
invent than they would
at a separate start-up.
Because here they get a good
degree of autonomy, plus all
the resources that Google
can bring to bear.
Now, you know, those things are
fairly recent, so we have yet
to really know their
true success, but I'm
fairly optimistic.
LARRY PAGE: Let me say, too,
I think that this is a
work in progress around
corporate structure.
So, I do think that there's an
issue that we have a start-up
model and we have the company
model where there isn't
much innovation.
We don't have anything
in between that's been
really successful.
And actually we've tried a
number of different things.
Sergey mentioned we have
about 5 things going.
Actually they all kind of have
a slightly different structure.
And there's several in
contemplation that are starting
to have even slightly different
structures than the
ones we're running.
So, I think it's a balance:
how do you get the
compensation right?
How do you-- how
milestones based is it?
You know, what is the real
structure of how you do these
things within companies?
We don't really know exactly
how to do it yet, but we know
we'll keep trying
until we get it.
And I think it's pretty much an
unsolved problem for companies.
I think it's a very important
one to solve, so that
big companies can get a
structure that works.
Or bigger companies can get a
structure that works, and
really produce a lot of
innovation and a lot of
things that will make a big
difference in the world.
ERIC: Go ahead.
AUDIENCE: What's the one thing
each of you worry about most?
ERIC: In my case,
Larry and Sergey.
No, just kidding.
Go ahead.
SERGEY BRIN: Eric and Larry.
LARRY PAGE: Sergey and Eric.
ERIC: That question was
for the two of you.
What do you worry
the most about?
SERGEY BRIN: The thing I worry
most about is opportunity cost.
I think that we have some
fairly unique opportunities
that not all companies
have in terms of some of
the resources we have.
Kind of, we have the brand,
the financial resources,
the technical expertise.
Things like that.
And I worry that we might
become a little too myopic and
not use that to maximum effect.
You know, the fact that we do
have the ability to say, scan
all the world's books and
make them searchable for
everyone in the world.
You know, things like that,
those are exciting to me.
And I worry that we may not
be making other similar bets
that we could be making.
And I think there are many
things that other companies can
do that I'd like to make sure
we leave it for those third
party companies to do.
Because if there are plenty of
other people capable of doing
certain things there's no
reason that we have to do them.
LARRY PAGE: I think the main
thing I worry about is the
open internet, basically.
Actually, I remember in the
early days of Google, we
worried that all the
information would got locked up
in kind of a proprietary way.
And it would be hard
to index, and so on.
And that hasn't
happened, obviously.
There's still very many
ways that it could happen.
For example, when we started
Google, it worked pretty well
everywhere in the world.
I mean, we were just a
couple of grad students.
And then we were 10 people or
20 people, and we had several
million users, and they
were actually many users
all around the world.
If we were required to pay for
good transit, in order to make
our service fast, there's no
way we could have done that.
We didn't even really, couldn't
even answer our phone.
We didn't have enough people.
So, some of the proposals I see
around-- you know, where ISPs
and so on want to extract money
for good transmission-- I think
really could really harm
that innovation and new
companies coming about.
The fact that you can plug one
computer in somewhere and just
magically it can talk to
everyone in the world pretty
well-- that's something
we take for granted now.
But it's a tremendously
important thing for the world.
And it's not necessarily going
to continue to be that way.
So, that was one thing.
I also think we just
really want to preserve
open standards, too.
The reason why the internet
works is because it was
invented in universities.
The standards we have for email
and things like that work
openly because they were
invented in universities.
And that's why you have spam
also, because they could
never imagine there'd be bad
people on the internet.
So, they didn't really
think about those issues.
But the standards that came
about more in companies, like
instant messaging, have
been very, very closed.
We've announced for a long time
that we'll interoperate with
anyone who'll interoperate
with us on instant messaging.
You know, amazing!
You should be able to instant
message anybody, not just
people who happen to be
on the same network.
Just like with email.
And, you know, we haven't
gotten takers from
the big companies.
And so I think there's still a
lot of risk around
communications being closed and
that's a great way to make
sure those products
never get better.
So, those are the kinds of
things that I worry about.
ERIC: Go ahead.
AUDIENCE: My name's
Jim [? Brickton. ?]
I'm from an agency called
The Search Works.
We spent a lot of money with
Google last year, about $200
million worth of revenue
for Google last year--
ERIC: Thank you very much.
AUDIENCE: --on behalf
of our clients.
And, you know, there's a lot
of agencies in this room.
We got a rebate last year, of
about $14 million from Google,
which we reinvested in our
people, and our technology,
and our clients.
And that's being taken
away-- all the rebates--
as of next year.
And I know there's a lot of
pain at my agency-- I'm sure
there are other agencies here
that are hurting
because of that.
So, I just wanted to ask, are
you aware of that change
in pricing structure?
And can you talk me through the
reasons behind it, because my
clients are a bit confused.
ERIC: This has been a
controversial decision
within the company.
We looked at it from the
standpoint of where we thought
the value added was, and what
the total cost structure was,
and we compared all the
various different groups.
I'm aware of some of the
economic changes and I
understand that it's painful.
The theory here is that the
market's growing quickly
enough, that although the
percentages are smaller, the
aggregate-- it's growing
quickly enough that there's
enough money to cover expenses
and have a good profitability.
And we can talk offline about
some of the-- [LAUGHTER]
AUDIENCE: I'd really
like that, please.
ERIC: But the basic argument
was we couldn't-- the economic
structure had gotten
skewed again.
And it wasn't a fair playing
field, and that's why we
had to make the change.
Again, a very, very
complicated argument.
Let's see, we had a
question over here.
Yes, sir.
AUDIENCE: You spent quite a
lot of money on the YouTube
acquisition, and also
on the Myspace deal.
What is your plan
for monetizing that
kind of traffic?
On the one side, online
video, and on the other
hand, user-generated
content in general.
ERIC: One of the most important
under-- and in my view, not as
well-covered-- stories in the
last year, has been the
tremendous growth of YouTube.
It's shocking to me how
much is going on in
video around the world.
The growth and so forth, at
various points, has almost put
Google in harm's way, in terms
of our ability to actually
run all of Google.
The traffic explosion
has been so great.
And as Larry put it earlier,
we've managed to actually
re-engineer our systems and so
forth to handle this traffic.
So, what's new this year?
And the answer is YouTube.
Out of that we have a number of
initiatives around advertising,
that are not what you think.
They're not pre-role or
post-role, which we're
beginning to try.
So, the outlook there
is very good, but the
tests have to proceed.
Do you guys want to talk a
little bit about Myspace?
LARRY PAGE: I was just going
to say about YouTube--
ERIC: We're already in
that business, go ahead.
LARRY PAGE: I was going to say
on YouTube, too, I think the--
you know, Google actually ran
for a while before we started
running advertisements.
And then we tried a couple of
different things and then
one of them kind of
worked out well.
I think we're in that same
phase with YouTube, and I'm
very confident that we'll
get revenue from that.
But I'm not in a hurry to do
it, I want to do it right.
And I think that's the attitude
we've taken enough, so you
know, we told those guys
we want to build traffic.
You guys are building tons
and tons of traffic.
That's the most
important thing.
And we're sure we can
monetize it over time.
So, I think we've been pretty
happy with that progress.
SERGEY BRIN: If I can just take
a moment to step back to the
agency fees question, just to
add a little more color there.
So, we sell our advertising
principally by auction.
And essentially, we have
customers-- we've done it
historically slightly
differently, depending on the
country-- but this effort was
part of unifying that.
We have some customers that use
agencies that then will bid on
keywords on Google, and some
customers will represent
themselves directly.
Ultimately, to make an auction
fair, we need to make--
or compare the actual
money that we make.
I mean, just because-- if we
send money back to the agency,
then maybe we should be
sending money back to the
direct customer, also a
comparable percentage.
Ultimately, we decided we
needed to compare it, kind
of apples to apples.
Because we didn't want to
disadvantage the customer
coming to us directly versus
the one coming in through the
agency, in terms of how their
bids got set in the auction.
Now, this new system, it's not
that the agency doesn't get
paid at all, but we leave that
payment portion to the
relationship between the
agency and the customer.
And that way it's
more transparent.
That was the thinking behind
it, I mean, there certainly
is-- as Eric mentioned-- we're
happy to discuss it further.
But this wasn't just some kind
of scheme for Google to get
more money, this was really
about how we fairly deal
between different customers.
ERIC: Let's make sure we
answer the Myspace question.
So, we're in the Myspace
advertising business.
It's gone well.
And again, as we are learning
the tech-- as we're learning
how to monetize social
networking traffic, it will
ultimately be much,
much better.
It's taken us a while.
We said that before.
Is that a fair summary?
Sergey?
Larry?
Oh, let's see.
Yes, sir.
Go ahead.
AUDIENCE: My name is Ramu
Yalamanchi from hi5.
And I have two questions.
ERIC: From?
You're from?
AUDIENCE: Ramu
Yalamanchi from hi5.
ERIC: Yes, Hi.
AUDIENCE: I have a
couple of questions.
The first one is for Larry.
And in thinking about, in
getting people to think about
problems that matter, and
working on problems that
matter, how do you actually
do that for people that
are outside of Google?
And my second question
is for the whole group.
And that's what's the single
accomplishment that makes you
most proud, in, kind of,
all the things that have
happened over the years?
LARRY PAGE: I don't really
have a great answer for
the outside of Google.
It's actually hard even
inside of Google.
I find pushing people a lot
helps, you know you just really
need to tell people, like, why
aren't you working on this?
Why don't you work on
something bigger?
Why don't you-- and it's
just a constant effort.
Outside, you know, I've started
talking about it more.
So, I've done an interview
in Fortune this last month.
I've been working with the X
Prize to try to define some
big challenges for the world.
There's also a
government-funded group called
Grand Challenges for
Engineering, which is part of
the National Academy of
Engineering, where they're just
trying to find the 10 areas
that'd be really great if
they were solved.
One of them is reverse
engineering the brain.
And things like that.
And we went through with a
whole bunch of really smart
people and tried to define some
interesting things for people
to work on that would
really matter.
So, I think it's just,
you know, just trying
to work on it.
ERIC: Sergey?
SERGEY BRIN: Let's see, maybe I
should talk about what kinds of
things we're most proud of.
I think that being able to
deliver what I hope you think
are excellent products-- I
don't want to judge them
myself-- but things like Search
to everyone in the world.
Well, everyone with an internet
connection anyhow, and we're
working on broadening the
number of people who have
internet connections,
and that's free.
So, the most-- you know,
whatever the president of
whichever country, or the
prime minister, they all
probably use Google.
I don't know for sure.
All of the, no matter how
wealthy you are-- you know, I
use the same search engine as
somebody, an orphan in
Nigeria, might use if
they're at the internet.
Everyone is able to afford this
incredible kind of resource.
And the same thing, by the
way, is true of gmail.
Everybody's able to afford
that kind of great
communications tool.
So, I'm pretty proud that we've
been able to not only create
great tools but also deploy
them widely to everyone
in the world.
ERIC: I think for me I'm most
proud of just being involved
with the internet as a whole.
I think everybody here
understands the power
of the internet.
Try to remember when you didn't
use the internet and you
couldn't rely on it in any way.
It's a pretty harsh vision.
Yes, sir.
AUDIENCE: Guy Phillipson,
the Chief Executive of the
Internet Advertising Bureau.
I just want your views on, I
guess, keyword search versus
display within your company.
And keywords has been
phenomenal growth,
it's huge in the UK.
We know that.
But broadband, you know, makes
online a proper entertainment
system and we can see rich
media, video, hence
the acquisition of
YouTube, and so on.
And you've got DoubleClick,
as well, and an ad exchange.
And so, where does it all fit?
And, you know, how do you see
the ratios working in the
future, say, for the next
5 years, within Google?
ERIC: We agree with
your premise.
Right?
That it's going to be
this amazing platform
for advertisers.
We don't necessarily know
exactly what the products
are going to look like on
top of that substrate.
We know that advertisers want
to use more than text, more
than video, more than display.
They want to be able to do--
think of it as a package, and
they want to get it
in the right way.
We also know that people are
doing creatives, and so there
are now agencies-- many of whom
are here in the room-- who are
doing very interesting things
with, for example, gadgets,
and gadget ads, and
things like that.
Click to play video ads.
So, we're part of
those experiments.
How will it come together?
It's pretty obvious to me that
display advertising will
be a very large business.
And again, Google today
is not the leader there.
It's going to be a very large
business globally, for a number
of players, simply because
people care about images, and
video, and so forth and so on.
And the company that can figure
out all the combinations to
produce a valuable targeting
solution that will target that
media is probably going to
end up being the winner.
Do you guys agree?
AUDIENCE: And ultimately do you
see keyword search maxing out?
You know, way in the future?
And, hence--
ERIC: There's no
evidence of that.
There may be some limits, but
we benefit from the fact that
the internet is growing very,
very quickly, especially
outside the United States.
Broadband adoption is growing
again very, very quickly.
And PCs, Macintoshs, cell
phones, all of that.
If you think about it, if you
assume that the internet only
has about 1.3 billion users,
and there's on the order of
6.5 billion people on the
planet, you're only a
quarter penetrated.
So, what happens when
another billion or two
people come online?
AUDIENCE: So, raising the
audience is actually
just going to--
ERIC: Absolutely.
And the pie really does
get a lot bigger.
And we take it for
granted here.
Everybody here uses it,
everybody here has a mobile
phone, and so forth.
That's not true for a lot
of humanity, and it's
time to get that fixed.
LARRY PAGE: You should say,
too, I mean, if you do a search
for something you're trying to
buy-- I mean, I only get ads
maybe 80% of the time-- I don't
know, 60% of the time--
something like that.
That's in the U.S., which is a
really highly developed market.
The UK obviously is similar.
But there's a lot of things
that I buy and I search for
that I don't get any ads for.
And so there's a lot of
opportunity there still.
And I think our ad systems are
really probably optimal for
medium-sized advertisers.
And for really small
advertisers and really big
advertisers, there's just a lot
of things that need to be done
to really create the coverage
that can generate conversions
and clicks and so on.
ERIC: You'll have the honor
of the last question.
AUDIENCE: My name
is [? Arnt, ?]
from Germany.
And the last question's
going to be a pretty
personal question.
The incredible success of
Google has made you wealthy
beyond imagination in a
very short amount of time.
Has that changed your life
to the better or the worse?
LARRY PAGE: Sergey has to spend
more time with his monitor.
[LAUGHTER]
He's the first one who has
one, so it takes a long time.
SERGEY BRIN: Yeah, it actually,
it cuts both ways to be fair.
It probably balances
out somewhat neutral.
You know, certainly,
yeah, I've got somewhat
bigger and better toys.
But they come with me
having to do more of the
testing and debugging.
ERIC: You could hire someone
to do that for you.
SERGEY BRIN: I don't know.
That's-- I'd feel
awkward about that.
I think, yeah, there are
a few lifestyle changes.
I've tried to limit some of
my lifestyle changes and
not change too much.
I've certainly seen a lot of
people who have great wealth
who seem relatively unhappy.
And, in fact, you know, it's
kind of as you drive through
different neighborhoods, you
can kind of see where people
are more secluded because they
have bigger houses, bigger
lots, and they're wealthier.
They have less social
activities than a lot of the
more populated, more urban
areas, that are typically
poorer in the U.S. So, I think
it requires great care for
people who come into sudden
wealth, if you will, to avoid
those kinds of traps.
ERIC: Larry?
LARRY PAGE: I was going to say,
I think what I mostly feel is
just a great sense of
responsibility-- I mean, you
have all this resource-- to
use it well, and to
think about that.
And that's been, that's been
really-- I mean, I like
challenges, so it's been
a great challenge.
But also not something that
I expected to have to do.
We've been spending a lot
of time on things like
our Google.org efforts.
Some of the energy things,
and other things.
I've been spending a lot of
time in Africa, because I
feel like I really need
to understand that.
So, you know, I've been
taking some vacations there,
and things like that.
Which has been interesting.
But not what I would have
thought I was doing, if you
had asked me 10 years ago.
So, I think having that
responsibility is a
really exciting thing.
It causes you to do a lot of
things that you might not
otherwise do that are good.
There's also a tremendous
challenge and responsibility
that you feel about it.
ERIC: I want to thank Larry
and Sergey and Nikesh,
and I both want to thank Larry
and Sergey who made this
special trip, just literally to
come here for this meeting.
So thank you both.
[APPLAUSE]
SERGEY BRIN: And, if I may,
just very quickly, I hope
you've all been enjoying
the conference.
I hope you appreciate that as
payment you have to sit here
and listen to us torture you
with this Q&A for about an
hour, but it's free
from here on out.
ERIC: Nikesh,
do you want to sort of--
thanks, everybody.
