Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Executive Chairman Dr. Eric Schmidt.
It's another great day here in Mountain View, California. It's great to have you here on a pretty steamy California afternoon. Let me begin by the most important question of the morning: How was the food? Okay. If you missed the food, you missed at least half the value of the shareholder meeting, in my opinion, but what do I know? Okay, good. Now, so we've done this a number of times, and I think you all know my name is Eric Schmidt, and everybody should be registered, so I hope that's good. You all have an agenda, you have sort of a rules of order, and so forth. I'm going to call the meeting to order.
As we've done in the past, what we're going to do is David Drummond, who you all know, is going to sort of run the formal part of the meeting in just a sec, and then we'll go to comments from me, your Q&A, you know, that sort of thing. I think it's going to be a really great afternoon. I wanted to take a minute to introduce a couple of people that are important that I can see right in front of me. Let me give you an example: Laszlo Bock, right? Senior Vice President of HR. Susan Wojcicki, you'll see later, right? Now running YouTube. Kent Walker, Senior Vice President of General Counsel. Patrick Pichette, who keeps all of the money in the company in the orange backpack. That was a joke. Okay, just to be clear, that was a joke. It's not really there.
Do you keep the access codes there? The access codes are in the. There's a little bit of extra cash in case we run out of the cash that we need to run the company. Let's see. I see some Board members: John Hennessy, Paul Otellini, Diane Greene, and Ann Mather, right? Who did I miss? Did I miss any board members? That's like really bad. Good. And we'll be joined in a little bit by a few other people. So who else do I need to introduce? Now we have Debra Kelly. Where's Debra? Yes, Debra, you've been here before.
She's our representative of Computershare, and she basically acts as the inspector of elections, so pay attention to her. And then Barbara Z. Marchini-Ellis and Sam Lazarakis, representatives of Ernst and Young, who have been our accountants for many, many years. Where are Barbara and Sam? We're sitting next to each other. Shocking. I think what we should do now is let's bring on David, and let's have the formal part of the shareholder meeting. David, where are you? David Drummond, right?
All right.
Man you know well and who's done a lot for this company. Thank you, David.
Thanks. Well, good afternoon, everyone, and thanks for coming again on this beautiful California day. I look forward to the shareholders meeting every year. It's the one day in Mountain View that I can actually wear a tie and a suit without being laughed out of the building. So thank you for that, and thank you for the occasion. So as Eric said, I'm the Secretary of the company and the Chief Legal Officer. I'll be presiding over the business part of the meeting. I assume that you guys are all situated well. So a quick note about logistics. Stockholders, please don't address the meeting until you're recognized.
Obviously, we have a Q&A period in order for you to do that. If you'd like to answer a question during the Q&A period, we've got microphones, as you can see. Please queue up there. O nce you're recognized, please identify yourself and your status as a stockholder or a representative of a stockholder, and then ask your question. So I've received affidavits of mailing from Computershare and Broadridge, which state that the notice of the meeting was duly given.
All stockholders of record at the close of business on March 17th, 2014, are entitled to vote in this meeting. I've also been advised by the inspector of elections that holders of our outstanding common stock, representing at least a majority of the voting power of the outstanding common stock entitled to vote today, are represented in person or by proxy at today's meeting. So therefore, a quorum is present. The meeting is duly constituted, and we can proceed. Now, the first item of business is the election of directors. We're electing 10 directors at today's meeting.
The directors elected today will hold office until next year's annual meeting, 2005. The board of directors has nominated the following: Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Eric Schmidt, John Doerr, Diane Greene, John Hennessy, Ann Mather, Paul Otellini, Ram Shriram, and Shirley Tilghman. Our bylaws require that stockholders provide advance notice of their intent to nominate persons for directors. And since no such notice was received, I declare the nominations for director closed.
Mr. Secretary, I'd like to speak to the election of directors, please. Thank you. My name is Tim Smith.
I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We'll reserve that to the.
Before we vote on the directors.
You can have one minute, please.
Yes, that's fine.
One minute.
My name is Tim Smith. I represent 88,000 shares of Walden Asset Management .
Sorry, Mr. Smith? You're representing the shareholder proposal that was presented?
No, I am now speaking to the Election of Directors, so I want to commend our Nominating Committee.
Okay, wonderful. Please proceed. You have one minute.
Before us today. So I wanted to indicate on behalf of our firm and the treasurer of the state of Connecticut, Denise Nappier, that owns 188,000 shares, that we understand that our nominating committee is pledged with ensuring a knowledgeable and effective board, and they have excelled in that task. But I also want to commend them on being cognizant of the importance of having diversity on our board and ensuring that we have women and people of color on our board bringing their expertise to bear.
So my comment here, Mr. Secretary, is we have seen recently Warren Buffett and Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock, champion the cause of putting more women on the board. We only have 16% of our board seats in this country that are women. They understand the importance of that. Our board is ahead of the curve right now, and I want our nominating committee to know their work is appreciated by many investors. So thank you for letting me put that on the record. Thank you.
Thanks for your comments, Mr. Smith. The next matter being submitted to the stockholders is the ratification of the appointment by the board of Ernst & Young as our independent registered public accounting firm. Our Board of Directors has recommended that our stockholders ratify this appointment for the 2014 fiscal year. The next matter being submitted to the stockholders is the approval of the 2013 compensation awarded to Google's named executive officers, as described in our proxy statement. Because this vote is advisory, it will not be binding on our board of directors. However, we'll clearly consider the outcome of the vote along with any other relevant factors in evaluating our compensation program.
Our board of directors has recommended that our stockholders approve the 2013 compensation awarded to these officers, as described in the proxy statement. Now, the next five items that are being submitted today are stockholder proposals. Our board of directors, if you received our proxy, our board of directors has unanimously recommended that our stockholders vote against all five stockholder proposals that will be presented. Now, the first stockholder presented is being brought by Mr. John Chevedden, and I believe Mr. Timothy Smith, we will hear from again, who will be presenting the proposal. Mr. Smith, this time you get three minutes.
Yes, I'll be short, Mr. Secretary. Thank you very much. For the record, I am Tim Smith from Boston, Massachusetts, and as a courtesy for John Chevedden of Redondo Beach, California, I'm moving his proposal. As you can see in the proxy, proposal number four requests that our board take steps to adopt a recapitalization plan as soon as possible for all outstanding stock to establish one share, one vote. This proposal is important because, as we all know, one class of shares of Google has 10x the voting power of another class of shares, and disturbingly, I think, recently a third class was created that has no votes at all, so there are some shareholders that put their money to work and invest in our company but have no voice.
This raises the concerns that the interests of our public shareholders could be subordinated to our leadership team, which is an excellent team. But nonetheless, we're now a public company, and the argument goes that we should have voting power that's the same for all. This is not a challenge or an attack on Google at all. This is a resolution that has been put to companies like UPS last week, Ford Motor Company last week. It's a corporate governance request for good governance.
It is felt so strongly that a group called the Council of Institutional Investors that represents investors with $3 trillion of assets under management has actually called for stock exchanges not to recognize companies that do not have equal voting rights. Last year, this resolution got close to 25% of the vote, an absolutely amazing vote considering that our board controls 62% of the votes. This resolution then is a message, especially to our independent directors. We urge that you would pay attention particularly to outside investors who feel disenfranchised and pay attention to that voice as you deliberate in the future. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Thanks very much, Mr. Smith. Please don't sit down because the second stockholder proposal is being brought by Walden Asset Management, and Mr. Smith will be presenting this proposal as well. Three minutes, Mr. Smith.
Yes, and thank you again. On behalf of Walden Asset Management and the co-filers, which include the State of Connecticut Pension Funds, as I mentioned, the owner of 186,000 shares valued at approximately $9.7 million, I'm pleased to move resolution number five. As you can see, this resolution seeks information on how Google directly and indirectly works to affect legislation and public policy. Lobbying is big business for Google. In the last three years, Google spent over $40 million in federal lobbying and has been one of the top five companies lobbying for the last several years.
While Google does disclose a summary of their federal lobbying activity, we don't hear any detailed information on the many trade groups and advocacy organizations that it's part of, how much it pays those groups, or how it evaluates whether their lobbying positions are consistent with Google's priorities and values. More information is needed to evaluate Google's role. As the treasurer of the State of Connecticut, Denise Napier, stated, "Nothing sows the seeds of mistrust more than secrecy and unwelcome surprises." Shareholders have every right to know what our lobbying expenses are.
Google should disclose payments to trade associations as well as expenditures to influence elections, so she urges us to pull together in one document the reports it files across the country. And she concludes, "In our view, the lack of full transparency when it comes to money and politics threatens a company's credibility and has the potential to adversely affect long-term shareholder value," so she is very strongly in favor of this particular resolution. Two organizations that Google funds are particularly notable. One is the American Legislative Exchange Council, which has a very partisan and right-wing conservative agenda on issues from voters' rights to immigration to the environment.
For example, today, along with the climate denial group, the Heartland Institute, ALEC is actively working at state levels to combat renewable energy standards in dozens of states. What a contradiction to Google's forward-looking energy conservation and climate goals. Really commendable leadership. As a result of this agenda by ALEC, 85 companies, including Walmart, the Bank of America, scores of other companies, have withdrawn their support. Part of what we are looking for today in disclosure is saying, "Don't just disclose, but look deeper at where your money is going." Is really this a case of Google putting its money to work in a way that would deeply undercut the values and priorities you have? I finished then with mentioning another example, and that is your involvement.
You have about 30 more seconds. Thanks.
In the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. We are not today encouraging you to leave the chamber, but we are noting that 50% of your dues dollars go to the chamber lobbying against climate issues like climate change. So we will see the chamber using Google dollars in June to sue the EPA as it comes out on leadership on climate. So we are urging today that Google be more transparent, be more open, and ensure that its values and integrity of its leadership and its employees are reflected in your lobbying. Thank you again, Mr. Secretary.
Thanks, Mr. Smith. Before I move on to the third stockholder proposal, I should note that rather than providing a response in the meeting, if you look at your proxy, you'll see that Google has responded to each of that stockholder proposal as well as all of the others in the proxy. Now, the third stockholder proposal is being brought by the Firefighters Pension System of the City of Kansas City, Missouri, Trust. Mr. Lincoln Paine will be presenting this proposal, I believe. There he is. Mr. Payne, you'll have three minutes to make your statement in support of the proposal.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, and fellow shareholders. My name is Lincoln Payne, here on the proxy of First Affirmative Financial Network. On behalf of the Firefighters Pension System of the City of Kansas City, Missouri, Trust, I hereby move item number six, which asks that our board require its members be elected by a majority of shareholders' support. The present vote process for director elections at Google is unfortunately antiquated, very unsettling for such a forward-looking company.
As we know, the role of the board is to represent shareholders that the way Google's rules stand now, a director can be elected with as little as one vote in favor. That's because directors are elected through a plurality standard. That standard does not make sense for board elections at Google, where our elections do not have nominees running against anyone else. Thus, they will always get elected, even if they only had their own votes. With an election like this, shareholder votes are really meaningless. This proposal asks the board to switch to a majority vote standard.
This move would mean that directors must have a majority of shareholder votes to keep a seat on the board. Majority voting improves corporate governance because it holds directors more accountable. There has been a huge surge of support for majority voting in the last years, and now a vast majority of companies have it in place, including leading companies like Amazon.com, Microsoft, and Yahoo. As Google shareholders, we expect the company to have the best practices in corporate governance, including this one. We urge you to vote in favor of item number six. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Payne. The fourth proposal is being brought by the Domini Social Equity Fund as the lead filer. Ms. Michelle de Cordova, I believe, is here to present that proposal. You have three minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, and fellow shareholders. My name is Michelle de Cordova of NEI Investments of Toronto. I'm here representing Domini Social Investments to move proposal number seven, addressing Google's tax strategies. NEI is a co-filer of this proposal, and I'm joined here by Ms. Virginia Coyle of Harrington Investments, another co-filer, so our proposal asks Google to establish ethical principles guiding its approach to tax, and this may seem an unusual request from shareholders.
You might assume that investors will be pleased to see the company pay as little tax as possible, but the sponsors of this proposal are fiduciaries. We see tax avoidance as a short-sighted strategy that threatens the foundations of society and of long-term wealth creation, and we think it threatens Google as well. Now, to be very clear, this is not a vote on tax reform or how much tax Google should pay. We just believe Google would benefit from a set of ethical principles to help it navigate the complexity of tax regimes around the world. This is recommended by the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises, and other companies have done it.
Google is a very unusual company founded on a principle to do no harm, Don't Be Evil. We know Google works hard to live by this principle, particularly at a time when governments around the world have been seeking to use IT companies to stifle free expression and to spy on their citizens. We applaud Google for its groundbreaking efforts in this area, and our colleagues at Domini have been very pleased to work side by side with Google on this. Now, Google knows you don't protect free expression through good intentions. You need carefully crafted principles, implementation guidelines, and public accountability. And we think the same applies here.
Right now, Google's tax strategies exploit differences between national regimes, shifting profits from higher tax jurisdictions to low or no tax jurisdictions. Now, these tactics may not be illegal, but utilizing one jurisdiction to eliminate or minimize tax payments in another can and has invited potentially costly responses from the disadvantaged governments. We think Google should consider the impact of its tax strategies on society to anticipate changes to tax regulations, ensure continued consumer loyalty, and protect the value of the brand. Tax is really an investment in society, so what is our return on that investment?
We think corporations and investors depend upon tax revenues to fund indispensable government services that can't be financed by corporate philanthropy or by a rise in the share price. Google itself might not exist if it had not been for taxpayer-funded research. We understand that Mr. Page and Mr. Brin's initial research was actually financed by a taxpayer-funded National Science Foundation grant. We just feel you can't have it both ways. We think tax avoidance threatens future innovation and growth and more.
Ultimately, corporate tax avoidance is a threat to government and to the rule of law, and no investor or company can really succeed for very long without a functioning government and legal system. As fiduciaries and long-term investors, we need resilient economies and societies that can stand up to the inevitable shocks that the future will bring. Tax avoidance weakens societies. It creates vulnerabilities where we need strengths, and it threatens long-term wealth creation. So we think Google's board should ask itself, "What is the end game here? How long can our company and our economy survive if corporations continue a race to the bottom on tax?" So today, your shareholders are asking you to set a higher standard. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Ms. de Cordova. Now, the fifth and final proposal is being brought by the Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund. I believe Mr. Ken Casarez is here to present that proposal.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Good afternoon, fellow shareholders, board. My name is Ken Casarez, and I'm pleased to be presenting the Massachusetts Laborers' shareholder proposal. The Laborers' International Union of North America represents over 500,000 workers across the United States and Canada. Our members participate in one of 100 individual benefit funds, which collectively have over $35 billion invested in the capital markets.
We are long-term shareholders in Google, and we believe strongly that good corporate governance practices and compensation practices that reward superior performance increase the likelihood that a company is going to be a good long-term performer. It is the responsibility of the board of directors to protect shareholders' long-term interests by providing independent oversight of management, including the chief executive officer, and directing the corporation's business and affairs. Currently, Mr. Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google, is our company's executive chairman of the board.
We believe this scheme may not adequately protect shareholders. We believe that an independent chairman who sets agendas, priorities, and procedures for the board can enhance board oversight of management and help ensure the objective functioning of an effective board. We also believe that having an independent chairman in practice as well as appearance can improve accountability to shareholders, and we view the alternative of having a lead outside director, even one with the most robust set of duties, as not adequate to fulfill these functions.
A number of respected institutions recommend such separation. CalPERS Corporate Core Principles and Guidelines state that the independence of a majority of the board is not enough. The leadership of the board must embrace independence, and it must ultimately change the way in which directors interact with management. In 2009, the Millstein Center at Yale School of Management issued a report endorsed by a number of investors and board members that recommends splitting the two positions as the default provision for U.S. companies.
A commission of the Conference Board said in a 2003 report, each corporation should give careful consideration to separating the offices of the chairman of the board and the CEO, with those two roles being performed by separate individuals. The chairman would be one of the independent directors. We believe that the recent economic crisis demonstrates that no matter how many independent directors there are on the board and how scrappy they may be, that board is less able to provide independent oversight of the officer if the chairman of the board is not independent. We therefore submit the following resolution for shareholder approval.
Resolve that the shareholders of Google ask the board of directors to adopt a policy that whenever possible, the board's chairman should be an independent director who has not previously served as an executive officer of the company. The policy should be implemented so as not to violate any contractual obligation. The policy should also specify, A, how to select new independent chairmen if a current chairman ceases to be independent during the time between annual meetings of the shareholders, and B, that compliance with the policy is excused if no independent director is available and willing to serve as chairman. Thank you.
Thanks very much, Mr. Casarez. So that ends the presentations on stockholder proposals, and because there's no further business scheduled to come before the stockholder meeting, I will declare the polls open. Now, if you've previously voted by a proxy that you sent in, you don't need to vote today unless you'd like to change your vote. And you should also know that we've received enough proxies before the meeting to know that the proposals we discuss today will pass or fail in accordance with the recommendations that were made by our board of directors as relayed in the proxy statement.
However, we want to make sure that everyone gets a chance to vote. So if you do want to vote and you've requested a ballot when you registered for the meeting, please complete it now. We'll give you a few moments. If you want to vote, if you need a ballot, or if you'd like to hand in your ballot, please raise your hand, and we'll have folks collecting those. Do you have a ballot? Oh, okay. Okay, it looks like we're pretty much complete. We have one in the back, two in the back. Okay, it looks like everyone has had a chance to either hand in their ballots or get one.
So given that, I declare the polls for each matter voted upon at the meeting closed and direct the inspector of elections to collect the ballots, which we're doing. So the results of the voting. 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 also been advised that a majority of the shares of our common stock entitled to vote and present at the meeting in person or by proxy have voted in favor of the ratification of Ernst & Young to act as our independent public accounting firm for the 2014 fiscal year, as well as the approval of the 2013 compensation awarded to Google's named executive officers.
Therefore, each of those proposals has been approved by our stockholders. I've also been advised that a majority of the shares of our common stock entitled to vote and present at today's meeting in person or by proxy have voted against the stockholder proposal regarding equal shareholder voting, the stockholder proposal regarding a lobbying report, the stockholder proposal regarding the adoption of a majority vote standard for the election of directors, the stockholder proposal regarding tax policy principles, and the stockholder proposal regarding an independent chairman of the board policy. So therefore, each of the stockholder proposals has not been approved by our stockholders. As soon as possible after the meeting, Mr. Smith, you're out of order if you let us proceed.
This is our meeting, their own meeting. You were asked earlier by letter to provide the votes, so we would just get a sense of what the preliminary votes were. It's a simple question that's done at most meetings.
If we have that available, that is handy, we'll be happy to provide it. Do we have that?
Keep going. We'll get the answer.
Keep going. So I can tell you that each of the stockholder proposals has not been approved by our stockholders. If we can quickly get any preliminary results to share, then we will do that. Thank you. Well, it appears that on the shareholder proposals, it appears that it's rather difficult to read this, but it appears that roughly 76% of the votes voted against. On the lobbying report proposal, approximately 86% of the votes were against. On the majority vote proposal, approximately 75% of the votes went against the proposal.
On the tax policy principles proposal, 93% roughly of the votes were against that. And on the independent chairman proposal, 87% of the votes were voted against. You're welcome. So as soon as possible after the meeting, we'll actually complete the final tabulations, and we will put those on our investor website as well as file them with the SEC. So that ends the official portion of the meeting, and I declare that portion closed. Eric has some remarks and Q&A. Eric?
And thank you again for doing that. I'm in awe of what has happened, and you might think I'm in awe of $15.42 billion in revenue, 19% year-over-year growth, 57% coming internationally, almost 50,000 employees. But that's not what I'm in awe of. I'm actually in awe of what's going to happen next, that the scale of the impact that technology can have to make the world a better place, which is the mission of Google, and I think the mission of many of the companies that represent here. When you sort of come back, in my new job, I spent a lot of time traveling.
I'm just amazed at the scale of what is now possible because of the interlinking of the world and the inventions, the technology, the chips, the networks, and the partnerships that Google benefits from. We've been busy. It was a very busy year, as you know, and I wanted to take you through a little bit of it. But I want to begin by saying that Google is still fundamentally about building technology that helps people lead richer and more fulfilling lives. That's how we see ourselves.
We want you to hold us to that standard. It's just as the company was founded in a mere 15, 14 years. Look at what has been possible, and to me, tech reflects the intense optimism of humanity, that we actually believe not only can we have done what we have done, which we clearly have, but that this will compound further, that we can actually take problems that have existed for decades and centuries and thousands of years, and we can fix them or change them in ways that really work for humans and society as a whole.
I've also become very convinced that the role of entrepreneurs, Larry and Sergey will talk about in a little bit, who founded these sorts of companies, is not fully appreciated. It is these companies globally in many, many different industries that are solving the jobless problems. They're funding government programs. They're helping the poor. They're changing the world. They're inventing new drugs and on and on and on. And what I've learned is that our role, if you will, is that a little bit of knowledge can profoundly improve the lives of people. Jared Cohen and I wrote a book on what was going to happen in the new digital age, and as part of this, we went to Libya, excuse me, and we meet with these Libyan schoolgirls who say, "We love Google Maps." Well, everyone loves Google Maps. Why do you love Google Maps?
Well, during the NATO bombing, it's how we figured out how to get to school. So you think Google Maps matters? Talk to the schoolgirls because they're alive because of Google Maps. Take a look at what we've done with Google Now. If you haven't used it, it's remarkable. Instead of digging through your inbox, it sort of figures out what to do next. Your flight status, you're late. It says you can be late because the plane is going to be late. I mean, incredibly useful things. How many times do you spend sitting in domestic airports in America just waiting, wasting your time? So you think this stuff matters? Of course it does. No need to check the weather. It's always hot in California. You get the idea.
But search can be understood not as just ranking links anymore, the invention that Larry and Sergey made while at Stanford, but really based now on amazing advancements in artificial intelligence. We're actually going to the point where we've had for some time specialized AI networks where you sort of train them against a question. And we're just at the beginning of artificial intelligence where computers can learn very general concepts, which ultimately will result in amazing sort of discoveries and things that make your lives better. So think of it as searching and suggesting and helping and thinking on your behalf. The very best personal assistant you could possibly imagine, caring about what you care about, helping you get through the day and really optimizing it. Let me give you another example. Chrome. Now, if you care about security, you should use Chrome.
Never been broken as a browser, even by some of our three-letter friends. You care about speed, fastest browser around. If you care about market share, number one browser globally. But if you care about price, the price is good, free. Why does that make sense? Because Chrome is a platform for computational execution of new services that cannot be done on other browsers and leads the standard efforts in that area. So why does Chrome matter? And by the way, more than 750 million users agree and have taken the time to download it because it makes a difference in their lives. And by the way, I forgot, when you open a tab on your web browser and then you move to your mobile device, it's in the same place. Isn't that cool?
You're reading a book, same place on your phone, same place on your tablet, same place on your computer, same place on the new computer when you lost your computer. Sort of extraordinary. By the way, that's what's called cloud computing. You want to know what cloud computing really is? Is that when you're reading the book, it stays at the same page. Or one of my friends had this happen. His computer was stolen, and he had failed to use our photo stuff. Nothing backed up, years of photos lost. Android. Now more than a billion devices. What's the neatest thing about Android? You never have to think about it. It's all backed up in the cloud, starting with photos. What do you do with your phone? Photos and texting. We save your photos.
You sit there and you go, "Talk to somebody who's lost all their photos and all those precious memories." It's a little thing. It's a profound thing. The technology just gets out of the way. So it used to be when I was growing up, the technology, as sort of a local nerd, I loved all the technology, but a normal human being, which I clearly was not, did not want to spend all afternoon fiddling and trying to make this stupid thing work. So we make it work just like that. Same thing with Google Play. You can get apps and music and so forth all in one place. It remembers what you did. It's all there. You get it when you lose your device, on and on and on. Listen to your song on your tablet. Remember, there's that principle.
And now the same thing occurs on your other devices. And by the way, we're taking Android to wearables, watches, cars, et cetera., Android pretty much everywhere. Anybody played with Chromecast? You want to see a good example of this? $35, plug this thing in your television, and all of a sudden, everything that's in your computer is now on your TV in very high quality. Now with a global launch all around the world, one of the hottest products. Just plug it into your TV and off you go. So I sit there and I go, "What are we doing?" Well, the answer is we're trying to bring the information to you in a way that's seamless, that these divisions that were erected by previous legal technology and so forth structures go away. And the seamlessness is fundamental. You don't even think about it.
You don't remember when you couldn't use your TV in an appropriate way, and you couldn't keep your information track, and you couldn't remember when your stuff wasn't backed up, and you couldn't remember when you didn't have Google to answer your questions. I think we're getting to the point where we can't really remember that anymore. Now, this is true, by the way, for the 2.3 billion people or so in the world who have access to the internet. And we're doing really well by any measure. There are twice as many people who do not have access to the internet. Almost all of them will get access in the next 5-10 years and almost all on smartphones, probably running Android. That, in many ways, is more important than anything I've said. And the reason is they're human beings too. And talk to them.
I did a world tour and talked to a lot of them. Corruption, the terrible treatment of women in these places, civil rights, economic opportunity, lack of jobs, lack of healthcare, lack of basic things like clean water. You want to do something to change that? Get them connected. They're just as smart as we are. They're just as capable, but they don't have that information source. So again, Google has many, many such initiatives. Sort of a fun one. Let me talk first about disconnected society because I think it's important. Tunisia, throughout Ben Ali, the old revolutionary dictator, the people who threw him out are now Android developers. I met with them. A new elite has formed in a new democracy. It's interesting.
In Myanmar, where I was, Myanmar, because it was at the time a repressive state, banned all forms of email by name, and they did so in 2003. Well, Gmail was introduced in 2004, so we have 100% market share in Myanmar. It's a good product, by the way. You should be using Gmail. In Mexico, the government is using Google Maps to track the various gangs and so forth in an integrated system that really has affected their ability to track the sort of evil gangs. When I was in Kenya, I saw Maasai nomads who were more interested in their smartphones and showing off what they could do, and none of them had running water. The hunger for information and the empowerment is so much stronger when you have none of it.
Had I told you this when I joined the company in 2001, I think you would have thought I was crazy. So by empowering the powerless through knowledge and information, we have an opportunity that's much larger than the things that we normally talk about. And I care deeply, and I suspect you do, about making the world a better place. We have to do it for everybody. It's interesting that Google has various initiatives. One of the more entertaining ones is Project Loon. Of course, only at Google would you announce a balloon project called Loon.
But in theory, and it looks like it works, these high-flying balloons will give ubiquitous coverage through the telecommunications industry and through the existing smartphone LTE infrastructure to people who have no hope of ever getting data connectivity in some of the most remote parts of the world and in many countries where they're just struggling to keep the cities online. So you think it matters? You think balloons matter? They matter a lot. And by the way, the technology works. Think about it as a classroom in northeast Brazil, which has no way of getting connectivity for decades. They can get it. We're taking a long-term view. We're taking such a long-term view that we founded a company called Calico, focusing on health and well-being.
We developed a project called Iris, which is a smart contact lens that's designed to help people with diabetes. This, by the way, is really cool. There's a little integrated circuit in there that lets you know if you're diabetic or not. Given the sort of weight problems in the Western world, especially in America, trust me, this may be in your future. Nest. If you haven't installed a Nest thermostat, leave the shareholder meeting immediately. Go to the Nest store, install it, and you'll sleep better tonight. You think I said like, "I'm crazy or something." It manages the temperature better, and it actually matters. And it matters that you be rested and energetic to get through the day. Self-driving cars and all the other things.
Think about it. You think self-driving cars matter? 30,000 people die on the roads of America every year tragically. That, by the way, number on a pure miles basis is the lowest it's ever been. Every one of those deaths is a terrible, terrible thing. Let's fix that. Let's fix that with technology invented at Google and other places. I am beyond excited about this, and I wanted to finish by saying, as I have in the past, the company that you've placed your trust in, Google, has more opportunities ahead of it than we've ever had, and we've exploited the opportunities pretty well. We've made some mistakes, but we're not perfect.
We've got a pretty good record, but imagine Google in five years or 10 years with the resources, the technology, your support, improving lives on a massive global scale. It's just awe-inspiring. This would not be possible without your belief in us and your support, and I really want to thank you for that, so thank you very much. So what I thought we would do is let's ask some of the usual suspects to join us on stage. Susan, let me introduce everybody one by one. Susan Wojcicki.
Susan is important at every level of the company. Come on up. And most recently built the entire ad system. And then having done it's only a $50 billion business. She's now decided to work on YouTube. So why don't you come join us, Susan Wojcicki. Let's get Patrick Pichette. Okay. Hold on, Larry. Patrick Pichette, come on up. Patrick does not have the money in the orange backpack, but I'm told he knows where the money is. Patrick, of course, was much more than a CFO when he ran Bell Canada, and he now not only runs all of our financial structure, much of our investment stuff, but he also does much of our infrastructure work.
When you look at Google, he's had a huge impact. Patrick, come on up. David Drummond. David, I didn't properly introduce. David, I believe, signed the documents that created the company. Did you have any idea what you were doing? When he was a lawyer at Wilson Sonsini, he's been with us forever. He runs not only all the legal functions, as you know, but he also now does all of the investing, all the venture investing, and a whole bunch of other stuff, and all the public policy work. Come on up, David Drummond. And let's see. Do we have? And we have one more person. I wanted to read something I wrote about Larry and Sergey. And so Larry, stand up. And it's what I think. So pardon me as I read this.
We must start by thanking Larry Page and Sergey Brin. I've often introduced Larry as the finest computer scientist of his generation. I think that understates what he is, if I may. For their wisdom and friendship and for the incredible company that the two of them have started, Google's co-founders really are as good as we describe them and as you think they are. The privilege of working with the two of them every day to learn and understand the future is a once-in-a-lifetime gift. Many of the brilliant things that made Google so great, the strategy, the culture, the emphasis on hiring excellence, were all set well before I joined the company. So very early. Imagine having in your mid-20s, in your mid-20s, the presence of mind and the vision to see what Google would be and could do.
Over and over again, Larry and Sergey pushed hard to challenge convention, question authority, incumbency, and go their own way in building this great company. Google has not only changed my life and I think your lives, but it continues to change the lives of billions of people every day, everywhere. There is no adequate way to introduce Larry and to thank him, along with Sergey, for what they have done. Larry, please come up. Yes. And who's doing the demo? We have a demo. Shall we do the demo? Let's begin. Yes, it's go ahead.
My name is Vinay Shet. I'm a product manager in the Google Maps Street View team. This is Andrew Kaselius. He's a tech lead in the Street View team as well. We are here today to present before you a feature we launched recently in Street View that turns all of you into a time traveler. So since 2007, Street View cars have been driving around the world, capturing 360-degree panoramic images for users to enjoy and explore their world. Each time our cars have driven by a landmark, a building, a hospital, a school, it has captured a snapshot of how the world looked like at that point in time.
With this feature launch, for the first time, a user is able to drop into Street View and then step back in time through these snapshots to look at how their world has changed over the last several years. Let's drop into a demo. First stop, Europe. Before this feature launched, if you went to this area in Street View, you would see a beautiful summer day along the Italian countryside. But is this how Italy looks like throughout the year? Let's find out. With this new feature, you have a clock icon in the top left corner, which if you click, you see a preview image.
This preview shows you the other imagery that we have at this location that we captured at a different time frame. If you click on that preview image, you travel through time. In this particular example, this tool lets you look at the same location in different seasons. But that's not all. What this tool also lets us do, it lets us publish imagery that we couldn't have otherwise published in Street View. Let's jump to Times Square, New York. Back in 2007, we captured some data here at night.
We could never publish it simply because we had much more informative imagery captured in the daytime, but in my opinion, the nighttime imagery of Times Square simply makes for a better experience. With this feature, our users can now walk around Times Square at night, and of course, since you're in 2007, the latest and the greatest in technology at the time, as you can see, was a flip phone, and if you recall, 2007 was about the time when smartphones began getting traction, and if you go forward by a few years, you see that the phone has begun to look a little bit more or less ancient, so these are cute examples.
These are fun examples, and I'm sure as you explore this tool, you'll find many of these, but our cars have also captured images which are a lot more serious in nature. Let's go to Onagawa, Japan. This was a town, which is a seaside town in Japan, that was devastated by the tsunami in 2011. This was the image we captured there in 2008, prior to the tsunami, and if you just move forward in time, you see the devastation that was caused by this disaster. Can we go back and forward again. These are powerful images, and oftentimes, they're the only images that the community has of how their world looked like before disaster struck.
In the past, we have been conflicted. What do we do in such situations? Do we leave the old images up so people can see them? Or do we redrive and capture the rebuilding process, the reconstruction process? Now we can do both. On one hand, if you have destruction, on the other, you have reconstruction and rebuilding. Let's go to New Orleans. This was taken a few years after Katrina, and if you move forward by a little bit, you see again that the community has already begun rebuilding and reconstructing.
One of the most fun examples we've seen with this data so far is just the human activity, the urban change that occurs around the world, so this is the Soumaya Museum in Mexico, and as you move forward, you can see how this building is being built out into an impressive structure that it is today. Let's go to Asia. This is Singapore. This is the Marina Bay building, and they've captured it almost regularly as it's being built up from the ground up. I'd like to leave you with an image that's closer to home, right here in the U.S., the Freedom Tower at the World Trade Center.
This was the first image we took there in 2007. As time goes by, you can see the building being built up. Rise. You can see it rise. Rise some more until it's fully built out in our latest imagery. I hope you appreciate that this tool gets more and more useful as time goes by and as we add more and more time layers. We've launched this tool globally in over 50 countries. We hope to add even more as time goes by. At Google Maps, our goal is to be accurate, useful, and comprehensive. With this feature, we are being comprehensive not just across space, but also across time. Thank you.
Thank you very, very much. Thank you, guys. You see the rate of innovation in something like Maps, and you see what they could do. It's extraordinary. Let's get some questions from the audience. We have mics over here, mics over there. I thought I would use the privilege of being chair to actually ask the Reverend Jesse Jackson to ask the first question. Reverend Jackson.
Larry and Sergey and Eric, Susan. Well, thank you for the opportunity to present today. David, who we began our Silicon Valley projects some years ago, was our chair. Now he's here wearing suits. I really wish, I must say, Dr. King could see this today. He never saw a cell phone. I'm glad Mr. Mandela saw a little bit of it. I speak to you today representing the Rainbow PUSH Coalition about the need to open up a new era of growth and inclusion of African Americans, Latinos, and other people of color in Silicon Valley's technology industry. Inclusion leads to growth, and when there's growth, everybody wins. This really is a moral appeal, an appeal to reason.
Those who are locked out, basically Blacks and Latinos, Native Americans, represent markets, money, talent, and locations in underserved markets, underutilized talent, and untapped capital. Google is uniquely positioned to lead this new era. We won't know how good Silicon Valley can be until all of us can participate. All we ask is that everybody plays by one set of rules and evens the playing field. We want mutually beneficial two-way trade. We share consumer patterns together, pay taxes together. We serve in the military together to make our nation secure.
We should share in America's opportunity and growth together. People and talent can be an awesome power. Today, there's an imbalance of trade. Too much one-way trade, too many left out, too many gaps. We have money and talent that's going unexploited. Zero Blacks and Latinos on boards and in the C-suites. Tech powerhouses like Google and Apple. New media companies like Twitter and Facebook. Zero Blacks and Latinos on their board of directors. In the C-suites, Google like Facebook, Twitter, Google, Apple. Far too many of the Silicon Valley and technology companies have zero African Americans and Latinos in the senior executive leadership teams.
The we-can't-find-them syndrome is a thing of the past. Who is looking? We can search and find anything. Google is the king of search. Search for those in the right places, and you can find them. The Rainbow PUSH Minority Inclusion on Debt Capital Markets, a ranking of corporate issuers. We applaud Google on the diversity of its leadership. Included several minority and women-owned firms in your initial IPO. Utilizing minority firms in your recent debt offerings, but much more can be done. When it comes to minority inclusion in employment, procurement, professional services, advertising, and marketing, Silicon Valley has a long way to go. There are too many gaps.
Again, if Google searches for qualified minority candidates, you can find them. Please think big and think bold. If Google can build cars that drive themselves, it can certainly build a pipeline to bring African Americans and Latinos and people of color in this world, in this changing technology world. I would say in conclusion that, that in today's marketplace, this model of exclusion is unsustainable. I would urge Google and the rest of Silicon Valley and the tech industry to transform your leadership teams, workforce, and business partners to mirror the America it depends upon for talent and customers. That's why I appeal to you today and other high-tech companies like Apple in the highest tradition of transparency.
Please publicly release your EEO-1 Report. It identifies the race and gender characteristics of your workforce and procurement practices for the public to review. There should be nothing to hide and much to be proud of and promote. This best Silicon Valley can be a tremendously positive change agent for the world. It's rare it can hold on to old patterns that exclude people and lock them out. Silicon Valley and the tech industry have demonstrated that you can solve the most challenging complex problems in the whole world. Inclusion is a complex problem. You can solve it. Just a few questions, Chair.
Will Google make a commitment to inclusion of Blacks, Latinos, on your board of directors? Specifically, would you agree to place a bylaw amendment similar to that of Apple, requiring explicit and active search for women and people of color for all new board openings? Will Google commit to a rule-under-rule-like provision to mandate that women and people of color are included in the part of any search for C-suite-level talent?
Will Google commit to the inclusion of Black and minority firms in debt offerings and financial transactions for the future? And how can Google lead in building pipelines to expand participation? I quote on this note, "Today, we have so much greatness within our country. There are too many malnourished people, too many poor. Schools closing, jails building. We must go another way. We've been blessed to be the moral beacon of the world if we will let our light shine. But I only ask you, in the name of all that you represent and your basic values, to pursue this mission. And may I ask you, if we're not altering your schedule too much, for the girls who we search for in Nigeria today, those four more bow our heads in prayer for those girls as we search for them. Amen. Thank you.
Thank you, Reverend Jackson. Well, Reverend Jackson, let me address some of the questions. And thank you so much for the questions. I wanted to respond to a couple of things. Number one, the pipeline. The pipeline of getting more African Americans, Latinos, people of color into the Valley, into Google. We're working very hard on that. We're not doing enough, and we can do a lot better. One thing, one example, it turns out that about 35% of all Black computer science graduates come from historically Black colleges.
And it also turns out that when you look at their computer science programs, they, frankly, don't always match up with programs from other places in the country. One of the things we launched was a pilot program to work with Howard University to revamp their computer science program to get it to that standard. And we can see more and more and more of those graduates coming out to the Valley and doing well. We know they're there. We know they can do that. And we expect to work with five more universities this coming year and continue to do that.
There are about 20 of those schools specifically that have engineering departments.
That's right. That's right. And even working beyond that, we've got a number of things we're doing to try to, in the K through 12, to get more underrepresented minorities, more girls in the sciences and in the engineering. So we need to do a lot more of that, and we're committed to do that. Let me also just say, you mentioned in your remarks that they're about disclosing the numbers and talking about the diversity data that's out there. Many of the companies in the Valley have been reluctant to divulge that data, including Google.
And quite frankly, I think we've come to the conclusion that we're wrong about that, and we should be disclosing that data. We had planned to do that next month, and so we will be following through with that.
That's a yes. So you see, so yes.
You want to address the board questions?
The board question. Today, we're extremely happy with the diversity on our board. To the degree that we have more additional board openings, I can assure you we will look for every qualification and specifically people of color, additional female board members, etc. It is a core policy of Google to be diverse, and we take it very seriously.
I think that some of these absences do not represent hostility as much as cultural blinders. Part of our job is to be a kind of light, a kind of conscience to say we can do better. We did not know how good baseball could be until everybody could play. We do not know how good Google can be, until all of us can be a part of that search. If you can't find people, now search for them and then cultivate them, and we all can grow together. Thank you.
Okay. You're here. Thank you very much. Thank you, Reverend Jackson. So let's go to the microphone behind, and then we'll come over here, and then the one behind. So we'll call this one, two, three, four. So two.
Hi. Good afternoon. I'm Justin Danhof. I represent the National Center for Public Policy Research. We're a free-market think tank and a company shareholder. I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you guys once again this year. As I'm sure you all know in this room and in this region, in early April, the CEO of Mozilla was forced out of his job because he made a contribution back in 2008 to a referendum defining marriage here in California as between one man and one woman.
The idea that a well-qualified individual could be fired for participating in a civic decision-making process about marriage laws sent a shockwave across the country, specifically in the religious communities. Some companies explicitly guarantee that their jobs, that employees' jobs will not be affected by outside legal, personal, political activities. We were unable to find such a guarantee in Google's Code of Conduct.
The company does state that it is, quote, "committed to a supportive work environment where employees have the opportunity to reach their fullest potential," and that each Googler is expected to do his or her utmost to create a respectful workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias, and unlawful discrimination of any kind, and that, quote, "employment here is based solely upon individual merit and qualifications directly related to professional competence."
These are laudable policies, but they do not address a Googler's right to engage in a political activity on their own free time, free of any retribution. So we realize that while not every company policy is on our website, I just want to know, does Google guarantee the right of its employees to, on their own time, participate legally in the political process without their jobs being affected?
Something perhaps similar to Coca-Cola's guarantee, which reads, "Your job will not be affected by your personal political views or your choice in political contributions," . If not, would you consider such a guarantee, adding that to your Code of Conduct? And in the course of your answer, I hope you'll comment generally on what happened at Mozilla. I would think that companies such as Google that rely on creativity and ingenuity wouldn't want to impose an environment in which everyone here must think and believe only the approved thoughts. Thank you.
Thank you. So it turns out our policy is to provide that protection.
Okay. Great.
And it's inappropriate for Google to comment on Mozilla or the other companies. But Google is incredibly committed to freedom of expression, freedom of political thought. It's legal. It has to be legal, of course. And we absolutely support it. And it is both our practice, and I just confirmed with Laszlo. It's what we do.
Great. Thank you so much.
Okay. Yes.
Good afternoon, Dr. Schmidt. I'm John Simpson. I am a shareholder, and I also am the Privacy Project Director for Consumer Watchdog. Recently, you were appointed to the New York State Smart Schools Commission, which is charged with advising the state on how they should spend a $2 billion bond issue to bring technology into the state schools. It's a wonderful, wonderful idea. But you are the only voice of technology there and the only corporate member. And frankly, I cannot understand how you can serve on that board without having a flagrant conflict of interest. I wonder if you could explain how that's possible.
Sure. Have you done anything for the citizens and the students of the state of New York at Consumer Watchdog?
I happen to be a member of a library commission.
Good. Excellent. I have done exactly nothing. And I decided that I would like to help. And you all have now filed a complaint on this very matter under a set of species of circumstances. So from my perspective, I'm just trying to help. It seems to me that the government might be better off having somebody who has some technical knowledge advising on the procurement of software, and that software is in a business that Google is not in. Furthermore, the commission that I'm in has no actual control over the allocation of the money. I hope that's a clear answer.
A second question?
Go ahead. And by the way, I would really like you next time when you come, because you asked a question next year. I'd really like you to have actually done something about the New York situation with respect to students and education rather than just complaining about me. Go ahead. Because I might have actually had a meeting between now and then, maybe in the next six months, because the governments take a while. Please go ahead. Next question.
Sure. The question is the European Court of Justice has just recognized the so-called Right to be Forgotten. You've been quoted in various places. I think this was with Reuters saying that if we don't fight for our privacy, we will lose it. But in this particular instance, Google was on the opposite side of what many of us would think would be privacy protective. The question is, how do you feel about this Right to be Forgotten, and what impact will it have on Google's operations?
Maybe David and I can find a simple way of understanding what happened here: that you have a collision between a Right to be Forgotten and a right to know. From Google's perspective, that's a balance. And I spoke about this in my book, right, which I'm sure you've read. I have. And the book actually says you have to find a balance. And there are arguments on both sides. Google believes, having looked at the decision, which is binding, that the balance that was struck was wrong. David?
Yeah, I think that's right. It's a disappointing decision. We think it went too far, sort of, and didn't consider adequately the impact on free expression, which is absolutely a human right. So we're still studying it and trying to understand the implications of it. But as Eric said, we think the balance could be struck in a different way.
I think it's fair to say that there's a lot of things that are now going to happen. The ECJ has now remanded, if I get it right.
A nd it'll go back to the Spanish court.
The Spanish court. The Spanish court will have to rule. There's many, many, many open questions. We get that right, Kent? I think that's sort of where we are.
Thank you. Okay.
Number four.
Good afternoon. My name is Tobias Behrnewaldt from Germany. I represent the Investmentaktiengesellschaft für langfristige Investoren. I said that three times. We're a family office from Germany with its roots in the publishing business. Last year, a colleague of mine was here and asked you, Dr. Schmidt, how we could possibly have access to a live Google account representative given our EUR 7 million a year spent with Google.
Your clever answer last year was, "Well, spend more money." We did. So hopefully, we'll get a call from somebody soon. Okay. So my question.
So Patrick? Okay. Will you call them? Be glad to call them. Okay. Thank you. You have an absolute commitment for a phone call. Please continue.
My question to you is actually about the public discourse that you've been having in Germany with Mathias Döpfner, who's the CEO of the largest publishing house in Germany, who wrote in an open letter that he was afraid of Google because he's dependent on Google to a large extent, and he can't obviously control the algorithm. So when the algorithm was changed one time, his businesses were hit. One business lost 70%, 70% of its traffic at the time, and we have also heard from venture capital firms in Germany and also here in the U.S. that are now reluctant, to some extent, to invest in Google-dependent business models, and I would just love to hear your comments on that.
S o Mathias is actually a very good personal friend, as a matter of disclosure. And we've been going back and forth with this privately. We have a meeting coming up to sort of talk this through. We've had a very good, detailed business relationship with his firm, with many, many different business interactions. Sometimes we partner. Sometimes we compete. As a general answer to the complaint, because he tries to frame it as a general complaint, Google is primarily optimized around the benefit of the end- user.
We do reserve the right to make algorithmic changes, which could, in fact, affect a business partner as long as those algorithmic changes are improving the quality of the answers to the end user. And that's always been true. It's always an issue. And ultimately, we come to some accommodation, and I'm sure we will with them. Number one.
Thank you. My name is Sam Jewler, and I'm a Proxy Shareholder coming from Public Citizen in Washington, D.C. Google has revolutionized, obviously, the world of information and access to information. And so it kind of begs the question, as Google has become much more of a player in politics in Washington and lobbying, expenditures now being one of the top corporate spenders on lobbying, why Google won't extend that value of access to information with its shareholders and expose more about how it chooses to do its lobbying spending, how it chooses to fund the 140 groups that Google is a part of, why it funds them.
Shareholders investing in this company deserve to know how their money is being spent, whether the expenditures align with our values or carry any risks, reputational or otherwise. For example, as Tim Smith of Walden Asset Management mentioned earlier, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, for example, Google is a member, and the chamber opposes things like net neutrality, which Google obviously supports.
The chamber has also not been very good on taking action on climate change, whereas Google has as one of its core values being a leader on climate change and investing in renewable energy. So I'm wondering, for one, how much money does Google provide to the Chamber of Commerce and for what purposes? And being that Google is one of the top corporate players in lobbying and is also one of the less transparent in doing so, do you have any plan to be more transparent with shareholders and the public?
Let me address that since the government relations falls in my world. Look, I think that you can imagine, with all of the issues that we deal with across many businesses, we work with a lot of groups. We support a lot of groups, as you might expect, for a company of our size. The fact and they're across the spectrum. We work with some people where we agree with them on many issues that are very important to the internet, very important to our company, and we may disagree with them on a number of other issues.
That's true with the chamber. For instance, we very much don't like their positions on copyright occasionally and so forth, which clash with ours. But on other issues, it does make sense to work with them. I think the fact that we're having debates about the chamber, we heard ALEC brought up another example of someone where we really disagree with them vehemently on a number of issues, but also believe that there are some areas in terms of the Open Internet and so forth where they're doing good work. I think the fact that we're having this debate shows that we are fairly transparent.
People do know what we're up to. We comply with all disclosure laws, and we're happy to talk to people about what we're doing. So anyway, we welcome the conversation. We think that we will continue to have situations where we make a hard decision about supporting a group for one purpose, even though we don't fully agree with them. And I think that's something that these are hard choices, but I think they're ones we have to make.
David, I'm confused. I thought the ALEC controversy was about Alec Baldwin. Sorry. Sorry.
Thank you. To my knowledge, we don't support his.
Thank you very much.
We don't support him.
There are a lot of companies, including in the tech industry, that are much more transparent. There's a Center for Political Accountability did an index of how transparent companies are. Google got a 51%. Microsoft got 93%. Intel and HP and Dell were in the 80s and 90s.
L et me summarize your request. We need to be more transparent, and we've heard that from a number of other shareholders. We get it, and we've got to have any plans to well, let us come back. We'll certainly consider. Let us come back with some ideas, but I think we got a very clear set of messages from a number of shareholders already about this transparency issue. Would that be fair?
Yep.
Okay. Thank you. Number two.
Eric, strategic question for you and Larry, if you would, on financial services and the opportunities available to Google going forward. How does senior management, how does the board think about the opportunities, be they mobile payments, virtual currencies, anything you'd like to speak to in terms of the opportunity for Google?
Yeah, that's a great question. I think we've had, as Eric mentioned, Android, which we're super excited about, obviously. We've had tremendous success on Android and also on Play within Android. I think one of the stats that app developers on Play are making three to four times more, I think, this year than last year on their apps due to the strength, really, of the payments platform within Play and the number of countries you can pay in and the ease with which users can pay and them having payment mechanisms.
We now support carrier billing for a whole bunch of different carriers, as well as credit cards and so on. So I think we've always had a big investment in that, even starting with our ads platforms, just the number of advertisers we have, and also on AdSense, where we're actually paying out money to very many different websites and so on. So I think it's always been a big area of focus.
We have a lot of infrastructure in that area. I think we see a lot of opportunities. It's one of those areas where I think things move a little slower than you'd like just due to the amount of regulation and the amount of friction that exists in those markets, especially on a worldwide basis. But it's definitely something we're very excited about. So I don't know, Susan, do you want to add?
Yeah. Sure. No, I mean, I think we've seen this as an area for us to be able to invest a lot more. And when we look at a lot of the systems that we currently have, we see a lot of opportunity to be able to make it a much more efficient system in the future. And we are paying with AdSense. We're paying a huge number of checks in a large number of currencies in pretty much every type of methodology possible to publishers all over the world. And so the opportunity for us to be able to enable much faster payments to everybody is a huge opportunity.
And we think about the fact how we've been able to enable people to communicate with everybody all over the world, send emails really quickly to each other. Why can't they actually send payments in the same way that they send emails very efficiently, very fast? Why do we actually have to take out our checkbook and write something on a piece of paper if I want to give Patrick a check? Why can't I just actually send that to him on my phone? So I think we see a lot of opportunities.
You can actually use Gmail now for this.
Yeah. Yeah. So that's an example of a place that we've been innovating. But I think our goal would be to have a lot more people using this globally.
Okay. Number three.
Thank you. Tony Chen, shareholder. I think it's publicly acknowledged by your management that one of the biggest, if not the biggest, business opportunity for Google going forward is in cloud computing. I know that you guys are working hard on it. I know your TI Department is very dedicated to it. When I see the online, like the cases, the company case studies that you have online as to what kind of companies are coming on board with you, there are mostly small startup companies. I think Khan Academy or Getaround are mentioned on there.
While some of your competitors are landing much bigger Fortune 500 companies, government agencies, universities. I know it's early in the game, but I don't want to miss out on this, and I don't want you guys to miss out on this. So I just kind of want to get a feel of what's the outlook here for you and what is missing that is going to get you toward being more competitive in this environment besides lowering the price of your product.
Yeah. So I guess recently we announced a big price decrease, and we announced we're going to kind of stay commensurate with Moore's Law and so on, which I'm pretty excited about. I think our products are good and getting much, much better. I think, like you said, we're still early in that space. To me, the fact that we have startups is tremendously good. If you look at Google Docs, those are always the first groups to really adopt new platforms. So I think that doesn't surprise me at all. And I think you'll see more and bigger companies come on board.
Can I just quibble with the phrasing of your question just a bit? The largest current commercial customer we have is more than 200,000 seats using this architecture. And Google Docs, in an educational level, has countries that have adopted it with more than 10 million users. Any person starting a company today would use Google Docs as their core information architecture because if it's inexpensive, its security, protections, administrative, so forth. We have roughly two-thirds of the American educational establishment, literally college students, are now using Google Docs with our educational program. So the reach and scale of this architecture is far greater than was implied by your question. I agree with you. We could tell it better. It's an enormous success.
Yes, sir. Number four. And welcome back, by the way.
Yes. You always say that. My name is Shelton Ehrlich. I own more shares this year than I did last.
Do you have twice as many shares?
No. Sorry. I sold the non-voting shares. I have a complaint that would be voiced by many of us here. If you arrived at the parking lot at 12:30 P.M., you stood in the sun for 20 minutes. Now, Debbie was working hard to get us all processed. But next year, have a bigger shade.
Okay. Let's make sure we get that action item. Who owns that action? Laszlo, you own that action item? He says he's on it.
Okay.
Okay. And Laszlo, you'll be here next year, and so will he.
Patrick actually built a bigger shade right there, but I guess it was in the wrong spot.
All right.
Go ahead. Yes. Now your question.
My question is, why did we have so many shareholder proposals this year? I've done shareholder proposals. Sometimes the company fought them and got them rejected by the SEC. Doesn't Google try to fight them? I was offended by a couple of them today. I know you weren't, but I was. The proposal from Walden that wants to shut people up, that you can't contribute money to ALEC, you can't contribute to the Chamber of Commerce, you can't do these things because Walden doesn't want to hear what other people have to say.
I'm reading a wonderful book, an old book called Liberal Fascism. And what I heard from the man from Massachusetts had traces of fascism. The proposal to pay more taxes is outrageous. Why did you let that go through? What a stupid idea. I worked in the energy, safety, pollution control business. I guess I still am. I'm on a committee for 60 years. I worked with the federal government. My group would spend $1. They would spend $10 and get the lousy result. Why doesn't Google fight at the SEC to throw these crappy proposals out?
So let's see if we can get an answer to the legal question, David and Patrick. Look, Patrick and David, why are you not fighting?
Well, I don't think I share your characterization of proposals. Look, I think we have the stockholder proposal process for a reason, which is to have let stockholders propose things before the meeting. Look, everybody knows that we have a structure in which Googlers have a bigger stake in the company or more control over the votes at the end of the day. We understand that. But we also think it's important to get these things on the ballot and hear from you.
Okay. That's good. You'll hear more from me.
That's great. We welcome you to participate. We welcome your shareholder proposal next year. And thank you very much for your question. Number one.
Hi. My name is Steve Wilke. I was asked. I'm serving as a proxy for shareholders, and I was asked by an organization called Forecast the Facts to come and address this body. I'm a founder of Delta Engineering and Design based in Norman, Oklahoma, and I entered the renewable energy market so that I could look my children in the eye and know that I was a net positive in this world. I have the honor of serving with some of the most experienced project and product developers in the Distributed Energy business.
We are not hippies. We are not dyed-in-the-wool environmentalists. We are business people, and our business is renewable energy. Last year, I saw a myriad of pre-market indicators lining up for the solar industry in the state of Oklahoma. Last month, I saw that market destroyed, and it was destroyed by ALEC. ALEC, with the help of the politicians that they fund, killed the solar market in Oklahoma before it had the chance to get off the ground.
Your firm is hundreds of millions of dollars deep in Distributed Energy. Yet you continue to fund a group that is actively and successfully destroying renewable energy markets. I flew here from Oklahoma today to respectfully suggest that your funding of ALEC is incompatible with your business development goals in Distributed Energy. You're damaging your own markets and mine by continuing to fund ALEC. In closing, I urge you to pull your funding from ALEC today and stop paying people to destroy the markets that you're trying to build.
David?
Again, thank you for bringing that up and raising the question again. We'll continue to review it and consider all of these perspectives. Thanks.
I think we've heard this very clearly, so thank you very much. Number two in the back.
Yes. My name is Hal. I live about 24 houses from where Jeffrey's sister in Los Altos Hills. And two comments. One is I was at Costco a few weeks ago, and a guy helped me pick some heavy stuff from my basket. And I said, "Where do you work?" He said, "Google." I said, "I'm going to see the chairman of the board in a few weeks. What do you want me to tell him?" And that's what the kid said.
He used to attend their Friday night beer bus, but you don't anymore. But now on Thursday nights, you still don't attend very much. So I'm an old chairman of the board. And as a young chairman, maybe you see the troops about every Thursday night.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
One last question.
They moved it from Friday to Thursday, and I forgot.
Yeah. One last thing because you got John Hennessy here.
John?
And my thinking was this is a serious comment. You should maybe get him on an ad hoc committee to study the possibility and ramifications of boycotting Israel. You have a situation there where here are four numbers you can memorize: 80/20. 80% of the people in Gaza were put there in prison by the Israelis. Another number is 20% were born here. Another number is 6,000 civilians have been killed in Gaza by the Israeli army.
One more number. There are about 500,000, that's half a million squatters in occupied Palestine. Those squatters, they call them settlers, they are subsidized by the Israeli government. Why don't you have enforced U.N. 192 and 242? Like you did with China, I would have a board, a special committee to examine that possibility. Please understand, I am ex-Air Force. I want to boycott Israel. I do not want to bomb them. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you very much. Number three.
I'm Susan da Silva. I'm a stockholder. And I'm in awe of all you guys up there and all the Googlers and all the wonderful things you're doing. And I want to make a point of thanking all the stockholders who brought motions. Don't let that guy get you down. And quick, before I ask my question, I'd also like to thank the Reverend Jesse Jackson for coming and speaking. This gets me emotional. He spoke at my all-white high school in a suburb of Chicago back in 1967. And I just wanted him to know all the discussion and lives that he changed by that one appearance back in the Operation Breadbasket days.
Thank you. Thank you, Reverend Jackson. Please, let's have your question.
My question is, I was just wondering what the thinking was behind splitting our stock and then giving us non-voting shares. I mean, we already have shares that don't count as much. So you're diluting our power even further, our little bit of power even further.
Yes. Yeah. Thank you for the question. I think when we just obviously, we did that in April. We had a new class of stock. I think when we published our founders' letter, when we went public in 2004, we had a very strong focus, obviously, on having longer-term thinking. We're pretty worried about what we saw as kind of typical public companies operating, whether we thought of very quarter-to-quarter focus and want to have a much more longer-term focus. We think that's really benefited the company and then gave us the ability to really take a longer-term focus on innovation and not just doing incremental work, but making major investments in things that take a little longer to get done.
And things like Gmail or Android or some of the newer things we mentioned, the self-driving cars or Project Loon that Eric talked about. So I think that's a pretty important part of our company. And we just wanted to make sure that we were setting that structure up to continue to exist. And that's why we did the additional class. We tried to explain all that. I'm sure we could have explained it better, but I think the company has benefited a lot from that. And we think the new class of stock will allow us to preserve that structure, which we think has really benefited the company. And we really appreciate the trust that you all, as shareholders, have put in us to run the company, to make great products, to really try to help people in the world. And we'll continue to try to do that.
Trust us even more.
Thank you very much. We're actually over our time, but I think it's important we hear these five questions. So let's see if we can sort of what you just snuck in, number six.
I'm sitting right here.
Okay. Well, you're sort of that's okay. We'll do six. We'll do it as fast as we can. Yes, sir. Please. And let's speed this up a little bit.
You bet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak today and for the optimistic tone of your remarks. I'd also like to commend the company's original long-term focus. My name is Doug Kilgore. I'm the Executive Director of the Worker Owner Council of the Northwest. We're a council of building trades unions, and my job is to monitor the companies that we own and to monitor their corporate governance and community practices.
We estimate that the collective North American holdings of Building Trades Pension Funds at 692,343 shares of Google. So we're long-term and committed owners. The purpose of my visit here today concerns something I think that's of interest to all shareholders. Within the last year, our company launched two major construction projects within the Northwest United States: a data center in The Dalles, Oregon, and an office campus in Kirkland, Washington. It's our opinion that both of these projects, the company made decisions that brought on unnecessary risks of reputational damage and that had a bad impact on the communities where the companies come to operate.
Our council had made an effort to communicate with you, Mr. Drummond, and those efforts have been unsuccessful. We've, in one case, been completely ignored and, in the other case, referred to people outside the company that don't have any authority to make decisions. So these are the values we're coming from as trade unions. We believe that when a company does business in a community, it's their responsibility to avoid actions that would do damage to labor conditions in that community.
As shareholders, we believe that a company that incorporates the interests of stakeholders like suppliers, employees, and others and community members, they enhance their long-term prospects of building corporate value. As stewards of pension funds, we believe we have a duty to communicate our concerns with the companies that we own and open dialogue and engage in it. So I'm here today to ask, and this is our request, I guess, looking for a return call like one of the shareholders.
Okay. You would like a return call from who?
From whomever is responsible for deciding about your construction supply chain decisions.
Patrick? So Patrick.
Yes. So can I? My second call of the day.
Okay. Can I find you after the meeting and give you my card? We'll just chat right after the meeting. Thank you very much.
Sure. Thank you very much.
Okay. Number two.
Hello. My name is John Lynn, individual shareholder as well as Mountain View resident. In the past year, there's been a lot of news regarding the Google buses as well as gentrification as related to being a symbol of income inequality. I was just wondering what Google was going to do to be more proactive in regards to engaging the community to address this particular reputational risk. I have relatives and many, many friends working at Google and just want to make sure that Google is still seen as an employer of choice and really being engaged with the community.
We're grappling with a very severe housing crisis. Larry, David? It's a great question. I don't know if you want to talk about this, Larry?
Yeah, sure. I think, I mean, certainly San Francisco issue. I mean, there's just tremendous housing shortage, which is a very complicated set of reasons, obviously. And the whole area, obviously, is pretty economically on fire. So housing is very, very short. And in general, the whole community is not building anywhere near as much housing as office space. So that's a really big issue for the community. We try to be a great neighbor to our community and communities we're in and make sure we're participating well.
I think we certainly do more, and we started to try to do it more in a number of areas. We've supported $7 million of transportation spending for youth and school.
Yeah, three communities for kids in San Francisco to ride the bus.
Which is something David's been a big advocate of, and I'm excited about. But we're looking to do more things. If you have ideas, please let us know. I agree it's a big issue, and it's a big issue for the whole community that we're in.
Thank you.
Okay. Thank you. And by the way, welcome back, number three.
I'm Kate Alexander, an individual shareholder. Some years earlier, with a lot of faith in you, I purchased what for me was a lot of shares, 500. I never believed that the company would take my rights or devalue my shares, and you have done that. Half my shares now are non-voting. Half of those same shares will always be left in the A. In my opinion, that's theft without consideration. I simply ask you to say to yourselves every night before you go to sleep, "Shame on you." And Mr. Page, I don't think leaving my voting rights and permitting my shares to have the C and A same value would deter any projects.
So first, thank you for that. We looked at this pretty carefully, and we decided that the model that Google is built on, in our view, has worked well, and we want it to stay. We believe that you, as a shareholder, will see much greater value as a result of the decisions that the board approved. And that is our answer. And thank you very much. Yes, sir.
Hello. Good afternoon. My name is Jason Oringer. I'm with the Service Employees International Union, and I'm here with a proxy from shares from Amalgamated Bank, and I'm here today to talk as well about accountability and transparency. We obviously appreciate that this conversation has begun here. I want to talk specifically with respect to the Code of Conduct that Google has developed as sort of part of the embodiment of the "Don't Be Evil" credo and hopefully moving forward into a more affirmative stance of do good, which you talked at length, and one of the direct ways that a company can do good is in looking at its supply chain for products and services, and this Code of Conduct supposedly covers direct employees, contracted employees, and contracted services and goods as well.
Unfortunately, even though this code prohibits discrimination, purportedly, or harassment, requires compliance with local, state, and federal laws, and has many other wonderful provisions, you continue to employ a company called Security Industry Specialists. Many people have probably seen them around the campus. They're security officers in the blue shirts here. They're working to make things go. This is a company where it's been very difficult for many officers to get full-time schedules and where they've been seeking over the last couple of years to improve conditions, but they've been met by attacks and retaliation from the company that seem to be completely contrary to the code. Even aside from those efforts, there's a record of lawsuits regarding discrimination for gender, sexual orientation, race, faith, religion, et cetera. Not just at Google, at other companies like Amazon as well.
And we just saw some of this retaliation taking place at Amazon this week, where officers have been trying to speak out and have faced retaliation and filed new charges like they did here with the National Labor Relations Board. And so I just wanted to ask you, do you think the code is adequate to screen out contractors like this? What are you doing to remind me of this?
I want to make sure I understand. Is your primary complaint about this particular vendor, or are you asking a more general question?
Well, I guess I have a bigger because of the board's role, there's a bigger question as to because there are some companies, your peers, as has been discussed in other realms, that release reports about their Code of Conduct and the compliance. Google doesn't really release very much of that information. That's why it appears sort of down the list on some of these transparency measures. So my direct concern right now is this security provider, but I have a broader concern about the policy, I think.
Maybe to do a little audible here and ask Laszlo Bock, who is the architect of People Ops at Google and many of these policies and is responsible, frankly, for the quality of the employee base in the corporation, which is phenomenal. Laszlo?
We obviously care a lot about how our employees are treated. We also care a lot about how our vendors treat their employees. They're not our employees, but I will say, and that's not a dodge, the kind of concerns that you're raising, I read the press. I follow what goes on. I have seen them raised at other institutions.
In my role, I have not seen those same issues raised at Google about that vendor. I'd also add that when we do see instances where we see conduct that we don't find appropriate on the Google side, even if it's by our vendor relating to the employees here, we do take a very strong position. And we have a zero tolerance standard for that because whether you're a Google employee or whether you're contracted to work at Google, we believe you should be treated well.
Okay. But there are a couple of legal cases that do relate directly to Google and some retaliation, some instances, and we can share more information. Maybe you can give us offline.
Retaliation is not okay. We have very clear policies in this area. We expect our vendors to abide by the diversity rules, the treatment of harassment, all the kinds of things that you raised. So if people are violating that, they should be in trouble with us.
Will you commit to having a dialogue with us about that and receiving that information?
Yeah. Absolutely.
Get us the information. It's been very hard to get a response.
Okay. Again, thank you. And thank you again. Another opportunity for a conversation. Laszlo?
Who's the appropriate person as well?
Let's start with Laszlo. Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. We have yes, sir. Number one.
Oh. My name's Jack Easterling, and I come here every year. I never ask you not to split the stock. I'm glad that you.
You asked us to not split the stock.
Not to split the stock. I'm glad that you waited until it got up to an appropriate place so that it can compete or be recognized as the same value that we give to Berkshire Hathaway. So I would like to thank you. And I'm sure that everybody here is glad that you did wait until it got up to where it couldn't be manipulated by the brokerage houses. Okay?
Good. Thank you very much for that feedback. Now, you have the honor of the last question.
Oh, I thought I was going to get in trouble.
And since you snuck it at the back, you'd better be good. Go ahead.
So my name's Greg Coladonato. I am a Mountain View resident, individual shareholder, and I was a Google employee from 2005 to 2009. Keep up the good work. I wanted to follow up on a point made both by Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Page. Mr. Schmidt, you talked about sometimes regulation getting in the way of progress or the pursuit of happiness. And Mr. Page, you mentioned sometimes regulation serves as a friction that holds us back.
I'm interested to know what state legislation is currently on Google's radar as far as good legislation or detrimental legislation. The self-driving car needed some legislation passed in 2012. I wrote in one of those on Saturday. Thank you. It was awesome. I am interested in this question because I'm one of three candidates running for the State Assembly for this area, and so this would be helpful for me to know about. Thank you.
Great. John? I was going to mention the self-driving cars, but you already said that, so I don't know what to say. David?
No, I think we're happy to sit down and talk to you about some of the stuff. I think not a lot is we tend to see a lot of privacy legislation going on around the country in different states. Sometimes interesting, sometimes we, in our view, a little ill-advised. But I think it's probably better for us to chat with you, and we've got lots of experts who can talk to you about it.
So I should talk to Patrick or Laszlo.
One of them is right here, and I'll introduce you to her when.
Excellent. Thank you, David.
As a general comment, I think regulators tend to write the answer rather than the outcome. And when you write the answer, you often restrict innovation. So if you're going to write a regulation, try to write the outcome you want and then let innovators figure out a way to get there. There's always amazing innovation if you leave just enough space for invention to occur. We see this over and over again. And I understand why the regulator says that's a bad thing and they prohibit it, but then all of a sudden, the whole industry doesn't happen. We see this over and over again. I want to thank everybody. We stood a little over, but I think it was important to hear from everybody. Thank you again. We're looking forward to see you in one year. Thank you again.