>>unidentified speaker: love it, got my cue.very exciting, really there. but actually mark thompson and an exclusivelive interview with eric schmidt, the ceo and chairman of google live tv.how exciting is that? by the way, how's the bbc in play?i think it's only fair to point out that there are other search engines available, you cangoogle them if you want to find out more. [laughter]so listen, first of all, just a team markup, here's a quick film that tells you five thingsyou need to know about google, by laura s/l trivellion [00:24], in our new york office.thanks. [music]
>>laura: you already know, google is the mostdominant search engine on the planet. but here's a quick guide to the keys usedwhich could define the future of the world's most powerful brand. google made a profit of 1.48 billion in thesecond quarter of this year. while doom and gloom reigns in much of thecorporate media world, google's finances look to be in robust, good health.in the second quarter of this year, the company's profits were up by 18%.while newspapers and tv continue to wave goodbye to their advertising dollars, google is sittingpretty. it gets 97% of its revenue from advertising.so here's the big question: is google moving
away from being merely an aggregator of content,to becoming a provider? on october 7, a new york judge will beginto rule on google's controversial book deal. google has been quietly making digital copiesof 10 million books, including out of print and out of copyright titles.the idea is to revitalize long forgotten works and to make money out of them, of course.after publishers and authors sued google for breach of copyright, a settlement of $125million dollars was reached. now a new york judge will rule on whetheror not to block that settlement. so for now, google's plans to make money outof the past are on hold, but how about the present?
[music] e very minute, 20 hours of video is uploadedto youtube. the billion dollar question is whether googlecan make money out of our obsession with youtube. google bought youtube for a whopping $1.65billion in 2006. the video sharing site has lost money everysince. google won't say how much youtube is in thered, but estimates vary from between $150 to $500 million a year.michael grade famously called google and youtube, "parasites, living off the content of others,"a criticism which may have hit home. google may help newspapers sell their articlesonline.
having fought with the newspaper industryover its new search engine, now google is making nice.the company has revealed that its checkout product, used by internet retailers, couldbe adapted so newspaper sites could sell their articles.all this may come too late to help the ailing newspapers.could the same technology be applied to video? and google's generosity might help stave offthose pesky regulators. the european commission is updating its dataprotection directive. and those eurocrats have google in their sights.the commission is taking a close look at whether google's wildly popular street view is actuallyinvading our privacy.
and the eu is focusing on how internet searchengines store information on our shopping and our surfing, which is often used [music]for unsolicited advertising. the google's business model is highly relianton those cookies, which store the information on us.the company's unofficial motto was, "don't be evil," and that could be resurrected asthe lobbying in brussels intensifies. so that's our view of google from the outside,now for the perspective from the googleplex itself. >>mark thompson: right, so we have eric schmidt,i think, in new york looking at us. can you hear me, eric?it's mark thompson here.
excellent! okay, well we-- >>eric schmidt: yes. hi, mark and-- >>mark thompson: hi there.we've been--spent the whole day debating the future of television--the challenge of differentmonetization models. now one theme that's come up today is an organizationwhich is described as "dominant," has a terrible chilling effect on every aspectof broadcasting in this country. now i have to say, people have generally meantthe bbc when they said that, but i have to say sometimes [laughing] yourname comes up to! this is a big topic--the scale--the scope--andin particular, you heard the famous "parasite"
phrase a moment ago there--the extent to which google sits on other people's investment, the extent to which google actuallyreinvests. let me give you--we've had a lot of questionsfrom people here on this topic--but let me give you an example.janice hughes is here--asks, "having successfully siphoned off hundreds of millions of the u.k.'s media ad spend, in what ways might google invest in original u. k. content?"somebody else asks us, "how much do you actually plow back to u. k. content providers?"how do you answer those questions? >>eric schmidt: well, first, thank you forhaving me. i'm sorry i'm not there.i could not physically get there, given some
commitments i had here in new york.but this is obviously an important group and an important--you all have existed, i think,since the 1930s. this group started as a debating society fortechnology and engineering and television, which is something i care a lot about.i think it's helpful when you have these sort of conversations and questions you're describing,to try to figure out what does the world like 10 years--15--20 years from now,and--you know--all of those cases, the most important thing to know is that people aregoing to have a lot more choices in how they consume television and media.in particular, they're going to consume the kind of media that we think of as television,on a lot of devices that are not traditional
televisions.and over that 10 to 15 year period, the kind of quality and technology that we can bringto, for example, mobile devices, will really change the landscape of how peopleconsume video, news programming, all the things that all of us care about.this is true in television; it's also true in newspapers.so from google's perspective, we're used to the criticism, so we don't mind it at all.in fact, we welcome it, because it helps us understand what we should be doing differently.from our perspective, we are essentially a conduit for how end users want to consumecontent. to the specific charges, the content thatwe make available to end users, we get with
the permission of the people who do the content.so even in the book settlement, the issue was not copyrighted content; the issue wasthings that have lapsed from copyright. so on the specific questions about how muchmoney we're plowing back in, we're beginning to plow a fair amount.as youtube, for example, becomes profitable, more and more of the money that we can make,we will essentially plow back into content. we need the content industries and to be monetized--inour model, primarily using advertising. if you go 10 or 15 years out, it's probablythe case that you're going to end up with advertising models as well as micropaymentand subscription models for content. and we're going to work on all of them, tomake sure that if you have great content--which
people in this audience clearly do--then you can decide whether you want it to be advertiser supported, or whether you wantpeople to pay a subscription, or what have you. >>mark thompson: and clearly i'll ask peoplein the audience here to respond to that, but before they do, sir,can you give us any numbers, eric, in terms of the kind of money that's coming back tocontent providers in this country--in the u. k.--from google and or youtube? >>eric schmidt: well, in the case of contentin general, we ship about $5 or $6 billion globally, back into content through a setof advertising products which are called adsense.
and part of our strategy is to take thoseproducts and make them even more suitable for the video experience, the radio experience,the newspaper experience. these advertising products are highly targetedand so over time, we think that they will actually be more profitable than the traditionaladvertising models. they are not today, fundamentally becausepeople are consuming, if you will, less of the media in the new format,as they did in the old, traditional television format on a time-weighted basis.but our goal is to make large amounts of money for the content partners in all of these categories.so to give you rough numbers--if you assume the u. k. is roughly 15% of that,that would say that we are well above $500
million--or some number of hundreds of millionsof pounds already. >>mark thompson: okay well, what i want todo, on this topic of the flow back of money-- first of all, janice--janice hughes is here--janice,do you want to ask eric anything after having heard that?is that reassuring? down here in the third row. >>janice hughes: eric, i think my questionwas aimed at the fact that there's a lot of money--everyone's been talking about it today--flowing out of the media sector, but particularly the content production--original content productionindustry here in the u. k. and i mean, at what point in the future willwe actually see that funding possibly coming
back to pay for programs,to support the broadcasters, as opposed to it just simply disappearing and then havingto scramble around for new money, or simply reduce the program budgets--whichis what we're sort of suffering from at the moment--compared with say 5 or 10 years ago? >>eric schmidt: i don't know how to answerthe general question that you asked, because there are so many components that go intothe revenue that you all make. what i do know is that advertisers are movingto the internet, and that the internet should ultimately bea more targeted and therefore more effective advertising vehicle than the traditional televisionmodel.
if you go--again, i appreciate the bbc isnot primarily advertiser supported, but talk about the commercial networks--inthe united states, as an example, my television shows me ads for products that i'll neverbuy. products like baby products and things likethat--there's no baby in the house. that's a waste of a time slot.we have invented, and are in the process of deploying, systems which sit on your set topbox which give targeted ads to the household, to the set top box precisely.and--so a reasonable step is to assume that there's a transition going on, from untargetedbroadcast television advertising to targeted advertising.as to the general question of where the advertising
money is going to go, we know that overall,untargeted advertising is going down and targeted is growing very rapidly.so to me, it's all about a race to getting more targeted advertising.and by the way, that's not just targeted though google, it's also targeted through socialnetworks and things like that. if you think about your mobile phone, eventuallywe know a lot about you on your mobile phone. we know where it is, we know who you are,we know what it's doing; we know a lot about your interests.so it should be possible to sell an advertiser--and of course google is fundamentally an advertisingcompany in the sense of our revenue is 98% advertising.we should be able to show a product that's
highly, highly valuable to an advertiser. >>mark thompson: now eric, you said--i thinkyou used the phrase, "as youtube becomes profitable." i couldn't quite work out whether that meantyou believe it's already profitable, or will become profitable.can you give us a sense of a timeframe and also about whether you believe that that kindof ad funding model is going to be successful and dominant in this space,or whether other kinds of monetization can also work? >>eric schmidt: first place, we believe youtubewill be profitable. we don't have a forecast for when it willbe.
it's not today, but its profitability is improvingreasonably rapidly. and part of the reason is because we've inventednew advertising products that are very similar to the kinds that i've been describing, andwe have a lot more coming. as to the general question of how will moneyget made here, you're seeing a long-term, secular shift awayfrom the model that we've all grown up with-- which is people sitting around watching televisionand listening to the radio--to a much more mobile user, who can consume information inany order and anyway they want. my personal view is that much of that contentwill be advertiser supported or government subsidized, in the case of public entities,but that fundamentally, the viewer experience
is going to shift.you can see this when you look at people who are 5 and 10 years old.children today-- they're extremely comfortable with consuming content on their sony playstations,their iphones and things like that. and--you know--i can't see the screen becausethe screen is too small, but their eyes are good enough that they can see it.because they have every reason to believe that this next generation will have a very,very different viewing consumption pattern. it doesn't mean that they will watch less--iwould argue that they will probably watch more.but they will watch it using a different device. let me give you another example.there's a whole category of companies, who
are startups and even larger companies,that are building boxes that combine the traditional broadcast television experience and viewingon the internet. and roughly what--think of it as a box whichyou connect to your television, and it can show you what's available on satellitetelevision, it can tell you what's available on licensed broadcasting television over theair, it can show you what is on cable, if cableis predominant in your area, and it can also look on the internet.and you can then search and say, "i want to see the best of--" and it will search acrossall those four modalities. that's a big technology shift for the royaltelevision society's members and for all of
us, as consumers.but from my perspective, ultimately, the consumer's going to win.they're going to want to have the convenience of seeing it in whatever its current formatis, regardless of delivery mechanism. in each of those categories, we're going tohave to develop a monetization model, so that the content provider can be properly compensated. >>mark thompson: okay.now a short time ago, rupert murdoch set out a--almost a kind of global call for news aroundthe world-- i guess he's thinking principally of text,but i think he had applied this other forms of use online--to go behind a paywall and to collectively
move to a pay model.do you think that that's a strategy which is likely to succeed, and what's google'sattitude to rupert's call for a distinct shift in journalism towards pay? >>eric schmidt: well, as you all know, a coupleof the properties that news corp owns, particularly the wall street journal,do in fact have paywalls, and you do in fact have their content through subscription.and that's a model that has worked for them. in general, these models have not worked forgeneral public consumption, because there is enough free sources, thatthe marginal value of paying is not justified based on the incremental value of quality.so my guess is that, for niche markets--for
specialized market, a business market is avery important such example--it will be possible to do that.but i think it's unlikely that you'll be able to do it for all kind of news.there's simply too many news sources, there are too many ways in which news gets done,there are too many, if you will, news societies, who will find an advertiser supported as opposedto a paywall model, work. having said that, these are also negotiations,and so you should assume we will be negotiating with all of these players to try to make surethat their content is as available as broadly as possible, to people around the world. >>mark thompson: and so on this point, peterbazalgette, i think you have a question.
down here on the third row. >>peter bazalgette: eric, as youtube strugglesits way towards profitability, we can all see now it's largely doing it on the backof professional content. and it seems to be professional content thatadvertisers most wish to advertise around. just to shift the scene slightly, does thatspell the end of user generated content as a commercial proposition?we've heard so much hype about it in the last ten years; clearly people enjoy it in thesocial sense, but does it spell the end of it as a commercialproposition? >>eric schmidt: yeah.just as a comment, you used the word, "on
the back of," and that implies some kind ofduress, i think. the fact of the matter is that we have anaggressive and very successful commercial licensing program for youtube,where people willingly give us licensed content and we advertise against it.that's part of the why youtube is becoming successful.if people upload content, which has been illegally copied,we now have very sophisticated tools called content it tools, which will allow the copyrightowner to identify those and get them deleted--literally deleted.and this happens all the time, at least for me as a viewer on youtube,when i'll type in some name and i'll discover
that the content owner, in their judgment,decided to take it off of youtube. we understand that and we support that model.on the question of overall user generated content,i think the experiment is over and it's very clear that the average person who generatesuser generated content does not have the skills and quality of the people in this room.i think you just look at the video. and i think anybody who says--who has thissort of utopian view that everyone can be a broadcaster at any reasonable quality justhas to look at what the mass of people produces. so it's important to understand that thesethings are ultimately distributions, there are curves,and there is a very large number of videos
where, frankly, the only audience is a familymember--typically my mother. and she's the only one who would love thisvideo, or my family or what have you. so the important thing here is that's an importantfunction, but it's very hard to imagine that being highly monetized.we have seen some success with what we term as the "torso," that is the part between thehead and the tail. the people who have good talent and they'reprofessional, but they don't have the kind of budget and sophistication that people inthis audience do. and we would like to monetize them as well.i'm sure at the end of the day, this will end up being a 90/10 kind of a percentage,where 90% of the content--or i don't know
the exact percentage--will be essentially unmonetizable, but will be valuable to micro niches--families, friends,sports clubs, what have you. [sneezes] and then the head and the near-head,if you will, will be where virtually of the money is made, simply because of the valueof professionals. >>mark thompson: okay, eric, i want to introduceanother--a big topic--i mean, many of the questions--i'll read one question now andmaybe you can get a microphone to steve hewlett in the hall as well.this is about regulation. you are--you'll be pleased to hear--chillinglybig; almost a monopoly in search, dominant in many other online areas from maps to video.do you accept that google now needs to be
regulated more effectively?and is steve out there? steve hewlett? this area--i know of regulations--also isone that interests you. go for it. >>steve hewlett: i suppose the point is thatone of the consequences of being in the u. k., you're 90% of the market in search; youhave effectively no competitors. and that means--notwithstanding the fact thatyou've got there because your system is good, because people are using it, no one says you'vedone anything wrong--but de facto, you have a monopoly position.and the problem then is that in terms of the way that the other people want to--need torun that business is people need to get recognized
online and so on--everybody is subject to the google algorithm, which is a particular algorithm--good as itis-- and the fact that there's no competition--itmay--you might think in any other marketplace, a 90% share of the business would induce fullseparation or some form of at least regulatory oversight.are you concerned that that is a possibility and what is your attitude towards it? >>eric schmidt: well, the first question iwould ask you is, could you give me an example where a regulator would add some value tothe scenario that you are describing? [audience laughs]
so, would the regulator order google to somehowboost some company over another? would the regulator prevent google, or notallow us to innovate in the ways that we have, which have been proven over time?so it's not obvious to me that--at least as you phrased the question--that the value thatthe regulator would provide would ultimately produce greater consumer benefit. >>steve hewlett: far be it from me to suggestthat a regulator could improve anything, [laughs] because i think our experiences-- [laughter] but notwithstanding that, if somebody dropsoff the end of your algorithm, kind of where
do they go?and it is believed--and i don't say it's true, i don't know--it is believed-- >>eric schmidt: so--you--under--but underyou're--under you're questioning, they would appeal to the prime minister, who would orderthem ranked higher? >>steve hewlett: oh, you just don't understandbritain, do you? [everyone laughs] but yes, essentially the answer is yes, [laughter]they would, [laughter; unintelligible] especially this one.anyway, in essence, the point being, that if you drop off the bottom of your algorithm,there's kind of no way you can go and it is believed by people who run services that couldbe thought of as potentially competitors to
yours,who run smaller scale search engines, they believe--a lot of them--that they drop downthe algorithm, and that there is google's own commercialself interest is playing a role here. and that makes you--the fact you're a 90%player--pretty scary. >>eric schmidt: so, i'm not going to debatewhat percentage market share we have. if what you're really doing in your questionis asking, "is the market open for new search players?"i would offer you that microsoft recently did a deal with yahoo,where they are attempting to become a very strong second--and eventually have said thatthey want to be the leader.
i would also observe to you that google reallyis one click away from our consumers deciding that we are not the best choice.unlike, for example microsoft, where it's relatively difficult to move off of theirplatform, because you have all of this investment insoftware and so forth. if you literally prefer bing, it's easy foryou simply to point your browser to a different one.and so, i disagree with some of the fundamental assertions that you have made.having said that, i think that anybody who has as large a role in information as googledoes, should expect that people will watch whatwe do and people will try to figure out--but
the governments have a natural view of information,that it's important that it be done fairly and of course--according to their own lawsand culture-- and also competitors will do their very bestto induce governments to try to regulate us to basically create an unfair advantage forthem. we would argue very strongly that the internettoday is largely unregulated and successful for a reason.we also work very, very hard with governments around the world to make sure they understandhow we actually operate. there's always this question of, "well, youcould run the company differently," and i say, "well, if that's true, then let's dealwith that later,"
but we say over and over again that we runthe company based on--as best we can tell--consumer benefit.and as long as we remain open and consumer focused, i think we're going to be fine inthe regulatory body. to answer your question again, as preciselyas i can, it's when companies start to do things which are not in consumers' interest,but are in the best interest of their own business, that eyebrows get raised.so from our perspective, imagine any of the scenarios that you described;if we did something which had real consumer harm, first consumers would complain, secondthe media would complain very, very vociferously, and third, we would probably be affected byregulators at that point.
>>mark thompson: and eric, if i can ask, theworld's changing dramatically. we've got, to some extent, in the u. k., innew york and also globally, legacy regulations and regulatory bodies--do you think regulationneeds the change? it may well be that you've quite, in someways, favored a world in which regulations are focused intensely on areas of contentlike [s/l lillia] [25:48] television, and don't focus on the internet, but is thereanything you would like to see changed in the regulatory world? >>eric schmidt: again, i'm concerned whenwe have this conversation. the word "regulation" means something to differentpeople.
we are already regulated in the followingsense: we are governed by the laws of each of thecountries in which we operate in. so we are completely governed by the europeanlaws, the european data privacy laws and so forth,as are all of the other internet sites. so it's not fair to say that our industryis sort of the "wild west," using the american phrase.it's--the real question is, should there be a firm which regulates the private companiesthat comprise the internet? and i'm clearly opposed to that.my real concern is actually the inverse. what i'm beginning to see, and what we'rebeginning to be very worried about is that
countries--not in europe, thank goodness, and not in the unites states--are beginning to aggressively moderate or manage content on the internet.and they do so under the rubric of societal benefit, or pornography, or so forth.but it often ultimately affects political descent.and to have a proper functioning democracy, you have to have multiple voices,you have to have a free press, you have to have people willing to stick theirnecks out and report on stories and have controversy and so forth.and if governments are going to somehow quell that,and make their systems less transparent,
i think it's a disservice to the citizensof their country. the internet was designed to be open and tohave all of the voices of the world-- including the ones that you don't like, andall the behaviors that you don't like--be visible.and it's always a surprise to people when they look on the internet and they see peoplebehaving badly. but people were behaving badly before, youjust couldn't see it. i'm not endorsing that, [audience laughs]but that transparency is fundamental, we think, to the success of the internet. >>mark thompson: okay, now i'd just like tosee if there are some other questions for
eric.it's a--sharon. >>sharon bailey: hi eric.my's name's sharon bailey. i work at the bbc.you mentioned about the onset of new technologies, where boxes in the homes are going to openup the ability for online access. and of course in the u. k., that will alsomean a much greater broadband pipe to enable access to that content online,which makes it much more accessible for everybody. when that happens, the youtube model of sortof short form content perhaps may expand into an ability to access longer form content--and in a hulu-like way--and provide a whole different, new programming experienceof providing content to those consumers.
i'm interested to know how you feel aboutthat--your potential proposition in that space-- is that something that you feel youtube, andperhaps google through youtube, will want to start to offer proactively as a providerof long form content, that you could then monetize for advertisingit, and do you have a competitive response tohulu in the states, that you might see also propagate itself whenhulu comes here to the u. k.? >>eric schmidt: well the good news is, we'veactually just announced a product very similar to the one you're describing.we are now able to handle long form content from licensed--licensed from significant studios.we've announced a set of deals and many more
in the work, and they all have the propertythat you described, which is they're advertiser supported,because that is sort of google's business today.eventually, you can imagine that we would offer other forms--subscriptions and so forth--toget the video. so we try not to pick favorites between thestudios and the formats. we simply want to be a provider at the sortof services and pipe level. in the u. k., you actually have a nationalbroadband plan which includes, i believe, a tariff and so forth for getting everybodyup to one or two megabits per second, regardless of where they are within the unitedkingdom.
and i think that kind of a step is a necessarypre-condition to really, the broad roll out of these kinds of things.but i think over the next few years, as we discussed earlier,it's reasonable to expect the average british citizen to have a box which connects bothto whatever the antennae and cable systems they have,as well as directly into the internet, and that that internet connection will be sufficientlyfast, that much of what they consume can be watched.and that companies like google and youtube, and companies like hulu--with whom we aresort of friendly and also compete-- both benefit from the creation of that newplatform.
i should also say that people often do notappreciate the power of the internet speed moving forward.it is technically possible now to build one gigabit per second networks, though they'renot deployed. it is common--for example, japan has 100 megabitinternets--and in 100 megabits, you can stream and carry,for example, all of the current video and so forth.at a gigabit, you can probably stream and carry virtually all of the content that youwould ever want to watch. and of course, that number will only go higher.and so the fiber optic revolution is continuing this every reason to believe that the inversion--all right, where basically telephony used
to be wired, and telephone used to be in theair-- is going to reverse, and the telephony willessentially be a wireless phenomenon. and that very high quality, very high bandwidthviewing will be over a fiber connection. >>mark thompson: very good, and i'll takeone more from the hall. one more question here. >>kate bulkley: hi eric, it's kate bulkley.it's kate bulkley here, an arcomic journalist here in the u. k., but i have an americanaccent. [laughs] you talked a little bit about content already.one of the things that google started out saying--you were cataloguing the world--youweren't really a content creator,
you were just a way for people to get to content.you now seem to be moving much more into content, like with the digital books.what we're interest in here--we've talked a little bit about how to put more money backinto the u. k.-- would you consider commissioning programming?you know--we've seen bebo commission programming, we've seen myspace commission programming.you've talked quite extensively about the need for democracy and different views.well news would obviously love to get a little money [laughs] as well.what are google's views about commissioning programming from the u. k.? >>eric schmidt: so far we have held a lineat that point.
if you look at the actions that we've taken,almost all of them have essentially been to make the content quicker,more available--more generally available, more easily licensed, more easily advertised.we haven't caused it to be created, we haven't purchased it, we haven't started paying forit. and the closer we get to that, the more nervousi get, is that we would then become a content provider,which would then create a competitive issue with the other content providers, for whomwe depend for high quality content. so, so far, we define ourselves, not as acontent provider, but as a technology company--literally an inventor of new products--that enable people to get to the content that
much more quickly.so i think it's unlikely we would take the kind of steps that you're describing.many people, because we make a lot of money from advertising, would like us to simplywrite a large check in their direction, which would be good for them, obviously.but that form of subsidy is not ultimately a good industrial model,because it ultimately would be subject to all sorts of pressures.it's much better for us to work with content providers to find advertising and licensingmodels, where they can actually jointly make moneywith us, where the vast majority of the money goes to the content provider,and ultimately, these are large and profitable
business, and that is our strategic direction. >>mark thompson: okay, eric, i'm going toask you one last question we got on a card. the question is, on average, how many timesdo you google yourself each day? [everyone laughs]the question goes on to say, "i've already googled myself four times and it's only lunchtime."it had to be david kogen, by the way. [audience laughs]i think we should broaden this question, and just tell us a little bit about some of theways you and yours use google. >>eric schmidt: well to me, the most interestingthing about google is, how did i live without it before hand?i was trying to think about how did i make
decisions in my previous jobs before googleexisted? and you had sort of knowledge that other peopletold you. they told you some fact or so forth, and itsort of made sense. and now, essentially, every assertion, everyquestion can be checked. and i've learned to be skeptical.somebody will say, "well, did you know?" or, "did you know?" or "did you know?"and i'll say, "well, let me check and let me just make sure."and often the stories that i'm told are embellished or they're not quite accurate.and so from my perspective, google allows you to have a much more precise lifestyle.i actually know whether the following thing
occurred at this time.so for me, that's been the great personal--the great personal enjoyment of having, essentially,an encyclopedia with you all the time. we have a lot of products that are comingthat make that much stronger. the classic example is you're walking downa street holding your mobile, and your mobile should be able to tell youthe entire history as you're walking along. i was on a train line and i thought--and iwas bored--i had nothing else to do. so i studied the history of the train line,which turned out to be fascinating. there's all sorts of things you can do whenyou have an idle moment, if you're curious. so i hope what google does, is it makes usall be much more intellectually curious about
the world around us.it provides a more interesting life, and it also makes us a more educated citizenry. >>mark thompson: thank you very much, eric,for taking the time to join us, and for offering such a great and differentinsight and perspective on some of the debates we are having.if i can ask everyone to join me in thanking eric schmidt. [audience applauds] >>eric schmidt: thank you.thank you very much. very good.