That's just insane... do you really think the two are comprable? Google would lose more customers by withdrawing from China than people who know, much less care in the least, about that quote...
1. Google is not withdrawing from China. They are merely deciding not to implement additional censoring measures to curry additional favor with the government.
2. They have been losing market share to an inferior but government approved search engine Baidu.
Why do you think Google China's Kai-fu Lee left after a few years in his highest position to make a relatively small startup when his track record shows he prefers large corporations like Apple, SGI, and Microsoft? Google knows they are losing ground and he was probably abandoning the sinking ship.
Another year of lost market share to government supported Baidu and the recent espionage was the last straw for Google to know that their current methods weren't working.
3. Why are you comparing them then? It's not like Google decided to make this happen so they could publicly denounce the Chinese government.
Considering their past practices with China, I would have expected them to keep silent on the matter. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that the Schmidt incident influenced the scale of their reaction.
If you think Schmidt's quote did not make a big impact , that's your opinion, not fact.
They haven't decided to pull out completely from China yet. They simply said they might, and their main focus was to stop censoring as much as they can "within the law".
I am really surprised that you have been voted so highly as though you and many other readers here mistakenly interpreted this as an absolute sign that Google is going to withdraw from China.
Just because you think it is sure sign that Google will withdraw does not mean that they will. So far this is nothing more than an empty threat.
"[...] over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all."
They talk of filtering as an all-or-nothing concept. They want to operate unfiltered search (not semi-filtered, or filtered to the extent of the law). "Within the law" refers to the fact that they want to accomplish unfiltered search in a manner that is legal and their statement is rather clear that failing that they will be shutting down.
You're right, though, that this being an ultimatum isn't stated in clear (binding) legalese—quintessentially their wording of "not willing to continue" instead of "will not continue". This is almost certainly intentional.
However, it is a press release that declares intent, generates expectations and has a common and obvious interpretation as a take-it-or-leave-it deal. From a public relations standpoint, Google would not benefit from doing something completely different.
In China, business is like no other place. It is fully about connections and relationships and Lee is a unique individual -- he has connections from his days at all the major corps (Microsoft, Google) and finally he is using them for his benefit. If it takes off, he could be incredibly rich -- much more than the $10 million Google was (rumored) paying him. If not, he can always go back to any big corp: they will be falling all over themselves to have him.
Point being: you cannot correlate Lee's departure with a their projected performance.