Google Announces 2010 Results and Management Changes
investor.google.com
investor.google.com
(unless you think keeping your money in the bank while the economy is reinflating is such a good idea, like some of you downvoters do)
It probably doesn't help that both MS and Apple are sitting on huge (larger than Google's) war chests. This kind of reserve provides a strategic advantage - being the kid on the block that doesn't could be disaster.
Also, billions are harder to spend than millions, because purchases that big change the environment.
For example: a small, unprofitable company makes purple widgets, even though no one else thinks it's worth it to make purple widgets. Owning these guys would give you a competitive advantage because their widget-making technology coordinates well with your sprocket-making pipeline, so you acquire them for $1B. Suddenly a flock of other companies will jump up to make purple widgets; they will get acquired by your competitors, who can learn from your widget-making mistakes. This all cuts down on the competitive advantage that made you buy the company in the first place.
He obviously has strong disagreements with the founders, and believes that their direction for the company is fraught with risk of some sort of cataclysmic failure.
If you're a shareholder and care about profits, you probably want the guy who can be 'a bit more evil'. The world is a crappy place, and nice guys don't often finish first. My money's with Eric on this one.
Anyway, eventually they'll be keeping 48% of votes, which de facto still grants them full control over the company.