Google executive Omid Kordestani, the company's sales chief, wrote in the offiicial Google blog that cuts are concentrated in Google's sales and marketing operations, as tipsters told us earlier, and that the company had "overinvested" in areas where it had forecasted growth — growth which is not materializing. One source writes that the division that used to be DoubleClick before Google acquired the banner ad-sales network in 2007 was especially hard hit with more than 50 jobs eliminated in New York. Other sources say layoffs are spread throughout the Google empire; we've heard of at least one cut at YouTube.

A tipster writes:

A friend of mine in the San Francisco office's AdWords division (who wants to remain nameless) was laid off this morning. She also said there were 200 people total. They are still on payroll for two months and have the opportunity to apply for other jobs within the company. If they don't have another job at the end of the 60 days they get a severance package.

The 60-day payroll period sounds consistent with the advance warning an employer would be required to give employees affected by a mass layoff under state and federal laws known as WARN acts. If you know more, drop us a line.

Schmidt got a big scare when the Bush administration moved to block a deal to have Google sell search advertising for Yahoo, a move the companies made to fend off Microsoft. In the last weeks of the campaign, he loudly endorsed Barack Obama and signed up as an economic advisor. Schmidt and other Google executives shelled out for pricey tickets to Obama's inauguration, and Google threw its own inaugural ball. The White House even hired a Googler, Katie Stanton, to run its Web outreach efforts.

But another hire has caused consternation in the Googleplex. Christine Varney, the lawyer Obama nominated to run antitrust enforcement, said last year that "Microsoft is so last century" and the new, more compelling problem in antitrust was Google's "monopoly in Internet online advertising."

So much for Schmidt's cozying up to the administration.

Varney is a bright, respected lawyer, and may well prove a formidable opponent for the brainiacs of the Googleplex. But it doesn't take a brilliant mind to notice Google's outsized profit margins, which fund lush perks for employees and wasteful spending on pet projects sponsored by its quirky founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin. Analysts believe that just by taking a scalpel to that waste, Google will prove able to ride out the recession with ease.

But that ease is coming at someone else's expense: Namely, anyone who advertises on the Internet, where Google is an inescapable force, especially since its acquisition of banner-ad broker DoubleClick. The rates they pay are ultimately reflected in the prices they charge, which is where consumers feel the pain.

So it seems like a hubris-filled Schmidt is tempting the gods when he calls for other companies to be broken up into smaller, manageable pieces. When will his own turn come? The government was ready to sue over the Yahoo deal before a chastened Google hastily abandoned it. A Google antitrust suit seems like a matter not of if, but when. A notion Schmidt might entertain: spending less time opinionating on other people's businesses, and more with his lawyers.

Here's the rest of his BBC interview:

Problem is, Toyota doesn't already own 61 percent of the car market. And even in its heyday, the Sears Catalog was never a portal to all the world's information the way Google search now is. Last time Google had antitrust trouble — with its DoubleClick purchase — Larry and Sergey paid for regulators to take a relaxing weekend in Colorado. Why don't they just spring for another junket? That seems easier.

1. Mozilla
2. Facebook
3. Mahalo
4. DoubleClick
5. Yahoo
6. Microsoft
7. Google
8. LinkedIn
9. Jajah
10. Adobe

Gawker Media polls require Javascript; if you're viewing this in an RSS reader, click through to view in your Javascript-enabled web browser.

The answer:




























All are described as "not material" to Google's bottom line in SEC filings.

• Tech's 10 worst workspaces
• Yahoo
• Mozilla
• Mahalo
• Google
• Microsoft
• LinkedIn
• Jajah
• Facebook
• DoubleClick
• Adobe

8. Covenant Regarding Competition. I agree that for a period of one (1) year after my employment with the Company terminates, I shall not (a) engage in any employment, business or activity that is competitive with the Company's businesses; or (b) solicit business from, do business with or render services to, in any capacity, directly or indirectly, any entity that is or was a Company client or customer within the last twelve months of my employment with the Company, for a purpose or in a manner that is in any way competitive with the Company's business. If, during or after my employment with the Company, I seek work elsewhere, I agree to provide a copy of this Agreement to any person or entities seeking to hire me before accepting employment with or engagement by any such person or entity.

9. Solicitation of Employees. I agree that for a period of twelve (12) months immediately following the termination of my relationship with the Company for any reason, whether with or without cause, I shall not either directly or indirectly solicit, induce, recruit or encourage any of the Company's employees to leave their employment, or take away such employees, or attempt to solicit, induce, recruit, encourage or take away employees of the Company, either for myself or for any other person or entity.

One employee during his smoke break told me, "I guess I'm fine." His friend said, "We're moving on to Google. Looking forward to the free food." Others weren't so dispassionate: "It's never a good day when you lose colleagues that you know and love to work with." Another told me, "There's sadness on both sides." Most of the DoubleClickers turned Googlers I spoke with — those moving on to Google's scooters, free Odwalla juices and inflatable toys — told me they feel "survivors' guilt."

But not all of them. One told me that when he found out who was laid off, he wasn't surprised. "They had performance issues," he said. He also told me that Google did not make DoubleClick employees reapply for their jobs. "There some committees," he said," but most of it happened behind closed doors."

I spotted two guys smoking by the curb, and before I noticed the Google logos on their apparel, I asked: "You work at DoubleClick?" They answered at the same time: "No." OK, then.

Most said that people who lost their jobs today pretty much knew it was coming. But there was still suspense. Waiting to interview people as they left the building, I noticed a man standing near me also waiting. He looked nervous. I asked him if he worked in the bulidng. "No, my friend does." "DoubleClick?" "Yes." "Did he get laid off?" "When he comes out he's going to tell me." He came out. I asked him "You work at DoubleClick?" "I used to," he said. His friend flinched before he continued: "I work at Google now."

I caught one last DoubleClick employee hurriedly shuffling off toward his subway stop. "How was your day?" He answered, halfway down the subway station stairs: "I'm employed!"

The DoubleClick employees told our source that Google leadership did a "totem pole" ranking of all DoubleClick employees to determine whom to cut; in this variation of forced ranking, every employee gets assigned a number representing his value to the organization, and the lowest get the axe. The office is "very tense," our source tells us, "very tense and anxious." If the results from our latest poll are to be believed, that's because over 68 percent of them are worried they're going to have to work at Google.