
Did Google spend $106.5m to open source a codec? - Flemlord
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/06/google_vp6_open_source/
======
symesc
Is there any company, big or small, that is doing more for the Internet than
Google?

In fact, they may have already done more than any other company ever.

This acquisition, plus what's going on with pubsubhubbub over the past few
weeks, will really go a long way to putting the network back in our hands.

~~~
pkaler
Smart companies commoditize their complements. Google commoditizes software
and builds moats around search and advertising.
<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html>

This isn't about altruism. This is smart business. I bet someone at Google
figured out they could insert at least $106.5m worth of ads into video.

~~~
symesc
Great points. I bet you're right that the $106.5m number could be easily
returned and more.

What I like about Google's approach, compared to Microsoft's or Apple's or
Comcast's or [insert Fortune 500 company], is that their goal is to not make
ALL the money nor control ALL the components between point A and point me.

Google has a different M.O. than the established technology players, and the
others are finding Google difficult emulate/kill/marginalize/contain.

I reminds me of the "which would win in a fight, a Tiger or an Alligator"
question, the answer to which depends on where they're fighting, land or
water.

Google may not even be on the planet, never mind land or water, and may not
even be aware of the rules of the fight.

They would scare me if it weren't for their consistent contributions to Open
Source.

------
blasdel
They paid for the patents, not the codecs, much less the terrible
implementations.

Each generation of codec implementations uses a lot of the same techniques,
most of which are patented by _somebody_. Google can take On2's patents and
license them freely under the condition that licensees must not bring patent
infringement suits against anyone else.

They could suck a lot of air out of the debate, on both the freetard and
patent-troll sides.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
From my reading On2 were one of the few people who avoided rather than
licenced some very basic concepts from MPEG and they marketed this as one of
their unique selling points.

This may partly explain lack of world beating performance compared with what
is theoretically possible if you ignore patents, and also means that Google
may have been paying for the opposite of patents, patent workarounds (whether
On2 patented these in turn I don't know).

