Comments on: Ramifications of Google’s On2 Acquisition

By: John

John — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:52:29 +0000

They can open-source VP7 all they like but Google is going to get the bandwidth “bank for the buck” (sic) out of VP8. Of course On2 never came out with the SDK like they promised did they? So you guys have never heard of VP8…. or did you?

By: BIGJOHN

BIGJOHN — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:13:23 +0000

DRW

BRAVO. LE PLUS GRAND VOL D’UNE TECHNOLOGIE.

By: DRW

DRW — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:24:38 +0000

On2 video compression is based on patents owned outright by the company and are not infriging on another compression software providers intellectual property. If Google acquires the company then it could choose to open source the technology, i.e. give it away for free. Will they do it? Who knows but that potential should be giving nighmares to Google competitors. Will it result in a bidding war by others to wrest control of On2 away from Google. Again who knows. Adobe and certain other big Google competitors (Sun now Cisco) have licensed On2 VP codecs (Adobe VP6 and VP7, but not VP8, for Flash and Sun VP7 for Java. If one hypothesizes a bidding war to break out one would be left to wonder why nobobody else (Adobe or Sun/Cisco especially) has tried a run at buying On2 before now or isn’t already upping the ante. In the event Google closes the deal at the $.60 per share offer their acquisition looking back in a couple of years could prove to be one of the most incredible steals of enabling technology ever made. And the excutives of On2 who went for this deal ought to have their portraits hung on the Wall of Shame as either the most stupid or most corrupt executives (maybe both) in recent memory.

By: Davis Freeberg

Davis Freeberg — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:39:32 +0000

@Todd – Adobe could do it and could justify it to their shareholders too if it meant protecting flash’s monopoly from being disrupted. This is an important acquisition for Google, but if they do plan on open sourcing the tech and writing off the acquisition, there will be a limit to the number of zeros they can use. As far as Adobe goes, this could easily cost their shareholder $2 billion in losses if the purchase goes through. You could also see Microsoft step in to protect Silverlight, although I’m not sure that FTC would greenlight that merger.

By: Todd

Todd — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:13:30 +0000

@Yari

Outbid Google? I’d like to see someone try. They make $5,000,000,000.00 a fiscal quarter ( $700.00 a second! )

source: http://investor.google.com/releases/2009Q2_google_earnings.html

Those are some *deep* pockets.

By: Yari

Yari — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:06:56 +0000

Todd said: “Sir, there is absolutely no way the MP4 consortium can stop Google…”

Maybe not after acquisition is complete – but there is time for a bidding war, and if ultimate control of On2 and their tech is so important to Google and others for not only the US but Asian (On2 big in China) and eventual Global video market – expect the counter offers to start coming in. $106M is a steal for this potential Kingmaker, and many could easily double that offer given the potential “disruptive” market power On2′s tech puts in Google’s hands.

By: Todd

Todd — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 13:51:24 +0000

@Dale Dietrich

Sir, there is absolutely no way the MP4 consortium can stop Google from applying the same liberal Open Source license to On2′s VP7 codex, as they did with Android.

Once VP7 is assigned an Apache license and combined with the HTML5 video tag, the MP4 consortium will cease to be relevant, and the death of the Flash, Quicktime and Silverlight browser plug-ins immediately thereafter.

Better still, you can extrapolate Google open sourcing the VP7 codex beyond the browser and into STBs that run Android or the Google OS:

“…In my 25 years in the electronics industry, I have never seen a new technology take off as quickly as this one.” said Art Swift, vice president for marketing at MIPS.

Why this rush to adopt Android to a variety of devices? It’s well designed and versatile, Mr. Swift said. “It works on a variety of platforms. It’s easy to customize. It’s really a beautifully architected system. Once people saw how straightforward it was to move from a handset to a netbook, then it began to be an ‘aha’ moment: ‘What if I migrate this to a DTV or set-top box?’ ” he said.

To date, products like digital TVs and set-top boxes have used a hodgepodge of proprietary software, often based on a version of the Linux operating system. Android brings much-needed standardization to the industry, according to Kevin Kitagawa, director of strategic marketing at MIPS.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/05/googles-android-jumps-t-the-living-room/

Open sources trumps proprietary – *ALWAYS*