Because Google could never benefit from Facebook's designs too? Google does a lot of things bespoke, but now they have a model to compare with that is using more off-the-shelf tech. That can only help them in the buy-vs-build decision process.
I think you're going overboard in thinking that everything the big players do is about killing the other guy. Sometimes they just want to reduce costs. If you decide that part of your infrastructure isn't strategic to own, it always makes sense to be open.
Comments
Because Google could never benefit from Facebook's designs too? Google does a lot of things bespoke, but now they have a model to compare with that is using more off-the-shelf tech. That can only help them in the buy-vs-build decision process.
I think you're going overboard in thinking that everything the big players do is about killing the other guy. Sometimes they just want to reduce costs. If you decide that part of your infrastructure isn't strategic to own, it always makes sense to be open.
I'd say that efficient data servers are one of google's core competencies. Google does not benefit from having that commoditized.
I just don't like the phrasing. "We did a thing that Google does not substantially benefit from" == "We attacked Google" ?
Well look who is commoditizing it, and it isn't Google.