What's Google's business case for releasing open models? Don't get me wrong, I am grateful and appreciative of these releases. I'm trying to understand how it fits into their bigger picture as a for profit company? Are they not helping competitors build on the novel technology they have developed?
Is it simply goodwill and/or marketing? Or am I missing something strategic?
A big part of the frontier labs abilities to charge 80% gross margins on inference is having the cornered resource of frontier models.
If that inference becomes popular and valuable enough that those companies make billions of dollars in profit, those companies could use that profit to fund the building of alternative products and platforms that dis-intermediate google's relationship with the customer.
Google already has an 80% gross margin business, the biggest one in the world. Everybody wants a slice of it.
By offering frontier inference closer to cost and open-sourcing everything that's sub-frontier, they're commoditizing frontier labs' models, which inhibits their ability to durably make high gross margins on inference.
A 12B-sized model is a far cry from "frontier inference". That's more like DeepSeek V4 Pro territory which is a 1.6T model. Or for multi-modal models, Kimi 2.6 which is 1T.
2. I'm not sure what this has to do with the case, unless you're arguing Google has an ads monopoly, in which case the best argument would likely not be that adwords lead to bidding wars because that just sounds like they're selling a product people really want to pay for
3. There's nothing criminal about being a very diversified business
You're right that it's not literally frontier. But like recent Qwen releases, it is a lot more capable than anybody thought models of this size could be a year ago, like capable enough to set a ceiling on what you can charge for AI for certain applications. Others still clearly justify a stronger model, but this trend may continue, etc.
Basically with upcoming spark laptops, the smaller models will likely get fine tuned to interface with google services. Then, Google can essentially make Chromebook software include those models, which is the same use case as android.
And you better believe that they will be collecting user data and building advertising models.
This won't replace commercially viable, revenue generating alternatives of their own devising, but it does enable development activity and initiate conversations with enterprises who start with this model but want to do slightly more.
That's my experience right now... my company is all in on a plethora of platform products. Also, Microsoft just yesterday said their goal was "Unmetered intelligence". There's a lot of things that can be enabled by small local models, and those things are part of stacks that can generate revenue in other layers.
Could say the same for camera processing in the Pixel Camera app or any other binary someone wants to re-use that comes included in a software distribution (seemingly for 'free'). They can't lock the instructions up on the server so they might as well make the binary be freely distributable?
Companies don't commonly give away executable binaries "just because", why'd they start now for these binary blobs that are the models?
Not that I'm unhappy about it! Yay for open data any day, I'm just not understanding why, at least beyond PR in nerd circles
Binaries are source code outputs, they are copyrightable and patentable. Weights are not copyrightable so people can freely extract the weights and run them. If Google patents any of the novel algorithms here releasing it all freely isn't an impediment to making people license it.
Are you sure that isn't about LLMs' outputs? There I know there have been some court cases that say this, but the model itself is a work created in intricate and somewhat creative ways (I hesitate to use the word "creative" here, but would similarly hesitate to label a routine picture of the moon creative whereas pictures basically always have copyright; the bar for creativity is basically an epsilon amount above zero, afaik)
Because a model like this can't be as easily obfuscated as image processing. Image processing is a bundle of many moving parts, a lot of functions each with it's own inputs and outputs. A model is a single function which can be easily extracted and reused, in comparison
Arguably, but that's not the point. Take image (e.g. png) files on a CD-ROM shipped by a game vendor, which can be trivially copied even by my grandma. That doesn't move the game vendor to release them as freely distributable under the Apache license
Good point but still, why would Google police this model? If they had a restrictive licence on it do you think it would be worth it for them to enforce it? This way they at least buy some good will and mindshare
That makes sense to me. Guess one might say the same for game icons and other such files that lay around in disks, but yeah maybe it's as simple as that
Not quite the same, understandably Blizzard cares a lot about their IP because otherwise private servers leech their users. Maybe a small game designer cares a lot about the small game they made or whatever since that's all they have. A four trillion market cap company can afford to be "charitable".. where it costs them nothing and might cost them more to enforce their rights.
They could lock them down legally which would prevent commercial use, but they choose not to, and they boast about how many tens of millions of times Gemma models have been downloaded by developers.
So there must be more to the rationale than just local model weights getting hacked out of devices.
Google is one of the few verticalized options in AI: Data, models, cloud services, low-level silicon (TPUs), internal use cases, retail use cases, B2B uses, distribution (browser & mobile), etc.
They rise with the tide of AI adoption. But they gain ground if people opt into Google solutions. And any token sent to a Google model (free or paid) actively punishes their competitors that are then required to spend vast sums to remain bleeding edge.
If you're an AI lab, you definitely want research teams in this space - as this is where you can most easily iterate and make improvements which you'll then bake into larger, frontier models.
The question is: do you want to release your models, or use them purely for R&D?
Since everyone else is already releasing models of similar qualities, it's hard to say you're shooting yourself in the foot if you join the chorus.
The added cannibalization of releasing them is effectively zero, so the reputational benefits are likely to be worth it.
>The added cannibalization of releasing them is effectively zero, so the reputational benefits are likely to be worth it.
Nobody would be looking at Qwen if their ~30b class models weren't fantastically good, it's great advertising and builds significant goodwill with developers, who are going to be your biggest advocates.
The other thing is, all these models are already disposable grade, and in a year they'll all be outclassed by The Next Big Thing. "Open" models are less than 18 months behind SOTA right now and I can't imagine that will slow down much over the next two years, they may even begin to close the gap. Nobody even talks about llama 4 anymore despite only being a year old.
Neutering OpenAI and Anthropic would be my guess. Commoditized LLMs won't hurt Google nearly as much as it hurts the LLM-only companies, and so accelerating the inevitable just helps knock out potential future competition in areas where Google -does- make a lot of money now.
I sincerely wonder why. Chinese censorship is only really relevant if you're doing anti China stuff, which is to say never, while the Western kind of model censorship ( a combination of copyrights and general fairness ) are something everyone's had to work around at least once, even if just for writing an interesting story.
It’s about enterprises who care about supply chain risk and having a throat to choke if they have a problem.
Here’s a real example.
I’m in a design meeting talking about a model use case. We have a question about the data pipeline or the prompt format that would benefit from knowing about how the model was trained. The enterprise team lead calls the dev tech engineer from the company who produced the model. He is already in the office and walks into the meeting to answer the question.
As long as Chinese firms are releasing good open models I imagine there isn't a huge downside for Google to release state of the art small models to compete in the "free" space.
It's to destroy possible footholds for competitors and prevent them from making money in segments that Google doesn't care too much about, but can trivially commoditize.
I think its even more puzzling because you can't even run Gemma 31b on google cloud, they only let you test it with a rate limit. No way (I can find) to actually pay them to use it.
We saw great results in our usecase using google direct. Moved to Openrouter because google wouldn't let us use it beyond a test.
Then Openrouters performance looked worse, not sure if there was a quantized version or something. So we instead looked at Deepseek v4 Flash, and opted to go for that.
This model would probably be great for a super low cost cloud model, would love to use it in the cloud, Google makes you go elsewhere.
It’s on openrouter. We just noticed performance was worse in a specific agentic app usecase. It’s possible we made an implementation mistake, my main point though is Google is really silly not hosting their own models.
I tested Gemma 4 31b for OCR and it's very good at it. This makes sense because I also get the best OCR results from Gemini compared to Claude or ChatGPT in my use case.
Google's MO since always has been to release great products or services for free, position themselves high and then abandon them or just find uses for Enterprise sales.
I'm pretty sure they are doing it because they get some research experience by shrinking and improving these models, and because they know that by doing this they get some good PR among the dev community.
Google's "free" is and was ad-supported, even if some products now have a paid tier. These models don't include ads. Doesn't seem like the same underlying reason
A strong business case for Gemma includes fine tuning, adding AI to apps that run in the cloud, strengthening Android, shifting unprofitable small AI compute to devices, and harming competitors. The first two would be done using Google's cloud services due to integration with Gemma. I think Google is currently the best positioned company to profit from AI sales to businesses over the next few years, and Gemma is a critical part of the story.
Google is actively, and directly helping companies continuously train use-case specific models based on Gemma 4 foundation. The company gets a model they fully own, trained on internal, sensitive data, and Google scoops up the profits from the training and ongoing compute spend to keep the model up-to-date.
Isn't Apple about to license some variation of this from google for on-device AI? Maybe it’s their sales pitch to Apple and then they will lock it down.
The complete Chinese worldwide domination in this sector would be the alternative, since nobody else is releasing anything meaningful.
Plus every open model undermines their local competition by furthering open research and reduces moats, especially since Gemini as a frontier model isn't really competitive with GPT nor Claude for most applications.
Maybe they are hedging against a future where local models are just as good as cloud models? Or maybe they can go the Taalas route and start hardcoding Gemma on a chip and hardware manufacturers can use it for local private AI.
Competition from Chinese alternatives hopefully forces more openness and efficient models. DeepSeek for example is nearly on par and far more resource efficient, good for the planet imo
Remember clearly the first time that message popped up, asking for $1/year, and I think you could basically "skip for now" and then it'd pop back up again later again. I remember thinking how brilliant it was, just hitting 100K active users in a year would be $100K, more than enough for a person, and at their scale they'd make it work long-term. Then of course eventually the $20B purchase happened and it became a product in someone's portfolio instead essentially.
Then, when you scroll all the way down to the bottom Footnotes section it says
"Terminal-Bench 2.1: We reported scores for all models using the Terminus-2 public harness. GPT-5.5’s reported score with the Codex CLI harness is 83.4%."
> It took two initial prompts and a few tiny follow-ups. GPT-5.2 running in Codex CLI ran uninterrupted for several hours, burned through 1,464,295 input tokens, 97,122,176 cached input tokens and 625,563 output tokens and ended up producing 9,000 lines of fully tested JavaScript across 43 commits.
Using a random LLM cost calculator, this amounts to $28.31... pretty reasonable for functional output.
I am now confident that within 5-10 years (most/all?) junior & mid and many senior dev positions are going to drop out enormously.
The commenter you’re replying to, in their heart of hearts, truly believes in 5 years that an LLM will be writing the majority of the code for a project like say Postgres or Linux.
Worth bearing in mind the boosters said this 5 years ago, and will say this in 5 years time.
Everyone working in programming is writing code for a project more like Postgres or Linux than they are a project like making a wood cabinet or a life drawing.
People say this kind of thing a lot, but in reality the concept of "software engineer" will change and there will still be experience levels with different expectations
The use case is `ssh shortname` or `ssh shortname.lan` to a laptop on the same local network regardless whether the wired or wireless interface of the laptop is active.
An overlay like Tailscale MagicDNS might solve this but is complex.
Assigning the same name to 2 IP's (round robin DNS) will mean having to retry the ssh connection if the IP of the inactive interface is returned.
Failover bonding (mode 1) of the wireless and wired interfaces with MAC address spoofing so that the bonded interface maintains a consistent MAC address is reportedly not always supported by WiFi hardware and standards. Bonding may require manual reconfiguration when the laptop moves from the local network where "shortname" is used to an arbitrary WiFi network like airport or coffee shop.
Are there any solutions that satisfy single IP and reliable WiFi at the same time?
Linux used to be able to move the same IP between 2 interfaces depending on which was active. But it looks like advancements in Linux networking have killed this simple solution.
I used to (when I did that more) set up a bond of my wireless and ethernet devices, so when ethernet was plugged in it was preferred, otherwise it would use wireless. It was pretty seamless, and provided the same MAC on both networks.
I used to do that too. Nowadays I just run a WireGuard VPN and treat my WiFi network as "untrusted" (which is a good idea anyway) and it's more seamless if IP addresses change, or even if I leave the house and go somewhere else - I can expect most connections to stay up.
How do you know this happened? I thought it was an abandoned project until I saw this post. I've been diligently checking weekly for new releases but nothing for almost a year...
Had a similar issue - wanted to get all the files from the response without too much work, so I opened a new tab and vibe coded this in about 4 minutes. Tested it on exactly 1 case: a previous Sonnet 4.5 response, and worked well.
Is it simply goodwill and/or marketing? Or am I missing something strategic?
reply