I get the feeling that the bean counters are taking over Google and slashing off everything that doesn't have obvious monetization potential.

I mean, I know great people who work there, but overall it seems like they're turning into Microsoft circa 2000 - they own the industry, they buy startups and kill the products made by about half of them. Some of their products are great, but a lot of it is just an obvious monopoly enabled money grab.

I wish this wasn't the case.

> Compare this to Webkit - where there is no requirement to share code, but you have a number of companies that have setup very successful developer communities around the code base...

Huh? Webkit was based on an open source project (KHTML under the LGPL) and there is a requirement that the code be shared. Also Apple basically did the same thing as Amazon did here at first: they just dropped huge tarballs on the developers with no comments. In fact, attempting to merge Apple's changes in without comments was so divisive that the forks split, and only years later did Apple open up to an extent with WebKit that it became a proper collaborative effort.

As for whether or not it's useful in practice ... note that I am one of the authors of one of the things they released, and my first reaction was to run a diff against the original to see if they'd made any interesting changes (they haven't).

I would not treat this story as a sign of how to convince VCs. It is almost never the case that VCs say yes because of one magically convincing point you make.

Fred is not a purely functional VC (by which I mean not that he's dysfunctional, but that he's stateful). This slide was accompanied by lots of other evidence, including multiple prior meetings. The slide was just the final increment that pushed him over into yes. It is very unlikely that if a random person had walked up to him and shown him the same slide, Fred would have been convinced.

What convinces VCs is, in order, (a) growth, (b) the founders' personal characteristics, (c) what you say to them. If you seem like an effective person and you have graphs that go up steeply, your pitch could be a bunch of platitudes and they'd still be eager to invest. (As would we, to be honest.) Whereas if you seem like an ineffective person and have no traction, you could have the best story in the world, and they will all say no. (Here we're a little more forgiving; we try to distinguish between genuine ineffectiveness and similar but curable phenomena like youth, inexperience, diffidence, and fear.)