The Cache: Technology Expert's Forum
 
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. April 23, 2014, 12:39:39 PM

Login with username, password and session length


Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued  (Read 969 times)
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« on: November 12, 2009, 04:30:54 PM »

http://techdirt.com/articles/20091109/1521136859.shtml

 Applause Praise

Extremely well crafted attempt to explain something that most people have a hard time understanding.  It's the best 1-page on the subject I think I've ever read.  Spread the word
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10069



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2009, 05:08:11 PM »

Everyone I know that is doing something for free, is either getting paid to provide the free service or has a day gig.

I love giving away phpMyIDE. I love giving away my knowledge here. I love giving away classes I write. I'm almost done taking a framework I've written for quickly developing AJAX apps right here and I am *so* looking forward to giving it away. I love it. But I make a shitload of money doing other things, so I can.

The Pollyanna bullpoop about articles like that, is that if the musician does not make enough money to eat, then we get no more art from him. And if his piece of music is so good that it is instantly viraled across the net so that he cannot make any money from it, what is he to do? Get a day job to pay for food? And if he does, how much does that dick with his/her ability to create new art?

I love that people give. But until ALL of society renounces the current fiscal mechanisms and we strive for a Star-Trekkian altruism and things larger than ourselves and money, it's just rationalization. Sure - we should not equate price with value. If that's the case, then phpMyIDE is valueless. Except that I get lots of emails from people that love it. It has value - to some, anyways. But when we continually push the price of things towards zero (particularly because we simply can't afford to have everything we want right this very minute) then we get what WE want, but the original artist/constructor/designer/whatever gets the short end of a poo covered stick. Or he has to go and do concerts to make money to play the music he just gave away for free. Oh, but concerts cost too much anymore. They should be free, or at least a whole lot less also, I'm told.

I'm all about free. Free rocks. But I'm also all about paying people of value, for their value. And I think a much more important thing to focus on is not "What can I get for free, and how can I make you feel good about giving it to me for free" but rather, "You/your thang is/are of value. I'll trade some of my treasure for your talent."

IMO we are becoming a society that understands the price of everything, but the value of nothing.
Logged

It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2009, 06:41:34 PM »

Steps to reproduce:

  • 1. Redefine the market: The benefit is musical enjoyment
  • 2. Break the benefits down (not a complete list...): Infinite components: the music itself. Scarce components: access to the musicians, concert tickets, merchandise, creation of new songs, CDs, private concerts, backstage passes, time, anyone's attention, etc. etc. etc.
  • 3. Set the infinite components free: Put them on websites, file sharing networks, BitTorrent, social network sites wherever you can, while promoting the free songs and getting more publicity for the band itself -- all of which increases the value for the final step
  • 4. Charge for the scarce components: Concert tickets are more valuable. Access to the band is more valuable. Getting the band to write a special song (sponsorship?) is more valuable. Merchandise is more valuable.

It's a tough one to grasp, especially for our generation.  Even with the reality of Google dominating the Internet with zero, now bringing in more money than Microsoft, Apple, Oracle and IBM, we still can't seem to understand that it's all about the musician (Google in this case).  And if their music sucked (bad search engine) they would have gained nothing.  However if the music rocks (Google's search became #1 - for "free"), then the real money to be earned is in the other areas of scarcity that DO exist.  And I think we all know what would've happened if a fledgling Google demanded payment for their search engine.  AOL and Compuserve can attest to what happens when old-world thinking throws all the wallet-hooking weight imaginable at consumers when other options became available.  Every PC had AOL pre-installed and we were drenched with advertisements espousing their greatness and revealing the savory temptations that await the financially capable and willing.  Auto-withdrawal completes the out-of-sight, out-of-mind profit picture, so advertise even more!  Losing subscribers?  Lock em in somehow!  "Free" Trials - it simply HAS to work right??  Zap - gone - over.

Capitalize on the infinite, and your returns will be orders of magnitude beyond what's generated if you limit your exposure by demanding payment for it.  Those who demand payment for their own exposure are forced to pay for it through marketing.  However if your work *sucks* then there's no way to make it big in the economy of zero.  At a much deeper level this is one of the real issues for the anti-free crowd (and this is most certainly not you perks, you know you rock  Wink ), since licenses and hooks of all kinds temporarily ensure revenue for those who produce crap, or for those who's offerings aren't worth the price.  Companies want the biggest hooks possible with the least amount of effort required to justify them.  Idea...

Microsoft? - it's at the root of their anti-free stance.  Apple?  Gargantuan profits from great yet overpriced products.  The predictability of this revenue for them is far more appealing than risking a Google-like free fall into the world of compensation based on the true cost/value of the products they produce.  But as the article mentions:

Quote
The concept of zero took ages for societies to recognize, let alone understand. Mike has explained before how it's been a stumbling block in economics for some libertarian and "free market" types more recently. People who think about economics in terms of scarcity get upset when abundance pushes price down towards zero, as if the economic equation were broken. But if you flip the equation and think of it as a cost of zero, you realize that the trick is to use as much of those abundant goods as possible, adding value to complementary scarcities for which you can charge. Zero doesn't break economics, it just requires a different approach.

But as you know I'm not interested in amassing ridiculous amounts of personal wealth so I'm clearly not suggesting that by my example you can see the benefits of free.  I've just always been fascinated with macro-economics and this relatively new and fundamentally different approach to business that's truly Googled our world is extremely fascinating to me.  It's not only inverted the mega-profit picture, it's opened the door to dissolving the digital divide.  Now that's worth learning more about  Nerd
« Last Edit: November 12, 2009, 06:44:25 PM by isthisthingon » Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Perkiset's Place Home   Best of The Cache   phpMyIDE: MySQL Stored Procedures, Functions & Triggers
Politics @ Perkiset's   Pinkhat's Perspective   
cache
mart
coder
programmers
ajax
php
javascript
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC
Seo4Smf v0.2 © Webmaster's Talks


Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!