Why the end of scarcity will change the economics of everything(mashable.com)
mashable.com
Why the end of scarcity will change the economics of everything
http://mashable.com/2011/04/28/scarcity-economics/
7 comments
When you say "the end of scarcity", most of us think of unlimited energy and raw material. The OP is really just talking about information (which is significant, but truly in a different league).
This echoes the "Information wants to be free" mantra/movement/slogan/whatever. While this movement is quite old (relatively speaking) and widespread, I find that Wired is still one of the more on-the-ball publications with respect to this (they talk about it a lot, and generally cover it well).
This echoes the "Information wants to be free" mantra/movement/slogan/whatever. While this movement is quite old (relatively speaking) and widespread, I find that Wired is still one of the more on-the-ball publications with respect to this (they talk about it a lot, and generally cover it well).
Information wants to be free
I have personally always thought that argument to be entirely BS. A piece of software can be considered information; it's just bits in order. Therefore, it should be free. Music can be considered information for the same reasons. It's a convenient argument, because it gets us all the things we want, for free! But EVERYTHING is information. YOU, YOU are just information, and so is that computer in front of you, and the chair under you. Are you also free (as in beer)?
Information requires effort and/or investment to create, and personally I feel the "information wants to be free" folks like to simply wax over that to further their own interests.
I have personally always thought that argument to be entirely BS. A piece of software can be considered information; it's just bits in order. Therefore, it should be free. Music can be considered information for the same reasons. It's a convenient argument, because it gets us all the things we want, for free! But EVERYTHING is information. YOU, YOU are just information, and so is that computer in front of you, and the chair under you. Are you also free (as in beer)?
Information requires effort and/or investment to create, and personally I feel the "information wants to be free" folks like to simply wax over that to further their own interests.
What are you talking about? When people say "information wants to be free" they are (obviously) not talking about physical objects.
The idea that information wants to be free stems from the market principles of supply and demand. Price is determined by supply and demand. Digital information can be duplicated at almost zero cost, so there is a pressure on it to become cheaper and cheaper until free.
The idea that information wants to be free is also contradicted by the idea that "Information is power" etc. The less people you can restrict information to the more it is worth. Also, timely information can be very valuable (like in insider trading) that information can have value (i.e. no free as in beer).
But just because information can be duplicated infinitely, it doesn't mean that it will be duplicated infinitely, meaning that the value of the information will be determined by the costs of production and demand. Will this value of the information be enough to cover the costs? This will be the determining factor as to whether people can continue to make a living from producing information. On the flipside, the costs of making quality information are rapidly decreasing, so it should be getting easier and easier to make a living from information.
In the end, I think that information will always have value. The key will be for the producers of that information to find a way to connect with people willing to pay for it.
The idea that information wants to be free stems from the market principles of supply and demand. Price is determined by supply and demand. Digital information can be duplicated at almost zero cost, so there is a pressure on it to become cheaper and cheaper until free.
The idea that information wants to be free is also contradicted by the idea that "Information is power" etc. The less people you can restrict information to the more it is worth. Also, timely information can be very valuable (like in insider trading) that information can have value (i.e. no free as in beer).
But just because information can be duplicated infinitely, it doesn't mean that it will be duplicated infinitely, meaning that the value of the information will be determined by the costs of production and demand. Will this value of the information be enough to cover the costs? This will be the determining factor as to whether people can continue to make a living from producing information. On the flipside, the costs of making quality information are rapidly decreasing, so it should be getting easier and easier to make a living from information.
In the end, I think that information will always have value. The key will be for the producers of that information to find a way to connect with people willing to pay for it.
It's not that it should be free, it's that it will eventually be free.
You seem to be looking at this from a kind of moral point of view, but "information wan't to be free" is not meant to be a value statement. It's meant to be an observation about information.
You seem to be looking at this from a kind of moral point of view, but "information wan't to be free" is not meant to be a value statement. It's meant to be an observation about information.
If it's an observation, why is it pushed like an agenda and used like a justification?
Any time any concept is reduced to a pithy sentence it will be appropriated by people to use as an agenda.
Something about these types of clever sayings shortcuts our brains. People use that fact to take advantage.
Something about these types of clever sayings shortcuts our brains. People use that fact to take advantage.
I didn't know it was although you might be right that some people are confusing it.
It's talking about what information itself wants to be not be (as if it has agency), not what people want information to be.
It's talking about what information itself wants to be not be (as if it has agency), not what people want information to be.
As always, quoting the actual text helps (http://www.rogerclarke.com/II/IWtbF.html):
"On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other."
Nothing to do with software or products.
"On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other."
Nothing to do with software or products.
Scarcity is still there..even with digital content. Can anyone create Adobe Photoshop with a few mouse clicks (not a digital copy, but an original)? If not, then there is a scarcity: in the talent that creates such content.
Sure, anyone with a computer can start a blog..but only the people with quality, original, content will get continue to get the traffic.
What's changed is people's mindsets..which I predicted would happen back in '99. Piracy advocates claim there is no direct correlation between piracy and loss sales. This may be the case on a 1-1 case, but in the long-run, if you do nothing about pirated content, the value in people's minds slowly starts to approach $0. This is because all digital content is just like currency: it's value is only what people think it's worth. If know you can easily download something for free, why bother paying for it?
This is why I no longer write applications, only services. Any apps that I release are directly tied to a monthly service and are useless without it.
Sure, anyone with a computer can start a blog..but only the people with quality, original, content will get continue to get the traffic.
What's changed is people's mindsets..which I predicted would happen back in '99. Piracy advocates claim there is no direct correlation between piracy and loss sales. This may be the case on a 1-1 case, but in the long-run, if you do nothing about pirated content, the value in people's minds slowly starts to approach $0. This is because all digital content is just like currency: it's value is only what people think it's worth. If know you can easily download something for free, why bother paying for it?
This is why I no longer write applications, only services. Any apps that I release are directly tied to a monthly service and are useless without it.
Do people really think the value of something is 0$ just because they can get it for free? That is cost. The cost of me watching the latest blockbuster on my computer may be 0$ but I don't honestly believe it's value is 0$. You are right in saying that value is only what people think it's worth but I don't think people who pirate actually believe the content is worth nothing. The real mindset people have is if cost < value then screw value all together. This has always been the case.
Cost is becoming less of an issue online though, with simpler payments, content priced appropriately, and an increased "lock you out" if you try to get stuff for free.
Cost is becoming less of an issue online though, with simpler payments, content priced appropriately, and an increased "lock you out" if you try to get stuff for free.
"Scarcity is still there..even with digital content. Can anyone create Adobe Photoshop with a few mouse clicks (not a digital copy, but an original)? If not, then there is a scarcity: in the talent that creates such content."
Yea, I know. I bet it is a fundamental flaw.
Yea, I know. I bet it is a fundamental flaw.
This article is a bit facile and ignores data that disprove their point.
They hold Twitter as a model for the "end of scarcity" and yet Twitter has put the kibosh on new tweet clients?
If anything, scarcity is even more abundant with all this abundance. Scarcity of user attention/memory isn't going away. Scarcity of IP with an increasing patent minefield; We still might be looking at coming bandwidth restrictions as the ISPs lower their thresholds to tax the internet services and users.
This article reminds me of the original dot-com bubble and how Wired and other tech-saavy digests were crowing about DOW hitting 40k and the abundance economy, the long boom... that didn't end well.
They hold Twitter as a model for the "end of scarcity" and yet Twitter has put the kibosh on new tweet clients?
If anything, scarcity is even more abundant with all this abundance. Scarcity of user attention/memory isn't going away. Scarcity of IP with an increasing patent minefield; We still might be looking at coming bandwidth restrictions as the ISPs lower their thresholds to tax the internet services and users.
This article reminds me of the original dot-com bubble and how Wired and other tech-saavy digests were crowing about DOW hitting 40k and the abundance economy, the long boom... that didn't end well.
The arguments about universities are based on flawed assumptions, ie that you go there to "get" knowledge from professors. In fact, the knowledge has always been there to get, should you wish. Universities are there to put like minds together and allow them to develop wider skills and give them the resources to extend our collective knowledge. We've had public libraries with easily available educational content for over a century.
For this to happen, we need the replicators from Star Trek. At that point, it WILL change everything
Scarcity will end when both these Star Trek ideas come true:
1) Every trinket can be produced en masse with a precious mingling of magic, unicorns and nanotechnology
2) Consumerism ends. One could argue there are enough resources and means of production on the world for everyone. It's just that the "haves" want more and more, and then throw it away and want even more.
Otherwise -- A Star Trek replicator would just speed up the treadmill of consumerism. You can have any toy you want instantly. In our current society, this would probably mean that fashions change every three minutes, and the rich part of the population will use so much energy that the have-nots will still be deprived of even basic living conditions.
1) Every trinket can be produced en masse with a precious mingling of magic, unicorns and nanotechnology
2) Consumerism ends. One could argue there are enough resources and means of production on the world for everyone. It's just that the "haves" want more and more, and then throw it away and want even more.
Otherwise -- A Star Trek replicator would just speed up the treadmill of consumerism. You can have any toy you want instantly. In our current society, this would probably mean that fashions change every three minutes, and the rich part of the population will use so much energy that the have-nots will still be deprived of even basic living conditions.
It would speed up the consumerism but only for a short time until people find a new way to signal their social standing.
You might be right. But, looking at history, I'm always more conservative about predictions as to changes in human nature than in level of technology.
On the other hand, consumerism as we know it really only exists for about 100 years. It might be a passing fad.
On the other hand, consumerism as we know it really only exists for about 100 years. It might be a passing fad.
There's a lot of talk about this from time to time, but it's nothing new. For example, the book _Free: The Future of a Radical Price_ by Chris Anderson discussed it extensively in human-readable language. 1st edition was July 2009.
It's still the wild west out there, so people approach the production of (commercial) digital content without enough economic realism. When this domain is more established, I don't believe (commercial) digital content will be such a commodity.
I mean, use common sense: aren't YOU suffering from an inability to differentiate between what is and is not worth paying attention to online? Wouldn't you "pay-to-play" if someone got it really, really, really right? I know I would.