There seem to be many good observations in this article, but I feel as though the conclusions suffer because of superficiality.
The initial thesis that information "wants to be" reasonably priced rather than free is very quickly undermined by suppositions about why people pay for music: convenience, assurance of quality, legitimacy, etc. My point is that people aren't paying reasonable prices for information per se, but rather for these valuable intangibles.
In the main topic about newspaper paywalls, the author discusses how newspapers have realized they have "less fungible," more distinctive offerings, and people might be willing to pay for these. But again, it seems that potential customers aren't paying for information, but rather for distinctive voices which are again much less obvious than mere information.
In any case, I'm suggesting that before we degenerate into a battle of cliches about whether information wants to be free, economical, or pricey, we make certain that information is actually the commodity on the sales shelf. Mike Masnick at Techdirt.com frequently discusses the coupling of "infinite goods" (such as news, books, music, movies, etc.) with "finite goods" (which in the current examples might be convenience or distinctiveness, but could be anything from creator contact to t-shirts). In many cases, infinite goods seem to serve best as a advertising for finite goods.
1 comment
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 15.5 ms ] threadThe initial thesis that information "wants to be" reasonably priced rather than free is very quickly undermined by suppositions about why people pay for music: convenience, assurance of quality, legitimacy, etc. My point is that people aren't paying reasonable prices for information per se, but rather for these valuable intangibles.
In the main topic about newspaper paywalls, the author discusses how newspapers have realized they have "less fungible," more distinctive offerings, and people might be willing to pay for these. But again, it seems that potential customers aren't paying for information, but rather for distinctive voices which are again much less obvious than mere information.
In any case, I'm suggesting that before we degenerate into a battle of cliches about whether information wants to be free, economical, or pricey, we make certain that information is actually the commodity on the sales shelf. Mike Masnick at Techdirt.com frequently discusses the coupling of "infinite goods" (such as news, books, music, movies, etc.) with "finite goods" (which in the current examples might be convenience or distinctiveness, but could be anything from creator contact to t-shirts). In many cases, infinite goods seem to serve best as a advertising for finite goods.