11 ms·

Doesn't this line of thinking lead to a race-to-the-bottom and an expectation from consumers that digital goods should basically be "free". Look at mobile apps.

by PKop 10y ago

Doesn't this line of thinking lead to a race-to-the-bottom and an expectation from consumers that digital goods should basically be "free". Look at mobile apps. What is the end result for developers if digital goods are priced next to nothing? Just thinking out loud. I understand this can lead to increased sales, also that this refers more to "content" than apps.

lmm 10y ago
The thing is developers keep making apps, even when the price is so low. I suspect this will be even more true for more traditionally creative activities. There is enough writing being done for free (in terms of e.g. fanfiction) for a lifetime's reading, if only the recommendation engine was good enough. As movies get cheaper to make it will be the same for those too.
- blacksmythe 10y ago
  Developers keep making apps, even when the price is so low. So far, the cost of people willing and able to build large, complex systems in teams keeps going up.
- robryan 10y ago
  With apps the question is if what is being made is good enough? While there is no shortage of apps being put out there is certainly a lot of developers that have been driven away from the app ecosystem. You would be crazy these days to bet your future on being a indie app game developer.
krapp 10y ago
Realistically, digital goods should be "free." I pay my electric bill and the bill for my ISP, why should I pay for the bits on my hard drive or something to be reconfigured into an arbitrary state - everything of possible value related to it has already been paid for. That digital media is considered to have any monetary value at all makes less and less sense the more one thinks about it. It's possible the world should have thought twice about moving everything online and making everything digital, but it's too late now, and we're stuck with concocting elaborate fictions around digital media in order to keep people fed and keep the economies of the world functioning.
- grzm 10y ago
  The creation of the content of those bits costs money, though. How do you pay for that content? Or are you suggesting digital content should be paid for as a service, rather than on a piece-by-piece basis? Arguably, software developers just rearrange bits into some arbitrary state. So they wouldn't be paid, either?
  - krapp 10y ago
    The creation of those bits cost money initially, when real world and not easily replicable work was necessary. After that, the end result is more or less worthless, because the work of replicating those bits is practically nil. There's the rub - all of that effort and money creating products with no real monetary value. I'm not suggesting any particular model here, I like money as much as the next person, but I also believe the trend to see the price of digital media converge toward zero is valid. I don't know what the answer to that is, other than somehow convince people to pay for something they rationally shouldn't.
    - grzm 10y ago
      People find value in the experiences and services that provide no lasting tangible effects all the time. Considering these to be of no real monetary value seems seriously mistaken.
      - TeMPOraL 10y ago
        If you take the market view (value being what people are willing to pay for), then the market clearly tells you that people value digitally delivered experiences at $not-much, rapidly falling to NIL. After all, bits are near-free to copy from the market's POV too - for everyone, it's trivial to either copy a piece of digital content themselves, or ask someone who'll copy it for them for free. Copyrights and branding piracy as theft are ways of trying to artificially control the free market here. But they're so obviously "unnatural" in the digital space, that it makes sense to think about ways of making it so that the original creator gets paid, while copying remains free.
CaptSpify 10y ago
It might lead to people thinking of digital goods as "free", but I don't think that's a bad thing. If a product has already made enough to cover the cost of creation, then I don't see that we have to charge for it anymore. I don't think that means it has to be a race to the bottom though. Things like Kickstarter and Patreon have shown that people are willing to step in and cover the costs for the developer/creator.

by PKop 10y ago

lmm 10y ago

The thing is developers keep making apps, even when the price is so low. I suspect this will be even more true for more traditionally creative activities. There is enough writing being done for free (in terms of e.g. fanfiction) for a lifetime's reading, if only the recommendation engine was good enough. As movies get cheaper to make it will be the same for those too.

blacksmythe 10y ago
Developers keep making apps, even when the price is so low. So far, the cost of people willing and able to build large, complex systems in teams keeps going up.
robryan 10y ago
With apps the question is if what is being made is good enough? While there is no shortage of apps being put out there is certainly a lot of developers that have been driven away from the app ecosystem. You would be crazy these days to bet your future on being a indie app game developer.

krapp 10y ago

Realistically, digital goods should be "free." I pay my electric bill and the bill for my ISP, why should I pay for the bits on my hard drive or something to be reconfigured into an arbitrary state - everything of possible value related to it has already been paid for. That digital media is considered to have any monetary value at all makes less and less sense the more one thinks about it. It's possible the world should have thought twice about moving everything online and making everything digital, but it's too late now, and we're stuck with concocting elaborate fictions around digital media in order to keep people fed and keep the economies of the world functioning.

grzm 10y ago
The creation of the content of those bits costs money, though. How do you pay for that content? Or are you suggesting digital content should be paid for as a service, rather than on a piece-by-piece basis? Arguably, software developers just rearrange bits into some arbitrary state. So they wouldn't be paid, either?
- krapp 10y ago
  The creation of those bits cost money initially, when real world and not easily replicable work was necessary. After that, the end result is more or less worthless, because the work of replicating those bits is practically nil. There's the rub - all of that effort and money creating products with no real monetary value. I'm not suggesting any particular model here, I like money as much as the next person, but I also believe the trend to see the price of digital media converge toward zero is valid. I don't know what the answer to that is, other than somehow convince people to pay for something they rationally shouldn't.
  - grzm 10y ago
    People find value in the experiences and services that provide no lasting tangible effects all the time. Considering these to be of no real monetary value seems seriously mistaken.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      If you take the market view (value being what people are willing to pay for), then the market clearly tells you that people value digitally delivered experiences at $not-much, rapidly falling to NIL. After all, bits are near-free to copy from the market's POV too - for everyone, it's trivial to either copy a piece of digital content themselves, or ask someone who'll copy it for them for free. Copyrights and branding piracy as theft are ways of trying to artificially control the free market here. But they're so obviously "unnatural" in the digital space, that it makes sense to think about ways of making it so that the original creator gets paid, while copying remains free.

CaptSpify 10y ago

It might lead to people thinking of digital goods as "free", but I don't think that's a bad thing. If a product has already made enough to cover the cost of creation, then I don't see that we have to charge for it anymore. I don't think that means it has to be a race to the bottom though. Things like Kickstarter and Patreon have shown that people are willing to step in and cover the costs for the developer/creator.