3 ms·

Also when you buy a coffee you dont just download a bytewise clone of a coffee from some repo. An hourly paid person must manually prepare fresh coffee using d

Also when you buy a coffee you dont just download a bytewise clone of a coffee from some repo. An hourly paid person must manually prepare fresh coffee using distributed physical goods multiple times a day and brew the cup full at every brick and mortar location. This is not a very good analogy at all. Free market and competition have already decided the price of quality apps and quality coffee. The only way you can prove this wrong is by actually disrupting the market.

dhimes 10y ago
Free market and competition have already decided the price of quality apps and quality coffee I'm not quite convinced here (extending the 'app' concept to other software). Some of the price is subsidized by VC money, and some by advertising. In both cases the consumer/purchaser may not be aware of the real value of their purchase, nor the real cost. So the market hasn't finished speaking IMHO.
Veen 10y ago
But does the free market always produce the best results? The free market tells us people want click bait, porn, and cat videos. It tells us that long expensive investigative journalism won't find a market that will support it — that sort of work is expensive. We can take the free market purist view that there needs to be no further discussion on the issue: the market has decided that high-quality journalism doesn't generate enough revenue to support itself, therefore, its intrinsically valueless. Or, we stipulate that high-quality journalism is valuable becauae it has positive effects on society that are beyond the ability of the market to determine. If we think so, it makes sense to talk about how to fund these endevours that aren't reliant on free market forces. (I realize you're talking about apps, but the topic of the article is content, and the same basic principles apply to both)
- Sacho 10y ago
  Let's assume we agree with both premises - the free market has decided the value of apps, and the free market does not always produce the best results. Since "the free market has decided" means the people participating in that market have made such a decision, there's two strategies you can take - persuasion and coercion. You can already apply most methods of persuasion through the free market - are there any that you think are unable to thrive in it? For coercion, people are naturally resistant to it, even when it is "good for them". Do you think it is a worthwhile investment to spend political capital on laws, regulations, enforcement etc to apply such coercion? Maybe if we use one of the subtler methods, i.e. taxation and subsidy? There's also the problem of the 1A which tends to negate most government action you can take in this sphere.

dhimes 10y ago

Free market and competition have already decided the price of quality apps and quality coffee I'm not quite convinced here (extending the 'app' concept to other software). Some of the price is subsidized by VC money, and some by advertising. In both cases the consumer/purchaser may not be aware of the real value of their purchase, nor the real cost. So the market hasn't finished speaking IMHO.

Veen 10y ago

But does the free market always produce the best results? The free market tells us people want click bait, porn, and cat videos. It tells us that long expensive investigative journalism won't find a market that will support it — that sort of work is expensive. We can take the free market purist view that there needs to be no further discussion on the issue: the market has decided that high-quality journalism doesn't generate enough revenue to support itself, therefore, its intrinsically valueless. Or, we stipulate that high-quality journalism is valuable becauae it has positive effects on society that are beyond the ability of the market to determine. If we think so, it makes sense to talk about how to fund these endevours that aren't reliant on free market forces. (I realize you're talking about apps, but the topic of the article is content, and the same basic principles apply to both)

Sacho 10y ago
Let's assume we agree with both premises - the free market has decided the value of apps, and the free market does not always produce the best results. Since "the free market has decided" means the people participating in that market have made such a decision, there's two strategies you can take - persuasion and coercion. You can already apply most methods of persuasion through the free market - are there any that you think are unable to thrive in it? For coercion, people are naturally resistant to it, even when it is "good for them". Do you think it is a worthwhile investment to spend political capital on laws, regulations, enforcement etc to apply such coercion? Maybe if we use one of the subtler methods, i.e. taxation and subsidy? There's also the problem of the 1A which tends to negate most government action you can take in this sphere.