5 ms·

I'm not sure what to make of this article, but on a related note: the economics of software just seems to get weirder and weirder. I guess most US developers a

by ppod 7y ago

I'm not sure what to make of this article, but on a related note: the economics of software just seems to get weirder and weirder. I guess most US developers are fairly politically liberal, although probably a good chunk are libtertarian. I'm sure the SV vote averages out Democrat though. From the outside though, tech companies are viewed as dangerous, neo-liberal, privacy-threatening, all the worst forms of capitalism. And yet the entire foundation (and a good part fo the main structure) of every data based product is based on open-source libraries in python, R, C, and Javascript that was written often for no pay, or as an academic or side-project. And they aren't even patented! They often aren't even really properly credited! What does an economic theory of this even look like? Show me the incentive and reward and value-creation structure of a pandas developer?!

billfruit 7y ago
The view of tech companies as dangerous, and privacy-threatening,(while there are certainly issues) is presented in an inflated matter by the hyperbole loving main stream press, who feels their role as gatekeepers of ideas and news is threatened.
- kgwxd 7y ago
  I get the opposite impression. It's pretty clear at this point that if it's closed source, cloud based, or riddled with telemetry (open or closed source); your privacy is out the window; and media isn't presenting any concern but the minimum, re-spewing the same PR copy companies use to justify their acts to the semi-aware.
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    Those two are oddly correct - old media is largely too illiterate to report on those issues so instead they just incessantly repeat bullshit about "destroying democracy" and "selling your data".
z3phyr 7y ago
Software itself is not the primary product though. I argue that Open Source has paved the way for advertisement and services companies (traditionally non tech companies) to call themselves tech companies and gain an advantage in their respective spheres of buisness. Software has eaten the world, and now nobody is hungry. They do not care about core software or it's beauty. They don't care about hacking in true sense. In that way, they are probably exploitive.
- widowlark 7y ago
  To me it seems that Open Source software works better with neoliberalism than traditional business does.
blendo 7y ago
> Show me the incentive and reward and value-creation structure of a pandas developer?! What incents a teenager in the profound belief that their first program was their best: 10 PRINT "This class sucks!!!!!!" 20 GOTO 10 This was a good article, by the way -- a 1999 look back 10-15 years at hippies like Stuart Brand getting into code. But from the article, it seems like Ted Nelson is the kind of guy who'd try to copyright the theory of relativity -:)
- widowlark 7y ago
  Not only that, but Xanadu never happened and Richard Stallman won - at least, in the sense that OSS and GNU/Linux are both widespread and accessible to billions
friendlybus 7y ago
Academics or side-projects not getting the reward they are worth is common in every industry. The hundreds of academics that have worked on fusion in the past are not going to get much out of a commercially run plant.
zone411 7y ago
Most Americans are still positive in their views of tech companies (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/29/americans-have-become-much-less-positive-about-tech-companies-impact-on-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/29/americans-h...). The downtrend is clearly caused by the recent media coverage.
nostrademons 7y ago
It makes sense if you consider that the hardest point of any economic transaction is convincing people that you have something of value to them, and the best way to increase the amount of money you take home (particularly when selling a scarce good like your labor) is to get more people interested in what you're selling and take the best offer. Most open-source developers are motivated by exposure. The independent ones can often parlay their open-source contributions into a better job or higher salary; "I wrote Pandas" looks great on a resume. The corporate ones are usually doing it either for recruiting (by demonstrating that they support open-source software, and being able to attract & vet potential developers by their open-source contributions), or for publicity, or to commoditize their complements and increase the demand for their product. Once the software is out there, it's free for everyone to use, so if it's useful, it gets used. Hard to compete with free. A lot of other strange things about the software industry come from this realization that sales is the primary problem faced by every service business, and software is an effective way of making more sales. Google, Facebook, and Twitter's primary business model is in getting your service in front of people and increasing your sales; that is how they make hundreds of billions. The reason for the "price desert" between consumer software that costs ~$100/year and enterprise software that costs ~$100K/year is because the latter is sold through consultative sales that requires paying a professional salesperson. The reason why enterprise software companies will often offer a free version of their product (eg. Github, Dropbox, AWS, Heroku, YCombinator) is because it's free lead generation for the paid product, and usually offering the free version costs less for higher quality leads than traffic acquisition through paid sources like Google. The reason why VCs will bid up the shares of any business that has actual people using their product, regardless of how trivial it seems, is that they've solved the hardest part of building a business and can usually find new ways to increase the importance of their product and charge more for it afterwards.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  The corollary is that sales is appearance management. So a sales driven economy is superficial and at least one step removed from tangible value and product quality. It's all about politics and persuasion - i.e. rhetoric, narrative, and social relationships of various kinds. Tangible value creation - in the sense of making products that reliably get the job done with low friction and consistent customer delight - plays a secondary role at best. Which is why social media is qualitatively different to mainstream media. Access to valuable relationships, and information about personal relationship patterns (cultural, professional, social, not especially romantic) and preferences, is the product - because they can be used to amplify the effectiveness of persuasion.

by ppod 7y ago

billfruit 7y ago

The view of tech companies as dangerous, and privacy-threatening,(while there are certainly issues) is presented in an inflated matter by the hyperbole loving main stream press, who feels their role as gatekeepers of ideas and news is threatened.

kgwxd 7y ago
I get the opposite impression. It's pretty clear at this point that if it's closed source, cloud based, or riddled with telemetry (open or closed source); your privacy is out the window; and media isn't presenting any concern but the minimum, re-spewing the same PR copy companies use to justify their acts to the semi-aware.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  Those two are oddly correct - old media is largely too illiterate to report on those issues so instead they just incessantly repeat bullshit about "destroying democracy" and "selling your data".

z3phyr 7y ago

Software itself is not the primary product though. I argue that Open Source has paved the way for advertisement and services companies (traditionally non tech companies) to call themselves tech companies and gain an advantage in their respective spheres of buisness. Software has eaten the world, and now nobody is hungry. They do not care about core software or it's beauty. They don't care about hacking in true sense. In that way, they are probably exploitive.

widowlark 7y ago
To me it seems that Open Source software works better with neoliberalism than traditional business does.

blendo 7y ago

> Show me the incentive and reward and value-creation structure of a pandas developer?! What incents a teenager in the profound belief that their first program was their best: 10 PRINT "This class sucks!!!!!!" 20 GOTO 10 This was a good article, by the way -- a 1999 look back 10-15 years at hippies like Stuart Brand getting into code. But from the article, it seems like Ted Nelson is the kind of guy who'd try to copyright the theory of relativity -:)

widowlark 7y ago
Not only that, but Xanadu never happened and Richard Stallman won - at least, in the sense that OSS and GNU/Linux are both widespread and accessible to billions

friendlybus 7y ago

Academics or side-projects not getting the reward they are worth is common in every industry. The hundreds of academics that have worked on fusion in the past are not going to get much out of a commercially run plant.

zone411 7y ago

Most Americans are still positive in their views of tech companies (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/29/americans-have-become-much-less-positive-about-tech-companies-impact-on-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/29/americans-h...). The downtrend is clearly caused by the recent media coverage.

nostrademons 7y ago

It makes sense if you consider that the hardest point of any economic transaction is convincing people that you have something of value to them, and the best way to increase the amount of money you take home (particularly when selling a scarce good like your labor) is to get more people interested in what you're selling and take the best offer. Most open-source developers are motivated by exposure. The independent ones can often parlay their open-source contributions into a better job or higher salary; "I wrote Pandas" looks great on a resume. The corporate ones are usually doing it either for recruiting (by demonstrating that they support open-source software, and being able to attract & vet potential developers by their open-source contributions), or for publicity, or to commoditize their complements and increase the demand for their product. Once the software is out there, it's free for everyone to use, so if it's useful, it gets used. Hard to compete with free. A lot of other strange things about the software industry come from this realization that sales is the primary problem faced by every service business, and software is an effective way of making more sales. Google, Facebook, and Twitter's primary business model is in getting your service in front of people and increasing your sales; that is how they make hundreds of billions. The reason for the "price desert" between consumer software that costs ~$100/year and enterprise software that costs ~$100K/year is because the latter is sold through consultative sales that requires paying a professional salesperson. The reason why enterprise software companies will often offer a free version of their product (eg. Github, Dropbox, AWS, Heroku, YCombinator) is because it's free lead generation for the paid product, and usually offering the free version costs less for higher quality leads than traffic acquisition through paid sources like Google. The reason why VCs will bid up the shares of any business that has actual people using their product, regardless of how trivial it seems, is that they've solved the hardest part of building a business and can usually find new ways to increase the importance of their product and charge more for it afterwards.

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
The corollary is that sales is appearance management. So a sales driven economy is superficial and at least one step removed from tangible value and product quality. It's all about politics and persuasion - i.e. rhetoric, narrative, and social relationships of various kinds. Tangible value creation - in the sense of making products that reliably get the job done with low friction and consistent customer delight - plays a secondary role at best. Which is why social media is qualitatively different to mainstream media. Access to valuable relationships, and information about personal relationship patterns (cultural, professional, social, not especially romantic) and preferences, is the product - because they can be used to amplify the effectiveness of persuasion.