
The Price of Free  - bootload
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/magazine/15FOB-Phenomenon-t.html?ref=technology
======
memetichazard
I'm getting a little bit annoyed with the argument that 'Internet taking over
these businesses is BAD because it's replacing quality with quantity! You
won't get quality anymore because people are flocking to quantity and we can't
afford to subsidize it anymore!'

On one hand, I am somewhat sympathetic to the argument (Research seems to be
funded at least partially in the same way at universities), but overall, if
the great masses lack taste and are satisfied with their reality TV, books
like Twilight, and Windows PCs, why should they be taxed to pay for the few
aristocrats that demand literature?

Or, if the value of such things is great enough, then the demand will be there
to pay for it.

Disclaimer: My OS is Vista, I like watching CSI, and I've liked books that are
as empty as Twilight is rumored to be.

~~~
camccann
Well, there's at least one perspective (accurate or not) from which your point
doesn't hold.

As a hypothetical, assume that perception of quality within a domain is
actually a trained skill, improved by incremental refinement via new
experiences within the domain. Further, assume that highly-trained individuals
can perceive greater detail, and from that can derive greater enjoyment. That
is, a novice is overwhelmed by a few of the most obvious features, whereas an
expert picks out subtleties and contrasts and has a richer, more enjoyable
experience (there may be a parallel here to the blub paradox).

Under such a scenario, most novices (being unable to perceive subtleties)
would tend to congregate around only a few examples in the domain that happen
to provide the best experience at the broad, obvious level; a local maximum of
enjoyment. However, by persuading a novice to experience additional examples
that at the obvious levels may seem less appealing, they will gain both
expertise and a deeper enjoyment of the domain, at the expense of growing
bored with the simpler examples that lack subtleties.

New creations in the domain seeking to maximize exposure would tend to the
minimum complexity level needed to appeal to a sufficiently large portion of
the population. Lower complexity means fewer people expanding their
experiences, reducing the overall level of expertise, lowering the minimum,
and so on. Given the assumption earlier that experts obtain greater enjoyment
from the domain, this results in a globally suboptimal outcome from
individually sensible choices.

Of course, a fair number of people would disagree with one or both of the
assumptions above (myself included). But I suspect many people who bemoan loss
of quality would to some extent agree with the scenario I described, wherein
quality is indeed valuable without there being demand for it.

~~~
m_eiman
_wherein quality is indeed valuable without there being demand for it_

Value is derived from demand and supply. If there is _no_ demand, there can be
no value. If there is demand, there will be value (per supplied unit) if the
supply isn't too plentiful.

This should mean that, in your example, entry level content should be
plentiful and cheap, while the advanced content should be scarce and
expensive. Hopefully for the producers of advanced content, the advanced
audience will get so much more enjoyment per unit of content that they feel
the higher price is justified.

To say that more people "should" go through the effort of learning to like the
advanced content is pretty elitist, but most of all it doesn't take into
consideration everything that they are doing in their lives. Just because some
college students think it's worthwhile to learn the intricacies of some
obscure tv series it doesn't mean that it's worthwhile for everyone else.

~~~
gloob
_Value is derived from demand and supply._

I suspect that the post you are responding to disagrees with this (at least
hypothetically). They contend that value is a more-or-less innate quality that
the skilled are best at recognizing. Stating your position baldly isn't a
particularly strong counterargument.

 _To say that more people "should" go through the effort of learning to like
the advanced content is pretty elitist_

Doesn't matter whether it's elitist, in the same way that it doesn't matter
whether Darwin caused the Holocaust. The fact that the consequences are
unpleasant does not mean that the assertion is untrue.

~~~
m_eiman
_They contend that value is a more-or-less innate quality that the skilled are
best at recognizing. Stating your position baldly isn't a particularly strong
counterargument._

Value, in the money sense, is what someone is prepared to pay. That's the kind
of value I was referring to.

 _Doesn't matter whether it's elitist, in the same way that it doesn't matter
whether Darwin caused the Holocaust._

Godwin's law.

 _The fact that the consequences are unpleasant does not mean that the
assertion is untrue._

You ignored the second part of my conclusion: everyone has limited time, and
they have to select a subset of what is possible that they will actually do.

Also: the post I was responding to was talking about trying to maximize global
enjoyment, and proposed that if everyone decided to become experts in a single
narrow field of content everyone would be better off. This, however, is also
unlikely to find the global maximum. How will everyone know _which_ tiny
subfield has the biggest potential for enjoyment? Without trying a lot of
different routes to enjoyment, it's very unlikely that they will choose the
best one by pure chance. Compare this to genetic algorithms; you need
randomness to escape a local maximum.

Another problem with the proposed solution is that different people have
different personalities and it's very unlikely that a single narrow field will
appeal to everyone. Some subset of the population will get lots of enjoyment,
while another subset will be bored to tears. That's not going to improve
average enjoyment.

~~~
camccann
_Value, in the money sense, is what someone is prepared to pay. That's the
kind of value I was referring to._

Which is indeed one possible definition of the word, but not the most _useful_
one in a world where rational economic agents don't exist. The average
person's intuitive sense of how much they value something doesn't necessarily
bear any relation to how much they'd pay for it.

For instance, in memetichazard's post above: "Or, if the value of such things
is great enough, then the demand will be there to pay for it." Under the
economic definition of value this can be loosely paraphrased as "If people are
willing to pay enough for these things, there will be enough to demand to pay
for it", a statement which is tautological and rather inane, allowing us to
infer that memetichazard probably intended some other meaning for "value".

Under any other definition of "value", including most common use, it's
entirely possible (or even likely) for something to have a value unrelated to
its price or market demand.

------
nopinsight
First Off: Many (if not most) film festival winners and even some Oscar
winners (Slumdog Millionaire, Japanese's The Departure) don't cost a huge
fortune to produce, esp. in relative to Blockbusters.

Certain creative pursuits, like TV shows, might get back to its cheaper, more
natural roots. I'm sure the cost of making a good TV show wasn't _this_ high
in the past. The cost is getting higher partly because of the competition for
talents.

With less money in the system, it's true that some talents will move to
another industry, but many will stay and accept a less extravaganza lifestyle
(which is not a great thing to emulate for the society at large anyway).
People who really love doing the stuff will likely want to do it no matter
what.

Of course, certain sorts of movies/shows like those which requires a huge
amount of detailed computer graphics will be harder to come by, but that
doesn't spell the end of creative works.

 _Lower cost for the whole system could potentially result in better quality
(of a different kind)_ because of less focus on techniques and more on the
arts and concepts.

------
fnid
It is a cycle. Most endeavors start out as labors of love. Invention.
Creativity. Internships. Then as the product is developed and there is more
demand for it, more customers, more money. The wheat separates from the chaff.
The chaff makers lose customers who concentrate among a few vendors who then
start charging more and looking for more expensive and talented producers but
all the free and cheap stuff is gone.

So then the young bucks come in and say, "I can do this for less!"

Saṃsāra

------
rabidsnail
I disagree with the premise that there is a correlation between production
cost and quality.

~~~
camccann
Good writers and actors don't usually work for free. Just because there are
lots of expensive things that don't really improve quality doesn't mean
quality isn't still expensive.

Unless you're suggesting that television shows should all be made on a "work
for a share of profits" or "work for free to get recognition" basis (i.e.,
like a start-up or an open-source project respectively). I don't really see
most people being able to do that, though.

~~~
Gilson_Silveira
Youtube seems to be going to this direction.

For example, if you look for the latest hits on Youtube, you will see that
most of them started posting videos there, for free.

~~~
fnid
And the quality doesn't compare, that's the point.

------
steveklabnik
Once again, this article assumes that the current way of doing things is the
only way of doing things. New business models will spring up. They always do,
no matter how much people decry progress.

~~~
jmtulloss
The article's not entirely without merit. It's true that new business models
will pop up, but will they be as profitable as the current one? Considering
the democratizing effect of the internet, I doubt it.

The same thing is happening with the music industry. Just because the record
labels see a clear pattern towards electronic consumption doesn't mean that
clinging to the old model as long as possible isn't the most profitable
strategy.

~~~
steveklabnik
I actually liked the article overall, and did vote it up. It was just that end
that left a bad taste in my mouth...

They may not be as profitable for each individual company, but the pie is
growing overall. More people than ever before are able to practice music as a
profession. Consumer choice has never been greater.

If that comes at the expense of the big four, you'll have to forgive my lack
of tears.

~~~
jmtulloss
I agree entirely, I just understand why the established players act the way
they do.

~~~
steveklabnik
I get it, I just feel that it's incredibly shortsighted. I'd like to think
that if I were a label, I'd be trying to figure out how to survive in this new
world rather than trying to just grab as much money as possible before dying
in a firey crash.

Then again, I'm a quite different person than record label executives, so I
shouldn't expect they'd think anything like me on the issue...

~~~
jmtulloss
I'm willing to be good money that they know exactly what they're going to do
in the future. They also know that it's less profitable, so they'll resist as
long as possible.

------
ilkhd2
Paranormal activity an Pi are dirty cheap, but nonetheless good movies. I mean
expensive is not necessarily good.

~~~
jmtulloss
A few exceptions don't negate the rule. Many of the best productions are that
way because the best people worked on it using the best available
technologies. That comes at a price.

Just look at Youtube. Most of that stuff is utter crap. Just because you find
the occasional gem doesn't mean that the site's not full of crap.

~~~
rsheridan6
Most of the stuff on youtube is utter crap, but there's still more interesting
stuff than I have time to watch.

~~~
bootload
_"... Most of the stuff on youtube is utter crap, but there's still more
interesting stuff than I have time to watch. ..."_

Watching stuff on youtube for me is really like taping radio as a youngster.
Now it's going back for old music video clips and tv shows. One persons crap
is someone else's scarce resource.

