I think this argument is disorganized. It reads as if he's arguing for free in favor of paid (which I don't really agree with), but I think he's actually arguing for open in favor of closed (which I do agree with).
The predatory pricing thing is a problem for a lot of people. I've most recently come across it with a friend trying to start his graphic-design business who was upset about discovering that "99 designs" website. Before that it was a bass player for our band that was strenuously principled that we should never accept a gig "for exposure", and should also not play with musicians that had a history of accepting free gigs, since it was "disrespectful" to the players that were trying to make a living at it. While I do agree that there are moderating counterpoints to both, they do bring up relevant concerns.
Meanwhile, you have Radiohead and Nine-Inch-Nails, both of whom experimented with releasing their music for free way back when. When it "worked", everyone championed how it was the way forward for the music industry - how music was a "service", how the recordings should be loss-leader marketing expenses for the paid service of live performances. Overlooking the people who were more focused on the recording side of things, and the fact that those two bands had built-in fanbases. Years later, both bands are moving on from the "free" model, while so many people are misguidedly releasing their tracks for free that indie songwriters are paying money to even get their signed-up fans to listen to their new tracks.
I'm not so sure that the conclusion is that free works, as it is accepting that free works by being predatory and that there can be consequences that hurt others. And it isn't exactly ethical to accept a negative consequence on behalf of someone else. This is not to say that going free is wrong - sometimes there is a bigger picture that might make it worthwhile for all (for instance, many open source techs that have created new marketplaces that have enabled many people to make a living). But the argument does not reduce down to something as simple as free works, therefore free is good.
> "I think this argument is disorganized. It reads as if he's arguing for free in favor of paid (which I don't really agree with), but I think he's actually arguing for open in favor of closed (which I do agree with)."
That was my thought. He opened by talking about Free, because Reader closing and Mailbox being acquired stirred up a lot of the usual anti-Free-Service backlash. And he discusses free, I think, just to underline that it does work.
But I think he went into the weeds (and clearly lost much of the readership there) in discussing why. Which is strange, as I don't think even the anti-Free crowd takes issue with whether Free works and they certainly seem to all understand that it does work.
And, ultimately, the "why" part is irrelevant to where he winds up, which is simply that open protocols should be preferred to proprietary ones.
The predatory pricing thing is a problem for a lot of people. I've most recently come across it with a friend trying to start his graphic-design business who was upset about discovering that "99 designs" website. Before that it was a bass player for our band that was strenuously principled that we should never accept a gig "for exposure", and should also not play with musicians that had a history of accepting free gigs, since it was "disrespectful" to the players that were trying to make a living at it. While I do agree that there are moderating counterpoints to both, they do bring up relevant concerns.
Meanwhile, you have Radiohead and Nine-Inch-Nails, both of whom experimented with releasing their music for free way back when. When it "worked", everyone championed how it was the way forward for the music industry - how music was a "service", how the recordings should be loss-leader marketing expenses for the paid service of live performances. Overlooking the people who were more focused on the recording side of things, and the fact that those two bands had built-in fanbases. Years later, both bands are moving on from the "free" model, while so many people are misguidedly releasing their tracks for free that indie songwriters are paying money to even get their signed-up fans to listen to their new tracks.
I'm not so sure that the conclusion is that free works, as it is accepting that free works by being predatory and that there can be consequences that hurt others. And it isn't exactly ethical to accept a negative consequence on behalf of someone else. This is not to say that going free is wrong - sometimes there is a bigger picture that might make it worthwhile for all (for instance, many open source techs that have created new marketplaces that have enabled many people to make a living). But the argument does not reduce down to something as simple as free works, therefore free is good.