This link has been bookmarked by 160 people . It was first bookmarked on 29 Jun 2009, by someone privately.
-
28 Sep 12
Christopher Sessums"Credit Suisse estimates that YouTube’s bandwidth costs in 2009 will be three hundred and sixty million dollars."
-
24 Aug 12
-
07 Dec 11
-
22 May 11
-
23 Mar 10
-
24 Feb 10
Colin McNeil"Anderson’s reference to people who 'prefer to buy their music online' carries the faint suggestion that refraining from theft should be considered a mere preference. And then there is his insistence that the relentless downward pressure on prices represe
-
26 Nov 09
agujas1207"Strauss’s optimism was driven by the fuel cost of nuclear energy—which was so low compared with its fossil-fuel counterparts that he considered it (to borrow Anderson’s phrase) close enough to free to round down. Generating and distributing electricity,
free business gladwell technology media internet chrisanderson books
-
29 Oct 09
-
06 Oct 09
-
14 Sep 09
-
30 Aug 09
-
19 Aug 09
Nathan ReinThough I don't typically think of Gladwell as big on common sense, here he definitely injects a little common sense into the hype about how, in the new golden age of the web, everything will be free and everyone will get rich. As he points out, the psychology of free stuff has its downsides, and more importantly, no one is paying any attention to infrastructure costs. Reminds me of the old story of the town where the households all made a living by taking in each other's laundry.
post:twitter(source) economics web intellectual_property money
-
11 Aug 09
-
31 Jul 09
-
29 Jul 09
-
24 Jul 09
-
21 Jul 09
Ari R"And then there is his insistence that the relentless downward pressure on prices represents an iron law of the digital economy. Why is it a law? Free is just another price, and prices are set by individual actors, in accordance with the aggregated partic
free chrisanderson malcolmgladwell economics business technology amazon.com youtube
-
19 Jul 09
-
15 Jul 09
-
13 Jul 09
-
12 Jul 09
Alexander VießIs free the future?
-
-
A recent report by Credit Suisse estimates that YouTube’s bandwidth costs in 2009 will be three hundred and sixty million dollars. In the case of YouTube, the effects of technological Free and psychological Free work against each other.
-
In order to sell advertising, YouTube has had to buy the rights to professionally produced content, such as television shows and movies. Credit Suisse put the cost of those licenses in 2009 at roughly two hundred and sixty million dollars.
-
-
mcristaldiGreat Article from Malcom Gladwell con Free Vs Pricedhttp://su.pr/2IeJA4 [from http://twitter.com/cristaldiphoto/statuses/2612799848]
tweecious chrisanderson danariely google thelongtail:whythefutureofbusinessissellinglessofmore amazon ariannahuffington youtube predictablyirrational:thehiddenforcesthatshapeourdecisions for:clupo for:delprub
-
11 Jul 09
-
-
Chris Anderson’s new book, “Free: The Future of a Radical Price” (Hyperion; $26.99),
-
Newspapers need to accept that content is never again going to be worth what they want it to be worth, and reinvent their business. “Out of the bloodbath will come a new role for professional journalists,” he predicts, and he goes on:
-
There may be more of them, not fewer, as the ability to participate in journalism extends beyond the credentialed halls of traditional media. But they may be paid far less, and for many it won’t be a full time job at all. Journalism as a profession will share the stage with journalism as an avocation. Meanwhile, others may use their skills to teach and organize amateurs to do a better job covering their own communities, becoming more editor/coach than writer. If so, leveraging the Free—paying people to get other people to write for non-monetary rewards—may not be the enemy of professional journalists. Instead, it may be their salvation. -
Anderson cautions that this philosophy of embracing the Free involves moving from a “scarcity” mind-set to an “abundance” mind-set.
-
In the case of YouTube, the effects of technological Free and psychological Free work against each other.
-
YouTube illustrates the principle that Free removes the necessity of aesthetic judgment. (As he puts it, YouTube proves that “crap is in the eye of the beholder.”) But, in order to make money, YouTube has been obliged to pay for programs that aren’t crap. To recap: YouTube is a great example of Free, except that Free technology ends up not being Free because of the way consumers respond to Free, fatally compromising YouTube’s ability to make money around Free, and forcing it to retreat from the “abundance thinking” that lies at the heart of Free. Credit Suisse estimates that YouTube will lose close to half a billion dollars this year. If it were a bank, it would be eligible for TARP funds.
-
This is the kind of error that technological utopians make. They assume that their particular scientific revolution will wipe away all traces of its predecessors—that if you change the fuel you change the whole system.
-
there’s plenty of other information out there that has chosen to run in the opposite direction from Free. The Times gives away its content on its Web site. But the Wall Street Journal has found that more than a million subscribers are quite happy to pay for the privilege of reading online. Broadcast television—the original practitioner of Free—is struggling. But premium cable, with its stiff monthly charges for specialty content, is doing just fine. Apple may soon make more money selling iPhone downloads (ideas) than it does from the iPhone itself (stuff). The company could one day give away the iPhone to boost downloads; it could give away the downloads to boost iPhone sales; or it could continue to do what it does now, and charge for both. Who knows? The only iron law here is the one too obvious to write a book about, which is that the digital age has so transformed the ways in which things are made and sold that there are no iron laws. ♦
-
-
10 Jul 09
-
pedro_daltroFor Anderson, YouTube illustrates the principle that Free removes the necessity of aesthetic judgment. (As he puts it, YouTube proves that “crap is in the eye of the beholder.”) But, in order to make money, YouTube has been obliged to pay for programs tha
malcom.gladwell new.yorker free chrisanderson modelos remuneração monetização dan.ariely
-
"This is the kind of error that technological utopians make. They assume that their particular scientific revolution will wipe away all traces of its predecessors—that if you change the fuel you change the whole system. Strauss went on to forecast “an age
malcolm.mcgladwell chris.anderson free freeconomics business internet internet.economy book review article 2009 media digital information future technology newyorker books content economics business-model
-
Francois Nel... and tackles the assumption that Free is the only way forward.
-
08 Jul 09
-
07 Jul 09
-
06 Jul 09
-
05 Jul 09
-
04 Jul 09
-
-
Ewan McIntoshThere are four strands of argument here: a technological claim (digital infrastructure is effectively Free), a psychological claim (consumers love Free), a procedural claim (Free means never having to make a judgment), and a commercial claim (the market c
business technology media free youtube books journalism economics
-
Bill HughesThe closing paragraph says it all:
...there’s plenty of other information out there that has chosen to run in the opposite direction from Free. The Times gives away its content on its Web site. But the Wall Street Journal has found that more than a millio -
03 Jul 09
-
Julian AusserhoferMalcolm Gladwell reviews Chris Anderson's new book ' 'Free' and includes a long summary of the book. "Anderson is the editor of Wired and the author of the 2006 best-seller “The Long Tail,” and “Free” is essentially an extended elaboration of Stewart Bran
free by:malcolmgladwell chrisanderson books media technology business economics internet
-
-
Free” is essentially an extended elaboration of Stewart Brand’s famous declaration that “information wants to be free.”
-
The digital age, Anderson argues, is exerting an inexorable downward pressure on the prices of all things “made of ideas.”
-
Anderson does not consider this a passing trend. Rather, he seems to think of it as an iron law: “In the digital realm you can try to keep Free at bay with laws and locks, but eventually the force of economic gravity will win.”
-
Anderson cautions that this philosophy of embracing the Free involves moving from a “scarcity” mind-set to an “abundance” mind-set. Giving something away means that a lot of it will be wasted. But because it costs almost nothing to make things, digitally, we can afford to be wasteful.
-
four strands of argument here: a technological claim (digital infrastructure is effectively Free), a psychological claim (consumers love Free), a procedural claim (Free means never having to make a judgment), and a commercial claim (the market created by the technological Free and the psychological Free can make you a lot of money).
-
This is the kind of error that technological utopians make
-
-
02 Jul 09
-
This is the kind of error that technological utopians make. They assume that their particular scientific revolution will wipe away all traces of its predecessors—that if you change the fuel you change the whole system.
-
The only iron law here is the one too obvious to write a book about, which is that the digital age has so transformed the ways in which things are made and sold that there are no iron laws.
-
-
Pauli SystemsChris Anderson is a writer for WiRED Magazine, actually he is the editor-in-chief of WiRED
Look for the rest of the conversation under Tag "Free" and "Future" -
graeme woodgood summary and deconstruction of Anderson's theories
-
Peter MooreThere may be more of them, not fewer, as the ability to participate in journalism extends beyond the credentialed halls of traditional media. But they may be paid far less, and for many it won’t be a full time job at all. Journalism as a profession will s
-
Francois Lamottea Kindle subscription to the Dallas Morning News cost ten dollars a month, seven dollars of that belonged to Amazon, the provider of the gadget on which the news was read, and just three dollars belonged to the newspaper,
free business economics gladwell technology chrisanderson books media
-
01 Jul 09
-
Sean BiehleChris Anderson's new book, Free: The Future of a Radical Price, is set to be released on July 7, 2009, but it's already generating criticism.
cd Bookmarks technology economics future free business gladwell books chrisanderson
-
Susan SmithHad James Moroney read Chris Anderson’s new book, “Free: The Future of a Radical Price” (Hyperion; $26.99), Amazon’s offer might not have seemed quite so surprising. Anderson is the editor of Wired and the author of the 2006 best-seller “The Long Tail,” and “Free” is essentially an extended elaboration of Stewart Brand’s famous declaration that “information wants to be free.” The digital age, Anderson argues, is exerting an inexorable downward pressure on the prices of all things “made of ideas.” Anderson does not consider this a passing trend. Rather, he seems to think of it as an iron law: “In the digital realm you can try to keep Free at bay with laws and locks, but eventually the force of economic gravity will win.” To musicians who believe that their music is being pirated, Anderson is blunt. They should stop complaining, and capitalize on the added exposure that piracy provides by making money through touring, merchandise sales, and “yes, the sale of some of [their] music to people who still want CDs or prefer to buy their music online.” To the Dallas Morning News, he would say the same thing. Newspapers need to accept that content is never again going to be worth what they want it to be worth, and reinvent their business. “Out of the bloodbath will come a new role for professional journalists,” he predicts, and he goes on:
-
carlos guyotAt a hearing on Capitol Hill in May, James Moroney, the publisher of the Dallas Morning News, told Congress about negotiations he’d just had with the online retailer Amazon. The idea was to license his newspaper’s content to the Kindle, Amazon’s new elect
-
aminggs"So how does YouTube bring in revenue? Well, it tries to sell advertisements alongside its videos. The problem is that the videos attracted by psychological Free—pirated material, cat videos, and other forms of user-generated content—are not the sort of t
document article newyorker malcolm-gladwell bookreview chris-anderson book:free internet free business economics technology media inlink:dare-obasanjo import:delicious
-
Daniel CalladineThere are four strands of argument here: a technological claim (digital infrastructure is effectively Free), a psychological claim (consumers love Free), a procedural claim (Free means never having to make a judgment), and a commercial claim (the market c
-
-
Jesslyn 宜芳To the Dallas Morning News, he would say the same thing. Newspapers need to accept that content is never again going to be worth what they want it to be worth, and reinvent their business. “Out of the bloodbath will come a new role for professional journalists,” he predicts, and he goes on:
-
30 Jun 09
-
-
Michael Duff"This is the kind of error that technological utopians make. They assume that their particular scientific revolution will wipe away all traces of its predecessors—that if you change the fuel you change the whole system."
-
Katie Day<Chris Anderson’s new book, “Free: The Future of a Radical Price” -- Anderson is the editor of Wired and the author of the 2006 best-seller “The Long Tail,” and “Free” is essentially an extended elaboration of Stewart Brand’s famous declaration that “info
chris_anderson free digital economics information business future technology imported_from_delicious
-
-
“Free: The Future of a Radical Price”
-
“information wants to be free.”
-
The digital age, Anderson argues, is exerting an inexorable downward pressure on the prices of all things “made of ideas.”
-
“In the digital realm you can try to keep Free at bay with laws and locks, but eventually the force of economic gravity will win.”
-
And then there is his insistence that the relentless downward pressure on prices represents an iron law of the digital economy.
-
“Information wants to be free,” Anderson tells us, “in the same way that life wants to spread and water wants to run downhill.”
-
Why are the self-interested motives of powerful companies being elevated to a philosophical principle? But we are getting ahead of ourselves.
-
Anderson’s argument begins with a technological trend.
-
that magic word “free” has the power to create a consumer stampede.
-
“From the consumer’s perspective, there is a huge difference between cheap and free,” Anderson writes. “Give a product away, and it can go viral. Charge a single cent for it and you’re in an entirely different business. . . . The truth is that zero is one market and any other price is another.”
-
Companies ought to be able to make huge amounts of money “around” the thing being given away—as Google gives away its search and e-mail and makes its money on advertising.
-
Anderson cautions that this philosophy of embracing the Free involves moving from a “scarcity” mind-set to an “abundance” mind-set.
-
Distribution is now close enough to free to round down. Today, it costs about $0.25 to stream one hour of video to one person. Next year, it will be $0.15
-
There are four strands of argument here: a technological claim (digital infrastructure is effectively Free), a psychological claim (consumers love Free), a procedural claim (Free means never having to make a judgment), and a commercial claim (the market created by the technological Free and the psychological Free can make you a lot of money).
-
Why is that? Because of the very principles of Free that Anderson so energetically celebrates. When you let people upload and download as many videos as they want, lots of them will take you up on the offer.
-
YouTube’s bandwidth costs in 2009 will be three hundred and sixty million dollars. In the case of YouTube, the effects of technological Free and psychological Free work against each other.
-
YouTube is a great example of Free, except that Free technology ends up not being Free because of the way consumers respond to Free, fatally compromising YouTube’s ability to make money around Free, and forcing it to retreat from the “abundance thinking” that lies at the heart of Free.
-
he is asking the wrong question. It is pointless to wonder what would have happened if Strauss’s prediction had come true while rushing past the reasons that it could not have come true.
-
This is the kind of error that technological utopians make.
-
They assume that their particular scientific revolution will wipe away all traces of its predecessors
-
“The more products are made of ideas, rather than stuff, the faster they can get cheap,” he writes, and we know what’s coming next: “However, this is not limited to digital products.” Just look at the pharmaceutical industry, he says. Genetic engineering means that drug development is poised to follow the same learning curve of the digital world, to “accelerate in performance while it drops in price.”
But, like Strauss, he’s forgotten about the plants and the power lines.
-
Genzyme isn’t a mining company: its real assets are intellectual property—information, not stuff. But, in this case, information does not want to be free. It wants to be really, really expensive.
-
The only iron law here is the one too obvious to write a book about, which is that the digital age has so transformed the ways in which things are made and sold that there are no iron laws
-
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.