Joel Liu's Bookmarks tagged business →  View Popular

As I noted in the comments to Roger's post, we've struggled with early stage investments in enterprise oriented web services. Sales to enterprises often require expensive sales teams and it's much harder to know if you've nailed the product/service with feedback from a limited number of enterprise customers.

It's much better, in my opinion, to go with the freemium model, give a version of the service away for free to all comers, get a lot of users, get good market feedback, then develop a premium version of the product/service for sale to enterprise customers. If your free version is popular with a lot of users, your customer base is the target for the upsell and you might be able to live without an expensive sales force initially. And, of course, keep your costs really low until you start to get revenues.

In this freeconomics world, startups still have a chance because startup costs are rock-bottom low. However, it is not enough to build a "killer app". They have to build a "killer honey pot" that uniquely attracts workers/customers that generate the content that both attracts page view "honey" and (virally) more workers/customers.

Is this bad or complex? Not really, just a different skillset. In this "honey pot" world, effective social architecture is more important than sheer quantity of application features. You don't charge (or charge much) for the "application." Instead, you harvest value out of the content/attention of your worker-bee customers.

One of the biggest problems that I have with the "free" argument, which you've mentioned in your article, is the whole idea of marginal costs of zero, or virtually zero. Generally speaking (and I can't think of a good counter-example), the only way that you get to such low costs is through significant capital investment and mass production so that, over time, fixed costs are distributed over a huge volume of product.

Anything that's mass produced, or mass distributed, still requires a rather large up front investment. That takes deep pockets, which many smaller companies don't have. You've indicated this above in your comments about Gmail overpowering Yahoo Mail (although Hotmail is still around...?)

From the consumer's perspective, though, there is a huge difference between cheap and free. Give a product away and it can go viral. Charge a single cent for it and you're in an entirely different business, one of clawing and scratching for every customer. The psychology of "free" is powerful indeed, as any marketer will tell you.

This difference between cheap and free is what venture capitalist Josh Kopelman calls the "penny gap." People think demand is elastic and that volume falls in a straight line as price rises, but the truth is that zero is one market and any other price is another. In many cases, that's the difference between a great market and none at all.

Labor exchange

What's free: Web sites and services. Free to whom: all users, since the act of using these sites and services actually creates something of value.

You can get free porn if you solve a few captchas, those scrambled text boxes used to block bots. What you're actually doing is giving answers to a bot used by spammers to gain access to other sites — which is worth more to them than the bandwidth you'll consume browsing images. Likewise for rating stories on Digg, voting on Yahoo Answers, or using Google's 411 service (see "How Can Directory Assistance Be Free?"). In each case, the act of using the service creates something of value, either improving the service itself or creating information that can be useful somewhere else.

It does. The word is externalities, a concept that holds that money is not the only scarcity in the world. Chief among the others are your time and respect, two factors that we've always known about but have only recently been able to measure properly. The "attention economy" and "reputation economy" are too fuzzy to merit an academic department, but there's something real at the heart of both. Thanks to Google, we now have a handy way to convert from reputation (PageRank) to attention (traffic) to money (ads). Anything you can consistently convert to cash is a form of currency itself, and Google plays the role of central banker for these new economies.

There is, presumably, a limited supply of reputation and attention in the world at any point in time. These are the new scarcities — and the world of free exists mostly to acquire these valuable assets for the sake of a business model to be identified later. Free shifts the economy from a focus on only that which can be quantified in dollars and cents to a more realistic accounting of all the things we truly value today.

“但是，鸦片是毒品，当初是帮助解决了外贸支付问题，可是，随着鸦片进口量的增加，太多中国人吸鸦片上瘾了，一天没鸦片就无法活了。从19世纪初，鸦片进口已不再是帮助解决外贸支付问题，而是为了满足不可收拾的毒瘾，毒瘾开始毁灭中国人的意志。到1834年，鸦片年进口量已超过1400吨，中国的茶叶与丝绸出口已远不够支付进口鸦片的钱，要付银子，中国的银子开始大量流出。

　　“1839年，道光皇帝派林则徐前往广州，禁止鸦片进口，违者要被杀头。林则徐到后，立即执行禁令，把大量鸦片扔进大海。那年，林则徐发函质问英国女王，为什么英国在其本土、爱尔兰以及苏格兰禁止鸦片销售，知道鸦片对人体有害，却把大量鸦片贩卖到中国？为什么他们为了贸易赚钱可以这么没有道德，采用双重标准？

We see the same pattern at Amazon, which is aggressively pursuing authors for direct publishing on the kindle and seeking to displace publishers by making themselves the sole source for books on the device.

Ultimately, I think we see this pattern in the economic development of every innovation. When a new technology is introduced, there's a lot of green-field opportunity, and so much value is being created that there's no need to capture it all. But as the technology matures, the winners need to capture more of the total value being created. They gradually crowd out suppliers as well as competitors.