De omnibus dubitandum
2 Jul 2009
There’s a big huffle going on right now in the blogosphere, centered around Chris Anderson’s Free book. Malcolm Gladwell of The Tipping Point fame has skilfully dissected Anderson’s argument in a rather scathing review of Anderson’s book. Gladwell does a fine job of undermining Anderson’s case, but one could argue that Gladwell has cherry-picked from the book in order to deliver the most devastating blow possible.
Anderson himself has responded, though rather meekly, on his Long Tail blog. So far it’s just another Internet Argument between influential writers.
But then none other than Seth Godin throws himself into the arena with a blogpost entitled ”Malcolm is wrong”. This pro-Free rant doesn’t actually counter any of Gladwell’s arguments, but it has sure succeeded in throwing massive amounts of combustible liquids on what until now was little more than a smouldering exchange of views.
This vendetta-of-ideas between kindred minds has even sparked a Squidoo page listing many meaningful, and less meaningful, diatribes on the topic that are appearing on the web.
Personally I understand and agree with arguments from both sides of the debate, though I’m slightly more inclined towards Anderson’s point of view – if only because Gladwell seems to be defending the side of professional journalism and paid newspaper subscriptions. This is an outdated business model that, like the music industry, has been made obsolete by technological advances yet seems unwilling to accept its inevitable fate.
Printed newspapers will likely become extinct, replaced by e-reader subscriptions and/or free content supported by advertising and/or premium paid content. Amazon won’t be able to demand ridiculous prices for newspaper content forever as the market for ebook readers grows and the devices become more feature-rich and less expensive.
In the end, whether it turns out to be Free or just Less Expensive, businesses will die, new businesses will emerge, and hopefully customers will benefit.
2 Responses for "Much Ado About Nothing"
[...] Much Ado About Nothing [...]
Malcom’s arguments were dead in the water. To grab a few of his more egregious phrases, as I see them:
“If you can afford to pay someone to get other people to write, why can’t you pay people to write?”
Because you cannot possibly afford it! Imagine the cost of paying employees to produce the reviews on Netflix and Amazon at a similar level of quality. He doesn’t even understand the principles through which the internet functions and grows!
“Does he mean that the New York Times should be staffed by volunteers, like Meals on Wheels?”
Patronizing comments aside, to some extent, yes.
“Why is it a law? Free is just another price”
Which doesn’t require inputting a credit card number.
“But information can’t actually want anything, can it?”
Depending on how a certain system is structured, it can (with some allowances for phrasing). Now if you’re advocating closing off the internet, then surely you should say so..
Leave a reply