Google Isn't Unique In Embracing The Economics Of Free Complementary Markets
from the open-your-eyes,-Nick dept
We've pointed out for years, that Nicholas Carr is one of the smartest, most astute thinkers out there -- and he always writes interesting articles, that make interesting points and get you to think about things in a different manner. However, it's frustrating that he continually makes all these great observations, and then at the end jumps to a totally bizarre and often outright incorrect conclusion that isn't supported at all by the points he made earlier in the article. Yet, because he leads people down the garden path so beautifully, many people take that fanciful leap with Carr, missing the fact that there's really nothing holding up the structure on the other side.He did this about a year ago, in pointing out that Google's main business was in driving all sorts of complementary businesses forward by making them cheaper (or all the way to free), such that they helped its main business (getting eyeballs to sell to advertisers). That's a good, and important observation -- but where Carr went wrong, was to claim that building up complementary businesses was somehow unique to Google, and couldn't (and shouldn't) be replicated by most other businesses. That's simply incorrect. As we've been pointing out, if you want to succeed in today's digital market, you absolutely need to recognize the complementary markets that impact your business -- because all markets have those complements.
Yet, it appears that Carr liked his mythological Google-uniqueness scenario so much that he's trotting it out again, suggesting that Google is in a dangerous position because as it drives prices in those complementary businesses down, it's apparently wreaking havoc on all sorts of other companies and business models, even if the end result is better for consumers.
What Carr's missing (and this is common to much of Carr's writing) is that these complementary markets where the price is being driven to zero isn't a bad thing, but the natural efficiency of the marketplace, driving goods with zero or close to zero marginal cost down to their most efficiently priced positions -- where they then help make many other businesses and markets (those the focus on scarce goods, such as selling attention) much more valuable. It's the same thing as Luddites complaining about technology making things more efficient. Yes, automated phone switching equipment made phone operators obsolete, but it also enabled much bigger markets and the net benefit to society was huge. Making a market more efficient, even if it changes the business model of those who lived off of the inefficiency before, is not a bad thing. That's the natural state of the market, and contrary to Carr's assertion, it's not just a few companies that are benefiting from this. Plenty of companies and individuals are understanding this every day, and using this basic concept of using infinite complements to make scarce goods more valuable. Carr does a huge disservice to his readers in suggesting that it's somehow unique to companies like Google and Microsoft. It's not.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: business models, complements, markets, nick carr
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Carr
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
T-Shirts !!!
to make up for your losses
MIkey said so, you stupid punks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: T-Shirts !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: T-Shirts !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Genius!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Genius!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Genius!
Mike's post was polite and full of praise for Carr, I plan to meander on over and see if I want to add Carr's stuff to my feeds.
as for examples, this site has been full of them, Mike shouldn't need to post the full list every time he talks about it. he also linked back to a previous articles that themselves link back to articles and you can find a lot of stuff that supports Mike' claims by actually reading regularly.
Mike assumes that most readers are repeat viewers and provides links to relevant stories, but there is no need to post every single bit of evidence that he has every time he talks because this is not meant to be something that you only read once and instantly have the full support for every claim. if you want to treat Mike's work as a scientific study then you need to look at the whole site, not just an individual article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Other examples
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NeoConBushSupporter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NeoConBushSupporter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]