Andrew Keen: Put Some Money Behind Your Predictions?

from the who-actually-listens-to-this-guy dept

Andrew Keen, of course, is a guy who has written a laughably bad book about how only experts like himself should be able write things, because all those "amateurs" get stuff wrong. There are some who believe that Keen's entire personality is satire, because everything he accuses "amateurs" of doing, he does himself. He gets many facts wrong in his book. His writing is amateurish at best. His interpretations are laughable. He relies on incredibly weak reasoning -- all of which are things he insists that amteurs do, but pros such as himself don't do, because they have editors and such. The most amusing, of course, may be his condemnation of Larry Lessig, whose position he gets almost 100% factually incorrect.

So far, I have yet to read anything by Keen that isn't easily torn apart as laughably false, which reinforces the idea that everything he writes is satire. His latest piece, pointed out by Slashdot, is no exception. In it, Keen announces that the current financial crisis will put an end to open source and "free" business models because the crisis will mean that people actually have to make money.

Spot the rather obvious logical fallacy? The one even your sixth grader could point out? Right. Keen has set up a totally bogus strawman, that "open source" and "free" mean you don't make any money. As anyone who actually looks at the details knows, that's simply not true. Keen is so blinded by the word "free" he misses the fact that when people discuss the use of "free" as a part of a business model, they're talking about using it to make money. Instead, he seems to assume that "free" is the end of the discussion.

"One of the very few positive consequences of the current financial miasma will be a sharp cultural shift in our attitude toward the economic value of our labor. Mass unemployment and a deep economic recession comprise the most effective antidote to the utopian ideals of open-source radicals."

Funny, but part of the reason why all of those "user generated content" businesses took off in the first place was that after the dot com bubble burst, people had a lot of spare time on their hands. So they were more willing to contribute and take part in these things. Keen also seems to not realize that much of that user generated work and open source efforts are not about "utopian ideals" but very practical reasons that involve non-monetary benefits. People contribute to open source software not because they're idealistic, but because it helps them elsewhere. People blog and post videos on YouTube not because they're idealistic, but because they get value out of doing so.

The altruistic ideal of giving away one's labor for free appeared credible in the fat summer of the Web 2.0 boom when social-media startups hung from trees, Facebook was valued at $15 billion, and VCs queued up to fund revenue-less "businesses" like Twitter. But as we contemplate the world post-bailout, when economic reality once again bites, only Silicon Valley's wealthiest technologists can even consider the luxury of donating their labor to the latest fashionable, online, open-source project.

You know, I remember another business that had absolutely no business model right after the last bubble burst, even though venture capitalists had dumped $25 million into it at a very high valuation (which many -- including myself -- thought was ridiculous). That company became Google. According to Keen, that couldn't have happened, because who would ever invest in a company with no business model? Does Keen have no sense of history?

"I'm pretty sure, if not certain, that the idea of free labor will suddenly become profoundly unpalatable to someone faced with their house being repossessed or their kids going hungry. Being paid to work is intuitive to the human condition; it represents our most elemental sense of justice."

Again, that's not what happened during the last downturn, but why let facts get in the way? Also, this is still based on the false premise that there's no actual benefit for people and that they're only doing things for "utopian" ideals. That's simply untrue. If contributing to an open source project helps get you a well-paying job, is that utopian? If building an open source tool helps you jump start a different business, is that utopian? If blogging, Twittering or posting videos to YouTube helps you communicate cheaper, faster and better than other tools, is that utopian? Hardly. But Keen seems unable to consider these possibilities.

"So how will today's brutal economic climate change the Web 2.0 "free" economy? It will result in the rise of online media businesses that reward their contributors with cash.

Well, I certainly hope so, since we hand out plenty of cash to contributors at The Insight Community, but I still think Keen is wrong here. He again is dismissing or purposely ignoring the non-monetary value that people get. Let's look at his "winners" list:

"It will mean the success of Knol over Wikipedia, Mahalo over Google, TheAtlantic.com over the HuffingtonPost.com, iTunes over MySpace, Hulu over YouTube Inc. , Playboy.com over Voyeurweb.com, TechCrunch over the blogosphere, CNN's professional journalism over CNN's iReporter citizen-journalism.

Well, first off, some of those aren't actually competitors, so it seems rather unfair to suggest that's the case. However, I'd like to make a bet. While there are different estimates as to how long any recession might be, the general consensus is that we should hopefully start pulling out by the end of 2009 or early 2010. So, let's pick a few of these that we can measure, and I'll bet Andrew Keen $100 (really money, Andrew) that in two years, on October 22, 2010, Wikipedia still gets more traffic than Knol, that Google is still much, much, much bigger than Mahalo (if they're even considered competitors any more), and that YouTube gets more traffic than Hulu.

If any one of those is untrue, I'll write him a check. As for the other comparisons he makes, they don't seem to be particularly reasonable comparisons, so I don't see how to fairly evaluate how one wins over the other. TechCrunch is a part of the blogosphere, so how does that make sense? In fact, TechCrunch came out of the same "utopian" ideals that Keen dismisses. Michael Arrington started it for fun, with no plans to turn it into a business, but that's what it became. I thought Keen thought that wasn't possible? iReporter doesn't compete with CNN's professional news staff -- they work together. iTunes doesn't compete with MySpace -- they're in totally different businesses.

So, let's put some real money on this, Andrew. Or does Andrew Keen not really believe what he writes?

Filed Under: amateurs, andrew keen, business models, financial crisis, free, open source

Open Source Isn't A Business Model... Just Like Free Isn't A Business Model

from the but-both-are-important-parts-of-a-business-model dept

Marshall Kirkpatrick had an interesting post at ReadWriteWeb last week declaring that "pure open source is no longer a viable business model." The post (and the title) are based on some research from The451 Group (which does very good research, I should mention). While the actual report costs quite a bit of money, the firm did put up a blog post discussing the research, and it's not as inflammatory as the title might have made it out to be.

The simple fact is that "open source" has never been a business model -- in the same way that free, by itself, has never been a business model. They both can be a very important part of a business model, but anyone who thought that "open source" was a business model probably also believed that "give it away and pray" was a business model. The research report simply highlights that point, effectively pointing out that, while some companies may have incorrectly thought it was a business model, "open source" by itself has never been a business model. Those that bet on "open source as a business model" rather than figuring out how open source works in a business model all realized they needed to change strategies down the road.

Unfortunately, the problem is that many will simply read the bottom line of these reports, rather than the details, and think they mean that open source is a failure as a part of a business model. And that would be a huge mistake. Ignoring the opportunities that are opened up for other business models by open source is just as silly as ignoring how "free" can be a part of almost any business model today. Brushing them aside as not worth pursuing is a strategy that will almost certainly come back to haunt those who underestimate the importance of both concepts.

Filed Under: business models, economics, open source, software

California Interested In Open Source E-Voting Solutions

from the good-for-them dept

With so many problems with various e-voting systems, many have wondered why various state governments don't simply require any e-voting system to be open sourced. It makes a tremendous amount of sense. Any trustworthy voting process needs to require transparency in how the votes are recorded and counted. Letting a hidden algorithm do the counting makes no sense. Open source e-voting code would be open to scrutiny, and would almost certainly lead to fewer problems and greater security. Yet, for some reason, election officials have always bought into the e-voting vendors' false claims that open source code is somehow dangerous to an election.

It looks like that may be changing. California's Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, who has been a major critic of e-voting vendors, is now saying that open sourcing e-voting systems could help fix many of the flaws found in today's systems. It wouldn't solve all the problems, but it would be a huge step forward.

Filed Under: california, debra bowen, e-voting, open source

Google's Browser Is A Warning Shot At Windows, Not At Internet Explorer

from the browser-wars-get-a-new-entrant dept

About four years ago there were all sorts of rumors that Google was getting ready to enter the browser wars with its own offering, most likely built on Mozilla's code. However, after years of nothing (and an increasingly close relationship between Mozilla and Google), many had thought that idea was dead. Apparently not. After some leaks of a comic book (a comic book?!?) detailing the new Google browser found their way to the web, Google quickly admitted that it is, indeed, getting into the browser business, releasing a brand new open source browser, called Google Chrome.

Rather than being built on Mozilla, as many expected, it's been built on top of WebKit, which is also the core of Apple's Safari browser -- but which Google was also using for its own mobile browser. In the end, this isn't all that surprising. While many will interpret it as Google trying to take on Microsoft in the browser market, in reality, this is probably a lot more about Google trying to help everyone move beyond the operating system market. As we first suggested four years ago when rumors of a Google browser first came around, Google knows that the way to beat Microsoft is to become the operating system for the internet, and you do that by relegating the actual OS obsolete. And, these days, the path to doing that is through the browser.

So, yes, this is a shot at Microsoft -- but not at Internet Exporer. It's a shot at Windows.

That doesn't mean Google Chrome will be successful, but a quick look at the features itself show that the features it highlights (being able to run apps separately, better memory management, etc.) are the sorts of things that allow people to make browser-based apps much more useful, rather than feeling the need to rely on client-side applications. People have predicted for years that we're getting closer to a world where all computing can be done over the network, and it looks like Google is trying to push that process right along.

Filed Under: browser, chrome, open source, operating systems, webkit
Companies: google, microsoft

The First Step Is For Microsoft To Admit It Has A Problem

from the hi,-my-name-is-Microsoft-and... dept

Ars Technica brings word of a pair of interesting efforts underway over at the Mozilla Project -- both aimed at improving Internet Explorer, whether Microsoft likes it or not.

You may have heard of the first one already: ScreamingMonkey has gotten some press. It aims to make the core of Firefox's next-generation Javascript engine (originally developed by Adobe) available in IE, providing advantages in speed and standards-compliance.

The other project is a bit more recent, and a bit more far-out: it's an IE plugin created by Mozilla developer Vladimir Vukićević that implements the HTML5 <canvas> element -- something that IE's never gotten around to supporting. Canvas allows Javascript to draw 2D graphics on the client-side. You may have stumbled across it in the form of one or another nifty in-browser FPS demo. It's a potentially powerful tool, but, as Ars notes, one that hasn't achieved widespread adoption by web developers due to IE's lack of support for it.

Both of these projects are impressive pieces of technology. But unfortunately both attempts to improve IE are unlikely to succeed in the ways that their authors would like -- and it's easy to see why. It's safe to say that IE users tend to be among the web's least technically sophisticated. These are exactly the people who can least reasonably be expected to install modular improvements to their browser's underlying technology. It's hard to imagine anyone finding it easier to do this than to simply download and begin using Firefox -- a task that's already clearly too complicated for many people. And that's to say nothing of the difficulty of getting the word out in the first place.

The right solution is the same as it's always been: for Microsoft to fix its abysmally noncompliant browser. They wouldn't even have to do it themselves! As Tom Raftery suggested some time ago, Microsoft could simply open-source IE. Superficially, this seems like a good fix: it's not as if IE is a profit center for Microsoft, and Apple has already shown the viability of the approach with its open source WebKit HTML rendering engine. A bold step like that could go a long way to bolstering what has thus far been a fairly anemic stab at open source on Redmond's part.

But of course it will never happen. As some of Raftery's commenters pointed out, IE probably couldn't be open sourced without revealing critical -- and valuable -- Windows code. More to the point, Microsoft wants a broken browser. Not supporting <canvas> means that no one will rely on it, which in turn means less competition for Microsoft's rich client library Silverlight -- created to solve the problem of missing <canvas>-like functionality (among other things). More broadly, a world of webapps that are perpetually forced to accommodate IE's underachieving status means less time spent by users in the cloud, and consequently a bit more relevance for MS. Put simply, IE's awfulness isn't a bug, it's a feature.

This is hardly an original observation, but that doesn't make it any less true. And that means that the answer to IE's persistence is the same as it's always been: for Safari, Opera, Firefox et al to consistently provide a better browsing experience and thereby compel Microsoft to fix its mistakes -- as it at least began to do with IE7. Unfortunately, that's something that they're going to have to do for themselves.

Filed Under: internet explorer, mozilla, open source, standards
Companies: microsoft

If You're Looking To Learn Basic Economics, Here's A Free Textbook

from the cool dept

Against Monopoly points us to an LA Times story about an economics professor from Caltech, R. Preston McAfee, who has written what he calls an "open source" economics textbook. You can download the textbook for free, and can even modify it (he offers up both a pdf version and a "source code" Word doc). It's not quite "open source" in that you're not allowed to do anything commercial with it, but it's certainly a lot cheaper than a standard econ textbook. We get plenty of questions here about where one should start learning about economics knowledge -- and while a textbook without a teacher isn't always the best place, if you did want to dig into a text, this is obviously a good place to start.

I haven't gone through the whole thing, but a quick spot check on various topics suggests that (at least in that random sample) the text is clear, well-written and does a good job explaining those concepts. And while it doesn't get into anything beyond your basic intro econ, the guy does seem to recognize the basic economics of information. As he notes in the LA Times article:

"What makes us rich as a society is what we know and what we can do. Anything that stands in the way of the dissemination of knowledge is a real problem."

And, in the opening itself certainly suggests he understands the whole scarce/infinite goods dichotomy:

Economics studies the allocation of scarce resources among people – examining what goods and services wind up in the hands of which people. Why scarce resources? Absent scarcity, there is no significant allocation issue.

Indeed. And, it's nice to see scarcity becoming absent from a good econ text as well, so "allocate" away.

Filed Under: economics, free, open source, preston mcafee, text book

Yes, Marketing Matters To Innovation Too

from the and-it's-a-part-of-innovation dept

There seems to be something of a knee-jerk dislike for "marketing," as if it's something to be shunned and has little to do with anything useful in the marketplace. While it's true that there's plenty of bad marketing out there, good marketing actually serves a really important function -- helping companies determine what the market actually demands, and then delivering products to fill that need (note that, contrary to popular opinion, marketing shouldn't be about convincing people to buy what they don't need). This comes up quite often when we discuss things like patents -- where we point out where one company was successful in bringing a product to market, whereas another failed (and then resorts to patent lawsuits). Some people brush off such successes as "just marketing," as if it's meaningless.

That's simply incorrect.

Marketing is an important part of the innovation process, in understanding what a market wants and making sure it gets it. If one company has better "marketing," that means it's doing a better job getting products out that the market wants. We should be celebrating that, rather than brushing it off as "mere marketing." This is highlighted by a recent blog post by Matt Asay, where he points to the status of two hyped up open source projects that both have failed (by a wide margin) to live up to the hype: Linspire and Chandler. Linspire was the Linux version that was supposed to take on Windows (it was originally called Lindows, but a lawsuit took care of that). However, it's now closed down. Chandler, which has been seven years in the making, was supposed to take on Microsoft Exchange, but after Mitch Kapor finally dropped the project, seems to have emerged as a greatly scaled back notepad/task mgmt system. It took them seven years to build that?

Asay points out the basic fact that "mere marketing" is more important than you might think, and brushing it off is often what leads to these kinds of failures:

Perhaps the lesson in both Linspire and Chandler is just how hard it is to build a strong consumer-facing business. For those who pooh-pooh Microsoft's success as "mere marketing" I have a suggestion: You need to get into this "mere marketing" business. It has a way of driving adoption. It matters.

Engineers like to think they know best, but the market makes the final decision on that -- and it often helps to have good marketing paired with those good engineers to make things work on both ends.

Filed Under: innovation, marketing, open source

Blizzard Seeks Injunction Against Open Sourcing Bot Software It Can't Defend Against

from the that-raises-just-a-few-questions... dept

We were more than a bit worried last month, when a judge ruled that some bot software of the game World of Warcraft somehow infringed on Blizzard's copyright. It involved a lot of really tortured logic to figure out how such software actually violates Blizzard's copyright. It certainly is true that such software may be annoying to other World of Warcraft players, but that doesn't mean it actually violates copyright. We're already seeing some of the potential unintended consequences of such a decision, as Slashdot alerts us that beyond just seeking an injunction against the software, Blizzard is specifically seeking an injunction against him revealing the code of his software, such as by open sourcing it. If the court agrees, this effectively gives Blizzard control over someone else's source code, just because a judge found it infringed on their copyright. That seems highly problematic and dangerous.

Filed Under: bots, copyright, injunction, open source, world of warcraft
Companies: blizzard

Nokia's Open Sourcing Of Symbian Shows How Closed Markets Become Open

from the fear-not dept

Originally I wasn't going to write about Nokia's decision to purchase the rest of Symbian and then open source the code, but a few people have written in to ask about our take, and the more I think about it, the more interesting it becomes. There's certainly been a palpable fear lately among some that things like the locked-down iPhone represent a dangerous "future" to be avoided.

But that doesn't seem to have much historical support. New markets often are driven initially by locked down and proprietary solutions, but openness tends to prevail in the long run. The reason many markets start out with closed and proprietary solutions is that you need a comprehensive enough solution to address the market, and it's often difficult to do that in an ad hoc manner. A proprietary solution gives control to one person or a small group of people who can easily drive the project to where it needs to be to drive adoption. However, in the long run, more open solutions then win out, because competitors realize that the real game is being a platform, which is more important than being the comprehensive supplier. And the way to become a platform is to sign up as many developers as possible, and free them to make your platform much more valuable. That's much easier to do in an open or open source environment.

This is why we're seeing this particular decision to open up Symbian, and also explains Google's open approach with its Android offering. It also explains why Apple's iPhone, which was totally closed at the beginning, has been slowly opening up to try to combat the rise of more open competitors.

Finally, this move by Nokia is a recognition of the economics of infinite goods. Just as IBM helped massively boost its services business by betting big on Linux, Nokia recognizes that freeing up Symbian helps turn it into a services company as well. Freeing up that infinite good (the software) helps generate more demand for the scarce "services" provided by the company. There may be some stumbles along the way, but on the whole this is exactly the type of bet the company needs to be making. And, at the same time, it shows that there's little to fear concerning a future world of "closed" systems a la the iPhone. Every such closed system is merely an opportunity and an invitation for competitors to become more open.

Filed Under: mobile, open, open markets, open source, operating systems, symbian
Companies: nokia, symbian

Nokia Exec To Developers: Embrace DRM & Digital Locks Because I Say So

from the very-convincing dept

In recent years, we've seen the entertainment industry suddenly embrace mobile as a platform, incorrectly believing that its more locked-down nature would mean that it wouldn't face the same "threats" (which they should see as opportunities) of file sharing and open networks and services. However, as is always the way, more open systems are catching on and getting more usage, and more closed systems are having trouble getting traction. Rather than embracing that, however, it appears Nokia is pushing to hold back the tide.

Ben S writes in to highlight a rather unconvincing talk given by a Nokia VP trying to explain to open source developers why they need to embrace DRM, intellectual property, digital locks and subsidies in the mobile world. However, his reasoning basically amounts to "because I say so."

"Why do we need closed vehicles? We do. Some of these things harm the industry but they're here [as things stand]."

In other words, there's no actual reason to use these things, other than that Nokia says you must -- even though it knows such things harm the industry. Way to show leadership in the mobile industry. No wonder it seems like most innovation in the mobile space is coming from folks other than Nokia.

Filed Under: digital locks, drm, intellectual property, mobile, open source
Companies: nokia