Techdirt Reading List: The Inevitable: Understanding The 12 Technological Forces That Will Shape Our Future

from the the-future-is-coming-fast dept

We're back again with another in our weekly reading list posts of books we think our community will find interesting and thought provoking. Once again, buying the book via the Amazon links in this story also helps support Techdirt.

Kevin Kelly, whose bio always notes that he "helped launch Wired Magazine," is one of those people who always makes you think. I enjoy his writing and insights into technology more than just about anyone else. So it's exciting to see his new book out, entitled The Inevitable: Understanding the 12 Technological Forces That Will Shape Our Future. This isn't a book about making specific predictions about this or that technology, but rather an attempt to look at specific larger trends that Kelly believes are "inevitable." From there, you can start to think about what it would mean for technology, life, work and much, much more.

For anyone interested in the things we talk about here: the intersection of technology, economics, business and policy, I'd put this one on the must read list. Sometimes when you're deep in the weeds of various technologies, it's difficult to separate out specific implementations (successful or not) from the larger overall trends. But, in the long run, it's the trends that are most important. You may not agree with all of Kelly's thoughts on what trends are inevitable, but they will (inevitably!) force you to think about where we're going. As always, Kelly is very, very optimistic about these things, which is something I generally agree with, but even if you're pessimistic about the future, I still think this is a worthwhile book (in fact, I can't wait until one of the prominent "tech skeptics" tries to dismantle each of the inevitable trends in this book, as I'm sure that will be a fun read as well).

Filed Under: innovation, kevin kelly, reading list, techdirt reading list, trends

Do Tools Ever Die Off?

from the species-extinction dept

Robert Krulwich, who has done some interviews with Kevin Kelly recently, highlighted a recent discussion in which Kelly makes quite a claim:

"I say there is no species of technology that have ever gone globally extinct on this planet."

Further in the debate, Kelly expanded and even bet Krulwich that he couldn't find any tool, no matter how far back in the past it was from, that wasn't still being made today (and made new) somewhere in the world. Krulwich brings up a few suggestions, each of which gets shot down, including "paleolithic hammers." Turns out they're still being made (mostly by hobbyists). He then went through a bunch of pages of an 1895 Montgomery Ward catalog... and found that every one is still being made. So Krulwich asked people to chime in with suggestions, and they've come up with a few, such as radium suppositories, a Roman corvus (a ship boarding tool) and the ferrite core of a Seeburg Jukebox. Kelly's job is to try to find if all of these are still being made.

Of course, some of this depends on how you view the initial premise. The initial claim from Kelly was that no species of technology has ever gone extinct -- and in that case, you should be able to include more updated technologies that are better/safer/more efficient. But, in the interview, Kelly does seem to take it a step further in claiming that no tool itself was no longer being made new. So, I'm curious if anyone can actually find "new" versions of the things listed above.

Filed Under: extinction, kevin kelly, technology, tools

That Mythical 'Information Wants To Be Free' Crowd

from the help-us-out-here dept

Jay Rosen is doing a brilliant job highlighting the rather silly trend among folks who think they're "debunking" the economics of free to build up complete strawmen often identified as "the information wants to be free crowd." However, as Rosen notes, none of those critics ever links to anyone in particular or defines who they're arguing against or what it is they actually said. There's a good reason for that, of course. Usually those folks are arguing against a myth. They don't want to argue against the actual economics or what folks who understand where free fits into the wider economic landscape are actually saying. They want to throw up a punching bag (usually something along the lines of "everything must be free!") which they can knock down without anyone punching back. But that's not because they're right, but because they're arguing against a myth. No one claims everything (even information) must be free. Most (and in this group I include folks like Kevin Kelly, Chris Anderson, Stewart Brand and others) are simply pointing to the basic economic forces on information. If you don't understand what those forces are, then you will be overwhelmed by them. But simply claiming that any one in that group is saying that everything must be free is flat out wrong.

Filed Under: chris anderson, economics, free, kevin kelly, stewart brand, strawmen

Musician Making A Living With Forty Committed True Fans

from the imagine-what-he-can-do-with-1,000 dept

A year and a half ago, we wrote about Kevin Kelly's theory that to be a success as a content creator, you just need 1,000 "true fans." These were the ultra-committed fans. The fans who would follow you to the end of the world and purchase whatever you came out with. And -- more importantly -- they'll help bring more fans into the fold. The point isn't that these are your only fans, but the most committed. At the time, I wasn't sure if the 1,000 number was really accurate, but certainly agreed with the idea of more closely connecting with your biggest fans. My guess was that 1,000 wasn't really enough. But, perhaps I was off in the wrong direction? Ariel Hyatt has been blogging about the concept of 1,000 True Fans and has an interview with musician Matthew Ebel, an up-and-coming musician who makes a living from his music, and breaks down the details -- including pointing out that he makes 26.3% of his net income from just 40 hard-core fans.

Music Sales:

• CD Sales - 4.1%
• Digital Music Sales - 13.9%
• Subscription Site - 36.9%
• Live Shows - 18.1%
• Cover Gig Fees/Cover - 9.8%
• Original Gig Fees/Cover - 6.2%
• Tips (Including UStream) - 2.1%
• Works For Hire & Voiceovers - 8.2%
• Affiliate Sales (typically for my own albums/tracks) - 1.1%
• Licensing - 13.2%
• Independent Film - 6.6%
• Internet - 6.6%
• Web Design - 4.6% (I include this because I'm doing a website for a friend... it's something I choose to do, but it is part of my income this year.)

Now, first thing I'll point out is that I'm still not sure the numbers fully add up. Matthew doesn't give a total amount earned, but in a comment says:

Suffice it to say that I'm renting a house in Wellesley, MA with a couple of room mates... I'm not starving, I can still eat sushi from time to time, and my car (neither a Pinto nor a Bentley) is paid off.

So, he's making a living wage, but not raking it in, which is to be expected (and is certainly a hell of a lot better than many musicians). Now, of course, the other number that stands out above is the "subscription site" with the single largest percentage of his revenue. That would be his MatthewEbel.net site, where he offers a $5/month subscription offering. It actually looks quite a lot like the music business model I suggested back in 2003, so it's nice to see someone making it work directly. Basically, it's people paying for access to Matthew (he even admits that in the description, saying it's like a permanent "backstage pass"). While subscribers will get regular access to new music as soon as he creates it, the selling point is special invitations and access to the artist.

And, of course, Ebel seems to certainly recognize the CwF (connect with fans) part that has to go along with this RtB (reason to buy). In the interview, he discusses the importance of really connecting with those fans. First, he notes that one of the nice side effects of his "subscription" offering is that he promises fans two new songs and one live concert recording every month, and that keeps him top of mind:

Little did I realize that new releases every two weeks would be better than any good album reviews or press coverage. Giving my fans something new to talk about every two weeks meant exactly that: they talk about me every two weeks. They're not buying an album, raving about it, and losing interest after a few months, they're constantly spreading my name to their Twitter followers, coworkers, pets, etc. Regular delivery of quality material is damn near my one-step panacea for the whole industry.

And, of course, he uses social media to connect as much as possible:

Good music is barely enough to get fans to hand out 99¢ anymore; they have to be emotionally invested in the artist if that artist wants their loyalty. Don't get me wrong, there can still be a "fourth wall" during a live concert or video, but real, meaningful connection with the fans is what keeps me in their heads after the show's over (heck, even your "character" can interact with fans in-character). I chat with my fans via Twitter, Facebook, matthewebel.com and matthewebel.net, and as many other channels as possible. The more I interact with them between performances, the more I stay fresh in their minds and the more inspiration I draw from them.

Yet another musicians showing how CwF+RtB works. Now, I'm sure some will complain that this isn't a "real" success because he's not selling out stadiums or something (of course, those are the same people who would say that those selling out stadiums don't count because they can afford to do crazy experiments). But given how many musicians we're hearing about these days making exactly these types of things work to the point where they can make a living doing it, you have to begin to realize that something's working.

Filed Under: connecting with fans, cwf, kevin kelly, matthew ebel, rtb, subscriptions, true fans

On The Inevitability Of Exponential Progress In Technology

from the it's-how-growth-works dept

Kevin Kelly has written up yet another must read discussion -- this one looking into the inevitability of Moore's Law. In it, he looks not just at Moore's Law, but how a variety of different technologies have all found similar "laws" where they get better/smaller/cheaper/faster at an exponential rate, at a pace that sticks so closely to an observed curve as to seem predetermined by fate. DNA sequencing, magnetic storage, semiconductors, bandwidth, pixel density all seem to follow this same thing, and Kelly notes that each case is separate. While some may influence others, it's not a case where one is dependent on another.

He notes that this certainly doesn't apply to all technologies -- but it does seem to be limited to technologies that scale down at microscopic sizes, rather than technologies that scale up (i.e., improvements to airplane or automobile technology aren't seeing any such rate of change). His argument is that this is due to energy requirements. Scaling up requires more energy, which greatly limits growth. But scaling down does not.

But where this gets most interesting is that, the more Kelly explores the issue, the more convinced he is (and he makes a compelling case) that this sort of technological progress is pretty much inevitable. It can be slowed down by bad policy, but it can't be stopped. And, what's most compelling to me is that this sort of progress isn't dependent on anything like patents. It's happening no matter what. The advancement of technology happens for a variety of reasons, little of which has to do with "protecting" the ideas. In fact, within that "protection" there's little benefit.

Everyone recognizes these curves and where they're headed, and how following along the path of that curve creates so many off-shoot benefits (what some might call externalities), that the idea of hoarding a concept or an idea is actually counterproductive. The benefits to staying on the curve in some way or another are so great that people implicitly recognize that helping others (even competitors) keep everyone on the curve isn't a bad thing -- but in many cases a very good thing. That's because everyone is better off, and the opportunities increase across the board as you stay on such a curve. And, in fact, this is where all that research on noncompetes comes in. While it's rarely official company policy (they all still talk up patents and trade secrets and such), it's quite common when there are issues in getting to that next level, engineers start sharing ideas or more importantly jump ship from company to company, so the ideas get spread that way. Advancement continues, and the world is better off -- not because of patents, but because of a more free flow of information.

Kelly doesn't get into that aspect of the discussion -- focusing just on the inevitability of the growth rate -- but it's a key point. Notice that none of what he's discussing really involves some major breakthrough discovery or some brilliant invention. There are lots of breakthroughs and lots of brilliant people involved, of course, but they're all progressing in the direction where they need to go. One may get there first, but that's hardly the breakthrough. Lots of others are all progressing along those same lines. The progress isn't driven by patents, but by the technology itself and the massive opportunity its advancement creates. In many ways this relates back to our discussion of how, throughout history, nearly every major scientific "breakthrough" has occurred to multiple independent people at almost the exact same time. It's the natural progress of applying ideas to problems, and following where the technology allows you to go.

As such, there's an argument to be made that patents get in the way of this sort of progress. Since much of the progress is, in fact, a progression, rather than a "breakthrough," and it's done by a variety of different people (or teams of people), everyone is actually better off not in limiting that progress by holding back an idea or requiring a tollbooth to be a part of the process, but in lowering the barriers to it, and letting that true pace of advancement quicken.

Filed Under: economics, inevitability, kevin kelly, moore's law

Focus On Attention First, And The Money Will Follow

from the indeed dept

Kevin Kelly's latest post tackles a pretty common subject around here, about how the most important thing in a business model is getting attention, and from there, the money will follow. It's a response to those who insist that everything needs to be paid for up front. The problem is that that doesn't work when no one understands why they should give you any money. In some ways, it's just another way of saying the phrase that obscurity is a much bigger threat than piracy. As with most of Kelly's writings, it's a worthwhile read. I'm hopeful that he'll take this further and start to note how attention is very much a part of the economic equation as well, because attention is a very important scarce good.

Filed Under: attention, business models, kevin kelly

Does The Math On 1,000 True Fans Add Up?

from the john-scalzi-doesn't-think-so dept

Last week, when I wrote about Kevin Kelly's concept of content creators building up 1,000 True Fans, I was pretty careful to focus mainly on the concept of "True Fans" rather than the 1,000 number. Author John Scalzi (who we were also just talking about for his results in giving away ebooks) has taken Kelly to task, suggesting that when you do the math, the numbers don't add up. It's a good read, though I don't think it actually takes anything away from the entire concept of focusing on your "True Fans." Also, perhaps I misread Kelly's piece, but I don't think he meant to say that building up 1,000 True Fans is easy (the main point that Scalzi rebuts). Kelly also puts in plenty of caveats at the end of his piece, noting that you have to adjust the concept depending on the situation, and it certainly doesn't apply to everyone. In the end, I think both pieces make sense - and perhaps Kelly was a bit over eager in setting the number at 1,000. However, the key point that Kelly makes stands: if you connect with fans in a real and meaningful way, it may take time, but you can start to put together business models that will allow you to support yourself, without having to go the traditional route where only the top of the top can actually make a living. That's still quite different than how the world was just a short while ago.

Filed Under: 1000 true fans, john scalzi, kevin kelly

The Path To Success As A Content Creator: Building Up Your True Fans

from the they'll-pay-for-value dept

Here's a story that follows nicely on our recent post about Trent Reznor quickly selling out his $300 "Ultra-Deluxe" limited edition offering on his new album. As we noted, just because Nine Inch Nails is a recognized act, it doesn't mean that smaller acts can't learn from it as well. Helping to underscore that point is yet another thought piece from Kevin Kelly, talking about the concept of 1000 True Fans. The idea is pretty straight forward: if you want to become a successful content creator, what you really need is 1000 True Fans. In Kelly's estimation, that's the cutoff point where a content creator can make a living. His definition of a True Fan is:

Someone who will purchase anything and everything you produce. They will drive 200 miles to see you sing. They will buy the super deluxe re-issued hi-res box set of your stuff even though they have the low-res version. They have a Google Alert set for your name. They bookmark the eBay page where your out-of-print editions show up. They come to your openings. They have you sign their copies. They buy the t-shirt, and the mug, and the hat. They can't wait till you issue your next work. They are true fans.

That appears to be exactly what Reznor has (though, clearly he has a lot more than 1000 at this point). But Kelly then discusses just what you need to do to build up 1000 True Fans. You need to connect with them directly. That means communicating with them. Having a blog, a social network profile, a Twitter account -- whatever. And then using all of them to really connect with the fans. Give out your early content so more and more people have access to it and are more likely to become True Fans. As Kelly points out, for each of the True Fans will be surrounded by Lesser Fans -- some of whom may purchase goods from you, some of whom may not. Some may become True Fans over time and others may not -- but the more True Fans you have, the more True Fans you're likely to gain over time. There's a network effect here. You build up those True Fans and then you give them reasonable reasons to spend money to support you. It's not about gouging them, but offering them something (scarce) of value that they're perfectly willing to pay for.

It's an excellent framework for any content creator getting started. Certainly, you may not be able to build up enough True Fans if the content isn't good enough (or unique enough, in some cases), but you're certainly unlikely to be able to build up those True Fans from scratch by keeping your content locked up and hoping that someone important "discovers" you and makes you a star.

Filed Under: business models, kevin kelly, music, true fans

Kevin Kelly's Eight Key Scarcities

from the business-models-for-the-next-century dept

One of the coolest things in writing out my own economic theories on new business models has been seeing some other, much smarter, folks coming up with similar thoughts at the same time. Chris Anderson, editor-in-chief of Wired Magazine and the author of "The Long Tail" is working on a book about "free." He'll be showing how it's not such a crazy idea to price things at free -- and it's actually been done for ages. It should go well with the books on the number zero that inspired some of my thinking. Chris and I have had a few talks about these theories, and I can think of no one better suited to chronicle the history of "free" as it fits into the economic realm. On top of that, it appears that former Wired editor-in-chief Kevin Kelly is now working on another book that touches on the space, and he revealed some of the thinking behind it last week, noting:

"When copies are super abundant, they become worthless. When copies are super abundant, stuff which can't be copied becomes scarce and valuable. When copies are free, you need to sell things which can not be copied."

Hopefully that sounds familiar, just much more eloquently stated than I could put it. While I noted that, even beyond tangible goods, there are always scarcities associated with digital goods, Kelly has put together a fantastic list of eight categories of scarce goods associated with digital goods, noting that each one is "better than free." It's a list worth memorizing, because combinations of those eight things represent the key to a bunch of new business models: Immediacy, Personalization, Interpretation, Authenticity, Accessibility, Embodiment, Patronage and Findability.

It's fantastic to see these ideas getting more and more serious study -- and it also highlights how ideas and concepts spread. All three of us (and quite a few others as well) all came to these ideas through a combination of factors -- mostly independently, I'd imagine. Some interacting with each other. Some through interacting with others. I know that much of my thinking was driven by certain professors I worked with and other books that I read -- combining the different ideas I learned about into this understanding.

If you truly believed in the importance of artificial scarcity, we would all be hoarding our ideas or keeping them secret. Yet that would limit all of us. Seeing Chris and Kevin independently writing and speaking eloquently on these topics helps me both better understand the concepts myself, while also giving me an opportunity to build on their works, to incorporate their thoughts into my own writings, and to hopefully take those thoughts (combined with my own) into new and different areas as well. I can't see how anyone could consider the idea of building on someone else's thoughts "stealing." It appears to be a lot more like "learning" to me. It's the same thing that I see happening here every day as well. While there continue to be people who challenge us in the comments (often helping me to better understand my own arguments as well), I'm also constantly amazed at others who take my own arguments in the comments and make them better. We're all building on the work done by each other, making all of us better off in the long run. It's really quite an eye-opening experience.

Filed Under: chris anderson, economics, free, kevin kelly, scarcity