Criminal Behavior?
In 1976, the Homebrew Computer Club was the nexus of software development in the Seattle area.
Homebrew was the home of software enthusiasts Bill Gates and Steve Wozniak, among others.
The theme of Homebrew was ‘give help to others’ and members freely exchanged the software they had developed.
This free exchange of ideas came to an abrupt end when member Bill Gates began to charge for this software.
This was in marked contrast to the spirit and the history of Homebrew. Until then, software had been free.
In a famous open letter, published February 3, 1976, Gates argued that software should be intellectual property and should be paid for. To many early software developers, this was nothing short of criminal, (though the mug shot above was related to a speeding offense, not a cultural departure).
Everyone knows what happened to Gates and Microsoft after that.
There was value indeed to the software that people were willing to pay for.
Now we come to Youtube, which apparently has cost its owner Google some $500 million so far to pay for the cost of uploads and maintaining the free site.
We also come to newspapers who are putting all their content online and giving it away for free.
It’s all free because until now, this has been the culture of the web. Free.
But perhaps we are reaching the end of the free ride.
As my econ prof at Williams, Randy Bartlett taught on the first day of Econ 101, ‘there is no such thing as a free lunch’.
And there isn’t.
It’s all fine to talk about ‘aggregating’ and ‘curating’, but at the end of the day, those who produce original content and those who do the work should and in fact have to be paid.
And the way to pay them is to have people pay for the content on line.
And paying for content or services isn’t such a terrible thing. It allows us to start to sort our the perceived quality of sites and content. After all, if you aren’t willing to pay even a minimal amount for something, how much is is really worth? I, for one, read the NY Times online every day and would have no problem paying for the content. By the same token, I used Youtube fairly regularly and would have no problem paying for the service (though I might be reluctant to pay to view Youtube videos…).
By charging we monetize the web, but we also graduate from the free content to content of value.
With software, the trick was the intellectual content. Once the lines of code had been written, it was relatively easy to copy them over and over – and so sell mass quantities at relatively low prices – which provided Microsoft with some real income. Real income. Relatively low cost, relatively simple manufacturing processes, and vast numbers of buyers.
Now we can apply this Gatesian formula to content on the web. Relatively simple to produce, relatively easy to copy and an enormous consumer base over which to spread the cost or revenues.
But, as with the Homebrew Revolution, it means a changed way of thinking about the web.
Not everything is free – nor should it be.
8 Comments
A See April 08, 2010
I think your an idiot.
Michael Rosenblum April 08, 2010
that would be you’re…
deXter April 03, 2010
This website isnt worth paying for, so by your logic no one would ever see your website.
Keep the internet free – alot more money can actually be made this way
Alex June 21, 2009
i was especially appalled by the statement: “By charging we monetize the web, but we also graduate from the free content to content of value.”
the word graduate implies that going from a free web to a monetary web would somehow be an improvement. HELLO?!?! doesn’t anybody realize that the beauty of the internet is that it is, first and foremost, FREE. if services like youtube started charging money then what’s stopping anybody else from doing the same. imagine a world where you would have to pay for every single website you looked at. if that’s what you’re into then that’s fine but it seems like a huge pain in the ass to me. best case scenario in this horrible world would be that websites were generous and never charged gratuitous amounts of money. Even so, this would limit the content that people “chose” to look at, thus limiting our potential knowledge.
the other disturbing part of this statement is the idea that free content and content of value are mutually exclusive. however, we clearly have different definitions of “value”. you think something of value is something that makes money and i think something of value is something that benefits society and helps people. but again, these are not mutually exclusive. but if we use your definition of value then american idol would be the most valuable television show in the history of the earth. I think even fans of american idol would be hesitant to call it that.
although this article, along with my response are completely irrelevant because the last time i checked when websites needed money they sold advertising space…
Matthew June 18, 2009
I learned more about making money work for you, reading between the lines on this article, than any book could teach. If you really want to get to the nitty gritty, you could learn more, from his picture, of how to make money, than almost anywhere else. Just study his face in the midst of his circumstance, that will reveal his true belief system. Inspiration…
Thanks for the article:)
Milan May 16, 2009
Hi…..Bill Gates
I think that he is only person who change all the working criteria….and make evey thing in simal way as potential to evey one….I Love u lot Bill….and i hartl respect to u…:)
Paul April 13, 2009
I love reading this site. The thinking is original and stimulating. But with the greatest of respect, I am not sure I would pay to read this.
$ April 12, 2009
Great post!
Gates is a good example of someone knowing his worth and not afraid to stand up for what he knows has value even while everyone else thinks it should be free.