Slashdot Mirror
The Implications Of Software Commodity?
comforteagle writes "David Stutz has written elegant piece over at OSDir.com titled 'Some Implications of Software Commoditization'. It explores the concept of commodification in a historical context while also seeking to discover lessons that might be applied to contemporary open source business efforts. David gets extra points in my books for including sugar, Shakespeare, open source, MP3s, and the British Empire in one article."
From David Stutz's website (http://www.synthesist.net/writing/commodity_softw are.html)
I often used the phrase "the commodification of software" to represent what I believe is the critical force behind the rise of open source software. Broadly used software is now defined primarily by its capacity for networked data exchange of standardized commodity datatypes such as a web page, an MP3 file, a UNIX executable, or a Word document, rather than its application model and user interface. This short note explores the concept of commodification in a historical context while also seeking to discover lessons that might be applied to contemporary open source business efforts.
Commodity
The word commodity is used today to represent fodder for industrial processes: things or substances that are found to be valuable as basic building blocks for many different purposes. Because of their very general value, they are typically used in large quantities and in many different ways. Commodities are always sourced by more than one producer, and consumers may substitute one producer's product for another's with impunity. Because commodities are fungible in this way, they are defined by uniform quality standards to which they must conform. These quality standards help to avoid adulteration, and also facilitate quick and easy valuation, which in turn fosters productivity gains.
Karl Marx considers commodities important enough to begin his book Capital with a discussion of them. The first chapter concludes with a discussion of what he terms "the fetishism of commodities," from which the following quote is taken:
A commodity appears, at first sight, a very trivial thing, and easily understood. Its analysis shows that it is, in reality, a very queer thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties. So far as it is a value in use, there is nothing mysterious about it whether we consider it from the point of view that by its properties it is capable of satisfying human wants, or from the point that those properties are the product of human labor. It is as clear as noon-day, that man, by his industry, changes the forms of the materials furnished by nature, in such a way as to make them useful to him.
Marx asserts that commodity markets are more about power, politics, and even religion, than they are about their actual underlying resources. Commodities exist to facilitate exchange (and, since this is Marx, to subjugate the laborer). They are a way to build up an abstract world in the image of commerce, rather than reflect a more natural order for the world. Commodities are a reflection of the politics of human values: the contracts by which commodities are defined, and the standards that form the foundation for such contracts, are more important than the inherent quality of the commoditized thing. This is a very important lesson to learn, and one which the open source community should heed when marshaling its limited resources.
Commodity, the bias of the world
Shakespeare, of course, always has something to say.
Here is a soliloquy that concludes Act II of King John on the topic of Commodity. It is delivered in the play by the bastard son of Richard Coeur de Lyon, who has just convinced England and France, at war with each other, to suddenly strike an opportunistic political bargain and ally themselves against the city of Angiers:
Mad world! mad kings! mad composition!
John, to stop Arthur's title in the whole,
Hath willingly departed with a part,
And France, whose armour conscience buckled on,
Whom zeal and charity brought to the field
As God's own soldier, rounded in the ear
With that same purpose-changer, that sly devil,
That broker, that still breaks the pate of faith,
That daily break-vow, he that wins of all,
Of kings, of beggars, old men, young men, maids,
Who, having no external thing to lose
But the word 'maid,' cheats the poor maid of that,
That smooth-faced gentleman, tickling Commodity,
Commodity, the bias of the world,
The world, who of itself is peised well,
Made to run even upon even ground,
T
here, which OSDir likely copied from.
VIVA1023.com | Political Fashion.
- Commodities are things that can be exchanged for one another. They are able to be sourced by and consumed by multiple entities.
- UNIX programs are commodities in a way due to the standardization of the core POSIX APIs.
- Document formats, such as the Microsoft
.DOC format, are going to change to allow documents to be used more as commodities.
- This is both good and inevitable.
It really didn't say a whole lot else. I mean, it was an interesting introduction, but I found myself looking for a page 2 on which the point would be made. Hrmph.You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Individual goods can be vastly demand-elastic compared with the composite market for that good, and NOT be a commodity.
The point that denotes a commodity is not the overall elasticity of the market. That's my point.
In a desire to be balanced- The reality of how the term is used connotes lack of differentiation and the general ability to buy the thing in bulk. However, once again, I am probably making an error by acknowledging depth that only obfuscates that point.
To be clear: really elastic demand for a given good relative to the aggregate for all of 'those' goods, doesn't a commodity make.Additional notes:
-a commodity can also be other forms of stuff than component pieces or raw materials; an example that comes to mind would be tools/machines.
-FWIW/FYI Elasticity is the %[change in quantity demanded] for a %[change in price]. So when something elastic gets 1% more expensive, the quantity sold decreases by >1%.
50 million* third world programmers say you're wrong.
The economics of art are exactly the opposite of what we are dealing with. Fine art is based on unique objects (at best, limited editions). Outside of the fine art world, you're again dealing with mass produced products.
The exception is performance art. Are you suggesting that one can make a living as a programming performance artist?
*I just pulled this figure out of my ass.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
When we in the open source / free community develop and adopt a simple "good enough" user interface standard the same will happen in graphic programs.
I suggest that "eye candy" interfaces push mass desktop users away from our OS of choice. Push them back to MS word, excel, etc. A very simple and uniform user experience is needed.
in addition, I suggest: a interface standard will lead to more programming work, since a wider array of programs would be understandable to "average joe" users.
Therefor, I suggest that every desktop have two modes, the "hyper vanilla", and the personalized. At the click of, say, alt F1, the mode would toggle.
this would dramaticly ease tech support assistance and tutorial creation.
cheers