Slashdot Mirror
The End of Free
The Atlantic has up an insightful piece from its print edition called Closing the Digital Frontier. Michael Hirschorn takes readers through a jaundiced version of the familiar story of the rise and dominance of the "Information wants to be free" meme, then claims that the era of freedom is now over. "...the phrase Information wants to be free... became perhaps the most powerful meme of the past quarter century; so powerful, in fact, that multibillion-dollar corporations destroyed their own businesses at its altar. ... But now, it seems, things are changing all over again. The shift of the digital frontier from the Web, where the browser ruled supreme, to the smart phone, where the app and the pricing plan now hold sway, signals a radical shift from openness to a degree of closed-ness that would have been remarkable even before 1995. ... It’s far from a given that this shift will generate the kinds of revenue media companies are used to: for under-30s whelped on free content, the prospect of paying hundreds or thousands of dollars yearly for print, audio, and video (on expensive new devices that require paying AT&T $30 a month) is not going to be an easy sell. Yet lack of uptake by young people will hardly stop the rush to apps. There’s too much potential upside."
Eh? I thought the entire drive behind the iphone and the appstore is young people... without them apple wouldnt be making money hand over fist, and not everyone and their grandma would be building apps to 'get rich quick'TM
If young people didnt care about apps, no one would make them, since there wouldnt be any benefit to doing so at all.
You must have just skimmed the paragraph preceding your quote. The author says
They are operating on the largely correct assumption that people will be more likely to pay for consumer-friendly apps via the iPad, and a multitude of competing devices due out this year, than they are to subscribe to the same old kludgy Web site they have been using freely for years.
The author is making the distinct assumption that anyone under 30 years of age enjoyed or enjoys free content and therefore sees no reason to use Netflix or pay for an iPhone app. I don't know what the actual numbers are and I wish the author had included a lot more citations but the assumption is that young people pay less for applications in the mobile environment. I think that's a safe assumption just based on how much income they usually have compared to people over 30. The other assumption is that once young people enjoy free media via filesharing, they are unwilling to pay for that content via Netflix, Amazon or iTunes. I don't think that's universally true although there may be a small percentage that hold that mentality -- whether it be through an idealism or just lack of money to spend.
My work here is dung.
> why would I want to install a dozen different applications (IMDB, Wikipedia etc.) when I can Google it and get the results on one page.
Because websites suck, and you're better of accessing the data on the sites via a tool hand crafted for the screen size/ui of the device you're viewing it on.
Because websites don't have mobile versions of their sites .. oh wait.
The original statement, back in 1984, was "On the one hand information wants to be expensive, ... On the other hand, information wants to be free," The "information wants to be expensive" part is important to understanding what "information wants to be free" really means.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
The 5th Annual World eBook Fair is currently underway from July 04 - August 04 with over 3,500,000 PDF eBooks available for, ahem, FREE.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
No, you're the one who is clueless -- about what that famous phrase actually means.
Caveat Utilitor
the rhythm of change is beating faster and faster as time goes on.
Alvin Toffler wrote about this in 1970 in his book Future Shock. Technology is advancing at a faster and faster rate, and his prediction is that at some point technology will be changing faster than many people can adapt. This will have an effect similar to culture shock where the technology around these people has changed so much that they are not able to function normally in society.
To be fair though, nearly everyone who uses the phrase "Information wants to be free" uses it out of context.
Except that it will be more like what really happened during the US western expansion. The sheep faced interlocutors will end up with Hummers in the Xburbs and you, the native, hoping to run free in the glorious sunset, will be herded off to a reservation. Just outside of Cleveland.
.... "
"Oh, my white brothers
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Information wants to be free generally refers to libre, not gratis. The basic definition is that it's prohibitively difficult to keep things secret as technology progresses.
I'd like to add that TFA reads like Michael, the writer, also confuses the meaning of free software.
“Free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer.”; Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.
[ref]
I fear many people who are locked into proprietary OS's misinterprets this ideology, not being exposed to the other side. If this is the case in TFA, then the whole premise for TFA is a fallacy.
ubuntu, arguably the most advanced desktop linux, won't play DVDs out of the box. the process for making it play DVDs wouldn't be discoverable / doable by the "normal" user.
I don't know about Windows 7, but XP 'won't play DVDs out of the box' either. The difference is that Ubuntu can easily be configured to do so and only doesn't come with DVD playback enable by default because of US laws.
no itunes. and so on.
things like that stop people dead in their tracks.
Given that iTunes is probably the worst media player in the known universe, I consider that a benefit.
Hey, sonny, I remember when there were just 3 tv channels and most of the content was of little or no interest to me. Recently I subscribed to assloads of tv channels and found there were less hours of interesting content than when there were 3 channels. I soon unsubscribed. $100 per month for TV? Pffft!
TV is dying. Paid TV is dying. It is suicide.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.