"All that has to happen is for a free alternative to come along -- similarly undifferentiated, but equal in perceived value -- and the bottom drops out." True, though the very fact of being free can sometimes lower perceived value. Newspapers only bother to charge at all because if they didn't they'd be freesheets, and people can't be bothered reading and don't want to advertise in freesheets (unless the freesheet differentiates itself to counter it's being free, funnily enough).
Well as far as commodification goes a de-facto standard fits the bill for standardisation as much, if not more than, a real standard. Given that though you are right, the free-market apologists and corporations are the real protectionists.
The article makes a strange omission in not talking about computer hardware as a commodity. The commodification of hardware that happened with the emergence of PC clones had a tremendous impact on many software companies, especially Microsoft with DOS and later Windows. The important thing in this case is that we have a combination of the commodificaiton on one product (once IBM no longer had a monopoly you could replace any piece of hardware with hardware from a rival company, hence price and rapid cheap transport became a bigger factor in the business models of these companies, and the PC was a commodity) with the lack of commodification of another (while there was some choice for many application domains, many people were forced, or at least thought they were forced, to go with MS DOS and later with MS Windows as the OS). In this case the commodification reduced the total cost of ownership of a Windows system, enabling Microsoft to charge more for less when it came to their part of the package.
There are factors that prevent software from becoming a commodity. First and foremost is the fact that software is a piece of craftsmanship, rather than a harvested good, which is protected, by copyright and sheer issues of convenience, from being completely copied as a rival commercial product before it becomes obsolete. Another is that, while copyright prevents the distribution of direct rivals (i.e. exactly the same item) by other legitimate businesses, the ease of copying means that free copies will soon be available, either legitimately or illegitimately depending on the license. Commodification itself tends to lower prices, arguably to the point of being "elastic" (completely at the mercy of the forces of supply and demand) but it depends upon one being able to rely on some return for your investment. Free software cannot be a commodity.
Yet another is the direct interference to prevent the commodification of software. Given the article's beginning with Marx it's worth considering Marx's prediction that the cost of labour would be elastic. This was proven false (at least in the context of industrialised countries of the last century) and ironically was partly a self-defeating prophesy; workers - inspired by Marx himself, amongst others - formed trade unions and won various guarantees regarding conditions and pay and as such made the cost of labour inelastic. Similarly there are many people who want to prevent software being a commodity - either because the wish to maintain profitable monopolies, or because they wish to remove the commercial aspect of software use. Like the trade unions it's likely that neither group will be completely successful (especially since they are pulling in opposite directions), but like the trade unions it may well be enough to keep commodification from ever completely happening. For bad or good we don't have much protectionism from governments anymore, but we have a lot from vested interests.
There are cases where commodification does happen to a certain degree. Ironically one of these is the case of games. Too much of the market games are the most individual type of software there is, they will make a point of buying one and not another. However another important section of the market they really will do the equivalent of "buying half a pound of software" - the important market that are relatively uniformed but who buy the games as a gift. This had quite a strong effect on the games market in the 1980s especially with the emergence of budge software houses that would sell items at STG 1.99 or STG 2.99.
There are also cases where commodification doesn't happen where one might expect. The PC clone became a commodity but Apple have managed to improve their lot by de-commodification of the computer. You buy a PC clone because you want a computer, you buy an iMac because you want an iMac. This is a matter of marketing, but it has strong effects (similarly the PC itself has become less of a commodity now that the average buyer has opinions, not matter how well-info
Sugar may have been around for thousands of years (as a harvested resource, millions as a chemical) but its only been a commodity for a few hundred; when the availability of sugar cane, international trading, the slave trade, the fashionability of New World goods (coffee, tobacco, chocolate and cane sugar) the emergence of a large middle class who could afford to buy foods they didn't really need, the military and entrepreneurial adventures of the European Empires, all combined to make sugar a product that had both a high demand and a large number of producers willing to cater to that demand.
Some commodities last for centuries, some for years, but it's not about the product itself, nor about the technology behind creating it once that technology passes a certain treshold whereby it's feasible for new entrepreneurs to enter the market with relative ease. It's all about the demand and the ease with which that demand can be satisfied, which is just as relevant here.
Where the fast rate of change with software does enter the argument is as a counter to the argument that software cannot be a commodity, due to the ease of copying it - the ease of copying it is balanced by the desire for new versions. The question remains though as to whether that balance is weighed evenly enough on each side, and as to whether the individual nature of some software (as a piece of craftsmanship rather than most commodities where you can painlessly replace one example with another) prevents full commodification.
Slashdot Mirror
"All that has to happen is for a free alternative to come along -- similarly undifferentiated, but equal in perceived value -- and the bottom drops out."
True, though the very fact of being free can sometimes lower perceived value.
Newspapers only bother to charge at all because if they didn't they'd be freesheets, and people can't be bothered reading and don't want to advertise in freesheets (unless the freesheet differentiates itself to counter it's being free, funnily enough).
It's not redundant. I'm seriously suggesting you don't go. I'm seriously saying I have personally experienced positive results from this policy.
Well as far as commodification goes a de-facto standard fits the bill for standardisation as much, if not more than, a real standard. Given that though you are right, the free-market apologists and corporations are the real protectionists.
I don't mind trade shows anymore.
I haven't bothered to go anywhere near one in about 5 years.
The article makes a strange omission in not talking about computer hardware as a commodity. The commodification of hardware that happened with the emergence of PC clones had a tremendous impact on many software companies, especially Microsoft with DOS and later Windows. The important thing in this case is that we have a combination of the commodificaiton on one product (once IBM no longer had a monopoly you could replace any piece of hardware with hardware from a rival company, hence price and rapid cheap transport became a bigger factor in the business models of these companies, and the PC was a commodity) with the lack of commodification of another (while there was some choice for many application domains, many people were forced, or at least thought they were forced, to go with MS DOS and later with MS Windows as the OS). In this case the commodification reduced the total cost of ownership of a Windows system, enabling Microsoft to charge more for less when it came to their part of the package.
There are factors that prevent software from becoming a commodity. First and foremost is the fact that software is a piece of craftsmanship, rather than a harvested good, which is protected, by copyright and sheer issues of convenience, from being completely copied as a rival commercial product before it becomes obsolete.
Another is that, while copyright prevents the distribution of direct rivals (i.e. exactly the same item) by other legitimate businesses, the ease of copying means that free copies will soon be available, either legitimately or illegitimately depending on the license. Commodification itself tends to lower prices, arguably to the point of being "elastic" (completely at the mercy of the forces of supply and demand) but it depends upon one being able to rely on some return for your investment. Free software cannot be a commodity.
Yet another is the direct interference to prevent the commodification of software. Given the article's beginning with Marx it's worth considering Marx's prediction that the cost of labour would be elastic. This was proven false (at least in the context of industrialised countries of the last century) and ironically was partly a self-defeating prophesy; workers - inspired by Marx himself, amongst others - formed trade unions and won various guarantees regarding conditions and pay and as such made the cost of labour inelastic. Similarly there are many people who want to prevent software being a commodity - either because the wish to maintain profitable monopolies, or because they wish to remove the commercial aspect of software use. Like the trade unions it's likely that neither group will be completely successful (especially since they are pulling in opposite directions), but like the trade unions it may well be enough to keep commodification from ever completely happening. For bad or good we don't have much protectionism from governments anymore, but we have a lot from vested interests.
There are cases where commodification does happen to a certain degree. Ironically one of these is the case of games. Too much of the market games are the most individual type of software there is, they will make a point of buying one and not another. However another important section of the market they really will do the equivalent of "buying half a pound of software" - the important market that are relatively uniformed but who buy the games as a gift. This had quite a strong effect on the games market in the 1980s especially with the emergence of budge software houses that would sell items at STG 1.99 or STG 2.99.
There are also cases where commodification doesn't happen where one might expect. The PC clone became a commodity but Apple have managed to improve their lot by de-commodification of the computer. You buy a PC clone because you want a computer, you buy an iMac because you want an iMac. This is a matter of marketing, but it has strong effects (similarly the PC itself has become less of a commodity now that the average buyer has opinions, not matter how well-info
Sugar may have been around for thousands of years (as a harvested resource, millions as a chemical) but its only been a commodity for a few hundred; when the availability of sugar cane, international trading, the slave trade, the fashionability of New World goods (coffee, tobacco, chocolate and cane sugar) the emergence of a large middle class who could afford to buy foods they didn't really need, the military and entrepreneurial adventures of the European Empires, all combined to make sugar a product that had both a high demand and a large number of producers willing to cater to that demand.
Some commodities last for centuries, some for years, but it's not about the product itself, nor about the technology behind creating it once that technology passes a certain treshold whereby it's feasible for new entrepreneurs to enter the market with relative ease. It's all about the demand and the ease with which that demand can be satisfied, which is just as relevant here.
Where the fast rate of change with software does enter the argument is as a counter to the argument that software cannot be a commodity, due to the ease of copying it - the ease of copying it is balanced by the desire for new versions. The question remains though as to whether that balance is weighed evenly enough on each side, and as to whether the individual nature of some software (as a piece of craftsmanship rather than most commodities where you can painlessly replace one example with another) prevents full commodification.