The Fear Of Freeloaders Overblown In Both Proprietary And Open Arenas

from the stop-worrying dept

I remember reading a while ago how if you look at the extremists in diametrically opposed political parties, they tend to have a lot more similarities rather than differences. It seems that may be happening in the proprietary and open source worlds as well. We've discussed how silly it is for companies and individuals trying to understand "free" business models to worry about freeloaders. The fact is, yes, some people will get stuff for free and not contribute anything back. In fact, it may be a lot of people. But if the end result is that you are actually making more money overall from those who aren't freeloaders, who really cares? In some cases all those "freeloaders" are actually giving back in other ways, such as by amplifying and promoting your message for you, and bringing in new potential customers that wouldn't have known about you otherwise.

For the most part, I assumed this was an issue for those with "proprietary" content/software. But, suddenly it's an issue that's getting attention in the "open source" world, with supporters of open source complaining about "freeloaders" who use open source software, but don't contribute back. This is silly. As Joel West points out, the whole point of open source software is that it can be used for any purpose. So, just as proprietary content creators shouldn't worry about freeloaders and focus on those who actually do contribute, the same is true for open source developers. Sure, some will freeload, but don't worry about them. Let them do what they want, and focus on providing more value for those who do contribute. In the end, the overall benefit will be much greater.

36 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Merck And Elsevier Exposed For Creating Fake Peer Review Journal

from the wow dept

I know I've mentioned for a while that I've been spending a lot of time looking into the healthcare industry -- particularly pharmaceutical companies, but haven't written that much about them yet because I haven't had the time to put everything together. However, the one thing that seems pretty consistent is how incredibly untrustworthy some of these companies are. The claims that it costs $800 million to make a pill are totally unsubstantiated. The idea that patents are necessary to create drugs is also entirely unsubstantiated. The more you look at it, the more you realize that patents have actually allowed the pharma industry to slow down many potential life-saving innovations in favor of a drug-based solution that isn't always the best. That isn't to say that there aren't some valuable pharmaceuticals, but the industry has a long history of deception and convincing the public and politicians that they need a lot more protection and money than they really do -- and that their drugs are more effective than they really are.

Even so, I was still somewhat stunned to read (via Clay Shirky) that Merck supposedly created a fake peer-reviewed journal to publish data that made its drugs look good. It also got Elsevier to publish the journal to make it look legit (Elsevier being one of the bigger publishers of -- of course -- proprietary medical journals). Two companies with a history of locking up information and data teaming up to mislead doctors and the public? What a shock...

Of course, this is exactly the sort of thing that you can do when everything is locked up and proprietary, rather than open. There's almost no way to confirm or check the data or information to make sure it's legit, so people tend to assume it is. In that regard, perhaps it's no surprise that the two companies eventually went down this road, but it does highlight one of the problems with the way the system works today. As Shirky later points out this is hardly unique for a firm like Elsevier, which has faced some serious ethical questions regarding its publications in the past as well.

270 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is Google's Proprietary Tech Stack Destroying Its Acquisitions?

from the not-invented-at-Google-syndrome dept

While Google has bought plenty of small startups, almost none of those deals have amounted to very much. It almost seems like most of the startups disappear into Google forever. There are a few exceptions such as YouTube and (maybe) Writely. But the list of startups that have simply languished or died is much longer. TechCrunchIT is running an interesting post that suggests one of the key reasons: Google's proprietary tech stack. While Google is a big open source supporter for lower level infrastructure, once you get above that -- it's very much a strong believer in doing everything its own way. I've heard from friends at Google about the difficulty they've had learning to deal with Google's tech stack -- and certainly have heard how it's slowed down the progress of some Google acquisitions while they learn how to "transition."

In fact, some have pointed out that this is one of the side benefits to Google's AppEngine offering. Since it exposes some of Google's tech stack to folks for them to develop and run their applications, it will make it much easier to integrate them into Google at a later date. So, for startups whose strategy is to get acquired by Google (and, I should note, if you start with that strategy, you're probably going to fail), it may make sense to develop on AppEngine just because you're already signaling to Google that the integration costs are significantly lower.

Still, this highlights one of the major downsides to Google's belief that it can do everything much better than everyone else by starting from scratch: in doing so, it actually makes it much harder to capitalize on synergies from many acquisition targets. Yes, there are reasons to go against the "standard" way of doing things, but there are significant costs as well.

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Hollywood Shoots Itself In The Foot Yet Again With Netflix Set-Top Box

from the customers-are-the-enemy dept

When I started reading CNet's write-up of Roku's new Netflix set-top box, I was beginning to think that the movie industry might finally be getting its act together. The price ($99) seemed reasonable, and the subscription rate (as little as $8.99/month) seemed about right. After years of missteps, I thought, maybe they were finally starting to figure out this Internet thing. Then I read this sentence: "Thanks to Hollywood's byzantine licensing system, less than 10 percent of Netflix's 100,000-plus library of titles is available for streaming to the Player." Even worse, only two of Netflix's 100 most popular movies are available for streaming. It's almost as if Hollywood doesn't want its customers' business.

Apparently, three other manufacturers, including LG, are working on competing set-top boxes. They should be careful not to put all of their eggs in the Netflix basket, given that Netflix may or may not succeed in getting the studios to release more of their titles. And as we've said before, the last thing the video streaming market needs is yet another pointless standards battle. What's needed is an open platform that supports free and paid downloads from a variety of different sources. Some of the Netflix boxes will reportedly include DVD or Blu-Ray drives, which is a smart move. Device makers should also be exploring more open content-delivery options, either in conjunction with existing video sites like YouTube, or developing a new, open platform where anyone can share their videos. In the long run, a lot of video business models will likely involve giving away free content, and a company that provides the set-top boxes for delivering that free content is likely to make a bunch of money. That market will grow especially fast if Hollywood continues its campaign to make its content as difficult to purchase as possible.

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..