One of the things that we always hear about new business models from critics is that they can't possibly "replace" some of the old business models. Often the talk is about how they're only good for "small" things, and how they simply can't scale. Of course, this seems to underestimate the nature of early experiments and how things grow over time. For example, Kickstarter has certainly become quite an amazing tool for helping to fund projects in the past couple of years. However, when discussing Kickstarter in the past, I've heard people complain that while it may be great for "small" projects of a few thousand dollars, it couldn't ever fund something "real," like more traditional sources could.

And yet... we've discussed how last year, Kickstarter users funded nearly $100 million in projects, and this year it's predicted to go much higher. And, already, we saw Kickstarter pass its first few million dollar projects. Then, late last week, the folks behind the Pebble e-paper watch announced that they were using Kickstarter to do pre-sales of their new iPhone and Android versions (previously they'd only offered a Blackberry version). The watch itself is certainly pretty cool. A smartwatch which is totally customizable, has a variety of apps, and basically acts as an interface with your phone (and it looks good). And lots and lots of people agreed. Within just 28 hours they had already passed $1 million. $2 million ticked off soon after. It's now approaching $4.5-million, making it the highest revenue Kickstarter project ever—and it's the fastest to get to those kinds of numbers.

No, we're still not talking about the huge budgets around Hollywood blockbuster movies -- but we're already going well past what the most expensive albums cost to record. But, more importantly, it's not difficult to see the trend lines here. And, Kickstarter has only been around for about three years. Go back to the beginning of Hollywood. How long did it take the traditional methods to get around to funding $3 million movies?

As Kickstarter (and similar platforms) become more and more popular, it's certainly not outside the realm of possibility to see a major motion picture funded via such a platform. This isn't to say (as I know someone will accuse) that this is the only way that such things will be funded. But it does highlight, yet again, that if there's demand, there will be ways to fund these things. If you don't think the future is full of amazing opportunities, you're simply not paying attention.

Our own Glyn Moody has been doing some digging and has come up with some interesting info about how Microsoft has been trying to derail an effort in the UK by the government to use open, royalty free standards wherever possible. Microsoft, apparently went on the offensive, arguing strongly that the government should reconsider and also include FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) licenses. FRAND is better than nothing, but it's not royalty free, and can certainly limit access to information for those who cannot afford to pay. But what's impressive is how much Microsoft tries to demonize royalty free offerings -- even as it admits in its initial letter than it contributes to "dozens" of royalty free standards.

Moody also notes that Microsoft is misleading in trying to show just how popular FRAND is in open standards when it comes to software:

In a further attempt to downplay RF standards, the letter claims:

one recent study found that a typical laptop contains over 250 technical interoperability standards - with 75% of these being developed under FRAND terms, and only 23% under Royalty Free terms.

But when we look at the study itself, this is what we find:

we created a set of broad categories - display, graphics, sound, storage, BIOS, input device, processor, power, file system, networking, wireless, I/O ports, memory, software, codecs, content protection, security and “other” - and sought relevant standards.

As this makes clear, those "250 technical interoperability standards" were mostly about hardware interoperability. Of the purely software standards a far greater proportion were in fact made available under RF terms. Even more interesting, those RF-licensed standards included many of the absolutely core ones like HTML5, HTTP and HTTPS.

In other words, when it comes to software, the royalty free stuff is the core software that's used to power much of the internet itself. But Microsoft goes on to suggest that royalty free software is somehow limiting, mainly by highlighting some confusion people have had with the open document format. It's the typical Microsoft play: spread FUD to try to push people to its (more costly) solutions. Apparently competing on the merits is just too difficult.