My good friend Abby Waumbaugh (@abbyannette) pointed out an interesting post by Andrew Swenson (@wordpost) about the iPad and “openness” and future of broadcasting.  Andrew was riffing on themes presented by the great Doc Searls on same.  Andrews foc…

Thanks Guys!

Have you read the book 'Switch' ? It talks about how people perceive things and what makes people change. End result: People need to be told what to do.

Give me one thing to choose and 98% or the time (false number) I will do it. Give me 2 things to choose from and that number gets cut in half.

Like it or not… it is our brain and how people react.

Great post and discussion btw…

I just learned a lot from your comments. Thanks.

Thanks again for starting a great conversation.

-M.

“If openness really want to win, people need to stop whining about what Apple or television networks, or the newspapers should or should not do and start creating open products that are superior to their closed product alternatives. In the end, it's the only thing really moves the needle. “

Enough philosophical whining. It's probably time I start building something.

Thanks for calling that out.

-Andrew

Thanks for the thoughtful response. And no, you neither came off as a crazy nor as demanding that others give everything away. However some of the folks you're quoting sometime do – although I have great appreciation and respect for these folks, I often feel that they argue in the extreme because they feel it necessary to move the needle in the conversation. (FWIW I think similarly of folks like Rush Limbaugh, Jesse Jackson, etc.)

And I agree with you that open models, or at least models that provide some “free” content are increasingly successful on the internet and elsewhere. As an application developer for iPad, I myself am evaluating exactly what pieces of my product I can give away in order to make a living with the non-free ones.

What I find interesting is that when people talk about giving stuff away they always seem to be talking about SOMEONE ELSE giving their stuff away. And the stuff in question always seems to be something that the speaker would find of value, but apparently, is not willing to pay for. (I'm not talking about you here either. I'm talking about the broader “conversation”.)

Another point that I find interesting is that people seem to lose their mind when this conversation is applied to software. Few folks (at least those that agree with some form of capitalism) would suggest that Ford Motor Company give away cars or that Kraft Foods should give away Mac-N-Cheese. These, of course, are physical property so people generally have no problems with this concept. This also true with some types of intelleectual property – no one suggests that they should have the right to re-write and publish Harry Potter or a Stephen King novel without the explicit permission of the respective authors. No one is demanding the Colonel's Secret Recipe so they can mash it up. And no one seems to think they can change the words to Beatles tunes with out the blessing of Sir Paul. (Although they often mistakenly think they have the right to free distribution which is another rant altogether.) But with software, for whatever reason, we seem to think we have (or should have) way more rights (entitlements) that we actually do.

Take the case of Apple iPad, for example. People seem to confuse the physical and intellectual property. Part of the thinking is that since they buy the physical property that they also gain ownership (not license) of the intellectual property. Yet Apple is very clear about the terms of the licensing agreement. If you don't agree to them, don't buy it. But instead, many folks will buy the product and knowing violate the agreement simply because they think the terms are unfair or “not they way they should be”. BUT THIS IS NOT THEIR CALL. The original Linux crowd has it right – if you don't like commercial closed products then create your own open products. This is very different from stealing the intellectual property of others, or violating terms you've agreed to simply because you've rationalized out that they shouldn't have these rights in the first place or that it's somehow better for society if you do.

The reality is that those who jailbreak iPads are acting in opposition to their own espoused believes. By buying an iPad in the first place these folks are contributing to the financial success of Apple. They are tacitly acknowledging that a closed system is capable of producing a closed architecture device that is superior to any of the (dozens of) devices that are coming from manufacturer that are more open. And finally, there is the hypocrisy of acting in the name of “freedom” while knowingly violating the rights of Apple.

As much as I love openness, and I do, the reality is that in many cases closed systems can produce far superior products, in less time, and for a lower cost (cost to the consumer per unit for hardware specifically) than open systems.

Furthermore, no one is forcing us to choose Apple. And for those of us that do choose Apple, we recognize Steve Jobs as a very benevolent dictator. While Apple products are undoubtably closed, Apple is arguably doing more than any other company to further open standards such as HTML5. You want free? All of the development tools for the iPhone and iPad from Apple are free. Lots of folks are quick to critical of Apple without recognizing the things that make them a truly great company. The reality is that while Apple does chose to keep something very closed they do give other stuff away. And because of the balance between the two that Apple has chosen they are on track to surpass the market cap of Microsoft any day now.

But now I'm back to ranting about Apple when you were REALLY talking about publishers. The same arguments apply. The content belongs to the copyright holder and they chose how to license it, not (figurative) you. If you don't like the terms, don't buy it. Or create your own content (it's easier then ever to create, harder than ever to capitalize on.) And seek out independent content creators (local bands for example) and support them (financially, etc.) The harsh reality is that for the masses, people do want Broadcast 2.0 because it's easy. Geeks and tinkerers will always use alternatives when it's necessary to meet their needs or intellectual curiosity but mainstream folks use media to tune out, not to tune in. If openness really want to win, people need to stop whining about what Apple or television networks, or the newspapers should or should not do and start creating open products that are superior to their closed product alternatives. In the end, it's the only thing that only thing that really moves the needle.

-M.

My favorite part about writing this tiny blog is when I get to have serious exchange of ideas, so again, thanks.

Would you consider an interview with me on this topic? If you're interested drop me a line andrew[at]wordpost[dot]org.

If I came off as demanding that we open all content, or that I think we should give everything away, then I've miscommunicated here.

If you don't want to give your works away for free, that's fine. If you want to charge a textbook publisher billion dollars for permission to use a photo you took, that's fine. It's your choice.

But my argument is that A) it makes business sense to give *some* of our IP away and B) it's also better for society when we share our IP freely (the only caveat here, of course, is that we still have to be able to make money in the process).

But the beauty of capitalism is that the market will select what works. Right now it seems to be going pretty well for Apple and the iPad. For society's sake though, I'm hopeful that the market will decide it wants open systems.

But that again will be a choice, not a demand.

But to address your points:

1.) I think the answer that supports an open and free society and allows also allows us to make a living is in a careful blend of open and closed.

I think this post may have made me seem like one of those “give everything away” crazies, but I don't think completely open everything is good either. I think Alex Payne did a great job of describing a few concessions that would make the iPad a better blend of open and closed systems (something better for everyone) here: http://al3x.net/2010/04/05/ipad-openness-modera…

I also think that clever people with screwdrivers and h4x0rs out there that can make most closed things open…

2.) I think that we have to strike a balance between what we give away and what we change for. This is what I meant by opening up our IP—to make money not just *with* our content but *because* of it. This “because effect” IMO is what we're striving for. If we give away carefully selected content we gain a wider audience as people freely share it. This is Doctorow's model—he makes money in print sales because he gives away his content.

3.) You're right, openness alone will save publishers. But with the rise of abundance, we can't leverage Smith's economics in the same way we have for the last 100 years. We have to find a new way to do business in an economy that's no longer based on scarcity (supply/demand). This is what I was reaching toward, and I think openness is a key part of that.

I know I asked for the interview first, but I would really covet a conversation with you about this at least, especially this economics part.

4.) Yes.

Thanks again Matt, and I really hope you'll drop me a line.

Many of the good ideas posted here started with conversations we've had; I should just call you a co-author or something.