Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The end of the free lunch - again

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 16 posts

Re: The end of the free lunch - again

#2

Post by 9oliYQjP »

What worries me about this trend is that I don't think the free lunch can end without websites/services getting in bed with the ISPs. Having to deal with hundreds of subscriptions to websites/services is just not going to fly with your average consumer. I highly suspect what will happen is that your ISP will negotiate with websites/services and offer up bundled tiered Internet packages like they do with cable TV. Should that prove to be successful, that will mean the end of the world wide web as we know it. Then again, that may not be saying much as the world wide web as I know it today is not the same one that I knew even 5 years ago.

Re: The end of the free lunch - again

#3

Post by yters »

It's a good argument and all, whether it's made by Matt or the economist. But, why does everyone focus on money? Is wealth relevant or not? Surely giving away free stuff creates more wealth, if it is sustainable. The real answer to this dilemma is to somehow redirect the outflow of wealth partially back to the producer without the use of money.

For example, say you created free, online computer games where people spent all day reconfiguring proteins. The game is completely free, thus providing wealth to people, and people pay the service back by using it.

The only reason money is ever mentioned is because it is the simplest, catch all solution. But, like the no free lunch theorem for search, money is your Monte Carlo baseline. For a limited problem domain there is quite likely a better technique than random sampling, and therefore a better wealth redirection technique than money. People just need to be more creative. (And, perhaps the comp sci analogy is more than just an analogy)

Re: The end of the free lunch - again

#4

Post by swombat »

yters wrote: post #3

It's a good argument and all, whether it's made by Matt or the economist. But, why does everyone focus on money? Is wealth relevant or not? Surely giving away free stuff creates more wealth, if it is sustainable. The real answer to this dilemma is to somehow redirect the outflow of wealth partially back to the producer without the use of money. For example, say you created free, online computer games where people spe…

Very interesting idea.

I've just finished reading Accelerando by Charles Stross, and one of the characters there is what he calls an "agalmic entrepreneur". He doesn't actually start businesses himself, just has half a dozen brilliant ideas before breakfast, finds the right person to implement those ideas and gives that person the idea (and the crucially missing connections to make it happen, etc). In that novel, he has no money - lives off of favours that he can call in at any time from the numerous people he's made rich.

Now, that's obviously not very realistic, but perhaps a mix between those two ideas might bear fruits.

Re: The end of the free lunch - again

#5

Post by harshavr »

9oliYQjP wrote: post #2

What worries me about this trend is that I don't think the free lunch can end without websites/services getting in bed with the ISPs. Having to deal with hundreds of subscriptions to websites/services is just not going to fly with your average consumer. I highly suspect what will happen is that your ISP will negotiate with websites/services and offer up bundled tiered Internet packages like they do with cable TV. Sho…

Is it necessary for the agent managing the subscriptions to be the same as the agent providing you internet services? Maybe you can have a webapp which provides an easy interface to both users and website owners. Website owners provide usage info & bills, and users see all charge details in one place. Something like what credit card companies do but also managing any extra details specific to websites.

Re: The end of the free lunch - again

#6

Post by ntyntyesr »

9oliYQjP wrote: post #2

What worries me about this trend is that I don't think the free lunch can end without websites/services getting in bed with the ISPs. Having to deal with hundreds of subscriptions to websites/services is just not going to fly with your average consumer. I highly suspect what will happen is that your ISP will negotiate with websites/services and offer up bundled tiered Internet packages like they do with cable TV. Sho…

Which means you wouldn't be reading this story - The Economist is owned by the FT, which competes with the Times, which is owned by Murdoch. If you internet is from Sky then they aren't going to be shipping a competitors content over their fibres.

AOL your time has finally come!

Re: The end of the free lunch - again

#7

Post by jwilliams »

swombat wrote: post #4
yters wrote: post #3

It's a good argument and all, whether it's made by Matt or the economist. But, why does everyone focus on money? Is wealth relevant or not? Surely giving away free stuff creates more wealth, if it is sustainable. The real answer to this dilemma is to somehow redirect the outflow of wealth partially back to the producer without the use of money. For example, say you created free, online computer games where people spe…

Very interesting idea. I've just finished reading Accelerando by Charles Stross, and one of the characters there is what he calls an "agalmic entrepreneur". He doesn't actually start businesses himself, just has half a dozen brilliant ideas before breakfast, finds the right person to implement those ideas and gives that person the idea (and the crucially missing connections to make it happen, etc). In that novel, he…

There was a good article around called something like "the well that Google built"... (Ironically I can't find it on Google).

But the basic idea is like building a village well. The rich people of the village may band together and build a well - naturally, they don't make money off it, as the general populace would be too poor to pay.

What happens is that the prosperity of the whole village increases. Disease goes down, productivity goes up - so the demand for what the richer inhabitants have to offer (e.g. goods & services) goes up.

The Internet is all about this - Google isn't the only example, but is a prime one. Whilst many of their services do not directly make any money, they make the Internet a more useful, better place... And the more that people turn to the Internet, the better off Google is.

Edit: pg touches on this too, with his comment about a startup tackling an issue like malaria: http://www.paulgraham.com/good.html Curing malaria isn't going to immediately/directly make anyone any money - but it's possible the downstream effects could generate a lot of wealth.

Re: The end of the free lunch - again

#8

Post by briansmith »

yters wrote: post #3

It's a good argument and all, whether it's made by Matt or the economist. But, why does everyone focus on money? Is wealth relevant or not? Surely giving away free stuff creates more wealth, if it is sustainable. The real answer to this dilemma is to somehow redirect the outflow of wealth partially back to the producer without the use of money. For example, say you created free, online computer games where people spe…

Hosting companies, grocery stores, and landlords only accept money as payment. That is the main reason.

Google already does what you are hinting at: they give away free services and then harvest the input from that usage to make their services better. However, at the end of the day, Google has significant expensive that need to be paid in "real" money.

Post reply on HN