Christopher Golda

In this month’s Wired, Chris Anderson discusses “Free”:

There is, presumably, a limited supply of reputation and attention in the world at any point in time. These are the new scarcities — and the world of free exists mostly to acquire these valuable assets for the sake of a business model to be identified later.

Suffice to say, the best investors lack interest in business models. Radical and disruptive business models are created through experimentation, iteration; they can’t be designed or planned. Ironically, giving a product away for free should be part of your business model. Free maximizes the potential for value creation (by increasing market size, etc) and free, abundant goods/resources make existing scarce resources more valuable. Alex Iskold at ReadWriteWeb thinks that’s too complex:

The downside of freeconomics is a monopolistic market, with barriers to entry, and little incentive to innovate. In addition the middle-man and transactional complexities are the other side effects of this new economic trend.

Free doesn’t create monopolies — it just helps kill incrementalism. That gives you more incentive to innovate. As usual, Umair says it best:

Liberating value creation from the strictures of price is the story of nearly every radical innovator in the last 5 years. It’s the story of Google - how far would Google have got, if at it’s birth, it worried about free vs not free, and charged us all pennies for search? Clearly, not very far.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.