What Will People Do For Free?

| Thu Jun. 4, 2009 4:54 PM PDT

Barron YoungSmith remarks on the fact that Craigslist actively avoids making a profit:

As Paul Starr has explained, newspapers only flourished during the past few centuries because they functioned as intermediaries between readers and advertisers — fundamentally, they survived because they were institutions that stood between people.

Now, along comes Craigslist, which sees cutting these sorts of intermediaries out of the equation as a form of public service. It considers that mission so important that it is willing to forego huge potential profits and compete against classified pages everywhere while charging virtually nothing for what it offers. In that kind of environment, it's pretty ludicrous to think that newspapers could survive.

Probably so.  Especially since Craigslist works better than newspaper classified advertising.  I've got some old darkroom equipment that's been sitting in my garage for ages, and if I had to go through the hassle of taking out a newspaper classified ad to sell it, it would still be there.  But last night at about 6 pm I suddenly decided to advertise it on Craigslist.  Two hours later I got a response from a guy in Long Beach.  This morning he came by, took a look at the whole setup, and hauled everything off.  I'm a few dollars richer, he's excited at the prospect of setting up a darkroom, and the whole transaction took less than 24 hours.  Amazing.

(Also amazing: using a darkroom must be like riding a bicycle.  You remember how to do it forever.  It's been 20 years since I used this stuff, but as I was showing him how to operate everything and what all the various parts were for, I realized I hadn't forgotten a thing.  I could have set up the entire kit, mixed up the chemicals, and been back in business in an hour.  I can't really think of anything else from so far in my past that I can say that about.)

Anyway: Ten years ago, I remember ruminating over the open source movement and wondering what its limits were.  What kind of stuff would people do for free, and what kind of stuff wouldn't they?  Since open source software is mostly produced by obsessive nerds, the obvious answer is that they'll work for free on the kind of things that obsessive nerds themselves like to use: operating systems, editors, compilers, etc.  Then, at the other end of the spectrum, you have, say, the firmware for controlling GM's assembly line robots.  Nobody in their right mind would do that for free.

But where's the line?  The interesting answer is: if it's the kind of thing that one person (or a small set of people) can do, then it's wherever one competent person draws it.  I'd guess that very few people feel that classified advertising (!) is so important to a vibrant society that they want to dedicate their lives to making it available for free, but it turned out that it didn't take very many people.  Just one guy named Craig.

So now I think about this stuff a little differently.  Sure, some things are just more fun than others, and thus more likely to attract people to do them for free.  But just as important is: how many people does it take?  Once something gets to the point where it only takes a person or three to do it, then there's a pretty good chance that someone, somewhere will start offering it for free.  Even if it's something that most sane people think is boring as hell, there's almost bound to be at least one person who's obsessed by it.  Like classified advertising.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Kevin Drum is a political blogger for Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here.

Get Mother Jones by Email - Free. Like what you're reading? Get the best of MoJo three times a week.

Comments

try TMRC

---
Then, at the other end of the spectrum, you have, say, the firmware for controlling GM's assembly line robots. Nobody in their right mind would do that for free.
---

Really? Betcha if you drop a GM robot off at MIT (TMRC?) you'd find plenty of folks eager to have a go at it.

For free, maybe not...

... but I'm not sure that it has to be. GM's competitive advantage isn't the firmware in the robots. They'd be better of paying to contribute to an open source community than buying system driven by proprietary code.

And to the previous poster, I would point out that the world needs only so many robots that can refill a beer bong.

But for how long can they continue doing it for free?

Here is the thing I find curious about stuff like Craig's List or Facebook. Craig (of Craig's List) surely must be in this to make a profit at some point. An operation like that or like a social networking site must involve huge overhead. Surely he is making some money or he intends to turn a profit at some point?

Mitch Guthman

Size of the profit

Whether or not Craig or anybody else makes a small profit or does the work/service for free is less important than whether they want to make a killing, a la, oh, say, Bill Gates, or are content just to make a decent living and pay their bills.

It's that distinction that we've almost totally lost, especially on a national level and especially with publicly owned companies.

Live in small-town America (like mine, 1,200 souls) and you'll still find it, and it makes the world work better all the way around. You don't dare soak your neighbors even if you wanted to, and most don't want to. If you try, you'll lose not just your place in the community, but also your business to the guy in the next town.

Craigslist probably doesn't

Craigslist probably doesn't have all that much overhead. There's a ton of users, sure, but very little in the way of graphical content, no tech support, probably not a lot privacy/security issues to chew up resources.

Facebook does have overhead but the guys who started it probably just intended to develop a user base and sell it to the highest bidder, and that's basically what they did. God knows what Microsoft (it is MS that owns Facebook now, yeah) is planning to do with it, though.

One example

I daily use a free and open source product that is made by a team. Rockbox, which is software to run on various MP3 players. It started as a replacement for software on one MP3 player model (an Archos), and has since been adapted to run on many more (various iPods, Sansas iRiver, Toshiba, etc), and to extend the capabilities of these players. They make some devices that seem to be crippled with their original firmware into multifarious players that handle a wide variety of audio formats (MP3, ogg, FLAC etc etc) and, in most cases, allows them to play video. All while giving me the most flexible settings and environments I can imagine in a player.

I actually installed it initially because I was seriously unhappy with the capabilities of a player I bought and it was either find a way around the hindrances of the player or throw it out -- Rockbox has saved that player for me and now I only buy players that are Rockbox capable. The flexibility of the program is astounding.

I'm sure it's not the most advanced open source project done by volunteers, but it's a pretty complex project supporting many models.

They've even been developing a player for purchase that runs Rockbox out of the carton, the Rockbox Player. Of course, the hardware won't be free, but neither is the player I buy separately and apply Rockbox to.

It's the most sophisticated free (as in beer) and free (as in speech) product I use regularly, and it's a testament to the free and open source movement.

To me, programming an MP3 player and all the little things that need to be done to get that to work seems not mych less boring than programming an assembly line robot. But I'm glad these folks started doing it - and do it stll, and so well.

It's the end result that

It's the end result that matters. I play a game and in the last year and a half I learned how to modify the came codes so I could make my own models and textures, adjust the game map and even the game script to change AI behavior and player options. It is not easy and for some not worth but it's fun to accomplish it and make the thing better.

That said I hate Rockbox because it does not help me with my Sony Walkman which is an older model and so requires the execrable sonic stage.

Memories...

OMG, a Beseler 23c! What memories.... sigh....

(I still have way more than 1,000 b&w negatives that I've either never seen or only on a contact sheet. One of these days I'll have to get a scanner that handles negatives and positive slides. The one I got a couple of years ago doesn't work on them as advertised.)

And your conclusion is becoming more correct every day. Might even be exacerbated by a lousy business environment, as more people (including more professionals) have more time on their hands to tinker and might also be more inclined to give things away (or have to give things away) with the hopes of creating something that could be sold down the road.

Whatever happened to...

A couple of years ago I read about a sort of wiki-search engine. Users would search for a term, then those game enough would rate and edit the search results they got so as to make the search more intelligent. It seemed like a natural idea. It wouldn't take an obsessive geek to take a couple of moments and mark what he thinks is the best result for a given term. I was sure this was going to be the Google-killler.

Has anybody heard anything more about this?

Wikia Search closed their doors in March

wikipedia founder writes about it here
http://blog.jimmywales.com/2009/03/31/update-on-wikia/

This kind of approach would only ever have worked for the "short head" (as opposed to the "long tail") of results, as the majority of web search queries are unique over any period of time you'd care to sample.

Satisfaction/gratification

I think the description of people doing these sorts of things because they're "obsessed with it" misses one of the essential elements. Lots of very time consuming and painstaking stuff gets done and made freely available on the internet for the sheer satisfaction on the part of the developer of being appreciated and recognized. Blogs and youtube videos are often motivated by the same urges. As long as people can cover their costs (and often even if they can't), folks will do all sorts of things in hopes of get little more in tangible return than a bunch of people saying "Dude! This is awesome!" Heck, maybe my taking the time to write this comment is an example :)

Prescient! I was just coming in here to say...

GM doesn't need to pay somebody to program their industrial bots. I'll do it for free as long as I can stay after work and make youtube videos of the robots dancing to house music.

Dude, that was awesome.

Dude, that was awesome.

thinking about the broad implications of "open source"

For my money, the best thinker on this stuff is Yochai Benkler of Harvard. His book The Wealth of Networks is a seminal work on the subject, and this piece in Edge gives a good overview of how he's thinking about these things:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/benkler09/benkler09_index.html

As for Wikia and user-powered search engines, ReadWriteWeb has a good overview on the state of several projects like that:
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/social-search-needs-an-algorithm.php

http://www.paidcontent.org/en

http://www.paidcontent.org/entry/419-craigslist-poised-for-81-million-in...

"Craigslist Poised For $81M Revenues In ‘08; Could Top $100M"

Not bad for 25 employees. I would guess their profits are quite high, probably margins in excess of oil company margins.

Not really a new model. The Chicago Reader has had free print classifieds for non-business users long before Craigslist, and they now have free web ads.

I don't understand why a

I don't understand why a certain class of people have such difficulty with this concept of doing things for free. It sounds mean, but all I can think of is they must have broken souls or something.
My experience has been that pretty much anything (computer related) can be made interesting if you really want to get into it, as I did back in my youth.

Think of even something as apparently boring as cell-phone billing software. Well this is a challenge in terms of scaling --- how do we hook together the different pieces involved so as to do the job with a minimum of hardware? Suppose we want to write software related to accounting? The challenge now is to construct the software around some sort of user-understandable data-description language, so that when the law changes, the changes required to the software proper (done by engineers) rather than changes to the DDL (done by accountants) are as minimal as possible.

And so it goes --- do pretty much ANYTHING well gives you flow and enjoyment of life. And doing pretty much anything badly is boring and unpleasant.

'Open Source' doesn't mean 'Free'

There's no reason things like GM robot software can't be open source.

Selling the lines of code is actually quite dumb. They have no value without the people who wrote them... The code cannot adapt to new situations, it cannot deal with new hardware. It's just code, instructions.

The real money is in supporting that code, making sure that it works for the purpose you intend. And that's totally okay with Open Source. IBM learned that lesson nearly fifteen years ago, between their two contracts and operating systems.

You pay people to build what value you need. Then you let them help others build more value you need. So you can only employ one coder - if twenty companies across the country each paid a single coder, you've got enough for a really good piece of software, tweaked to just the needs of those little companies.

By going open source you're not only adding to the community, you're absorbing a large amount of work that was previously done. That is actually far more resistant to hacking than some pay by line service like Microsoft.

What people find 'fun' is variable. There's always someone, somewhere who thinks something is fun.

Who pays for the lights at home?

I love OpenSource but someone has to feed the coders and pay their utility bills. So, as I understand it, when this individual could be doing his/her day job they are moonlighting on the freebie. So the day job is in effect subsidizing the open source. I have no great problem with this except when we say that the open source is "free."

b&w photography

Way off topic, but you're right about never forgetting how to make a b&w print. I haven't thought about it in 30 years until you mentioned it and it all came back to me like it was just yesterday.

What Will People Do For Free?

Newspapers are also for news and investigative reports etc. ? ? ? ?

They helped the powers that be get us into the Invasion of Iraq and have never reported about the death of 1,331,578 (ICH) Iraqi people as a result.

The source for more informed people for news and advertisements etc is of course the Internet.

Newspapers killed themselves and since 9/11 and perhaps before have been a place for misinformation to rally Americans to War.

Please don't feel sorry for them.
.

IBM got bitten by open source real bad

Awhile ago IBM got bitten real bad by some lawsuit regarding the ownership and payment for open source code. After that IBM considered new open source to be as toxic as all those sliced and diced sub-prime mortgage hot potatoes the banks have been trying to pass around. Unless things have changed big time in the last few months IBM won't touch open-source with a ten foot sliderule.

Tripp

ESR's essays

Have you ever read "Homesteading the Noosphere" by Eric S. Raymond? It is one of the most important essays about Open Source development and the culture of why people work on open source projects.

http://catb.org/~esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/index.html

It's the most sophisticated

It's the most sophisticated free (as in beer) and free (as in speech) product I use regularly, and it's a testament to the free and open source movement.
ED Hardy Shoes is your best choose.
ed hardy sale
You will surprise to find the high quality ed hardy swimsuit in much more cheap cost.

Post new comment

Alternately, you may login to or register an account
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <ul> <ol> <li> <blockquote>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback

We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.

Photo Essays

The chaos and humanity of war.
The craftspeople and musicians of Appalachia.
A selection of '70s ads depicting African-Americans.
As climate change melts the permafrost, native villages slip into the sea, taking a way of life with them.