Comments on: Playing Two Ends Against the Middle

By: Ann Michael

Ann Michael — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:49:33 +0000

In reading more about this, what Anderson seems to be advocating is Freemium, which is the blending of “Free” and “Premium” – give some away to many and add features/content needed to get paid by some (likely a relative few compared to the number that use it for free). It is a blended model and that makes sense. But he spends so much time discussing the Free part of Freemium that it looks like he’s advocating ONLY free.

This is compounded by the trend for those that join the discussion to argue only the extremes.

It also doesn’t help that “media personalities” are the ones fighting it out online – that’s enough to degrade any discussion!

By: David Crotty

David Crotty — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:41:23 +0000

Highwire's John Sack recently sent around this link, to a New York Times article on Anderson where he essentially confirms what you're saying here:

But after beating the drum for giveaways throughout most of his book, Mr. Anderson eventually acknowledges that his idea is in fact not viable. Such are the perils of his sloppily constructed sweeping argument. No, he doesn’t envision an economy based entirely on giveaways. “Free may be the best price, but it can’t be the only one,” he says. He advocates the balancing of differently priced versions for different markets, acknowledging that this tricky balance is not easily achieved.