Micro-Fads, Micro-Markets

A couple weeks ago, Stephen Colbert pointed to a URL that I assumed was fake. Of course, I immediately hit it, and was shocked to find that not only did it exist, it was hawking Cafepress wares directly related to the episode. Weirdness! Even weirder: the domain had only been registered that day.

Coincidence? Although one could be led to believe that this was a set-up by some clever (read: underpaid) Daily Show staffer, I’m actually willing to believe it’s an example of the increase in speed at which individual small-time entrepreneurs are acting to capture transient markets that exist on only very compressed time scales. When you think about it, these entrepreneurs have an extremely narrow window of opportunity – in this particular case, the entrepreneur only had maybe three hours between the broadcast in New York and the re-broadcast on the west coast. That’s three hours to register a domain, configure a web server to host the domain, create a few web pages and a Cafepress store, and generate artwork to host in the store.

Granted, an intrepid hacker in the Daily Show audience may have had most of the requisite resources at their disposal already, and simply registered the domain via their smartphone, thereby buying themselves another half-dozen hours. Still, even considering the relatively simple and amateurish nature of both the web site and its wares, it’s still a pretty neat trick. It takes an action-oriented individual with the means to pull disparate pieces together and get anything done so quickly. When’s the last time you built a web-based business in three to six hours?

Probably never, I’m guessing.

I saw this same stunt repeated in the wake of Bill Gate’s “creative communists” remark recently. Instantly, artists pillaged Cold-War era Soviet propaganda, reworked it into a Creative Commons motif, and released it to the world. Most popular: the Creative Commies T-Shirt – for $5!

While I’m impressed by this phenomenon, I’m not willing to believe that all businesses are necessarily suited to this model of action-reaction. In many ways, this is just the evolution of the same phenomenon that drove people to sell “I survived the Generic Natural Disaster of This Month” t-shirts with some success. However, the omnipresent nature of the web gives us a view into the things people want, and underlines the fact that opportunity is everywhere. The more tools we have, the easier it gets to throw together something that’s relatively successful in a short period of time, bootstrapped, in part, by the temporary focus of public attention on a short-lived phenomenon.

This trend has its advantages and its disadvantages. Although it has the power to help anyone create a product quickly, most of these products are inevitably something that can be created easily. Doesn’t this just focus on the impulse? Can anything truly worthwhile in the long term be created with such haste? I’m still chewing on that question – I’d like to say “no”, but I can think of instance where markets have coalesced quickly, mostly due to intersection of shifts in social attitudes, costs of production, and other reactants for change.

I’m inclined to say that just because it’s fast, doesn’t mean it’s worthless.

Next Gen Open Source?

Like a few other geeks, I’ve lately been reading Paul Graham’s excellent Hackers and Painters. Most insightful, especially in light of the success of Google and Flickr, is Paul’s views on the advantages of “weblications” over traditional desktop software. Recently, I started wondering about how the transition to web-based services would ultimately affect the Open Source movement.

I’m not alone in this line of thinking, of course. I rarely am. There was a discussion recently on the nature of Google’s contribution to Open Source, in light of an accusation by Krzysztof Kowalczyk that Google (and any other large web-based service) was essentially bleeding the Open Source community for cheap code, and giving little back in return. While Adam Bosworth’s response highlighted the value that people got for free from Google every day, I think he did evade the central thrust of Kowalczyk’s argument, namely that an individual company’s incentives prevented it from contributing back to the Open Source community except when absolutely necessary.

It does illustrate the main hole created by ambiguity in the licenses used to protect Open Source or even “Open Culture” works. Because these licenses are ambiguous about the meaning of “derivative” works, it opens a gap through which companies can fit in order to carve out a commercial enterprise (and I’m not saying that’s necessarily a bad thing). For example, a company can build a web-based service on top of Linux without having to contribute back to the project or release their code under the GPL. This is because creating their web-service didn’t require the company to actually create a “derivative work” of the Linux kernel, only to build an application on top of the operating system. A similar hole was highlighted by the flap sparked by the Trademark blog a few weeks ago when Martin Schwimmer expressed concern that Bloglines was violating his site’s Creative Commons license by aggregating the blog’s RSS feed.

The problem lies in the fact that in a world where the boundaries between applications grows ever more fuzzy, the original intent of Open Source licenses, such as the GPL, is undermined. The original intent of the GPL was to ensure that those who benefitted from an Open Source project where equally obligated to make a contribution back into the community to foster continued innovation and improvement. With that feedback loop broken, companies building web-based businesses will continue to do the only smart thing they can do: exploit the hole, and segment their applications such that they are only obligated to contribute back the minimal amount possible to those Open Source projects to which they make modifications.

On the other hand, I’m not sure we necessarily want to close this hole – doing so may only defeat the rapid adoption of Open Source technology, and prolong the profits that companies can wring out of customers when there is no other viable alternative. In the end, it may be more beneficial for the Open Source community to let these companies subvert this hole in the feedback loop, if only to use it as a clever loss leader to ensure continued rapid adoption, create developer loyalty, and, ultimately, garner protection from those companies not using Open Source who wish to use patent infringement lawsuits or other means to eliminate it as a competitive threat.