-
Tim Malbon at the IPA’s Game Changers event
We did tweet about it at the time, but for those who missed it, here is Tim’s talk at the IPA Game Changers event from 2 months ago. Better late than never!
Tim Malbon from Made by Many from The IPA on Vimeo.
-
On Greed and Innovation
Last week, Howard “Smart Mobs” Rheingold came to give a talk here at Made by Many. It was a fascinating look at how smart mobs have functioned when given tools that are largely outside the authorities’ control, and some future gazing on how these phenomena might evolve over the medium term.
I don’t want to talk about smart mobs here, but rather to focus on one, perhaps throwaway, line that Howard used:
“Greed helps innovation. Fear prevents it.”
Aside from the rather unpleasant echo of Gordon Gekko which turned my stomach a little, my first reaction was that this is mistaken. I’ve given it some more thought and I’m even more convinced that greed is not the prime motivating force for innovation.
Let’s get the semantics out of the way first. According to Wikipedia, greed is defined as follows:
Greed in psychology is an excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth
Greed is excessive, selfish and a desire to possess more than one needs. To my ears, these things are all entirely negative. Greed is fundamentally different from the desire to make an honest living and behave as an equal member of society. Although it’s sometimes used lazily to be a synonym for money, this is an inaccurate usage. Let’s assume that Howard used the word in its accepted meaning.
In many ways, I think that greed and fear are fairly close relations rather than the opposites Howard makes them out to be. Greed is, at least to some extent, irrational. It’s a desire to possess more than one needs. What, other than fear, would make someone desire that?
There are countless greedy corporations who lead in their fields. Many of them were once innovative and disruptive small businesses, but outgrew their innovation to become monolithic enterprises. Nearly all of them seem to me to have completely stagnated and to have abandoned the idea of innovating. Their greed is such that they are afraid – just as Howard says – of innovating. They’re afraid that innovation will confuse their existing customers and, worst of all, make them seem frivolous. What other company than Apple could call a major product like Apple TV a “hobby“? (This is one of the main reasons I hope Apple doesn’t get too big. As a high-profile but small market share computer and phone business, they can still afford to be innovative. That will change if they ever really establish themselves as the darling of corporate IT departments.)
Let me provide some counter arguments. Take Martin Pilkington, a recently-graduated independent Mac developer who runs his own software business. He explicitly says that he does not see excessive financial reward as a goal. He does what he does because he loves programming for the Mac and wants to earn a fair living doing so.
The Mac indie scene is full of developers who just love writing code for their favourite platform. I met several aspiring indies at NSConference, a recent Mac Developers’ conference. These are, in the main, people who already have well paid jobs as developers in large companies, but they’re sick of being treated as a “resource”, as though sending a development job to the techies was like sending a dictaphone tape to the typing pool.
These people want to make a difference. They want to write software that people are profoundly happy to be using, that delights them. They want to make people’s lives better by providing them with great software, and they want to be able to do this without starving. The greedy path would be to stay in their comfortable job being ground down by their work and being continually frustrated in their attempts to do something they could be proud of. The innovative path is to find a way to build the software of their dreams, even if it isn’t as rewarding financially.
Loren Brichter is a wonderful example. He’s the developer of the popular Tweetie, a Twitter client for the Mac and iPhone. He used to work at Apple – a sweet job that many people would kill for – but became and indie developer to pursue his dream. Not a dream of infinite wealth, Bill Gates or Steve Jobs style, but to get to do things that his smallish audience would love.
He started out with Scribbles, a very innovative drawing application which, if you have a Mac, you should check out. I don’t know how many copies he sold, but it probably wasn’t that many. Then he released Tweetie for the iPhone. It was an almost instant success and is still, to my mind, the most polished iPhone app available. It’s so good that I like it more than nearly all of the built-in Apple apps. The desktop version is one of the best Mac apps I’ve ever used.
Brichter gave an interesting talk to the students on the Stanford iPhone course (which is available from iTunes U). He wasn’t motivated by greed, indeed he didn’t know if he’d sell any copies at all; after all, there were already several free and good-enough Twitter clients available in the App Store. He just wrote a Twitter client that he was proud of and hoped other people would like.
No, pace Howard Rheingold, I think that it is love that enables innovation. A fanatical kind of love, a love that might be unrequited, but love nevertheless.
Greed can sit alongside love, providing an additional motivation, but that greed, if it is in the ascendant, will prevent you from making the best thing you possibly could because the temptation to cash in will kick in before you’ve made the thing that you originally conceived, the thing that would be perfect. You’ll sell it to some corporation, or release it too early because the desire for the money is greater than the desire to innovate, or maybe you’ll cut corners because it’ll get you to your funding sooner.
Greed only gets you so far. For genuine innovation, you need love.
-
Goodwood Festival of Speed
We’ve recently launched an activity dashboard for Audi at Goodwood festival.
Goodwood Festival of Speed is the world’s biggest and most diverse celebration of the history of motor sport and car culture. Audi UK has had a significant presence at the event for 14 successive years. The 2009 festival took place on the 3 – 5 July.
Last month Audi asked us to design a dashboard that would bring this and previous years photos, videos and tweets taken from behind the scenes by Audi and their loyal fans at the Goodwood festival.
It was a very quick project to embrace, and I was assigned to design it!
The brief was to create a premium product using Audi brand guidelines in a way that feels approachable rather than corporate.
To fulfill the challenge I did the following:
- With obsessive attention to detail, I designed features like soft gradients, delicate textures, hover states on buttons, images and tabs, gentle strokes that help make the design look premium and expensive
- Made it look simple – use of white space, a clean layout and light typeface makes the page look legible, improves readability and creates a feeling of sophistication and elegance, all which help enhance the performance
- Kept it user friendly – soft edges, rounded corners and smooth gradients makes the site more approachable and encourage the users to upload their content
Here’s the design. Have a look!

-
What IS the future of free?
Yesterday I went to the RSA to watch Wired editor-in-chief and author of the Long Tail, Chris Anderson, speak about the issue visited in his latest book, ‘Free: The Future of a Radical Price’. He started off by covering the history of free through the ages: from Jello who used to give away free recipe books to drive demand in the early 1900s (a pioneering marketing tactic at the time), to Microsoft BizSpark’s model in the current decade where start-ups that are less than 3 years old and have a revenue of less than $100 million can access it free, but others have to pay.
He also presented Alan Murray (executive editor of the Wall Street Journal)’s 5 tips on charging for content, something that we often discuss at Made By Many, and that will be useful to everyone who has thought of the micro-payment system. Murray’s tips are:
1. The best model is a mix of paid and free content.
2. You can’t charge for exclusives that will just be repeated elsewhere: A timely example was the news of Michael Jackson’s death as reported by TMZ – if they had restricted access to that content, everyone else who reported it on their (free to access) blogs or sites would have got all the traffic and traffic-supported ad revenue.
3. Don’t charge for the most popular content on your site.
4. Content behind a pay wall should appeal to niches.
5. The narrower the niche, perhaps the better.
You can read Murray’s thoughts in detail here.
In Anderson’s words, the best model is not paid vs. free but ad-driven free vs. ‘freemium‘.
The newspaper industry had to be touched upon, of course. In fact, Malcolm Gladwell has focussed on this aspect of the book in his review of it in the New Yorker. Anderson mentioned during the talk that he responded to Gladwell on his blog, and said that he felt that as far as journalism was concerned, the world has changed from traditional journalists being the authors of most forms of (paid) news in the past, to anyone becoming in author in today’s times and publishing their content for free, thanks to the web. So his solution is ‘to scale the economics of media down to the hyperlocal level’ – get people who are have alternate day jobs to contribute in return for non-monetary gains. Specifically, he was speaking with regard to his experience with GeekDad, a community that he runs. Now this is unlikely to be the salvation of the newspaper industry but ad-driven free vs. freemium is the model that remained with me as most likely to succeed. Co-incidentally, in response to a question from the audience following the talk, Anderson said that he did not think that micro-payments as a system would necessarily work because it was a question of the psychological vs. the monetary downsides of paying for a news article (’what the hell, I have to pay, can I be bothered’) - so personally though I wouldn’t mind paying £1 for a good piece (and with a proper audience that can multiply to very profitable heights – YouTube was an example someone from the audience quoted – 75 billion videos x (hypothetically) even 2p would be a decent sum of money), it’s a question of whether psychologically you think the benefit is worth the money, and that’s not always easy to gauge.
A few thought-provoking ideas I left with:
1. Joseph Bertrand (1883) said that in a competitive market, price falls to the marginal cost. Is free anti-competitive, because it sets the default price to zero?
2. Anderson’s book is also being released as an audio-book in 3 hour and 6 hour formats. They are going to charge for the 3 hour format but not the 6, because in his words, ‘time is money’. So at what point does a piece of content become valuable enough to pay for so you don’t waste your (probably more important) time?
Here’s the presentation: it’s the same one he gave at the Wired business conference in New York 2 weeks ago.

