tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post4215013357515648075..comments2024-03-29T03:42:44.933-04:00Comments on Half an Hour: Predators and Producers: Whither Flat WorldStephen Downeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06140591903467372209noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-81725587589625483502012-11-06T11:59:21.711-05:002012-11-06T11:59:21.711-05:00On the CC-NC piece, I'm been flailing on this ...On the CC-NC piece, I'm been flailing on this post that you commented on a while back - http://educationaltechnology.ca/couros/1822 - but this brings me back to my initial position. Thanks.Alec Couroshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00242440533258916882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-29765130819772919192012-11-06T00:21:15.197-05:002012-11-06T00:21:15.197-05:00Stephen, I know you mean well, but the assumptions...Stephen, I know you mean well, but the assumptions you make about market realities in the educational publishing space are so far off rail that I hardly know where to begin - so, I won't. <br /><br />Instead, what I suggest you do is actually go talk to a real educational publisher to gain market insight, and then apply that information to your analysis. Your arguments will carry more weight that way.<br /><br />btw, FWK is not going to a paywall because it didn't succeed. Fwk is making a calculated market adaption, to remain sustainable (i.e. profitable - heaven forbid!) Did the New York Times going to a paywall indicate that it didn't succeed? The Chronicle of Higher Education? The Financial Times? <br /><br />How about the university you teach at? Does its insistence on a tuition paywall mean that it has somehow failed in the "free" dissemination of education?<br /><br />Little more than confusion results from all the needless chatter, mumbo-jumbo, and philosophizing about which open license is better; or, whether "free" is better; and so on. It's doesn't matter! What matters is offering high quality products that can be delivered at cheaper cost with more benefits. Is that a bad thing? That's what FWK is trying to do. That's all. Why make "open" a sacred thing? Why try to surround "open" with dogma? The academic community, foundations, and even the Federal Govt has a "true believer" stance re: open licening - requiring a specic kind of open (CC-BY), and eschewing all others. That's just dumb; it confines the world of open; it sets precedents that weaken the prospect of successful innovation in open - and even closed - enterprise.<br /><br />Bottom line: textbooks cost too much; education costs too much; certifications cost too much. There are going to be many efforts started to meet this gap in the market - between overpriced current options and new innovation that deliver the same or more benefit as the old, for a lesser price.<br /><br />All your (and others) theorizing on these non-issues results in little more than a weird demonizing of companies, revenue models, strategic market approaches, etc. that are trying to make a difference, but somehow fail in your eyes because they fail to meet the standards that you have created in that comfortable little theoretical room inside your head. It's really comfortable in there, I know, but please do strive for more accuracy instead of setting up straw men that are convenient to argue against; that's not the real world; it's the world of the ivory tower, where things are mostly thought of in the abstract. <br /><br />Having to make a profit or find something else to do is not a concept that most academics are very up on (including many business school academics). The recent several-year dialogue about open and how open should or should not play out in this-or-that way has been riddled with the basic of misunderstanding and outright error, with academics and foundations mostly responsible for those errors, and thus causing great harm to the search for cheaper, high-quality textbooks. <br /><br />Well funded fiefdoms have arisen as a result, with little to show for $100's of millions of dollars of investment. What a waste; what an injustice to the millions of students who could have already had high-quality, low-priced or free college textbooks - but don't. That's a tragic loss, and an opportunity wasted.<br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com