Complement (Link Bibliography)

“Complement” links:


  2. ⁠, Joel Spolsky (2002-06-11):

    Every product in the marketplace has substitutes and complements. A substitute is another product you might buy if the first product is too expensive. Chicken is a substitute for beef. If you’re a chicken farmer and the price of beef goes up, the people will want more chicken, and you will sell more. A complement is a product that you usually buy together with another product. Gas and cars are complements. Computer hardware is a classic complement of computer operating systems. And babysitters are a complement of dinner at fine restaurants. In a small town, when the local five star restaurant has a two-for-one Valentine’s day special, the local babysitters double their rates. (Actually, the nine-year-olds get roped into early service.) All else being equal, demand for a product increases when the prices of its complements decrease.

    Let me repeat that because you might have dozed off, and it’s important. Demand for a product increases when the prices of its complements decrease. For example, if flights to Miami become cheaper, demand for hotel rooms in Miami goes up—because more people are flying to Miami and need a room. When computers become cheaper, more people buy them, and they all need operating systems, so demand for operating systems goes up, which means the price of operating systems can go up.

    …Once again: demand for a product increases when the price of its complements decreases. In general, a company’s strategic interest is going to be to get the price of their complements as low as possible. The lowest theoretically sustainable price would be the “commodity price”—the price that arises when you have a bunch of competitors offering indistinguishable goods. So:

    Smart companies try to commoditize their products’ complements.

    If you can do this, demand for your product will increase and you will be able to charge more and make more.







  9. 2002-schonfeld-thisisyourfathersibmonlysmarter.html





  14. {#linkBibliography-(wired)-2020 .docMetadata}, Klint Finley () (2020-03-28):

    Even if designers don’t contribute improvements to a font directly, companies can benefit from making their work open source. For example, Adobe Type senior manager Dan Rhatigan says releasing its Source super-family of fonts as open source has enabled the company to test new typography technologies like “variable fonts”, which make it easy for a designer to adjust the weight of a typeface, before rolling those technologies into other products.

    In other cases, open source fonts help support other aspects of a company’s business. For example, Google Fonts program manager Dave Crossland says many of the fonts Google has funded most recently are designed for under-supported languages in developing countries. These efforts buttress Google’s “Next Billion Users” initiative, which aims to bring more people in developing countries online. Better support for more languages means more users, and ultimately, more money for Google.

    The incentives to create open source fonts weren’t always obvious. In early 2009, a graphic designer and programmer named Micah Rich came across a forum post by a student who was interested in knowing more about how fonts worked. The student asked whether there was a professional quality open source font that they could learn from. The replies weren’t kind. “There were like 20 pages of professional type designers saying ‘This is our livelihood, how dare you ask us to work for free?’” Rich says.


  16. ⁠, Nat Friedman (2020-03-16):

    I’m excited to announce that GitHub has signed an agreement to acquire npm.

    npm is a critical part of the JavaScript world. The work of the npm team over the last 10 years, and the contributions of hundreds of thousands of open source developers and maintainers, have made npm home to over 1.3 million packages with 75 billion downloads a month. Together, they’ve helped JavaScript become the largest developer ecosystem in the world. We at GitHub are honored to be part of the next chapter of npm’s story and to help npm continue to scale to meet the needs of the fast-growing JavaScript community.

    For the millions of developers who use the public npm registry every day, npm will always be available and always be free. Our focus after the deal closes will be to:

    • Invest in the registry infrastructure and platform.
    • Improve the core experience.
    • Engage with the community.

    Looking further ahead, we’ll integrate GitHub and npm to improve the security of the open source software supply chain, and enable you to trace a change from a GitHub pull request to the npm package version that fixed it…We are also investing heavily in GitHub Packages as a great multi-language packages registry that’s fully integrated with GitHub. Later this year, we will enable npm’s paying customers to move their private npm packages to GitHub Packages—allowing npm to exclusively focus on being a great public registry for JavaScript.









  25. 2020-04-02-netflix-bringing4kandhdrtoanimeatnetflixwithsollevante.html

  26. ⁠, Ryan Dancey (2000-03-09):

    Q. Can you briefly summarize what the Open Gaming Movement is about? Where did it come from, and what does it mean to the average gamer?

    A. Sure. Prepare yourself for a big gulp of business theory…That brings us to Open Gaming, and why we’re pursuing this initiative inside Wizards and outside to the larger community of game publishers.

    Here’s the logic in a nutshell. We’ve got a theory that says that D&D is the most popular role playing game because it is the game more people know how to play than any other game. (For those of you interested researching the theory, this concept is called “The Theory of Network Externalities”). Note: This is a very painful concept for a lot of people to embrace, including a lot of our own staff, and including myself for many years. The idea that D&D is somehow “better” than the competition is a powerful and entrenched concept. The idea that D&D can be “beaten” by a game that is “better” than D&D is at the heart of every business plan from every company that goes into marketplace battle with the D&D game. If you accept the Theory of Network Externalities, you have to admit that the battle is lost before it begins, because the value doesn’t reside in the game itself, but in the network of people who know how to play it.

    If you accept (as I have finally come to do) that the theory is valid, then the logical conclusion is that the larger the number of people who play D&D, the harder it is for competitive games to succeed, and the longer people will stay active gamers, and the more value the network of D&D players will have to Wizards of the Coast. In fact, we believe that there may be a secondary market force we jokingly call “The Skaff Effect”, after our own ⁠. Skaff is one of the smartest guys in the company, and after looking at lots of trends and thinking about our business over a long period of time, he enunciated his theory thusly:

    “All marketing and sales activity in a hobby gaming genre eventually contributes to the overall success of the market share leader in that genre.”

    In other words, the more money other companies spend on their games, the more D&D sales are eventually made. Now, there are clearly issues of efficiency—not every dollar input to the market results in a dollar output in D&D sales; and there is a substantial time lag between input and output; and a certain amount of people are diverted from D&D to other games never to return. However, we believe very strongly that the net effect of the competition in the RPG genre is positive for D&D. The downside here is that I believe that one of the reasons that the RPG as a category has declined so much from the early 90’s relates to the proliferation of systems. Every one of those different game systems creates a “bubble” of market inefficiency; the cumulative effect of all those bubbles has proven to be a massive downsizing of the marketplace. I have to note, highlight, and reiterate: The problem is not competitive product, the problem is competitive systems. I am very much for competition and for a lot of interesting and cool products.

    So much for the dry theory and background. Here’s the logical conclusions we’ve drawn: We make more revenue and more profit from our core rulebooks than any other part of our product lines. In a sense, every other RPG product we sell other than the core rulebooks is a giant, self-financing marketing program to drive sales of those core books. At an extreme view, you could say that the core book of D&D—the PHB [Player’s Handbook rulebook]—is the focus of all this activity, and in fact, the PHB is the #1 best selling, and most profitable RPG product Wizards of the Coast makes year in and year out.

    The logical conclusion says that reducing the “cost” to other people to publishing and supporting the core D&D game to zero should eventually drive support for all other game systems to the lowest level possible in the market, create customer resistance to the introduction of new systems, and the result of all that “support” redirected to the D&D game will be to steadily increase the number of people who play D&D, thus driving sales of the core books. This is a feedback cycle—the more effective the support is, the more people play D&D. The more people play D&D, the more effective the support is.

    The other great effect of Open Gaming should be a rapid, constant improvement in the quality of the rules. With lots of people able to work on them in public, problems with math, with ease of use, of from standard forms, etc. should all be improved over time. The great thing about Open Gaming is that it is interactive—someone figures out a way to make something work better, and everyone who uses that part of the rules is free to incorporate it into their products. Including us. So D&D as a game should benefit from the shared development of all the people who work on the Open Gaming derivative of D&D.

    After reviewing all the factors, I think there’s a very, very strong business case that can be made for the idea of embracing the ideas at the heart of the Open Source movement and finding a place for them in gaming.

  27. 2006-lecocq.pdf: ⁠, Xavier Lecocq, Benoît Demil (2006-05-08; economics):

    Open systems strategy enables a sponsor to diffuse its technology and promotes standardization in an industry. However, this strategy has been studied in high-tech settings. We hypothesize that, in a non-high-tech industry, a sponsor giving access to its technical knowledge may impact industry structure. Based on a survey of the U.S. (RPG) industry, our results highlight that the introduction of an open system in a sector creates an entry induction phenomenon and that these new entrants adopt more readily the open system than incumbents. Moreover, the average size of the firms in the industry decreases due to vertical specialization.

    Sample and Data: For the purpose of this study we have compared the structure of the RPG sector before and after the introduction of the ⁠. Our comparison is between the 2-year periods of 1998–99 (before the introduction of the d20 license) and 2000–01 (after the introduction of the d20 license). These periods can legitimately be compared, as the U.S. market segment encompassing RPG products did not witness a drastic evolution over these 4 years. 8 After collecting qualitative data on the industry from RPG publications (Comics and Games Retailer, D20 Magazine, Dragon Magazine) and Internet websites (D20 Reviews, Game Manufacturers Association, Game Publishers Association, GameSpy, Gaming Report, RPGA Network, RPGNow, RPG Planet, Wizard’s Attic), we established an exhaustive list of the 193 active U.S. companies publishing RPGs and compiled a database comprising 3 firm variables: age, size (number of employees), and technological system adopted (the open system vs. proprietary systems). These data were collected from company websites. We collected information

    Results: We hypothesized that the introduction of an open system in an industry would favor the arrival of new entrants (Table 1). Hypothesis 1 was strongly supported by our chi-square analysis. The 2000–01 period saw 78 new entrants into the RPG sector, with only 20 new entrants in the 1998–99 period (c2 = 12.35, at the 0.01 level). Of the 78 new entrants in the 2000–01 period, 51 adopted the d20 license (Table 2). This proportion was markedly greater than for incumbents, strongly supporting Hypothesis 2 (c2 = 17.89, statistically-significant at the 0.01 level). New entrants were found to adopt the new open system more readily than incumbents. These new entrants were essentially players and former freelancers operating within the sector who saw the d20 as an opportunity to avoid the prevailing development costs and switching costs for players, and so decided to launch their own company.

    It should be noted that some firms, both new entrants and incumbents, coupled the open system with development of their own proprietary game’s rules of play. Moreover, 27 new entrants did not adopt the d20 license. This figure corresponds roughly to the number of new entrants during the 1998–99 period (i.e., 20). This confirms that the 2 periods (1998–99 and 2000–01) are comparable and that no exogenous variable has drastically modified the economic context of the industry. We can then attribute the new entries in the RPG industry in 2000–01 to the introduction of the d20 license per se.

    We hypothesized that the diffusion of an open system into an industry should lead to a decrease in the average size of companies in that industry. Our ANOVA result strongly supports this hypothesis (F = 8.739, statistically-significant at the 0.01 level). Indeed, even though RPG companies have traditionally been very small, their average size became even smaller after the diffusion of the d20 system (reducing from an average of 5.02 down to 2.76 employees).

    Table 1: New entrants in 2000–01 and 1998–99 / Table 2: Technological systems adopted by incumbents and new entrants in 2000–01











  39. Computers

  40. Slowing-Moores-Law





  45. ⁠, Jennings Anderson, Dipto Sarkar, Leysia Palen (2019-05-18):

    OpenStreetMap (OSM), the largest Volunteered Geographic Information project in the world, is characterized both by its map as well as the active community of the millions of mappers who produce it. The discourse about participation in the OSM community largely focuses on the motivations for why members contribute map data and the resulting data quality. Recently, large corporations including Apple, Microsoft, and Facebook have been hiring editors to contribute to the OSM database.

    In this article, we explore the influence these corporate editors are having on the map by first considering the history of corporate involvement in the community and then analyzing historical quarterly-snapshot OSM-QA-Tiles to show where and what these corporate editors are mapping. Cumulatively, millions of corporate edits have a global footprint, but corporations vary in geographic reach, edit types, and quantity. While corporations currently have a major impact on road networks, non-corporate mappers edit more buildings and points-of-interest: representing the majority of all edits, on average.

    Since corporate editing represents the latest stage in the evolution of corporate involvement, we raise questions about how the OSM community—and researchers—might proceed as corporate editing grows and evolves as a mechanism for expanding the map for multiple uses.

    [Keywords: OpenStreetMap; corporations; geospatial data; open data; Volunteered Geographic Information]

    Figure 3: Where corporate editors are editing. The main map shows an aggregated view for all 10 companies. The sub figures show where each company is editing. In this map, we have combined the Mapbox and Development Seed teams because they merged in late 2017.















  61. DNM-archives

  62. DNM-survival









  71. Holy-wars









  80. ⁠, Norman Hardy (2002):

    [2002?] Short technology essay based on (!) discussing a perennial pattern in computing history dubbed the ‘Wheel of Reincarnation’ for how old approaches inevitably reincarnate as the exciting new thing: shifts between ‘local’ and ‘remote’ computing resources, which are exemplified by repeated cycles in graphical display technologies from dumb ‘terminals’ which display only raw pixels to smart devices which interpret more complicated inputs like text or vectors or programming languages (eg ). These cycles are driven by cost, latency, architectural simplicity, and available computing power.

    The Wheel of Reincarnation paradigm has played out for computers as well, in shifts from local terminals attached to mainframes to PCs to smartphones to ‘cloud computing’.



  83. 2019-boudreau.pdf: ⁠, Kevin Boudreau (2019-01-05; economics):

    Digital platform-based marketplaces often have a wide variety of amateurs working alongside professional enterprises and entrepreneurs. Can a platform owner alter the number and mix of market participants?

    I develop a theoretical framework to show that amateurs emerge as a distinct type of market participant, subject to different market selection conditions, and differing from professionals in quality, willingness to persist on the platform, and in mix of motivations. I clarify how targeted combinations of tweaks to platform design can lead the “bottom to fall out” of a market to large numbers of amateurs.

    In data on mobile app developers, I find that shifts in minimum development costs and non-pecuniary motivations are associated with discontinuous changes in numbers and types of developers, precisely as predicted by theory. The resulting flood of low-quality amateurs is in this context is associated with equally substantial increases in numbers of high-quality products.

    [Keywords: amateurs, industrial organization, labor, digitization, long-tail, platforms and marketplaces, complementors, entry and exit, selection and retention, entrepreneurship, minimum viable products, non-pecuniary motivations]



  86. ⁠, Nadia Eghbal (2016-06-08):

    [Post-⁠/​​​​ discussion of the economics of funding open source software: universally used & economically invaluable as a public good anyone can & does use, it is also essentially completely unfunded, leading to serious problems in long-term maintenance & improvement, exemplified by the Heartbleed bug—core cryptographic code run by almost every networked device on the planet could not fund more than a part-time developer.]

    Our modern society—everything from hospitals to stock markets to newspapers to social media—runs on software. But take a closer look, and you’ll find that the tools we use to build software are buckling under demand…Nearly all software today relies on free, public code (called “open source” code), written and maintained by communities of developers and other talent. Much like roads or bridges, which anyone can walk or drive on, open source code can be used by anyone—from companies to individuals—to build software. This type of code makes up the digital infrastructure of our society today. Just like physical infrastructure, digital infrastructure needs regular upkeep and maintenance. In the United States, over half of government spending on transportation and water infrastructure goes just to maintenance.1 But financial support for digital infrastructure is much harder to come by. Currently, any financial support usually comes through sponsorships, direct or indirect, from software companies. Maintaining open source code used to be more manageable. Following the personal computer revolution of the early 1980s, most commercial software was proprietary, not shared. Software tools were built and used internally by companies, and their products were licensed to customers. Many companies felt that open source code was too nascent and unreliable for commercial use. In their view, software was meant to be charged for, not given away for free. Today, everybody uses open source code, including Fortune 500 companies, government, major software companies and startups. Sharing, rather than building proprietary code, turned out to be cheaper, easier, and more efficient.

    This increased demand puts additional strain on those who maintain this infrastructure, yet because these communities are not highly visible, the rest of the world has been slow to notice. Most of us take opening a software application for granted, the way we take turning on the lights for granted. We don’t think about the human capital necessary to make that happen. In the face of unprecedented demand, the costs of not supporting our digital infrastructure are numerous. On the risk side, there are security breaches and interruptions in service, due to infrastructure maintainers not being able to provide adequate support. On the opportunity side, we need to maintain and improve these software tools in order to support today’s startup renaissance, which relies heavily on this infrastructure. Additionally, open source work builds developers’ portfolios and helps them get hired, but the talent pool is remarkably less diverse than in tech overall. Expanding the pool of contributors can positively affect who participates in the tech industry at large.

    No individual company or organization is incentivized to address the problem alone, because open source code is a public good. In order to support our digital infrastructure, we must find ways to work together. Current examples of efforts to support digital infrastructure include the Linux Foundation’s Core Infrastructure Initiative and Mozilla’s Open Source Support (MOSS) program, as well as numerous software companies in various capacities. Sustaining our digital infrastructure is a new topic for many, and the challenges are not well understood. In addition, infrastructure projects are distributed across many people and organizations, defying common governance models. Many infrastructure projects have no legal entity at all. Any support strategy needs to accept and work with the decentralized, community-centric qualities of open source code. Increasing awareness of the problem, making it easier for institutions to contribute time and money, expanding the pool of open source contributors, and developing best practices and policies across infrastructure projects will all go a long way in building a healthy and sustainable ecosystem.