Decode

Ownership Versus Subscription

Saturday, June 6th, 2009

The future of software is online; home computing is rapidly losing relevance.  For one thing, software that connects us to each other can provide dramatic benefits (just ask Scott about Twitter, or consider Wikipedia). Additionally, software is increasingly providing enhanced usefulness by connecting us with enormous databases.

The Internet itself is a database, which predominantly served as reference source for some time. By storing enormous amounts of information in a distributed fashion, the ‘database’ is accessible, but not personally own-able. With the advent of Web 2.0, new means of interaction with databases necessitate supercomputers (as opposed to PCs) to process queries and responses: consider “Wolfram|Alpha“, a multi-disciplinary computing machine, and “Shazam,” an iPhone application that takes a short recorded clip of music and determines the title in about 30 seconds total.  The processor and storage capacity required for these applications to function will likely not be available on our increasingly miniaturized computers without some dramatic technological breakthrough.

Our devices are progressing towards connected, human-computer interfaces, relying on remote servers for full functionality.  They are no longer complete by themselves.  Their identities are invisibly intertwined with society as a whole, now more tangibly than ever… one might even go so far as to call the term “iPhone” a synecdoche. Besides sounding cool, why is this important?

Ownership versus subscription

As an individual, and even as a larger organization, it is becoming impossible to “own” the infrastructure required for participation in the modern world.  Buying temporary rights to participate is the only feasible option.  Generational values may either clash or embrace this fact; few would dispute that there is variation between generations in how they react to this.  However, willingness to purchase a subscription may not be as simplistic as being savvy and grownup digital [yes, that was intended to be a jab at Tascott being uncool].   In fact, younger generations often expect free content*.  Youtube’s popularity despite lack of financial success with ad-supported content is a testament to this fact, and a testament to the elephant in the room: something has to give.

If accepting subscriptions is akin to accepting dependence upon society, then individualism and entitlement and other deep-seated psychological traits play a role in the solution. Understanding these ideas may be the key to targeting the right customers for these pioneer services of the new subscription paradigm, and may be essential for effective marketing to those who are resistant to this paradigm shift.

*Contradictory to this particular generational bias, younger generations are also perhaps more willing to view experiences as possessions, and are perhaps more willing to spend for temporary access – if it is framed correctly.