Content or platform – assumptions about free

I spent time driving by myself yesterday and enjoy the time to listen to podcasts and think. The audio consisted of a serious of education interviews with app/tool developers and authors. I guess these folks are now described as edupreneurs. All talked about the need to generate at least enough funds to sustain their visions. The discussions of business models got me thinking about what different folks think should be free and what is worth a payment.

The division that seems obvious to me is content vs. platform. As a writer (not an edupreneur at this point – I am employed), it seems the platform people assume the content people should donate their work. No doubt, platforms in the education sector or those available for any group require a considerable outlay of time and resources to create. However, without participants to offer content, the platforms serve no purpose. Of course, the opposite situation occurs for those hoping to make revenue from content. Getting material to consumers is far easier than was the case 10 years ago and to offer content requires a platform.

There are some barriers to what should be a collaborative effort. Some platforms do not allow ads and encourage “repurposing” as a form of authoring. I object to systems that strip ads or use content (with overlays or not) without serving from the original source. I understand the financial limitations of education as an educator, but the solution is not to take the work of others using lack of funds as a personal or public excuse. I also object to personal use of means to avoid ads. Paying for content is a way to avoid ads and avoiding ads through other means is selfish. Perhaps this is just me.

Loading

Leave a Reply