RE: The Long Tail as applied to Atoms (the new bytes)

Struck as I was by Chris's report in The Long Tail that sales of obscure items were outpacing sales of "hits", it seems trivial to conclude that economic growth - should we be so lucky - would not only come from "small business" generally, but from products for small markets in particular. While the the Long Tail explanation - that distribution and advertising costs are low - holds for bytes (songs, software, "apps", search, etc. . .) My question is whether this trend holds for Atoms, specifically small electronics like Ardupilot.

I'm wondering if Chris's research for the Long Tail was able to quantify the effect of fixed regulatory costs, like the FCC, the FDA, and related bureaucracies which are burdensome for large manufacturers, but completely crushing for products at the end of the tail. If the only way to avoid regulation is to deliver intentionally defective products (the Japanese have a legend of a painter so great, his painted birds would spring to life and fly off the page, and to this day, Japanese painters show homage by leaving their paintings a few strokes incomplete) - In a sense, we, at the long tail are required to ship products, like Japanese painters, as incomplete, unworking, experimental etc. . . , or face say a one million dollar fine like the FCC levied on Behringer even though their audio equipment was in full compliance and tested in Europe.

I know first hand that some successful electronic houses will simply not produce finished consumer goods due to the burden and risk of regulation - but what I don't know is how many potential atom making products and their associated jobs are lost at the long end of the tail?




E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones

Comments

  • Thanks Brian,
    I'm not really looking for a debate. Chris is pretty vocal on these issues, and I think unfortunately, his articles make false and unhelpful assertions on the regulatory framework visa vi the FCC. We know that Chris uses this forum as research, and I have every expectation that his articles in future will correct this oversight. I'd rather give Chris a heads up in a quieter setting. I may even delete this thread altogether if that's kosher.
  • Moderator
    bGatti, Did you post your views in the Wired article comments? Perhaps people will debate you on that site. It seems that here nobody is following, save for me, but I'm a sucker for your rantings :)
  • So how can Chris square threats of jailing people for "unintended radiators" with this happy talk about not requiring UL listing? My question is what is the chilling effect on an innovative society when small innovators are threaten with criminal penalties for selling their inventions?

    And I'm guessing if Wired, Chris, Long Tail etc... doesn't know, then no one really does...
  • Here a snippit of an Fcc Legal rag (pdf page 4)

    "This should be a concern to all manufacturers, distributors as well as EMC test labs. The FCC's enforcement options for unlawful equipment include equipment seizure, civil fines, and possibly even jail for "knowing violations" of law.

    The FCC sent a lett r dared July 7, 2003 to a company that allegedly marketed unlawful recording equipment, an unintentional radiawr. In the past, this would ordinarily have prompted a shon letter of inquiry permitting a narrative response. Instead, the FCC's inquiry leaves no stone unturned, and ..."
  • Back to the core assertion - that real companies we all know and love - are pulling their punches when it comes to the entire spectrum of products that might be sold as a finished good - even to niche markets - And how does this reality of deliberate non-production square with Chris's thesis that innovation is not being held back by WWI regulations?
  • Link to FCC 15
  • @Brian, defective as in 1. slightly imperfect, see Zhang Seng You above.
  • 15.101.D.1 might be called the Zhang Seng You exemption: Whoever touches the product last - owns the FCC problem... Of course, this relies on a tortured reading in which the end users are not users but are instead "equipment manufacturers" intent on reselling the product to "users".

    (1) No authorization is required for a peripheral device or a
    subassembly that is sold to an equipment manufacturer for further
    fabrication; that manufacturer is responsible for obtaining the
    necessary authorization prior to further marketing to a vendor or to a
    user.
  • @Chris, I have linked twice here to a $1,000,000 enforcement of the FCC regs in general for non-radio devices. These are small electronic boxes for audio mixing, amplifying and as such, are maximally free of noise.

    Part 15 is the generally starting point.
    From what I have heard others suggest; This language at 15.3.K asserts FCC oversight for small electronics:

    (k) Digital device. (Previously defined as a computing device). An
    unintentional radiator (device or system) that generates and uses
    timing signals or pulses at a rate in excess of 9,000 pulses (cycles)
    per second and uses digital techniques; inclusive of ... any device or system that
    ... uses radio frequency energy for the purpose of performing
    data processing functions, such as electronic computations...

    Though there are exceptions at 15.103 F & H which exclude non AC devices running at less than 1Mhz and Devices consuming less than 6nW.

    The sad truth is we might as well all be running drugs as trying to innovate a new electronic device. I think the FCC 15 is an economic suicide pact. If I'm right, I think your readers would be well served by a deeper understanding of the FCC problem.
This reply was deleted.