Nonrivalness is a property of units; antirivalness is a property of systems

Context

The distinction between unit-level properties and system-level properties is fundamental to understanding how [[network-effects|network effects]] emerge. [[f-xavier-olleros|Olleros]] demonstrates this through the evolution of digital music sharing - the same nonrival mp3 files created vastly different outcomes depending on the system architecture around them.

Analysis

The Unit Level: Nonrivalness

An mp3 file is inherently nonrival:

• Copying it doesn't diminish the original
• One person's listening doesn't prevent another's
• Distribution cost approaches zero
• This property is intrinsic to the digital format

The System Level: Antirivalness

But mp3s only transformed the music industry when embedded in platforms like Napster that created antirival dynamics:

• Discovery mechanisms (search, browse, recommendations)
• Collective library building (everyone's collection enriched everyone else's access)
• Network effects (more users = more music = more value for all)
• Community formation around shared interests

The same nonrival units (mp3 files) operated in different systems:

1. Pre-Napster: Files existed but sharing was fragmented, manual, limited
2. Napster era: Platform enabled discovery and collective library building
3. Post-Napster: Various platforms (Spotify, etc.) with different architectures creating different dynamics

Supporting Evidence

From [[olleros-antirival-goods-2018|Olleros (2018)]]:

The paper emphasizes that sharing-economy platforms succeed by creating antirival systems around goods that may or may not be nonrival themselves:

"Sharing is becoming increasingly infrastructural because infrastructures are becoming increasingly antirival."

This suggests that as we build better systems for coordination and collective value creation, we can enable sharing of increasingly rival goods by wrapping them in antirival infrastructure.

The Napster example specifically shows:

• Mp3 files alone: nonrival but limited impact
• Napster platform: transformed the same files into a strongly antirival system
• The difference: system architecture, not unit properties

Notes

Critical implication for co-goods:

Physical products are inherently rival at the unit level (the garment itself). But we can create strongly antirival systems around them:

• Nonrival components: Designs, patterns, knowledge, feedback data
• Antirival infrastructure: Community platforms, participation mechanisms, reputation systems
• Feedback loops: Usage generates data, improvements, and social proof

The system becomes the locus of value creation, with the physical units serving as touchpoints that generate valuable information and community participation.

Design principle: Focus less on making units nonrival (impossible for physical goods), and more on designing systems where:

1. Knowledge components are maximally nonrival
2. Participation generates increasing returns
3. Consumption itself becomes contribution