I like the parallels - I'm managing a tech company at the moment but have previously worked at production companies. The overlaps are ample but I'm curious if anyone sees the negative aspect of such low barriers of entry.

I first noticed this as I started losing interest in photography following the shift to digital. Previously it required such a large degree of craft and investment of time. Interestingly enough this is what made it rewarding. Exposing celluloid, developing it by hand, and printing in darkrooms was something of a meditative and powerful process. And in turn the results were more highly valued. After the barriers were removed via digital photography the space got more crowded, and the craft was, if not eliminated, then replaced by something altogether different.

I understand nothing is stopping anyone from still developing by hand, but the value has been destroyed as you can't compete with the low cost or, more importantly, the low barriers for creating a satisfying image - and in turn, the value of photographers as a profession (and the work they create) has become saturated.

I balance this reality with the undeniable ease of shooting now, and there is room for innovation yet in that field. And the social benefits of being able to easily share imagery is still in its infancy. But in my heart I'm doubtful if we'll see another Cartier-Bresson or Adams as the climate has been saturated, and therefore simply commoditized.

And so that's the question - do low barriers of entry inherently lead to saturation/commodification of a craft (as much as you can label startups/entrepreneurship a craft)? And is that, in reality, the point? The inevitability?