[ disclaimer, I am a (barely) trained economist. ]
So goods have a higher perceived value based on the effort that went into them? That's probably true but I don't think that it really changes the fundamentals here. In economics, all value is perceived and supply and demand are part of the equation in every instance. If the reason dog whispering is so valuable is because it's a learned skill that I don't posses, then it's a lack of supply.
With regard to mobile apps, there is a supply of programmers with the skills to make mobile apps and this program, Parse, threatens to glut the supply of theses programmers by reducing the skills necessary to make mobile apps and this will devalue those skills in just the same way that if dog whispering were easy, it would also not be as valuable.
Now there are other effects which can lower and raise the value of something aside from supply and demand and you allude to perceived valuation in creative goods owing to perceived labor costs, and that definitely exists in certain social circles, but it's by no means universal. Otherwise, how would you explain the vast popularity of Thomas Kinkade reprints or Garfield? The people who consume this stuff generally stuff know that it's cheap to produce; they just don't care. Or why very lazy concept art often fetches a higher valuation than much more difficult classical artwork? Or why some people are willing to pirate a million dollar Hollywood movie but still pay for money for a much cheaper less labor intensive film to support and independent artist.
In other words, I might prefer labor intensive goods over cheaper equivalent goods, for the sake of novelty, moral values, economic signaling, or for many other reasons but I just as easily might not as fashions and priorities change. However, when perceived scarcity per-se makes something seem more valuable, that is literally a psychological effect of supply. Supply most definitely drives creative goods because otherwise copyright (whose whole purpose is to create artificial scarcity and reduce the supply to prop up the price of creative goods) would be a moot point.
With regard to apps, the value of an app depends both demand-side factors such as the actual utility, social factors, etc, including for some people the perceived labor cost in its production, as well as supply-side factors such as capital costs and labor costs. If I could make the app I needed in a matter of hours, having someone else make it for me might be worth nothing, or thousands depending on how I valued my time and what the app can accomplish for me.
"I do know that if we released a tool tomorrow that let you speak to your phone and tell it the 'feature' you wanted it to have, and some sort of thing went out and created that and dropped it on your phone. It would destroy the app ecosystem as we know it today."
Of course, remove scarcity and an economy ceases to be necessary. That's a much simpler explanation than the one you posit.
So goods have a higher perceived value based on the effort that went into them? That's probably true but I don't think that it really changes the fundamentals here. In economics, all value is perceived and supply and demand are part of the equation in every instance. If the reason dog whispering is so valuable is because it's a learned skill that I don't posses, then it's a lack of supply.
With regard to mobile apps, there is a supply of programmers with the skills to make mobile apps and this program, Parse, threatens to glut the supply of theses programmers by reducing the skills necessary to make mobile apps and this will devalue those skills in just the same way that if dog whispering were easy, it would also not be as valuable.
Now there are other effects which can lower and raise the value of something aside from supply and demand and you allude to perceived valuation in creative goods owing to perceived labor costs, and that definitely exists in certain social circles, but it's by no means universal. Otherwise, how would you explain the vast popularity of Thomas Kinkade reprints or Garfield? The people who consume this stuff generally stuff know that it's cheap to produce; they just don't care. Or why very lazy concept art often fetches a higher valuation than much more difficult classical artwork? Or why some people are willing to pirate a million dollar Hollywood movie but still pay for money for a much cheaper less labor intensive film to support and independent artist.
In other words, I might prefer labor intensive goods over cheaper equivalent goods, for the sake of novelty, moral values, economic signaling, or for many other reasons but I just as easily might not as fashions and priorities change. However, when perceived scarcity per-se makes something seem more valuable, that is literally a psychological effect of supply. Supply most definitely drives creative goods because otherwise copyright (whose whole purpose is to create artificial scarcity and reduce the supply to prop up the price of creative goods) would be a moot point.
With regard to apps, the value of an app depends both demand-side factors such as the actual utility, social factors, etc, including for some people the perceived labor cost in its production, as well as supply-side factors such as capital costs and labor costs. If I could make the app I needed in a matter of hours, having someone else make it for me might be worth nothing, or thousands depending on how I valued my time and what the app can accomplish for me.
"I do know that if we released a tool tomorrow that let you speak to your phone and tell it the 'feature' you wanted it to have, and some sort of thing went out and created that and dropped it on your phone. It would destroy the app ecosystem as we know it today."
Of course, remove scarcity and an economy ceases to be necessary. That's a much simpler explanation than the one you posit.