4 ms·

Another thought: find products that exist in physical form, but can be replaced by something that is much more high-res / efficient with technology. What phys

Another thought: find products that exist in physical form, but can be replaced by something that is much more high-res / efficient with technology. What physical things won't exist in 5-10 years time because technology can replace them. Mainstream users usually adopt products that do this. Examples: * Campuses used to hand out "facebooks" to freshman so they could get to know their fellow students + have a directory. * Spreadsheets used to be large pieces of grid paper used by accountants. * Encyclopedias did really well until Wikipedia came along. Encarta was the first sign of trouble, but Wikipedia was the nail in the coffin. * We used to mail physical letters. Email has replaced significantly replaced that (of course physical mail still exists, but you don't send physical mail for social interactions anymore). * We think our generation and their families won't be storing photos, memories, and vhs tapes in a shoebox. What's the specific digital equivalent of that is the question we're trying to answer with the new version of Ramamia (to be renamed Genevine). There are probably others.

spokey 17y ago
> Encyclopedias did really well until Wikipedia came along. Encarta was the first sign of trouble, but Wikipedia was the nail in the coffin. This is incidental to your comment, but I think your details are wrong in this example. Multimedia digital encyclopedias replaced physical encyclopedias long before Wikipedia came along, in fact throughout the 80s and early 90s it is a pretty safe bet that encylopedias on CD-ROM and later DVD significantly outsold the dead-tree versions, and by the mid-90s the major brands (at least in the US) already had online versions as well. Encarta (which was initially a rebranded Funk & Wagnalls encyclopedia) was just one example, and a later one at that, of many encyclopedias that were transitioning from print to digital. Encarta doesn't represent some kind of paradigm shift in the encyclopedia business, just a large company snatching up a small player in a market they were trying to penetrate. Interestingly enough, Encarta has ceased production, while World Book, Encyclopedia Britannica and others are still in business and presumably profitable (for now). Wikipedia was and continues to be a threat to "traditional" encyclpedias, but not because they didn't anticipate a transition from physical to digital publication.
- jasonlbaptiste 17y ago
  yup, i didn't want to get into a long extended explanation. My logic is this: physical encyclopedias are toast. What do we use instead of them more often and most recently? Wikipedia. Encarta and the like certainly came beforehand to do this.
  - sthomps 17y ago
    Good point. We should look for offline products that can be easily replaced by online technology. Wikipedia is a very good example. Medpedia is aiming to do the same thing right now with medical information.

spokey 17y ago

> Encyclopedias did really well until Wikipedia came along. Encarta was the first sign of trouble, but Wikipedia was the nail in the coffin. This is incidental to your comment, but I think your details are wrong in this example. Multimedia digital encyclopedias replaced physical encyclopedias long before Wikipedia came along, in fact throughout the 80s and early 90s it is a pretty safe bet that encylopedias on CD-ROM and later DVD significantly outsold the dead-tree versions, and by the mid-90s the major brands (at least in the US) already had online versions as well. Encarta (which was initially a rebranded Funk & Wagnalls encyclopedia) was just one example, and a later one at that, of many encyclopedias that were transitioning from print to digital. Encarta doesn't represent some kind of paradigm shift in the encyclopedia business, just a large company snatching up a small player in a market they were trying to penetrate. Interestingly enough, Encarta has ceased production, while World Book, Encyclopedia Britannica and others are still in business and presumably profitable (for now). Wikipedia was and continues to be a threat to "traditional" encyclpedias, but not because they didn't anticipate a transition from physical to digital publication.

jasonlbaptiste 17y ago
yup, i didn't want to get into a long extended explanation. My logic is this: physical encyclopedias are toast. What do we use instead of them more often and most recently? Wikipedia. Encarta and the like certainly came beforehand to do this.
- sthomps 17y ago
  Good point. We should look for offline products that can be easily replaced by online technology. Wikipedia is a very good example. Medpedia is aiming to do the same thing right now with medical information.