4 ms·

Actually, it's pretty simple. "Better" has to actually "be better ENOUGH" to warrant all of the retooling of existing systems. I've got plenty of clients who w

Actually, it's pretty simple. "Better" has to actually "be better ENOUGH" to warrant all of the retooling of existing systems. I've got plenty of clients who would happily run Windows 2003 ("it's paid for") if it weren't for changing standards that aren't compatible (newer TLS, Exchange, etc) and security breaches. They only upgrade because they have to. "E-mail is e-mail" to them. But if you sell them some magical new technology that promises to meet new features, like tons of data analysis tools and easily graphs and charts in a new version of CRM, they'll happily upgrade.

lgierth 9y ago
Another important factor for adoption/adoptability is how well the new system integrates with existing deployments of older systems. Ideally it completely interoperates with the older systems, while providing you with additional value right from the start.
- carolc 9y ago
  Agreed with lgierth and I believe this is what sets IPFS apart from many similar technologies: integration path for existing technologies. As far as I can tell, it has been an important design decision from early on for IPFS.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
That only answers some of those examples. It's pretty visible in tech that it's not actually the only (or main) reason, especially when you see companies continuously switching from one crappy tool to another. Tech is a fashion-driven industry; companies use what is hot and/or what everyone else is using. Both of those create a positive feedback loop that amplifies brief spikes in popularity (easily exploitable through marketing) beyond any reasonable proportion. The worst thing is, though, that it kind of makes sense from the POV of management. The more popular something is, the less risk there is in using it, especially when the decisionmaker doesn't have enough knowledge to evaluate the options. Also, the more mainstream a given technology is, the cheaper and easier to replace programmers.

lgierth 9y ago

Another important factor for adoption/adoptability is how well the new system integrates with existing deployments of older systems. Ideally it completely interoperates with the older systems, while providing you with additional value right from the start.

carolc 9y ago
Agreed with lgierth and I believe this is what sets IPFS apart from many similar technologies: integration path for existing technologies. As far as I can tell, it has been an important design decision from early on for IPFS.

TeMPOraL 9y ago

That only answers some of those examples. It's pretty visible in tech that it's not actually the only (or main) reason, especially when you see companies continuously switching from one crappy tool to another. Tech is a fashion-driven industry; companies use what is hot and/or what everyone else is using. Both of those create a positive feedback loop that amplifies brief spikes in popularity (easily exploitable through marketing) beyond any reasonable proportion. The worst thing is, though, that it kind of makes sense from the POV of management. The more popular something is, the less risk there is in using it, especially when the decisionmaker doesn't have enough knowledge to evaluate the options. Also, the more mainstream a given technology is, the cheaper and easier to replace programmers.