4 ms·

Three of your five, the third, fourth, and fifth, are "momentum", so maybe "purely" is too strong. So maybe Google Docs isn't the best option currently, but th

Three of your five, the third, fourth, and fifth, are "momentum", so maybe "purely" is too strong. So maybe Google Docs isn't the best option currently, but there are definitely more efficient ways to work than what is done now. This is an area that could use some innovation, and putting things on github is an early step to find out what can work. However, those who are used to status quo have to be interested in finding new, perhaps better, ways to work. If you go into things thinking you're married to Microsoft Office, nothing is going to change.

rayiner 14y ago
"Momentum" (people use it because it's popular) isn't precisely the same thing as network effect (people use it because to interoperate with other people) which isn't precisely the same thing as high costs of transition (people use it because switching would require a lot of work). E.g. Google has momentum, but not the other two. Facebook has both momentum and network effect. MS Office has all three. There is nothing better right now than the MS Word workflow with all the accumulated templates, macros, etc. We can both imagine better things, and it is indeed an area that could use a lot of innovation, but github, with zero support for word processing formats or even binary files in general, is a non-starter here. Want to disrupt the space? Make Github for ODF documents in a way that let's you cleanly e-mail around diffs and apply them, and let's you easily merge changes from multiple people to documents that may have drifted from the branch point. Make it robust, so people don't fear using the tool for what it might do to their documents. That's a billion dollar Office monopoly-challenging idea right there with applications far beyond the legal space. It's also technically challenging as hell. This is not a space where a minimally viable product is going to play. It's competing with MS on its own turf.
- thwarted 14y ago
  "Popular" and "network effect" are so similar as to be almost indistinguishable. Which came first: popularity, network effects, or cost of transition? Each one begat the others. That's a fine suggestion for a product, and you're right about it competing with MS on its own turf: and that's why no one will use it. There is nothing super inherent with many documents that are currently emailed around as whole atomic units that they wouldn't be better represented as plain text. And git ALREADY handles plain text really well. It handles emailing diffs and applying changes from email. It is robust enough to not cause fear of using the tool for with it might do to the text. People are married their MS Office based workflow, and they will always find an excuse to maintain it. Migrating the individual components to a different platform (MS Office to ODF) is a valid way to challenge the status quo, and it's just as valid to challenge it by revisiting the assumptions that enforce the status quo (that you need to email diffs or documents around, for example; that can be challenged with on-line, simultaneous, collaborative editing -- which removes the need to email diffs around). Neither one is going to make significant inroads against the current momentum, no matter which of the finer points of momentum (popularity, network effects, cost of transition) can be resolved.

rayiner 14y ago

"Momentum" (people use it because it's popular) isn't precisely the same thing as network effect (people use it because to interoperate with other people) which isn't precisely the same thing as high costs of transition (people use it because switching would require a lot of work). E.g. Google has momentum, but not the other two. Facebook has both momentum and network effect. MS Office has all three. There is nothing better right now than the MS Word workflow with all the accumulated templates, macros, etc. We can both imagine better things, and it is indeed an area that could use a lot of innovation, but github, with zero support for word processing formats or even binary files in general, is a non-starter here. Want to disrupt the space? Make Github for ODF documents in a way that let's you cleanly e-mail around diffs and apply them, and let's you easily merge changes from multiple people to documents that may have drifted from the branch point. Make it robust, so people don't fear using the tool for what it might do to their documents. That's a billion dollar Office monopoly-challenging idea right there with applications far beyond the legal space. It's also technically challenging as hell. This is not a space where a minimally viable product is going to play. It's competing with MS on its own turf.

thwarted 14y ago
"Popular" and "network effect" are so similar as to be almost indistinguishable. Which came first: popularity, network effects, or cost of transition? Each one begat the others. That's a fine suggestion for a product, and you're right about it competing with MS on its own turf: and that's why no one will use it. There is nothing super inherent with many documents that are currently emailed around as whole atomic units that they wouldn't be better represented as plain text. And git ALREADY handles plain text really well. It handles emailing diffs and applying changes from email. It is robust enough to not cause fear of using the tool for with it might do to the text. People are married their MS Office based workflow, and they will always find an excuse to maintain it. Migrating the individual components to a different platform (MS Office to ODF) is a valid way to challenge the status quo, and it's just as valid to challenge it by revisiting the assumptions that enforce the status quo (that you need to email diffs or documents around, for example; that can be challenged with on-line, simultaneous, collaborative editing -- which removes the need to email diffs around). Neither one is going to make significant inroads against the current momentum, no matter which of the finer points of momentum (popularity, network effects, cost of transition) can be resolved.