"Popular" and "network effect" are so similar as to be almost indistinguishable. Which came first: popularity, network effects, or cost of transition? Each on

"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.