> Bittorent adoption grew because the MPAA kept killing stuff like Napster and Kazaa, and then they got the government to seize all streaming website domains, t

> Bittorent adoption grew because the MPAA kept killing stuff like Napster and Kazaa, and then they got the government to seize all streaming website domains, to the point where nobody had an alternative except using Bittorent. Personally, I ended up using Bittorrent because it was superior to the alternative that's popular in my country (DC++). Because it is peer to peer and because the client can download from multiple seeds at the same time, Bittorent makes it easy to saturate my download bandwidth. From a publisher's perspective for legal torrents (e.g. think of Ubuntu.com) it's better to distribute a torrent link on your website, than it is to provide a direct download link or to upload your stuff on Kazza, or Napster, or Dropbox, or Megaupload, or whatever. Notice how bandwidth and finding a host for popular stuff is a problem, being the reason for why people still use SourceForge. I cannot agree with you - people don't switch because of government-related actions. People switch when the alternative is superior. Let me give you another success story waiting to happen - Bittorent Sync makes it easy to synchronize stuff in your network. It's still rough, but if I were Dropbox, that's the competition I would fear. Anyway, peer2peer when implemented right works better than the server-client model, at least on broadband connections that can afford the upload (sadly, doesn't work so well on mobile phones, either because of battery life or bandwidth limits, but these are limitations that are not going to exist in the future). If you implement something that works and is friendly to users, then it can win in the marketplace.