On 12/29/10 4:05 AM, Bryan Tong Minh wrote:
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Maciej Jarosegil@wp.pl wrote:
If one would have a budget of gazillions of dollars then it would be quite easy ;-). The problem is - what would be the point of investing such money if you wouldn't get it back from this investment?
While money can fix a lot of things, I don't think the current bottleneck is money.
I apologize for sending this discussion in a direction I hadn't intended. The money was purely to imply that you had to be motivated, not that you had a vast budget.
Let me be more explicit. The "innovator's dilemma" problem, already referred to in this discussion, occurs because the successful innovator can't see past the goal of defending their earlier successes, and working with their existing assets.
The thought experiment of working for a competitor was meant to suggest this: what would you do if you wanted to make Wikipedia's earlier successes *obsolete*? The point is to then try to look at some of our greatest assets and see if, in the current environment, they could be potential liabilities.
And the followup question was "if a competitor can do this, why don't WE do this?"
Brion already suggested something like this, where we would end up with a transition regime between old and new.
P.S. All due respect to RobLa, but "Microsoft tried this and failed" doesn't exactly convince me it's impossible. ;)