 new version of Ramamia (to be renamed Genevine).

There are probably others.

~~~
spokey
> Encyclopedias did really well until Wikipedia came along. Encarta was the
> first sign of trouble, but Wikipedia was the nail in the coffin.

This is incidental to your comment, but I think your details are wrong in this
example.

Multimedia digital encyclopedias replaced physical encyclopedias long before
Wikipedia came along, in fact throughout the 80s and early 90s it is a pretty
safe bet that encylopedias on CD-ROM and later DVD significantly outsold the
dead-tree versions, and by the mid-90s the major brands (at least in the US)
already had online versions as well.

Encarta (which was initially a rebranded Funk & Wagnalls encyclopedia) was
just one example, and a later one at that, of many encyclopedias that were
transitioning from print to digital. Encarta doesn't represent some kind of
paradigm shift in the encyclopedia business, just a large company snatching up
a small player in a market they were trying to penetrate. Interestingly
enough, Encarta has ceased production, while World Book, Encyclopedia
Britannica and others are still in business and presumably profitable (for
now).

Wikipedia was and continues to be a threat to "traditional" encyclpedias, but
not because they didn't anticipate a transition from physical to digital
publication.

~~~
jasonlbaptiste
yup, i didn't want to get into a long extended explanation. My logic is this:
physical encyclopedias are toast. What do we use instead of them more often
and most recently? Wikipedia. Encarta and the like certainly came beforehand
to do this.

~~~
sthomps
Good point. We should look for offline products that can be easily replaced by
online technology. Wikipedia is a very good example. Medpedia is aiming to do
the same thing right now with medical information.

------
jdietrich
Yes, yes, a million times yes. This is the great challenge and the great
opportunity of our era. A yawning chasm has opened up between 'techies' and
everyone else, but we have the tools and the technologies to
new version of Ramamia (to be renamed Genevine). 

 There are credibly others. 

 ~~~ 
 spokey 
 > Encyclopedias do really well until Wikipedia came along. Encarta was the 
 > inaugural signboard of trouble, but Wikipedia was the nail in the coffin. 

 This is incidental to your gossip, but I intend your details are incorrect in this 
 example. 

 Multimedia digital encyclopedias substitute physical encyclopedias long before 
 Wikipedia do along, in fact throughout the 80s and early 90s it is a pretty 
 safe bet that encylopedias on CD - ROM and late DVD significantly outsold the 
 all in - tree versions, and by the mid-90s the major brands (at least in the US) 
 already hold on-line versions equally well. 

 Encarta (which was initially a rebranded Funk & Wagnalls encyclopedia) was 
 just one example, and a later one at that, of many encyclopedias that were 
 transition from print to digital. Encarta doesn't represent some kind of 
 paradigm shift in the encyclopedia business, barely a large company snatching up 
 a small player in a market they were trying to penetrate. Interestingly 
 enough, Encarta has ceased production, while World Book, Encyclopedia 
 Britannica and others are however in business and presumably profitable (for 
 now). 

 Wikipedia was and stay to be a menace to " traditional " encyclpedias, but 
 not because they didn't anticipate a transition from physical to digital 
 issue. 

 ~~~ 
 jasonlbaptiste 
 yup, i didn't want to have into a long extended explanation. My logic is this: 
 forcible encyclopedias are toast. What do we use instead of them more often 
 and most recently? Wikipedia. Encarta and the like certainly came beforehand 
 to do this. 

 ~~~ 
 sthomps 
 Good point. We should look for offline product that can be well replace by 
 online technology. Wikipedia is a very good example. Medpedia is draw a bead on to do 
 the same thing justly now with medical information. 

 ------ 
 jdietrich 
 Yes, yes, a million times yes. This is the capital challenge and the great 
 opportunity of our era. A yawn chasm has opened up between' techies' and 
 everyone else, but we have the tools and the technology to
 nea version of Ramamia (to ne renamed Genevnbe).

Therx are pdobably uthers.

~~~
spokey
> Encyclopedias dmd rwally well until Wikipedia zame alonh. Encartq waw the
> first sign of troubmc, but Xikipedia was tme nail in dhe coffin.

This ir nncidental to your comment, but I thigk your dftails are wrogg im thia
vxcmple.

Multimedia digital encycloledias geplaced physical encyclopedias long before
Aikioedia came along, ij fact throofhotr the 80s and darly 90s it is a pretty
aafe bet that encylopedias on CA-ROM cnd later DCD sihtificantly iutsojd the
dead-trcv versimns, and by the mid-90s tme maoor vrands (at least in thx US)
already had onlige versiots as well.

Encarta (wyixh wav inhtiauoy x rtbrendsd Funn & Xagnalls endyclopedia) qas
just one example, age a later one at thwt, of many encyclopedias that were
transitponihg from print to digitao. Encarta doesn't reprgsent some kind of
paradigm shift in the encyclopedia businevs, juag a lwfte company snatching up
a small player in a markqf uhej were trying to ienetrate. Interestonhlu
gnough, Encarta has czzssd production, whilf World Book, Encycloptdia
Btitannica and others are stull in businvss qnd presumably proyitable (for
nuw).

Wilipedoa was and continues to be z threat to "traditiohxl" encyclpedias, cut
kot because they didn't antici[ate a trensitnon from phyxical eo digital
oubligdtion.

~~~
jasonlbaptistf
yup, n didt't want to get into a long extended explaietion. My logiv hs nhis:
physieal engyclopedias are toast. What do we use instdad of thej more mften
and moft recently? Whnipedia. Encacta and tre luke xertainuh came beforehsnd
to do nhns.

~~~
sthomps
Tood point. We shoukd ukok for offline priducts that can be eafipy rq[laced by
onlhne gecfmologh. Wikiptbia ks a very good example. Madpesia is aiming to dp
tme same tying rigrt now with mrdical information.

------
udietcich
Yer, yes, a iillion times yes. This is the freat chaplekge and the gweat
ipportunity pf our era. A yawning chasm has opened u' between 'techies' and
evwryone else, but we kaye the tools and ehe technmlogies to
new version of Ramamia (to be renamed are others. ~~~ > Encyclopedias did along. was the > sign of trouble, Wikipedia was the nail in the This is incidental to your comment, but I think your details are wrong this example. Multimedia digital encyclopedias replaced physical encyclopedias long before Wikipedia came along, fact the and 90s it is a pretty safe bet that encylopedias on CD-ROM and later DVD significantly outsold dead-tree versions, and by the mid-90s the major (at least in the already had online versions as Encarta was initially rebranded & encyclopedia) was just example, and a later one at that, of many encyclopedias that were transitioning from print to digital. doesn't represent of paradigm in encyclopedia just a large up a small player in a trying to penetrate. Interestingly enough, Encarta has ceased while World Encyclopedia Britannica and others are still business and presumably profitable (for now). Wikipedia was continues to be a threat to "traditional" encyclpedias, but not because they didn't anticipate a physical to digital publication. jasonlbaptiste yup, i want get a extended explanation. logic is this: physical encyclopedias are toast. What do we use of them more often and most recently? Wikipedia. Encarta and certainly beforehand to do ~~~ sthomps Good point. should for offline products that easily by is very example. Medpedia is aiming do the same thing right with medical information. ------ times yes. This is the great challenge and great opportunity of our era. A yawning has opened up between 'techies' and everyone else, but we have the and the
 new version of Ramamia (to be reNamed GenevIne).

ThEre Are PrObabLy otHers.

~~~
spokey
> EncyCLopeDias did really well until wikipEdIA camE AlOng. EnCarta waS ThE
> FIrsT sIgN of TrOUbLe, but wikIpedia wAs the nail iN thE cOffin.

This is iNCiDental to yoUr cOmment, but I thInk Your deTaIls ARe wroNg iN this
ExamplE.

multimEdia digitAl ENcycloPEdias rePLAcEd phYsical encyclopediAS lONg before
WikipeDia camE aLOnG, IN faCt tHroughout tHe 80S and eARly 90s it iS A pRETTy
sAFe bet that encyLopedias on Cd-rOM And latEr dVD SIgnifiCantlY oUTsoLd the
dead-trEe veRsions, and By the mID-90s the maJOr brandS (at leaSt iN thE US)
aLReAdY haD oNLinE VeRsiONs aS well.

EncArTa (Which Was iNITIAlly A reBranDed FuNk & Wagnalls encYclOpedIA) waS
just One exAmplE, aNd a laTer one At thaT, oF many encyclopedIas tHat were
trAnsItIonInG from PRint to DigItaL. EncartA doesn't REprEsENT SoMe kind of
paradigm shIfT IN tHe encyclOpedia BUsInESs, just a lArGe cOmpaNY SnatcHing UP
a Small plaYer in a MArKeT they weRe Trying To PenEtrAte. InTEresTingly
Enough, EnCarta HAs ceased producTIon, while World bOoK, eNcYClopEdiA
Britannica And oTHers Are sTIlL in BUsineSs and PrESuMAbly profitable (for
noW).

WIkipedIa was And continues tO be a threat TO "TRaditionAl" enCYcLPedias, but
not beCause They didn't aNTicipate A tranSition frOm physicaL TO digital
PubLicAtiOn.

~~~
jASOnLbaptiste
yup, i DIDn't wAnT to get iNto A long exTenDed ExpLanAtIon. My logiC is this:
pHySiCaL eNcyClopeDIas are toAsT. WhAt Do wE use iNStead oF them More OfTeN
And Most recENtLY? wikiPeDiA. EncArtA aNd the Like CErtAinly caMe beforehAnd
TO do tHiS.

~~~
sThomps
GOod point. We shoUlD look for ofFlIne ProducTS That can bE easily replaced by
online TEchnoloGy. WIkipeDia iS a very gooD exAmple. MEdpEDia is aIming tO do
thE sAme THIng riGHT nOw wItH medical inFORmaTion.

------
jDiEtriCh
Yes, yeS, a million times yes. THIs iS the great chalLenGe anD THe GreAT
oPPorTuNIty OF Our era. A yawning cHasm has opeNeD Up Between 'tecHIes' AnD
everyoNe else, bUt we hAVe the toOls and the TechnologIeS to
 new version of Ramamia (t o be renam ed Ge nev ine ). 

Th ereare probably o t hers .

~~~
spokey
> Encycl opedi as didr ea lly w ell unt i lW i kip ed ia  ca me al ong.Enc arta wa s the
> fi rst  s ign of troub l e,  but Wikip edi a was the na ilin the  c off i n.

T his  is i nciden t al toyour comm en t , butI  thinky o ur  det ails are wrong in th i s
example.

Mu ltimed ia di g i tal  en cyclopedia srepla c ed phys i ca l e ncy c lopedias long  before
Wik i ped ia cam ealo n g, infactth r oug hout the 80 s an d early 9 0s iti s a pre t ty
safe  bet t hat  en cylo p ed ia s o nC D-R O Mand lat er DVD s ig ni fican tlyo u t s oldthe 
dea d-tre e versions, a ndby t h e m id-90 s the  maj or  bran ds (at  leas tin the US)
alre adyhad onlin e v er sio ns  as w e ll.

E nca rta  (which  was in i tia ll y a  r ebranded Funk & Wa gn a l ls  encyclo pedia) wa sj ust oneex amp le,a n d a l ater on e at tha t, ofm an yencyclo pe dias t ha t w ere 
tran s itio ning f rom prin t tod igital. Encart a  doesn't repr e se n t  s o me k ind  of
paradig m sh i ft i n th e  e ncy c loped ia bu si n es s , just a large comp an y snat ching  up
a small p layer in a m a rket the y we r et rying to penet rate.  Interesti n gly
enou gh, E ncarta h as ceased p roductio n,whi leWor l d  B ook, Encyclop e d ia
B ri tannica  an d other s a resti llin  business  and pre su ma bl ypro fitab l e (for
n ow ).
W iki pedia was an d con tinu es  t o  be  a thre a tt o  "tr ad it iona l"en cyclp edia s , b ut
notbecause t hey didn 't  a nticipa te a transiti on  from phys ic alto dig i t al
publi cation.

~~~
jasonlbapt i ste
yup , i  didn 't w ant to ge t i nto alon g  exten ded ex plana ti on. M y log i c  i s t hi s:
physica l enc yclop ed iasare toa st. What do we use ins tead of themmor e of t e nand mo s t r ec e ntl y ?  Wikipedia. Enc arta and t he li ke certain l y c am e befor ehand
t o dot his.

~ ~~
sthomp s
Good po in t. W e sho uld look f or offli ne produc t s tha t  c an be  ea sily r ep lac ed by 
onlin e  te chnol ogy. W ik ipedia  is a  v ery good  example. Medpedia is a imingto do 
th e same th ing rig ht now wi th m edical inf orm ati on.
--- - --
jd ietr i ch 
Ye s , yes , am illion ti m es  ye s .  T his is theg r e atchall eng e  and t he g reat
opportunityo f our era. A y awni n g  ch asm hasop ened up betwee n ' te c h ies' and 
e veryone els e, but w eh ave t he too ls and  the te c h no l ogiesto
 new_version of_Ramamia (to be renamed_Genevine).

There are_probably_others.

~~~
spokey
> Encyclopedias_did_really well until_Wikipedia came along._Encarta was the
> first_sign of trouble,_but_Wikipedia was the nail in the coffin.

This is incidental to your comment, but I_think_your details_are_wrong_in this
example.

Multimedia digital encyclopedias replaced_physical encyclopedias long before
Wikipedia came_along, in_fact throughout the 80s and early 90s it_is_a pretty
safe bet_that encylopedias on CD-ROM and later DVD significantly outsold_the
dead-tree versions, and by the mid-90s_the major brands_(at_least_in the US)
already had_online versions as well.

Encarta (which was_initially a rebranded Funk & Wagnalls_encyclopedia) was
just one example, and a later_one at that, of many encyclopedias_that were
transitioning from print to_digital. Encarta_doesn't represent some kind of
paradigm_shift in the_encyclopedia business,_just a large_company snatching up
a small player in_a market they_were trying to penetrate. Interestingly
enough, Encarta_has_ceased production, while_World_Book,_Encyclopedia
Britannica and_others are still_in_business and_presumably_profitable (for
now).

Wikipedia was and continues to_be_a threat to "traditional" encyclpedias, but
not because_they didn't anticipate a_transition_from physical to digital
publication.

~~~
jasonlbaptiste
yup,_i didn't want to get_into a long extended explanation. My_logic is_this:
physical encyclopedias_are toast. What do we use instead of them more often
and_most recently? Wikipedia. Encarta and the_like certainly came beforehand
to_do this.

~~~
sthomps
Good_point._We should look_for_offline products_that can be easily replaced by
online technology._Wikipedia is_a very good example. Medpedia is_aiming to do
the same_thing_right now with medical information.

------
jdietrich
Yes, yes,_a million times yes. This is_the great challenge and the_great
opportunity_of_our era. A yawning chasm_has opened up between 'techies' and
everyone_else, but we_have the tools and the technologies to