HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
The folks over at eWeek have put together a list of ten emerging technologies that flopped. Everything from E-books to WebTV made the list. Anyone remember Microsoft Bob? How about the iSmell?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Ten Emerging Technologies That Flopped
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Well I do know that the Xvid codec has become exceedingly more popular in certain circles, so in essence, combined with the bloated packages that Divx release for a long time, you could consider it unsuccessful.
God...CueCat...I once saw one of those, didn't ever figure out what use they were.
I think the network PC selection on the list is WAY off the mark. Unless all those IMac sales were just flukes?
God...CueCat...I once saw one of those, didn't ever figure out what use they were.
I think the network PC selection on the list is WAY off the mark. Unless all those IMac sales were just flukes?
machwireless
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 1,193
half of those i have never even heard of....
I wouldn't agree to this list at all.
A lot of those have gained popularity among the enthusiasts. Perhaps if they want to say their initial purpose has failed, then that would be more correct.
Facial recognition didn't fail. Ebooks didn't fail (tablets anyone?). DivX didn't fail either. Network PC's? Hell thats almost bigger than ever before. Speech recognition worked too, but wasn't very popular amongst foreigners or anyone with a speaking impediment. WebTV did flop majorly, but it opened up the doors to the HTPC world.
A lot of those have gained popularity among the enthusiasts. Perhaps if they want to say their initial purpose has failed, then that would be more correct.
Facial recognition didn't fail. Ebooks didn't fail (tablets anyone?). DivX didn't fail either. Network PC's? Hell thats almost bigger than ever before. Speech recognition worked too, but wasn't very popular amongst foreigners or anyone with a speaking impediment. WebTV did flop majorly, but it opened up the doors to the HTPC world.
DivX flopped? Wow, that's news to me. Or are they talking about something completely different, like self-destructing DVDs? If I owned DivX I'd be on the phone with my lawyer this minute
DivX is the codec, and that is still going strong today.
DIVX (All capitals was the attempt by CC to have self destructing DVDs)
The author of this article doesn't seem to realize he is stating the codec is dead.. Which it isnt.
goodcooper
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 9,771
i stopped reading when i saw that divx was on this list.... some people should just not be writing tech articles....
I remember how excited my dad was when he first got his quecat... Of course he got it so that he could enter all of his 2,000+ books into a datbase on his computer, and then carry that list with him to book stores. I don't think he really cared what the original intent was!
trick_m0nkey
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Messages
- 4,240
I saw a cuecat at a pawnshop the other day...I just laughed. I remember how every single radio show/tv broadcast did everything they could to make it popular by making that little cuecat noise to show you could scan the product and go to the website. Wow.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2005
- Messages
- 2,068
I think he got the SoftRAM wrong. There were a lot of people running it to boost their RAM by spooling it to drive back then. But, it became unnecessary because Windows began to do the same thing with the page file. And, getting more RAM became cheaper; motherboards could hold more physical memory.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2005
- Messages
- 9,589
Actually, DIVX-capable DVD players were quite a good deal for a short time. After they stopped making DIVX items, each person who bought a DIVX-capable DVD player was entitled to a 100 dollar rebate, making those players noticeably *less* expensive than standard DVD players.
I used to have one of them, and it still did just fine for playing ordinary DVD's, until it was stolen by a crooked moving company, but that's a story for another day.
Programs designed to enhance your computer's memory varied. SoftRAM did absolutely nothing except hog memory for itself, since Windows already did what SoftRAM said it was supposed to do. Some programs, though, would actually compress other programs in memory, much in the same way that programs such as Stacker would compress stuff on your hard drive, and still make them readable. Whether or not that was actually useful was quite debateable, but in this case, nobody cares, since RAM prices came crashing down shortly after.
Hmmm, if you remember that, then you may be old enough to remember how many of us on Usenet attributed to Microsoft Bob as being nothing more than Evil Otto with glasses!
I used to have one of them, and it still did just fine for playing ordinary DVD's, until it was stolen by a crooked moving company, but that's a story for another day.
Programs designed to enhance your computer's memory varied. SoftRAM did absolutely nothing except hog memory for itself, since Windows already did what SoftRAM said it was supposed to do. Some programs, though, would actually compress other programs in memory, much in the same way that programs such as Stacker would compress stuff on your hard drive, and still make them readable. Whether or not that was actually useful was quite debateable, but in this case, nobody cares, since RAM prices came crashing down shortly after.
Hmmm, if you remember that, then you may be old enough to remember how many of us on Usenet attributed to Microsoft Bob as being nothing more than Evil Otto with glasses!
mattgyver79
Weaksauce
- Joined
- May 4, 2005
- Messages
- 86
I think they are referring to dumb terminals but they are still off the mark because for some uses a dumb terminal makes sense. For instances cash registers.
The title on the artice was wrong. He wront DivX implying the codec, then goes on to explain the self destructing DVDs.
I think some people just skim the titles and don't bother to read what is said.
Unabomber:
Hmmm, if you remember that, then you may be old enough to remember how many of us on Usenet attributed to Microsoft Bob as being nothing more than Evil Otto with glasses!
He wasn't?!?
I'm old enough to not only know of this program but to have had the misfortune to support it. I even had one lady ask me if there was going to be a new version that would run on the new operating system...Windows 95...
My reply, "Ahh, no." The thank God was to myself.
Hmmm, if you remember that, then you may be old enough to remember how many of us on Usenet attributed to Microsoft Bob as being nothing more than Evil Otto with glasses!
He wasn't?!?
I'm old enough to not only know of this program but to have had the misfortune to support it. I even had one lady ask me if there was going to be a new version that would run on the new operating system...Windows 95...
My reply, "Ahh, no." The thank God was to myself.
1) Cuecat hobbiest love it, a free UPC reader (still a flop though)
2) ismell can anyone find anything good in it
3) DIVX, if you have protests AGAINST a product and it takes 5s to convert people against it not a good idea
4) E-books, more of a niche product that needs an all format reader, pocket book size, and a cost of about $100-150. A PPC with Ubook is close but to small, I have all the books i ever owned on SD cards.
5) FRS, companies just flat out lied at the tech level after 9/11 to get the contracts, another 3-5years and a "usable" system will be available
6) BoB, uhh yeah a flop but aint a "technology"
7) Networked Pc, for home it's a flop but most business use them
8) SoftRAM, never worked as advertised but did serve as a gap for it's time (same as DoubleSpace, Qeem)
9) Speech, has Vista gotten it right yet?
10) Web/MSTV this thing died 5years ago, but no one has the heart to tell the tiny customer base (does MS even remember it has this?)
4 - flops
1 - niche but decent market overseas
1 - business way more than home
2 - not yet but won't be given up on
1 - served its time
1 - flop but not a tech
40/60 -50/50 depending on how you look at it, ok great article
2) ismell can anyone find anything good in it
3) DIVX, if you have protests AGAINST a product and it takes 5s to convert people against it not a good idea
4) E-books, more of a niche product that needs an all format reader, pocket book size, and a cost of about $100-150. A PPC with Ubook is close but to small, I have all the books i ever owned on SD cards.
5) FRS, companies just flat out lied at the tech level after 9/11 to get the contracts, another 3-5years and a "usable" system will be available
6) BoB, uhh yeah a flop but aint a "technology"
7) Networked Pc, for home it's a flop but most business use them
8) SoftRAM, never worked as advertised but did serve as a gap for it's time (same as DoubleSpace, Qeem)
9) Speech, has Vista gotten it right yet?
10) Web/MSTV this thing died 5years ago, but no one has the heart to tell the tiny customer base (does MS even remember it has this?)
4 - flops
1 - niche but decent market overseas
1 - business way more than home
2 - not yet but won't be given up on
1 - served its time
1 - flop but not a tech
40/60 -50/50 depending on how you look at it, ok great article
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2005
- Messages
- 9,589
QEMM was a fantastic product during the DOS days. No other program came close to its capabilities, where you could generate a configuration that stably worked for almost every game out there, especially since there were still games that used expanded versus extended memory. It was awfully nice to be able to play games which used extended memory, and not have to reboot to switch to games that used expanded memory, such as Tie Fighter, X-Wing, etc.
This was even more important during the days before Microsoft included Memmaker, since there weren't that many people out there who were familiar with configuring EMM386 in DOS 5.0.
As for the original DoubleSpace, their compression methods were truly horrible compared to Stacker's methods.