TIME magazine Lists the Segway as "Top Ten worst Tech failures..."

[Kyle]

Time magazine lists the Segway as "One of the ten biggest Tech failures of the last decade"

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1898610_1898625_1898641,00.html

I think that finically, yes the Segway wasn't the best investment but in terms of engineering and pushing the limits on society it was one of the best Tech inventions of the past decade. What are your thoughts?

[MrForbes]

Their 50 Worst Cars list is also pretty far removed from reality

[Kyle]

Their 50 Worst Cars list is also pretty far removed from reality

Yea I noticed that also, I wonder if this is just one persons opinion or a poll with supported data that TIME put together.

[Cory]

Time magazine lists the Segway as "One of the ten biggest Tech failures of the last decade"

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1898610_1898625_1898641,00.html

I think that finically, yes the Segway wasn't the best investment but in terms of engineering and pushing the limits on society it was one of the best Tech inventions of the past decade. What are your thoughts?

I don't agree that the segway at all influenced or changed society, but I agree that from an engineering standpoint it was not a failure.

[Bongle]

I think the main problem with the Segway was that Dean (or his company) decided to hype it to an unnecessary degree, claiming that it would transform society and the way cities were designed. If it was just a quiet release of a device that was targeted at the places where it has a genuine niche (postal workers, cops, corporate campuses), then it would have been in all kinds of "top 10 really cool devices you've never heard of" lists.

Given that its been in steady production for nearly a decade, I can't imagine they're losing money on them. I'd put it in "the top 10 devices that are quietly doing better than TIME magazine thinks they are" list.

[Joe Matt]

I think the main problem with the Segway was that Dean (or his company) decided to hype it to an unnecessary degree, claiming that it would transform society and the way cities were designed. If it was just a quiet release of a device that was targeted at the places where it has a genuine niche (postal workers, cops, corporate campuses), then it would have been in all kinds of "top 10 really cool devices you've never heard of" lists.

Given that its been in steady production for nearly a decade, I can't imagine they're losing money on them. I'd put it in "the top 10 devices that are quietly doing better than TIME magazine thinks they are" list.

Segway LLC NEVER SAID ANYTHING pre-unvailing about the device. NOTHING. It was all 3rd parties like Jobs, Bezos, and other aformentioned parties. It was people running amuck looking for a quick sound bite and something to cover besides shark bites that summer...

[big1boom]

Well... seeing as the rest of the 10 biggest tech failures are
Windows Vista
Gateway
HD DVD
Vonage
YouTube
Sirius XM
Microsoft Zune
Palm
Iridium
Segway

Last I checked, Vista is commonplace, Gateway sells lots of computers (I have one), Vonage has enough money to advertise, YouTube is everywhere, Sirius XM is installed in cars, my roommate has a Zune, a few people have Palm's..

So I wouldn't really consider this list the be the most credible...

[IKE]

You Tube also made the list. 2 years earlier TIME had it listed as one of the most significant inventions ever and even gave the 2006 person of the year to "you"
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20061225,00.html

Seems like Time could make it pretty high on a list of least accurate over-hyping magazines....

[Greg Peshek]

Well... seeing as the rest of the 10 biggest tech failures are
Windows Vista
Gateway
HD DVD
Vonage
YouTube
Sirius XM
Microsoft Zune
Palm
Iridium
Segway

Last I checked, Vista is commonplace, Gateway sells lots of computers (I have one), Vonage has enough money to advertise, YouTube is everywhere, Sirius XM is installed in cars, my roommate has a Zune, a few people have Palm's..

Not to try to be argumentative here, but as was pointed out earlier the common denominator here seems to be the overhyping of all these products. -Vista was supposed to be the next revolutionary operating system, when it was just a bloated XP.

-The Zune was going to beat out Apple and the iPod for the MP3 market.. it just ended up like most other non-brand name MP3 players.

-While Gateway does have a share of the computer market.. it's nowhere near the powers that Dell, HP (Compaq since they are one in the same), and Apple are in the market of personal computers.

-Youtube was great when it came out, there were unlimited possibilities, now what I think separated it from 2006 as a great invention to now is the buyout by Google. It was expected that Google with its infinite resources would revamp YouTube and make it amazing. Instead it just became bloated with ads for buying music on Yahoo and has remained much the same since the two kids from UIUC coded it.

-Segway, same thing that was mentioned earlier, great expectations and hype and didn't necessarily live up to all of those things.

I'm not saying any of these are bad inventions, I'm just saying the general link between all of these is that they were expected to do great things and none of them have. None of these are complete failures, but flops from what they were expected to be.. yes.

-Greg

[Jared Russell]

These lists exist only to provoke thought (slash outrage) in the reader.

In that sense, this is a successful list. In most others, it is not.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Not to try to be argumentative here, but as was pointed out earlier the common denominator here seems to be the overhyping of all these products. -Vista was supposed to be the next revolutionary operating system, when it was just a bloated XP.

-The Zune was going to beat out Apple and the iPod for the MP3 market.. it just ended up like most other non-brand name MP3 players.

-While Gateway does have a share of the computer market.. it's nowhere near the powers that Dell, HP (Compaq since they are one in the same), and Apple are in the market of personal computers.

-Youtube was great when it came out, there were unlimited personalities, now what I think separated it from 2006 as a great invention to now is the buyout by Google. It was expected that Google with its infinite resources would revamp YouTube and make it amazing. Instead it just became bloated with ads for buying music on Yahoo and has remained much the same since the two kids from UIUC coded it.

-Segway, same thing that was mentioned earlier, great expectations and hype and didn't necessarily live up to all of those things.

I'm not saying any of these are bad inventions, I'm just saying the general link between all of these is that they were expected to do great things and none of them have. None of these are complete failures, but flops from what they were expected to be.. yes.

-Greg



I think Greg is onto what the list really shows. A failure is not something that doesnt work, merely something that doesnt live up to expectations. Let us look at Vista, it was supposed to be revolutionary, it was supposed to make the computer a lean, mean, number crunching machine. Lets face it, the whole launch was bungled, 5 years in development, how many different editions? What were the system requirements? Is my computer Vista ready? Vista compatible? Will my peripherals work? Is Vista a good OS? I would say so. I would also consider it a failure, it was not that revolutionary, nor was it particularly lean, or fast. Baring that, it generated more negative press for Microsoft than it did positive press. Vista was not widely adopted and as such it is a failure, it should have revolutionized computing but it failed.

The Segway could have revolutionized personal transport but it failed. So I would chalk it up as a failure, not from an engineering perspective but instead from a cultural perspective.

[Chris is me]

The title implies that the Segway was somehow a poor quality product, and it's far from that. It's a well built machine by anyone's standard.

Now whether or not it lived up to the media hype, or whether or not it was marketable to a wide enough audience, or if they could make it affordable, that's different. It's not at the right price point for that, yet. The stupid thing about all of these cool little technological innovations is that they cost a lot of money :/

Considering how "meh" the rest of their lists are (YouTube is a failure? I mean the Zune certainly was, but YouTube?), I agree with Jared that it's likely just to get publicity and generate emotion. Which it certainly has!

[Ian Curtis]

Segway LLC NEVER SAID ANYTHING pre-unvailing about the device. NOTHING. It was all 3rd parties like Jobs, Bezos, and other aformentioned parties. It was people running amuck looking for a quick sound bite and something to cover besides shark bites that summer...

I'm pretty sure I remember an interview with Dean Kamen on a morning primetime show prior to the Segway release talking about how revolutionary "it" was.

[Chris Hibner]

Has anyone actually read the part of the article that explains why they are considered failures? Judging from the responses here, I would say the answer is "no".

YouTube is a great example. I saw it on the list and said, "this idiot doesn't know what he's talking about - YouTube is HUGE!"

Then I read the reason WHY it is considered a failure: it is losing $470 million dollars PER YEAR!! Google paid $1.65 Billion (with a B) for it, and it has no real chance of ever making back that money. YouTube needs to TRIPLE it's income, just to cover operating costs! I don't know about you, but that sounds to me like it's failing. It may be awesome, but it can't bleed cash like that and be called a success.

[hillale]

At one point in time, this list would have included the Edsel. It seems to be a list of technologies that are floundering on a different front than that of development, be it sales or advertising.

[Chris Hibner]

At one point in time, this list would have included the Edsel. It seems to be a list of technologies that are floundering on a different front than that of development, be it sales or advertising.

I think most people are misinterpreting the title of the article. The article isn't about technological failures as much as it is about tech PRODUCTS that have failed in a business sense.

[artdutra04]

Segway's failure to live up to expectations can be attributed to three reasons: over-hyped product release, high cost, and politicians/NIMBYs afraid of change.

- Over-hyped product release. I'm not going to lie, back in 2001 when we kept hearing about "IT" and how it would revolutionize society, it lead me to believe they invented either cold fusion or time travel. Sadly when that sheet was lifted, there was no flying DeLorean.

- From the hundreds (possibly thousands?) of people I've talked to while on my Segway, they are all really interested until they learn it costs $5k. If the price was half that, the potential market share of Segway would explode. Or if there was some kind of leasing program to lease Segways for two or three years, then sell them at $1k-$2k, they'd see huge market share growth.

- And last, the politicians and NIMBYs afraid of change. Too many cities banned Segways, claiming they were a huge liability, and that crazy people flying down sidewalks will run you over and steal your baby and eat your dog and all kinds of FUD tactics. Some brought up obscure laws from the early 20th century, which claimed that all motorized vehicles have to have physical brakes, which they claimed made disc brakes legal but dynamic braking not. If citizens were afraid of people on Segways going 12.5mph on sidewalks, a better solution would have been to make a law prohibiting them from going beyond 6mph on sidewalks (light jogging speed). Laws that just outright ban Segways because the potential exists for someone to get hurt are like the cities and towns at the beginning of the 20th century which banned automobiles because they might run into a trolley car or spook the horses. It's better to teach someone responsibility than to outright ban it.

But all said and done, I don't think Segway is over by a long shot. If able to be sold at relatively cheap prices, Neighborhood Electric Vehicles look to be an up-and-coming thing for the coming decades, especially by municipal services, utilities, postal service, etc. If so, then the rising tide will lift all boats in the electric transportation market.

[Burmeister #279]

(sorry if this has already been mentioned because i skipped all the posts so i could say this before i leave)

I don't know if this poll was done online but if so, it can't be trusted. online polls can be voted on by anyone anywhere as many times as they want, as evidenced by the creater of the literal garbage can/black hole of the internet being voted as the number one most influential person over every legitimate leader, due to online voting. Time magazine polls are definately [[[generally]]] untrustworthy.

[Lil' Lavery]

(sorry if this has already been mentioned because i skipped all the posts so i could say this before i leave)

I don't know if this poll was done online but if so, it can't be trusted. online polls can be voted on by anyone anywhere as many times as they want, as evidenced by the creater of the literal garbage can/black hole of the internet being voted as the number one most influential person over every legitimate leader, due to online voting. Time magazine polls are definately [[[generally]]] untrustworthy.

The best way to find that out would to be, READING THE ARTICLE before randomly posting speculation.
24/7 Wall St. (http://247wallst.com/) looked at both start-ups and products introduced by companies that did not survive to create a list of the most colossal tech failures of the last decade.

Honestly, how few people in this thread seem to have bothered to actually read the article is a little bit disgusting.

[Richard Wallace]

I think most people are misinterpreting the title of the article. The article isn't about technological failures as much as it is about tech PRODUCTS that have failed in a business sense.The best way to find that out would to be, READING THE ARTICLE before randomly posting speculation. ....To make the list, a product had to be widely recognized and widely available to customers. It had to be aimed at a large global market. It had to be technologically equal to or superior to its competition. It had to be a product or new company that had the possibility of bringing in billions of dollars in revenue based on the sales of similar or competing products. Finally, it had to clearly miss the mark of living up to the potential that its creators expected, and that the public and press were lead to believe was possible.

To geeks (like me) for whom geekiness is its own reward, there is no such thing as a technological failure. Trying a new technology can yield expected results, or unexpected results. Either way, the geek wins -- and receives either a nod of approval, or an opportunity to learn something new.

To an entrepreneur (like John Doerr) who seeks opportunities to grow new ventures, success is measured by financial sustainability -- return on the investment, which in turn enables further opportunities, and so on. By that measure the examples on the Time article's list are failures. And they are lessons.

[Joe Matt]

Last I checked, Vista is commonplace, Gateway sells lots of computers (I have one), Vonage has enough money to advertise, YouTube is everywhere, Sirius XM is installed in cars, my roommate has a Zune, a few people have Palm's..

http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/img/facepalm.jpeg

[AdamHeard]

A business sense is something many engineers should, but probably will never, learn.

Many engineers would love to leave their corporate jobs to start a company that sells products geared towards FIRST teams, and use this as a platform to launch into other markets, but most would fail. Andy Baker was able to do it, which shows he has that business sense that is lost on most engineers.

It's almost sad how bad some of the engineers are, in my years of interning, I worked with some that seemed to really have no concept of how to do business.

[JesseK]

With the way the article rates everything, I'm surprised that something like the MacBook, or actually most of Apple's computer product line, isn't on there. Apple doesn't necessarily bleed cash because of their products, but they come close due to the extremely low market share and a continuously mediocre product (and the only thing they're doing is throwing cash at it via advertising...worst idea ever...).

I somewhat agree with Adam for the business perspective in new technologies. I think the overall article, not just the one that's about the Segway, does emphasize a good point in engineering -- anything that's engineered without a pre-determined need becomes a risk in the market. This is why engineers of consumer products need more than just a good product design in order for the product to be successful. Yet companies cannot be narrow-minded and reactive to a market, as stagnation in a company's product innovation will inevitably lead to its downfall.

There is hope though, because there can be ALOT of product failures before the ONE golden egg that more than makes up for the failures (like Apple's iPhone/iPod & Store). Hence, usually companies have a business model that accounts for the risk of a new technology product. If the product is truly unsuccessful and they were way off target in the initial market analysis, the company eats the cost and retains the intellectual property to license it out in future years.

Like a modern day DaVinci scenario, sometimes the world just isn't ready for the technology yet. When we're all on gigantic spaceships cruising around the galaxy, the Segway will be the greatest thing since sliced bread :cool:

[JaneYoung]

A business sense is something many engineers should, but probably will never, learn.

Many engineers would love to leave their corporate jobs to start a company that sells products geared towards FIRST teams, and use this as a platform to launch into other markets, but most would fail. Andy Baker was able to do it, which shows he has that business sense that is lost on most engineers.

It's almost sad how bad some of the engineers are, in my years of interning, I worked with some that seemed to really have no concept of how to do business.

It is my opinion that AndyMark is setting a standard and acting as a role model for business sense and applying the wisdom gained. It could be that we have arrived at a point to explore this and the impact that the members of the FIRST community can have on the future dreams of business owners and corporations by role modeling as business owners and entrepreneurs, developing and implementing the concepts that are lacking, therefore, creating opportunity for failure.

Many FIRSTers have no problem posting opinions in ChiefDelphi regarding different aspects of team development and practical applications to be used during build. There may be a time fast approaching for the need for mentoring and sharing practical applications and career development as business owners and entrepreneurs. It is identifying itself as a need.

At some point, I can see a recognition of some sort being developed to acknowledge the successful achievements of mentors, alumni, and perhaps, students - who have plowed the row, mentored, shared valuable lessons, training, and philosophies in succeeding in the area of business and entrepreneurship. AndyMark is paving the way for those who are paying attention and looking to the future of great possibilities.

.02
Jane

[Rick TYler]

It is my opinion that AndyMark is setting a standard and acting as a role model for business sense and applying the wisdom gained. It could be that we have arrived at a point to explore this and the impact that the members of the FIRST community can have on the future dreams of business owners and corporations by role modeling as business owners and entrepreneurs, developing and implementing the concepts that are lacking, therefore, creating opportunity for failure.

And don't forget what Tony Norman and Bob Mimlich have done with Innovation First (IFI). FIRST ran on IFI electronics and other parts for years, and their VEX product line is now serving a rapidly-growing youth community. IFI employees and sponsorship still support a number of FRC teams.

[Adam Y.]

Then I read the reason WHY it is considered a failure: it is losing $470 million dollars PER YEAR!! Google paid $1.65 Billion (with a B) for it, and it has no real chance of ever making back that money. YouTube needs to TRIPLE it's income, just to cover operating costs! I don't know about you, but that sounds to me like it's failing. It may be awesome, but it can't bleed cash like that and be called a success.
Well if we go by that criteria every single video host is a complete and utter failure.

[Cory]

I don't understand the outrage here. When I saw the overview on the first page here I thought the list was a little ridiculous (Youtube? Top 10 worst tech failure? Seriously?)

Then I read the article and realized that it's talking about these things being failures from a financial standpoint. When you look at it from that view, everything on the list makes sense.

So are Youtube/the Segway a failure? Sure, if you're looking at it from a purely fiscal point of view. Are they actual failures when related to technology? Clearly not. Youtube is ubiquitous in daily life, and the Segway is a very cool piece of engineering.

[Elgin Clock]

Well... seeing as the rest of the 10 biggest tech failures are
Windows Vista
Gateway
HD DVD
Vonage
YouTube
Sirius XM
Microsoft Zune
Palm
Iridium
Segway

Last I checked, Vista is commonplace, Gateway sells lots of computers (I have one), Vonage has enough money to advertise, YouTube is everywhere, Sirius XM is installed in cars, my roommate has a Zune, a few people have Palm's..

So I wouldn't really consider this list the be the most credible...


I would count is as a credible list - and from exactly Cory's standpoint up above. Purely financial terms.

But let me pose this question to you all:
What difference does Segway have than every other product on the list?
No real competition.
I think we can all name some other competing product in every one of those product's fields that are more popular (and thus more profitable) on that list.

Can you do the same with Segway?
What is equal in a consumer product to a Segway at this point in time?
Who is Segway's major rival?
When you have a unique product, you would love to see your product thrive, but you don't mind if it doesn't since you have the market cornered.
Now whether or not it's a good market to be in, is of another discussion. :ahh:

We all know that in terms of popularity & other attributes that:
Windows Xp > Windows Vista (MicroSoft is esentially competing with themselves, so who's losing that one overall?? No one really) lol
Dell > Gateway (in terms of sales)
Blueray > HD DVD (the clear winner was BlueRay)
Skype > Vonage
HULU > YouTube (sometimes)
iPod > Microsoft Zune (by leaps & bounds admittedly (I myself own 2 Zunes & 1 iPod & can admit that one)
Blackberry or iPhone > Palm (today, but not 10 years ago - if you were anything of a tech savy person, you had a Palm Pilot back in the day)

etc, etc...

But what company or product over-powered Segway in the market of providing the consumer a self balancing (electro-mechanical) people transporter?
(Bicycles & other human powered machines don't really count, nor compare for this in-depth of a comparison btw...)

The answer is nothing compares, nor competes with it currently.
So it's ridiculous to even put Segway on the list in my opinion.


By the way, does anyone know TIME's historical standpoint on the Segway?
I know an "independent" research company conducted the study, but that doesn't mean TIME has the last say as to what to publish.
Has TIME magazine embraced the Segway over the years, or shunned it, & thus had other motives for putting it on the list with no fair competition so to speak of.
Just wondering...

[Lil' Lavery]

With the way the article rates everything, I'm surprised that something like the MacBook, or actually most of Apple's computer product line, isn't on there. Apple doesn't necessarily bleed cash because of their products, but they come close due to the extremely low market share and a continuously mediocre product (and the only thing they're doing is throwing cash at it via advertising...worst idea ever...).


I think the fact that Apple has the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 9th, and 24th most popular laptops on Amazon begs to differ.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/pc/565108

And the 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 8th, 9th, 12th, 16th, 18th, and 23rd most popular desktops.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/pc/565098/ref=pd_ts_pc_nav

While the "market share" (there are a number of flaws with that statistic) is less than 10%, Apple's "dollar share" is nearly 35% of the laptop market and 25% of the total PC market.

[Adam Y.]

HULU > YouTube (sometimes)

It is a bit odd to be comparing HULU to YouTube when YouTube was designed to do things that HULU will never do. Most of the video services that are comparable to YouTube are floundering just the same.

[Joe Matt]

I think the fact that Apple has the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 9th, and 24th most popular laptops on Amazon begs to differ.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/pc/565108

And the 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 8th, 9th, 12th, 16th, 18th, and 23rd most popular desktops.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/pc/565098/ref=pd_ts_pc_nav

While the "market share" (there are a number of flaws with that statistic) is less than 10%, Apple's "dollar share" is nearly 35% of the laptop market and 25% of the total PC market.

Thanks Sean.

We could also look at quarterly profits compared to other brands that "have market share", especially Asus...

units sold/market share != profit

[artdutra04]

With the way the article rates everything, I'm surprised that something like the MacBook, or actually most of Apple's computer product line, isn't on there. Apple doesn't necessarily bleed cash because of their products, but they come close due to the extremely low market share and a continuously mediocre product (and the only thing they're doing is throwing cash at it via advertising...worst idea ever...).By that logic, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Bugatti, Maserati, Aston Martin, and Porsche an epic failures. After all, combined these companies have less market share than Apple does.

What are these companies thinking? Constantly throwing millions of dollars into research for cars barely anyone drives. Pfft, amateurs.

[Dan Petrovic]

Poor Segway... even though it didn't meet expectations, they're still really cool and the company still exists, so there's still a place for Segways, but it's not an urban environment.

The PUMA doesn't look too promising either. I can tell you right now that those things aren't going to be cheap. I have a feeling that they will sell for more than some brand-new cars. At least they didn't hype the living daylights out of it.

[KarenH]

But let me pose this question to you all:
What difference does Segway have than every other product on the list?
No real competition.
I think we can all name some other competing product in every one of those product's fields that are more popular (and thus more profitable) on that list.

Can you do the same with Segway?
What is equal in a consumer product to a Segway at this point in time?
Who is Segway's major rival?
When you have a unique product, you would love to see your product thrive, but you don't mind if it doesn't since you have the market cornered.

But what company or product over-powered Segway in the market of providing the consumer a self balancing (electro-mechanical) people transporter?

The answer is nothing compares, nor competes with it currently.
So it's ridiculous to even put Segway on the list in my opinion.
I'm sorry to report that some people DO think Segway has a competitor. As I learned last week, the Sacramento International Airport just purchased a couple of T-3's (http://www.t3motion.com/index1.html). When I first saw this on the news, I thought they were modified Segways. And if you look at the "Customer Comments" page, they include quotes such as these:

"We’re replacing the Segway we use because this is more stable. It can get up and over curbs..."

"Stability is the main thing. This one uses an accelerator on the handlebars, as opposed to the Segway, which relies on body weight..."

Although it has 3 wheels instead of 2--and if I remember correctly, it costs even more than the Segway--functionally it does about the same thing (at least, in the context of police use). I think people still don't "get" the self-balancing concept of the Segway. Most people are more comfortable with the idea of a tricycle--after all, we rode them when we were little kids.

Furthermore, for police use, if an officer has to step off either of these, say, to apprehend a suspect, which is more likely to stay put--the Segway, or the T-3? In my experience, the Segway won't. Also, the weight limits are more realistic for police officers, who are often heavier than the Segway was designed for. The T-3 is slightly faster than the Segway, which may be an advantage in police work. The T-3 has integrated lighting; you have to pay extra to get a headlight for a Segway, which is inconvenient if you need to ride at night. The customer can choose from 6 colors (the Segway has only 3), and it has a swappable power module (which enables the T-3 to operate 24 hours).

So I have to say that apparently the Segway does have competition, though we could debate whether the differences are similar to the Apple/PC differences in scope. (I.e., the Apple and the PC have different platforms, but both are computers for individual use; the Segway and T-3 have different configurations, but both are personal motorized transportation devices.) We will also have to wait to see which, if either, of these devices will have any long-term place in society.

[Joe Matt]

I'm sorry to report that some people DO think Segway has a competitor. As I learned last week, the Sacramento International Airport just purchased a couple of T-3's (http://www.t3motion.com/index1.html). When I first saw this on the news, I thought they were modified Segways. And if you look at the "Customer Comments" page, they include quotes such as these:

"We’re replacing the Segway we use because this is more stable. It can get up and over curbs..."

"Stability is the main thing. This one uses an accelerator on the handlebars, as opposed to the Segway, which relies on body weight..."

Although it has 3 wheels instead of 2--and if I remember correctly, it costs even more than the Segway--functionally it does about the same thing (at least, in the context of police use). I think people still don't "get" the self-balancing concept of the Segway. Most people are more comfortable with the idea of a tricycle--after all, we rode them when we were little kids.

Furthermore, for police use, if an officer has to step off either of these, say, to apprehend a suspect, which is more likely to stay put--the Segway, or the T-3? In my experience, the Segway won't. Also, the weight limits are more realistic for police officers, who are often heavier than the Segway was designed for. The T-3 is slightly faster than the Segway, which may be an advantage in police work. The T-3 has integrated lighting; you have to pay extra to get a headlight for a Segway, which is inconvenient if you need to ride at night. The customer can choose from 6 colors (the Segway has only 3), and it has a swappable power module (which enables the T-3 to operate 24 hours).

So I have to say that apparently the Segway does have competition, though we could debate whether the differences are similar to the Apple/PC differences in scope. (I.e., the Apple and the PC have different platforms, but both are computers for individual use; the Segway and T-3 have different configurations, but both are personal motorized transportation devices.) We will also have to wait to see which, if either, of these devices will have any long-term place in society.

It looks like it's going to kill someone and take up half of a sidewalk. Great.

With the way the article rates everything, I'm surprised that something like the MacBook, or actually most of Apple's computer product line, isn't on there. Apple doesn't necessarily bleed cash because of their products, but they come close due to the extremely low market share and a continuously mediocre product (and the only thing they're doing is throwing cash at it via advertising...worst idea ever...).


Hate to bring this back but....

Dell Quateryly Down 63%
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/technology/companies/29dell.html?_r=1&ref=technology

comparatively...

Apple Shows Best March Quarter Revenue In History
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/04/22results.html

You're argument is one of the worst I've seen, besides "my room mate has a Zune so it's not a failure! And I have a Gateway too!" kid...

[EricH]

Joe, make sure you also look at HP, Toshiba, Compaq, Gateway (in their new name), and the other companies that make Windows computers. Looking at one as a case in point does almost nothing. One data point does not a proof make.

[oddjob]

There is a (apparently) small group of people for whom the Segway is valuable. For the rest, a bicycle is superior, and even there, the new electric bicycles with motors in the hub solve at least one of the same problems as the Segway - power assist. The whole "balancing on side by side wheels" thing is cool looking but offers little to no value for most, increases width which is a disadvantage in urban areas, and consumers have spoken with their locked wallets.

[Joe Matt]

Joe, make sure you also look at HP, Toshiba, Compaq, Gateway (in their new name), and the other companies that make Windows computers. Looking at one as a case in point does almost nothing. One data point does not a proof make.

As I stated earlier, Asus has had the same sorts of losses and have made a market share grab with their low margin, or loss leading, netbooks. HP = Compaq, Toshiba makes more than computers, and I haven't followed up on Gateway at all, but I will.