[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

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.

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

The best way to find that out would to be, READING THE ARTICLE before randomly posting speculation. ....

Originally Posted by Time Article by Douglas A. McIntyre

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.