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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by TIME Article

24/7 Wall St. 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]

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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...

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.

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...

[Adam Y.]

Originally Posted by Elgin Clock

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.

[KarenH]

Originally Posted by Elgin Clock

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. 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]

Originally Posted by KarenH

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. 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.

Originally Posted by 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...).

Hate to bring this back but....

Dell Quateryly Down 63%
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/te...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...

[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.

[Adam Y.]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

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.