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

[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.