Zima anyone?
Or perhaps Windows Vista? But you say Zima backlash lead to the micro-brew revolution and Vista helped create... oh, never mind.
If you work in Silicon Valley, you might want to look away now. Because one day your work may well feature in the Museum of Failure. Created by organizational psychologist Samuel West and due to open in Sweden in June, the museum celebrates the screw-ups, the well-intentioned but poorly considered, and the outright idiotic. …
Signing HR 1337 into law may have been Jimmy Carter's finest moment. Easing up excise tax on beer and wine likely sparked hundreds of people to take interest and convert that hobby into a profitable business. So even if some people might be tempted to put his term as President into the Museum of Failure they might want to think twice as it likely created more jobs than most other U.S. presidencies.
"Or perhaps Windows Vista?"
you meant Windows 'Ape' and Win-10-nic too, right?
[Vista is better than either one of 'em.]
Once the dust clears (i.e. most of us are running "other than windows"), they'll be declared the reasons Micro-shaft failed. They'll deserve their own wing at the museum. It will be *LEGENDARY* !!!
"Then why have I been productively using it as my primary desktop" ..... the "primary" is the clue. Linux is great for servers and a good fit for IoT where the vendors can just load it up and forget it (arrgh!). But for the desktop it still fails to catch on despite the fact that Microsoft alienates a bunch of customers (well mainly their IT folks) every time it does anything. It's not that Linux on the desktop is bad (forgetting Unity) it's just that the Linux desktop share is tiny and people and individuals are scared of making the jump. This isn't helped by the fact that there are many different Linux desktops to choose between so there is no obvious choice for the uninitiated (or the initiated for that matter). This results in each distro having a small share of the already tiny Linux desktop share. As such PC vendors don't touch it and it is very unattractive for commercial applications where lack of binary compatibility rears its head. This is aptly demonstrated by the PC gaming market (Steam usage shows < 1% Linux desktop). As such Linux is your "primary" desktop, but not your only one.
Systemd+Linux (ie. ignoring Android) is a failure in a similar way as Google Glass: It's perceived as such by the "new and shiny"-obsessed consumer-tech media. Despite both technologies continuing to thrive in their own niches (business/medicine for Glass, power users for Linux), if it's not present in the newsroom, it's considered a failure.
As such PC vendors don't touch it and it is very unattractive for commercial applications where lack of binary compatibility rears its head. This is aptly demonstrated by the PC gaming market (Steam usage shows < 1% Linux desktop).
And Steam also shows barely over 3% for MacOS. What a miserable failure that OS must be as well, right?
As such Linux is your "primary" desktop, but not your only one.
Speak for yourself, chump. And yes, I'm part of that <1% of Linux Steam users.
..... "And Steam also shows barely over 3% for MacOS. What a miserable failure that OS must be as well, right?"
Not really. The market share stats show about 11% i.e 10 MacOS machines to every Linux desktop, so comparatively very very successful.
Interesting that you are one of the <1% Linux Steam users. Is it a good experience? Lets go for the definitive Reg test .... does it have Crysis? Nope.
@LDS
What? So your definition of a good modern product is expensive (in both price and associated conditions), opaque, tightly controlled stuff not made by the Chinese?
And it is OK for anyone but the Chinese to produce successful bad outdated products cheaply for the Western markets? Well, no wonder Microsoft loves you! Probably Trumpy too.
Me: "Hey, Honey... fancy a weekend trip to Sweden in June?"
She: "Sounds good, why?"
Me: *shows article* "I fancy going to this exhibition"
She: *reading* "That looks interesting, but I'm not coming with you"
Me: "Why not?"
She: "I don't want to be spotted on the way out and accused of stealing an exhibit"
1: Inherently stupid products
2: Failure due to hype / bad marketing etc (Newton)
3: Failure due to no marketing (some touch phones before iPhone)
4: Technology not quite perfected (Philips N1500 Video cartridge etc)
5: Great idea very badly done (nGage)
6: Inherently too expensive (Fax from 1850s to 1970s)
7: Infrastructure too slow or expensive (Smart Phones from 1998 to 1996)
8: Bad management causing company fail (Osborne Computer, Nokia Phone division)
9: Bad luck?
10: Too late to market (Philips Video 2000)
I'm sure people can think of other reasons.
The reason why some products and services that are mediocre or even nasty actually madly succeed seems to be a combination of luck and marketing. Actually may apply to almost all products and services. It's a fallacy that a "good idea" is route to wealth. Most successes are not due to the "good idea".
The difference between failure or success can be just because "its time has come". Often the basic concept has existed for some time - possibly as a "solution looking for a problem".
Success can be built on other people charting the path by their failures.
ICL did the One Per Desk integrated personal desktop phone/computer. They also did video on demand services. The right ideas - but too early.
You should have owned one in decent climate or a country where the powers that be don't try to destroy your car in some half-arsed road safety measure that everyone else gave up before WW2. Then you could have discovered the dodgy electrics, cheap plastic fittings, saggy seats and terrible build quality.
They went like buggery and looked cool, mind. I enjoyed mine no end. Probably my third favourite car I've owned.
A couple of other reasons:
11: management incompetence (XEROX Alto).
12. A more specific marketing problem, failure to grasp the original target market in not interested but that others will be (color copying and RCA in the 60/70's aimed at the consumer market but found great success in the 80's in the business market).
13: Marketing attack (not, strictly speaking, sabotage) -- RCA's marketing of their "RCA SelectaVision VideoDiscs", which from the outsider's viewpoint looked like an attack on the Philips system with a cheaper and technically inferior design. But it divided the market, and the Philips system didn't get the market share it needed to succeed, at least in the U. S.
14. I presume some failures might be due to actual sabotage or industrial espionage, but I'm not familiar with any cases that may be out there.
This post has been deleted by its author
And just to add to that:
I could well argue that fax machines were a fabulous solution for a couple of decades - they just got replaced by the next wave. Remember that the prior solution was snail mail or outrageously expensive courier services. The idea that someone could receive a letter in real time was revolutionary.
"
You've forgotten Telex!
Brilliant concept for legally proving a message was sent and received simultaneously.
"
Except it didn't. Both an allegedly received and allegedly transmitted telex message could be trivially forged simply by typing it out in local mode complete with the alleged answerback message. Gentex exchanges were electromechanical and kept no call logs.
"
I could well argue that fax machines were a fabulous solution for a couple of decades - they just got replaced by the next wave. Remember that the prior solution was snail mail or outrageously expensive courier services. The idea that someone could receive a letter in real time was revolutionary.
"
Far better quality than letters or even modern Fax. I worked in a Gentex exchange which was also responsible for receiving facsimiles, and I operated its fax machine precursor in the early 1970's. The big difference was that it was analogue rather than digital and could received full grey-scale photographic images at pretty good (adjustable) resolution. Reception was by prior arrangement. After receiving a call to say that an image was going to be sent, I'd go into the dark room where the facsimile machine was located and wrap a piece of ordinary 8" X 10" black-and-white photographic paper around the drum. After the drum was placed in the machine and the cover closed, the lights could be turned on. I'd then phone the transmitting operator and he would send some calibration tones so I could adjust the black & white levels before starting the drum spinning, syncing with the sending station and commencing the image transmission. Then followed another red-light session with developer & fixer trays before calling the transmitting bod to say whether it needed to be retransmitted (due to noise or crosstalk on the line etc.) Then I'd dry/glaze the photo. Most of the images I received were then rushed by messenger to the local newspaper offices, and they would appear in the next edition captioned "photo by landline". It was quite an expensive service, and often transmission was over a special "quiet" line rather than a normal POTS line if the source location and time allowed. ("Quiet" lines used 3 adjacent carrier channels instead of one, which reduced adjacent channel interference and provided wider bandwidth).
Errm, that's horseshit, it was used in pro broadcast industry for a decade after it stopped being sold to consumers, for one ready, the quality was really good.
If you want the worlds most epic failure, surely that would have to be the Microsoft Xbox 360, with a massive 70% failure rate, and userbase that was only a quarter of it's console sales base (because of the huge failure rate and console replacement numbers). It was a major contributor as to why the Xbox One flopped to badly.
Other Notable entries:
Microsoft Zune
Microsoft Kin
Microsoft Lumia
Basically pretty much everything Microsoft aside from Windows and Office and their supporting backend and development products.
Betamax - the consumer format - was not used in the broadcast industry. Betacam was used for some cameras and U-matic was the preferred studio video cassette format. The smaller Betacam cassettes were the same form factor as Betamax but were not the same format.