10 Failed Technology Trends of 2005

mikemuch writes "ExtremeTech's Loyd Case muses on ten trends of 2005 that never panned out. He points the finger at analysts like himself for waxing glowy-eyed at technologies like the BTX form factor and the 64-bit version of Windows XP. On DRM and the Sony rootkit fiasco: 'Hint to the music publishers: It's not going to work. There have been easy workarounds to every system that's been tried, and the more stringent the copy protection, the greater the risk of having angry customers who won't buy CDs. I suggest you start investigating new business models, as the old ones ride off into the sunset.'"

Comments

Tuppence, happence, anna farthing's worth

[ackthpt]

I suggest you start investigating new business models, as the old ones ride off into the sunset.

Like that's going to work! People who crank out flawed, bombastic, and ultimately wrong business models are trying to keep a job. If any business sat on its hands and coasted along on a simple and functional business model they'd ultimately be defeated by someone with an angle on wedging new business between them and their traditional customers.

Take iTunes for instance. Wildly successful in the face of its predecessors and competitors. The RIAA doesn't like it because it undercuts their old business model (and these people have worked that one a long time to their great profit) Apple's frisky little model says, "give it to them on a flashy little toy and keep it cheap." CD sales plummet. (RIAA biz model sez: Any flattening of growth or dip in sales is due to piracy!) Reminds me of when Detroit, back in the 70's thought they could continue to do business as usual as those japanese cars started to sell particularly well ("after the price of oil drops again we'll go right back to 454 blown dual carb thingamajigs") Funny they repeated the same erroneous reasoning with 4WD's in the late 90's and into the next century and are now closing plants left and right.

While high-definition video and the PC may be natural bedfellows, the content providers and studios are not exactly making nice with the tech industry. The studios are deathly afraid that high-definition content will become widely pirated, adversely affecting an already creaky business model.
...
The iPod and its camp followers in the digital audio player business seem to be the modern incarnation of the 1960s transistor radio. Way back then, audiophiles complained vociferously about how the transistor radio was creating a generation of consumers who couldn't appreciate quality audio. That lament is echoed by industry pundits (me included) who yearn for even higher-fidelity sound than current CD technology can deliver.

High def video and audio. What's funny is people are fine with the crap we have now. Heck, there's people driving around town with self-installed audio systems in their cars which not only sound awful, but bring Lo-Fi to an all new low -- and they're actually happy with it.

64 bit OS, only when you've got apps or a killer must-have game will 64 bit OS be all the rage, even drivers will follow. Until then, like hi-def video and hi-fi audio, it's only in the realm of those who really must have for practical or fashionable reasons.

Digital home: Right. When I was a kid we had this great intercom system that came with our new house, all rooms connected to one main spot, could pipe radio into any room or page anyone. That lasted about a month. After that it was mom shouting up the stairs that supper was ready, someone at the door, etc. Evolution of technology doesn't guarantee it will be any more necessary, but it looks flash and shiny if you've never seen before and might impress the uninitiated. Up to me, I'd worry more about noisy water pipes and insulation in the walls.

"it even comes with high definition squirrels in the attic!"

Save yourself the trouble...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the list:

•      The BTX Form Factor
•      High-Definition Video on the PC
•      High Fidelity Digital Audio
•      Windows XP Professional x64 Edition
•      High Definition Optical Drives
•      Copy Protection for Music CDs
•      iPod Competitors Emerge
•      The Digital Home
•      Google's Gmail Service
•      Dual Graphics Cards

Re:Save yourself the trouble...

[dotgain]

I think copy protection on music CDs is a _great_ thing.

I used to buy 80% of my CDs, pirate the rest, and fell a little guilty about it. Now there's no _point_ in me buying CDs. They're useless to me. So I pirate every single one now.

Why do I think copy protection is great (for me) ?

Because I don't feel guilty anymore.

Re:Save yourself the trouble...

[zootm]

I agree with you to a certain degree — I mean, the music industry is actually attempting to fix their product by crippling it for the paying consumer (while having little or no effect on the illegitimate distribution of files). But while there are artists who are embracing new business models, it is presently completely unclear what the new business models for artists will be, and artists who are already stuck (being treated terribly, in many cases) with the existing giants are in danger of being treated even worse by these companies, while having no immediately obvious way out.

I feel guilty if I pirate music because the artists aren't being paid. I don't buy into music which is DRMed in any way, because I refuse to buy a crippled product for what is typically a completely ridiculous price. But when I can buy a traditional CD, I buy it. I mean to start using an online service which does not implement DRM, but still many artists are left out here, and often by no fault of their own — they're musicians, not businessmen, and this is not something they'd ordinarly be able to get particularly good advice on.

Never stop feeling guilty about pirating music, unless you are still buying it from fairer systems. The fact that some companies use unfair means does not give one free reign over media. The artist deserves to be paid for their work in some way, and there is always fantastic music to find at terms you agree with if you're willing to look.

Why rag on Gmail?

[thewldisntenuff]

I find it odd that Case complains about Gmail. He goes on about how hard
it is to add attachments - it's really not that hard.

And why does he bitch about it still being in Beta? Hell,
most of the stuff on Google STILL is in Beta. Besides,
invites are like a dime a dozen now (as I type this, I have
100 invites). But GMail being a "failed tech trend?". Hmph.

BTW, the article layout is disgusting - 11 pages!

Re:Why rag on Gmail?

[Hettch]

That may be true, one can't even attach an Access database because of "security reasons," but the article doesn't just focus on that aspect of Gmail. He focuses on Gmail helping free email by offering 2GB of storage. In my opinion, that is the very least that Gmail has done. The interface is simplistic and lovely (IMHO, as opposed to his "sleek outlike like" yahoo mail, which I avoid since Outlook bothers me like no other), the conversation threading has made me not use regular email clients, the search features are fast and effecient (faster than Thunderbird), and the labels and filters are easy to setup. Am i a gmail fanboy? Probably, but to call gmail a failure is ludicrous. I'd guess that he used gmail to send a hello world email, then tried attaching something, and then hasn't signed on since.

Re:Why rag on Gmail?

[John Miles]

Why do you need to send an EXE attachment? Seems like a sane thing to forbid.

Some people actually work with .EXEs for a living. GMail is worthless to those people.

Before Microsoft started allowing email to execute code, email viruses were impossible.

You don't have to prohibit executable attachments to disallow automatically-executing content. Google has thrown out the baby, bathtub, and half of the house's indoor plumbing.

Microsoft's dumbass move was making everything executable. It's easy enough to tell Grandma not to click on .EXE files, but not so easy when the OS vendor chooses to hide the suffix from her, provides easy ways to disguise the suffix, adds support for some arbitrarily-large number of additional executable file types, and ships a macro engine designed to run the content automatically without asking first.

It's not appropriate to fix any of those problems by preventing me from sending my customers a .ZIP file containing an .EXE. This is a case where Microsoft did some stupid things and Google responded with a hearty, "Hey, wait for me, guys!"

Re:Why rag on Gmail?

[emurphy42]

No you can't:

http://www.google.com/support/accounts/bin/answer. py?answer=27440

Does creating a Google Account give me a Gmail account?

Unfortunately not. Gmail is currently in a limited release, so you need to get invited by another Gmail user in order to sign up. If you are interested in Gmail, you may want to check the About Gmail page periodically for updates. If, on the other hand, you already have a Gmail account, you can use your Gmail username and password to sign in to your Google Account.

Re:Why rag on Gmail?

[ChrisKnight]

> Some people actually work with .EXEs for a living. GMail is worthless to those people.

Here's a nickel kid, go download yourself a copy of WinZip.

-Chris

Re:Why rag on Gmail?

[Mark J Tilford]

I think GMail checks the contents of a .zip for executables.

At least, I had trouble mailing inform source code (.inf) because gmail thought it was a Windows registry file (also .inf); trying to hide the file in a .tar.gz or .zip didn't work; I ended up having to compress it then rename the executable. (Though compressing it twice, and passwording the latter might also have worked.)

The list of tech trends that never go out of style

[Anonymous Coward]

One tech trend then will never fail:-

Vaporware

Gmail

[JonN]

Alright so let me get this straight about Gmail. First:

First off, the Gmail screen still reads "BETA." Will it ever not be beta? Who knows? That means that you still need to be invited to, uh, participate in the beta.

Alright, so it is still in beta. To most people (the author seems to forget this) this means that there are probably little bugs or issues with the service. It may have been in beta for quite awhile, which could mean that they are still working on bugs, but then again most geeks are quite fickle about release dates (The author of TFA even admits this when he discusses Windows x64). Next, he goes on to say:

Gmail is inconvenient in many ways. Managing a mailing list isn't trivial. Trying to send legitimate attachments with executable files is damn near impossible. Even ZIP files are a chore.

Wait a second...Didn't we just determine that Gmail is still in beta? Don't we all know that beta == issues? Alright, so we have a service that shouldn't be in beta, but that has issues. Gotcha. Perhaps the arguement should be that there aren't enough resources going into Gmail, then perhaps I would buy the arguement.

Failed!

[The 13th Duke]

Spreading a rather thin article over a multitude of pages so we can be sure to see all the ads.

Multiple Standards for DVD

[ozmanjusri]

From TFA: Consumers don't want multiple standards. DVD was successful because there was only one standard.

One standard? What about +R, -R, DVDRAM etc? Manufacturers love competing standards. They get to sell to early adopters, then sell another unit with identical functions to the poor sods who jumped on to the wrong standard.

Re:Multiple Standards for DVD

[georgewilliamherbert]

If you RTFA a bit more carefully you'd notice that they contrast DVD (the ROM format) with the various DVD writeable formats, pointing out that DVD ROMs caught on with now nearly 100% market penetration (prerecorded VHS delinda est), but instead of DVD writeables killing off VHS for recording, Tivo did. And basically because of too many DVD writeable formats.

The original CD (ROM), and original DVD (ROM), were both excellent, universal, and well liked formats.

What happened with the writables in the DVD space is an object lesson. Unfortunately, one now being emulated by the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray folks.

No lossless?

[outZider]

He makes a jab at the iPod by talking about how larger capacity players add video capability, while ignoring fidelity by not offering lossless. While it isn't the longer-running FLAC format, the iPod does support Apple Lossless, which is just an extension of the standard MPEG4 Lossless Audio format. It works great, and my iPod Video certainly doesn't have a problem playing those as well. :P

Dead on: Windows XP Professional x64 Edition

[cvd6262]

As it turns out, driver availability has been the main Achilles' heel. While graphics cards, chipsets, and audio drivers have been readily available, drivers for newer printers, webcams, and other common peripherals have been MIA.

I bought a laptop with a Turion64 processor and secured a copy of XP64 Pro from my work (the surprised tech had to dig in his desk for it). I got it up and running, but....

No drivers. No trackpad driver, no video driver, no sound, nada. Not even on the manufacturer's site.

Well, good thing Ubuntu64 works just fine.

about high definition video

[circletimessquare]

this year it became possible for independent film makers to make high quality 16:9 films for the first time... economically

yes, the sony hdr-fx1 and jvc's offering came out in 2004/ 2003, but dual core became economical this year (really necessary for the editting environment and importing the mpeg stream) and sony introduced it's low cost cmos hdv camcorder

i'm talking economical in something a middle class high school kid could set up with a little help from his parents and some after school jobs: under $5K

that really means something for 2005

the author gripes about hdv content distribution and the big cable and studio players wary of rights management, but that's not really where the story is in hdv: it's in creation

BTX should die

[mal3]

I have to say I'm glad to see BTX on this list. It seems like it was developed soley to make up for the stupid amounts of heat generated by the P4, with no regard for making anything else better than ATX. How about standardizing all those case connectors into one block of plugs, or consolidating the 3 power connectors I have to hook to my motherboard. If I'm going to switch form factors, I want these obvious things taken into account.

Re:BTX should die

[TheHawke]

BTX as a attempt by Intel to corner the form factor market that had one foot in the grave even before it entered preproduction. All that they did with BTX as to flip the bloody board 180 degrees on it's Y axis. What's the big deal about that?

Intel and Dell entered into an agreement to make custom boards and backplanes where the standoffs are 2cm offset from the ATX standard, invalidating any attempt by anyone wishing to upgrade the system to a better board and chip. Talk about waste management! If the user wishes to do anything about major upgrades, they are forced to pull all the accessories save for the main board out of the case and throw it away. It's next to useless.

List is Windows-Centered

[EccentricAnomaly]

- The BTX Form Factor

I'm writing this on a powermac now with the same sort of cooling system...

  - High-Definition Video on the PC

this one looks like it's only delayed... the content is now showing up on iTunes... and since it looks like it's going to be very successful, it's only
a matter of time before they offer HD too. ...maybe on the MacIntosh New Year in two weeks

  - Windows XP Professional x64 Edition

Tiger has been a huge success. (it's 64-bit)

  - iPod Competitors Emerge

What's so wrong with the iPod that they're wishing for competitors. None of the competitors really care about mac users, so why should I care about their products? And why do we want WMV to win the DRM battle? And why is the iPod entry level?

ExtremeTech my ass. more like WhatTheGuysWorkingAtBestBuyThinkIsExtremeTech

Shit I wanna see the Mac user list of top ten disappointments....

10. Market share still sucks
9. iPod still can't do bluetooth
8. Market share is what 3% or something now
7. Turns out the G5 wasn't a supercomputer on a chip
6. No Civ IV
5. Have to wait more than 3 months for 10.5
4. Mac mini turned out not do have anything to do with Tivo
3. Damn, that market share sucks
2. OS X still can't read minds
1. Fucking market share

Re:Sturgeon's Craw

[starling]

I get so tired of people who quote "Sturgeon's Law" as if it meant something.

Hear, hear. 90% of Sturgeon's Law is crap.

Gmail a failed tech trend?

[dogbreathcanada]

Gmail a failed tech trend? What? As far as I can tell it's been wildly successful. Everyone I know who uses it, has been slowly moving all their email capabilities to it. For the past few months I've been forwarding all my email from all my various accounts to my Gmail account. I haven't opened Outlook Express in a couple months. Sure, it takes a little while to get used to Gmail, but I found that the more I used it, the more intuitive it was as an email service. The labeling is far better than the directory/folder paradigms from other email systems. I prefer it's filtering structure. The search functionality is the best I've come across (which you'd expect from Google). So, Gmail a failed tech trend? I think not. Hell, Gmail sort of launched the new AJAX (Asynchronous Javascript and XML) tech trend (or if you want to argue over the semantics of "launched", at least brought AJAX into the forefront of web development). Besides, how can any email service be considered a trend?

Oooh, Shiny!

[ColdWetDog]

Notepad is a 64 bit application?

Sign me up!

Re:Congrats on the +5 insightful,

[Saige]

I know my amount of CD purchasing has went up lately. But it's not mainstream crap that I just can't stomach, but more and more independent stuff that has nothing to do with the RIAA. But that's cause Last.fm has directed my music tastes in a new direction that is decidedly not mainstream. In fact, I think I'm going to get a handful of new CDs soon - The Cruxshadows, Icon of Coil, Autumn's Grey Solace, and Collide. Take that, RIAA, they're all artists that you don't have anything to do with. :)

Re:Congrats on the +5 insightful,

[geekoid]

you keep advertising like that, some label will pick them up and they will become mainstream. And you hate mainstream! what will you do?

FLAC is useless to almost everyone

[h3llfish]

This guy mentions twice in the article that he's a big fan of losless audio compression. That's all the proof I need that he's a hype-driven goofball who really has no clue.

I've been a musician for over 20 years. I can easily hear the difference between single coil and humbucking pickups, and between a fuzz pedal that uses germanium trasistors and one that uses silicon. Those are subtle differences that the vast majority of people can't hear. What I can't hear is the difference between a properly done 192kbps/44khz mp3 rip and one made with FLAC. Now, I'm not saying that means that no one on earth can. I'm sure there are golden-eared freaks out there. But I would seriously crap out a brick if this dillhole Case could.

And before you let me know what a moron I am, be sure to conduct a blind A/B test yourself. It has to be blind, or it's just not scientific. Have a friend play two different versions for you, one a high quality mp3, and one FLAC, and see if you can tell. Since the odds of guessing correctly are 50/50, you need to repeat the experiment several times to be sure that you weren't just lucky. I'm here to tell you, it's a rare, rare person who can choose correctly ten times in a row.

And yet this guy is surprised that hardware makers haven't put these lossless codecs into their players? Most people are happy with FM audio quality, let alone FLAC. Case is useless, as proven by the fact that he hyped so many technologies that went nowhere. Extremetech, indeed - extremely stupid.

FINDER IS SUK.

[solios]

How's this:

10.3 : Finder kept and displayed Classic MacOS icons. Old photoshop files? 32x32 preview icons, scaled up. Looked like ass but they were there.

10.4 (WITH SPOTLIGHT!!!1oneoneomfg) : Finder not only ignores Classic MacOS icons for images, it now builds new previes for these images regardless of rather or not they have a classic macos preview icon or not. If the document is a few megs, no problem. If it's more than ten, you get some grind - you get a LOT of grind if it's fifty or more megs, while finder/spotlight shits its pants trying to get an idea of what it's looking at. Not only does this preview-building take for-frigging-ever, Finder DOES NOT CACHE THE RESULT . So every time you roll over that image in column view, grind, grind, grind, GRIND, GRIND...

The end result is that column view is now vastly less useful in 10.4. Go Apple.

Yeah, you might care fuckall, but some of us own macs specifically for how the graphics apps handle... and I really do not have the time or patience to reprocess seven years (100+ gigs) of Photoshop documents just to see what I'm fucking LOOKING AT in a modern OS when I had no problems to speak of last year. :P

It's an issue. We're gaining features and losing functionality. Verily, I am irritated.

A pro audio engineer writes . . .

[ElephanTS]

I can tell the difference between the two easily. Cymbals particluarly will warble and shimmer - you can hear the resolution of the limited audio bands in the top end. Bass response of mp3 at any rate is always bad, careful A/Bing should show that. Having said that I archive non-important stuff at 224kbps AAC and can detect practically no audible difference between that and master (perhaps something in the bass-end but hardly anything). Mp3 is just not as good as AAC anyway. Of course iPods can play lossless audio (ALE) with no problems. The article misrepresented the difference between audio compression and digital compression. This seems to be a hard concept for people to grasp and the author doesn't seem to either. Clue: audio compression affects the dynamics (squashing all the ampliudes to the same kind of level), digital compression reencodes the signal into freq bands but doesn't (usually) affect the dynamic range. 16bits is completely adequate for a master recording and no real difference can be noted at 24bit in any normal listening environment. What would be good though is a higher sampling rate like 96KHz. People would notice that. On 96KHz systems the filtering can be soft slowly tapering down to nothing to prevent aliasing. At 44.1KHz a 'brickwall' filter has to be used which tends to produce a constrained sound.

What about the cell?

[to6o]

Now that's something that should definately be on the list. Remember all those articles how the cell was going to be the biggest competitior for PCs and how we were going to have cell processors in everything and link them and do all sorts of cool and weird things? Well, suddenly, nobody talks about it anymore...