Slashdot Mirror


How the Internet Didn't Fail As Predicted

Lord Byron Eee PC writes "Newsweek is carrying a navel-gazing piece on how wrong they were when in 1995 they published a story about how the Internet would fail. The original article states, 'Nicholas Negroponte, director of the MIT Media Lab, predicts that we'll soon buy books and newspapers straight over the Intenet. Uh, sure.' The article continues to say that online shopping will never happen, that airline tickets won't be purchased over the web, and that newspapers have nothing to fear. It's an interesting look back at a time when the Internet was still a novelty and not yet a necessity."

14 of 259 comments (clear)

  1. Computers Were Supposed To Fail Big Too by Shuh · · Score: 4, Informative

    A big-wig at I.B.M. predicted the entire world market for computers would be restricted to about 5 units.

    1. Re:Computers Were Supposed To Fail Big Too by CaptainOfSpray · · Score: 5, Informative

      How young are you, friend? The quote does not refer to that piece of Johnny-come-lately unarchitected junk called the PC. The IBMer referred to was Tom Watson Senior, talking in the 50's about the IBM 600. At that point in time, the price of a computer was such that only very few (perhaps 5) customers would both have the dough and see any reason why they should buy one. Back then, no-one had any idea at all about how to justify the purchase by displacing costs, never mind justify by competitive advantage.

      What happened next: not 5, but 18 customers bought one. So IBM designed a bigger faster model, the 650. The pricing team begged to set the price on the assumption that 23 customers would buy one. Finance refused to allow any assumption other than that the 18 customers for the 600 would buy a replacement 650. In fact, over 600 were sold of the model 650. This brought in such a huge mountain of money that IBM could bet on the design of a range of compatible models, the System/360. The rest is history - if you look at the horizon, you can still see the peaks of the mountain range of money that the S/360 brought in.

      --
      "Cock Up Your Beaver" does not mean what you think. This sig is intended to clog filters and annoy do-gooders
    2. Re:Computers Were Supposed To Fail Big Too by Colin+Douglas+Howell · · Score: 3, Informative

      While the basic theme of your story is correct, you're confused on a number of details.

      Other posters have already pointed out that the remark attributed to Watson appears to be a misquote, though the section of Wikipedia's article on Watson discussing the quote does mention the initial sales results (18 machines vs. a prediction of 5) which you refer to. However, you seem to have confused IBM's 600 series of electromechanical punched-card calculators with its 700 series of large-scale electronic computers. The machine in question was not the IBM 600 (an electromechanical multiplier introduced in 1931) but the IBM 701, the first IBM electronic computer produced in quantity. This was a very large, expensive machine designed for scientific and technical calculations; its market was similar to that of the supercomputers of later decades.

      The IBM 650 was not a bigger, faster version of the 701; that was the IBM 704. The 650 was a much smaller, cheaper machine designed for customers who could not afford a large-scale computer system. In that sense it was the predecessor to other later small-scale computer systems like the IBM 1620 and the DEC PDP-8. The 650 was sold as a replacement for IBM's earlier 600 series of punched-card calculating machines.

      I don't know where your estimated and actual sales numbers for the 650 came from, but they appear to be incorrect as well. However, the machine was indeed far more successful than IBM's original sales predictions for it, with over 2000 being produced. But since it was a relatively low-cost system, I suspect that IBM's "mountain of money" available for the System/360's development was mainly brought in by other products, such as their 700 and 7000 series computers.

      No, I wasn't around in the 1950s. I'm just a computer history nut. :)

  2. To be fair... by Jiro · · Score: 3, Informative

    To be fair, if you actually read the original article he mentions books and newspapers right after talking about books on disk--in context he's obviously referring to ebooks and not ordering a book and having it physically delivered (which would be nonsense for newspapers anyway). Paying for electronic books and newspapers is better than in 1995, but it hasn't exactly taken over, and newspapers are more outcompeted by free sites than by anything you buy.

  3. To err is human... by drewhk · · Score: 3, Informative

    You should read the end of TFA:

    "At the time, I was trying to speak against the tide of futuristic commentary on how The Internet Will Solve Our Problems.

    [...]

    And, as I’ve laughed at others’ foibles, I think back to some of my own cringeworthy contributions.

    Now, whenever I think I know what’s happening, I temper my thoughts: Might be wrong, Cliff

    Warm cheers to all,

    —Cliff Stoll on a rainy Friday afternoon in Oakland"

  4. Re:Wish he was wrong about the salespeople by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 3, Informative

    Oh, how I wish the network were still missing that "essential ingredient".

    Wish no longer!

    --
    Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
  5. Reminds me of the NYT by damburger · · Score: 4, Informative

    In 1920 they published an incredibly snotty editorial ripping on Robert Goddard, arrogantly stating scientific errors (such as that a rocket could not work in a vacuum as it lacked something to 'push against'), and generally claiming that even a high school student could see that this Goddard fellow was a crazy loon.

    They published a 'correction' of the editorial on July 17th, 1969.

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
  6. Cliff Stoll? by smd75 · · Score: 3, Informative

    For someone with worthy experience to talk about the internet, Im quite surprised he wrote A) That article from 1995 and B) Silicon Snake Oil. His book The Cuckoo's Egg was excellent. I felt he had a firm grasp as to where the internet could go. I admired the guy for his work. I guess all those Berkeley kids aren't on top of their game. The guy _was_ an astronomer after all.

    --
    Im a troll because I disagree with you.
  7. Re:Interesting by Ractive · · Score: 3, Informative

    This could laughable if you are very superficial about it, but economical success or hype is not necessarily related to a good product, actually if you could perform a really impartial feature by feature (design, software, usability, DRM, format management, compatibility, value, etc) comparison between music players I'm sure the iPod will not come as the best, so back in the day, minus the hype and the financial success, the comment is actually quite logical.

  8. I've never understoof Stoll's about face by mschuyler · · Score: 2, Informative

    he got his 15 minutes of fame from Cuckoo's Egg, the book AND the movie. He's a PhD astonomer who was in the right place at the right time. I've heard him speak. He's witty, funny, and energetic, a delight to hear, really. I've never understood why he turned on the Net. He was, after all, on the bleeding edge for a time, and seemed poised to take off on a career of internet promotion rather than demotion. Strange.

    --
    How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
  9. Re:Interesting by mobby_6kl · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes, I remember. This is just a bunch of vague bullshit which gets accepted as the truth and modded appropriately only because it gets repeated all the time. Of course you can't compare the ipod to the cheap flash-based players of the time, but the Creative hard-drive based players had comparable, and I would say superior interface. Usually you'd have distinct physical buttons for most important functions, plus a rocker type thingie to navigate the menus. The menus themselves were clear and logically organized. Now admittedly the text input was a bit awkward, but at least it was possible to create and save playlists on the fly, as well as search songs by title.

  10. Re:Interesting by ezeri · · Score: 2, Informative

    Nope, it didn't really start taking off until late 04, early 05 as you can see here.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now. - Ed Howd
  11. 15 years later by Cliff+Stoll · · Score: 5, Informative

    I agree with many of the Slashdot posters who've commented on my article of 15 years ago. There's a great deal to munch on - plenty of hilarious mistakes as well as several ideas still worth thinking about.

    That 1995 article grew from my questioning attitude. When I hear nearly unanimous commentary without any critical dialog, I become skeptical. Perhaps too skeptical, as that article shows.

    At the time, I saw my role as encouraging questions about then-common predictions. As a way of introducing dialog through debate, if not deliberation.

    Clearly, I'm no futurist, able to extrapolate across decades. If anyone, I suspect that school teachers are the most in touch with future generations.

    Now? Oh, I try to stay away from predictions; two teenagers gleefully keep me informed of my daily mistakes. I teach physics, speak at meetings, and write the occasional article for Scientific American. I make Klein Bottles ... and, yes, I sell them online, in obvious contradiction to that 1995 article.

    Best wishes to all,
    -Cliff (in Oakland California, on a Monday afternoon without sunspots)

    1. Re:15 years later by RobertB-DC · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're the Klein Bottle Guy? That's got to be the best tongue-in-cheek site selling an actual product, in the history of ever.

      Not surprisingly, you were too modest to plug your site, so I'll do it for you: Acme Klein Bottle.

      Sample awesomeness, from the Conditions of Acme's Unconditional Guarantee:

      We at Acme Klein Bottle strive to create the finest nonorientable surfaces and hope that you will be satisfied with your new Acme manifold. For this reason, we are pleased to offer this UNCONDITIONAL GUARANTEE complete with these conditions:

      * We unconditionally guarantee your Acme Klein Bottle to be free of any defects in workmanship or workwomanship for a period of ONE YEAR following purchase. If you aren't satisfied with your Acme Klein Bottle -- for any reason -- just return it for a refund or replacement. You pick up shipping charges.

      * We guarantee safe arrival. If your Klein Bottle arrives broken, call or send email and we will immediately send a replacement.

      * We slightly guarantee your Klein Bottle for THREE MONTHS against any cracks or breakage, whether due to earthquakes, clumsy undergrads, or greasy fingers. Just mail us a fragment and $10, and we will send a replacement.

      * We warrant each Acme Klein Bottle for a period of FIVE YEARS to be absolutely free of any magnetic monopoles. If you discover one, contact us immediately and we will refund your purchase price right after claiming the Nobel Prize.

      * Furthermore, we guarantee for TEN YEARS that any polyhedron spanning your unbroken Acme Klein Bottle will have about as many edges as the sum of its vertices plus faces.

      * We further warrant for ONE MILLION YEARS that within a Euclidean plane, the square of a right triangle's hypotenuse will equal the sum of the squares of the two remaining legs.

      In addition, Acme's provides this exclusive LIFETIME GUARANTEE: We guarantee that you will live your entire lifetime, or double your money back.

      --
      Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.