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."

Comments

Computers Were Supposed To Fail Big Too

[Shuh]

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

Re:Computers Were Supposed To Fail Big Too

[CaptainOfSpray]

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.

Reminds me of the NYT

[damburger]

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.

15 years later

[Cliff Stoll]

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)