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."

39 of 259 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Interesting by syrinx · · Score: 5, Funny
    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
  2. 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 T+Murphy · · Score: 5, Funny

      He's right you know. Those computers were the size of rooms. As demand went beyond 5, they started dividing those computers up into smaller ones. Ever wonder why computers are always getting smaller? They are running out of those 5 original computers, so they have to go smaller and smaller in order to stretch them further.

    2. 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
    3. Re:Computers Were Supposed To Fail Big Too by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One of my favorites was from Danny Hillis, a pioneer in parallel computing. "I went to my first computer conference at the New York Hilton about 20 years ago. When somebody there predicted the market for microprocessors would eventually be in the millions, someone else asked, 'Where are they all going to go? It's not like you need a computer in every doorknob!"

      Years later, Hillis went back to the same hotel. He noticed that the room keys had been replaced by electronic cards you slide into slots in the doors. There was indeed a computer in every doorknob..

      --
      Stale pastry is hollow succor to one who is bereft of ostrich.
    4. Re:Computers Were Supposed To Fail Big Too by Eggbloke · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      'But I predict that within one-hundred years, computers will be twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger and so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe will be able to afford one....'

      --
      I care not for your karma and your mod points.
    5. 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. :)

  3. It's all about the Editor by Cytotoxic · · Score: 4, Insightful
    from the original article

    What the Internet hucksters won't tell you is that the Internet is one big ocean of unedited data, without any pretense of completeness. Lacking editors, reviewers or critics, the Internet has become a wasteland of unfiltered data. You don't know what to ignore and what's worth reading.

    And along comes Slashdot et al with moderation and meta-moderation schemes to allow the crowd to edit the stream. Problem solved (sort of). Hard to imagine that it was impossible to see lack of editing as anything other than an insurmountable obstacle. But the article was written by journalists with editors, so maybe that explains their limited vision.

  4. Wish he was wrong about the salespeople by RobertB-DC · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From TF95A:

    Stores will become obselete. So how come my local mall does more business in an afternoon than the entire Internet handles in a month? Even if there were a trustworthy way to send money over the Internet--which there isn't--the network is missing a most essential ingredient of capitalism: salespeople.

    Oh, how I wish the network were still missing that "essential ingredient". On the page containing the 1995 lament, I now see ads for:
    * Hugh Downs' Artery Cleaning "Secret" (now with 50% more Nobel Prize Laureate!)
    * Acai Berry Exposed - Official Test
    * Drivers from Minnesota wanted! (of course, I'm in Dallas... with a MN proxy server)
    * Saint Paul - Mom Lost 46lbs Following 1 Rule (MN mislocalization again)
    * DON'T Pay for White Teeth (with the requisite sugar cube clenched in teeth, WTF?)

    Meanwhile, *my* neighborhood mall -- the first air-conditioned mall west of the Mississippi -- is now a grass-covered field.

    That said, I don't think I could go back to 1995, though it would be a fun challenge. The best part was doing DNS reverse lookups of domain names, since the company's network didn't have a DNS server. I could read David Letterman's Top Ten list the next morning, if I plugged the right octets into something called "Netscape" -- I thought I was livin' large.

    --
    Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    1. 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.
    2. Re:Wish he was wrong about the salespeople by Admiral_Grinder · · Score: 4, Funny

      Is it me or did that sound like a sales pitch?

  5. Government crackdowns by Wowsers · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Did they predict that governments will attempt to crack down on free speech on the internet by dreaming up fake terror threats and copyright nonsense to control the internet, and thus please the governments corporate whore masters?

    --
    Take Nobody's Word For It.
    1. Re:Government crackdowns by Tanktalus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nah. That was predicted back in 1949. Though he was off by a few years on the actual timeline.

  6. Wow, he really missed the opportunity by Cytotoxic · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From the original internet criticism:

    What's missing from this electronic wonderland? Human contact. Discount the fawning techno-burble about virtual communities. Computers and networks isolate us from one another.

    So he was able to see that human contact was the thing that was missing from the internet - and then blew it. Because of his lack of vision, he's still eating Ramen Noodles. Meanwhile Zuckerberg and Tom Anderson and many others made billions on Facebook and Myspace etc. solving exactly those problems.

    Actually, that's a nice lesson for the Slashdot crowd. Remember that idea you were just panning as stupid and unworkable because of xyz flaw that only you could spot? Yep, that's opportunity knocking.

    1. Re:Wow, he really missed the opportunity by Marcika · · Score: 3, Insightful

      From the original internet criticism:

      What's missing from this electronic wonderland? Human contact. Discount the fawning techno-burble about virtual communities. Computers and networks isolate us from one another.

      So he was able to see that human contact was the thing that was missing from the internet - and then blew it. Because of his lack of vision, he's still eating Ramen Noodles. Meanwhile Zuckerberg and Tom Anderson and many others made billions on Facebook and Myspace etc. solving exactly those problems.

      Actually, that's a nice lesson for the Slashdot crowd. Remember that idea you were just panning as stupid and unworkable because of xyz flaw that only you could spot? Yep, that's opportunity knocking.

      And he didn't have much of an excuse to bemoan the lack of human contact and virtual communities either... Cliff Stoll back then was a net guru and quite active on usenet, so it's not like he wouldn't have imagined how the net connects people...

    2. Re:Wow, he really missed the opportunity by characterZer0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Zuckerberg and Anderson are not rich because they had vision to bring human contact to the internet.

      Zuckerberg and Anderson are rich because they realized that most internet users cannot or will not learn to use use their computers well enough to handle an email application, an IM application, a news reader, and a web browser, and that most internet users are not online for content but for mindless entertainment.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
  7. DUPE! by BeardedChimp · · Score: 4, Funny

    I swore I read about this 15 years ago. Slashdots getting worse.

  8. Internet search has come a long way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Logged onto the World Wide Web, I hunt for the date of the Battle of Trafalgar. Hundreds of files show up, and it takes 15 minutes to unravel them—one's a biography written by an eighth grader, the second is a computer game that doesn't work and the third is an image of a London monument. None answers my question,

    Heh. Lets cut and past "date of the Battle of Trafalgar" into the location bar of Chrome here...

    and instantly...

    "Battle of Trafalgar — Date: 21 October 1805
    According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Trafalgar"

    Proving that internet search made the internet useful. The article's author had a stunning failure of vision.

  9. 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.

  10. What makes it really ironic by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As I said on my blog****, the irony was that within 1 year of his article JavaScript was released in Netscape Navigator 2.0 and Brin and Page began Google. The former played a key role in enabling a lot of the usefulness in the web and the latter played a key role in organizing it effectively from the viewpoint of the public, especially to the extent that his point about how hard it was to find useful data was negated by Google.

    I have to agree with Newsweek's writer who criticized him by saying that his problem wasn't in stating what the problems were, but his blithe assumption that they would never be overcome. That, right there, was the fatal flaw as it assumed that the computer industry was not invested in the Internet's future. That's almost like assuming that the established auto companies have no interest in the electric car market and would gladly let Tesla take it over unmolested.

    ****Just an ironic dig since he figured that blogging would never become mainstream, let alone that some bloggers (myself excluded) would become powerful players in the media.

  11. Cliff Stoll in 1995ish by fatboy · · Score: 4, Funny

    In 1995 or 1996 Cliff was the keynote speaker at the Dayton Hamvention. He really got those old men fired up and hating on the Internet. He was promoting a book named "Silicon Snake Oil", IIRC. It was quite humorous for the next two or three years to watch the reaction of some of those guys asking about manuals for stuff I was selling in the Dayton boneyard. I would direct them to check in the Internet, and they would loose all manner of sensibility. Too funny.

    --
    --fatboy
  12. 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"

  13. Your sig by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Cock Up Your Beaver" does not mean what you think. That might be true, but googling that phrase will produce exactly the results you would expect.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  14. Re:Interesting by Requiem18th · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is a difference, when that paper was released everybody could see past their BS and realize they were wishful-thinking.

    The iPod *was* lame, as in, lacking features the competition has had since the beginning, the iPod "won" by means of a) Marketing and b) The iTMS.
    By "won" I mean, being the biggest player, it is no the sole player by a long shot.

    I don't have numbers to back this up, over half the media player owners I know own something else than an iPod, but I live in Mexico, does anyone can bring statistics about media players in the world or at least the US?

    --
    But... the future refused to change.
  15. Re:Interesting by BeardedChimp · · Score: 3, Funny

    On the other hand some of the predictions on slashdot have been bang on such as Linus Says 2004 is the Year for Desktop Linux

  16. Re:Interesting by dunezone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The iPod was pretty lame when it was introduced. Only worked on Apple, limited space, limited features, pretty much set the stage for most Apple products.

    It was only until several years later when increased the storage, added color, and allowed it to work on PC did it take off.

  17. Re:The interwebs! by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I think the quote that gets me is: " It's an interesting look back at a time when the Internet was still a novelty and not yet a necessity."

    Don't get me wrong, I tend to go into withdrawls if my connections go down for an extended period of time, but, the internet being a necessity? I dunno. There are plenty of people out there that live and breathe and make money with no connection or need to the internet whatsoever. I don't think it is truly a necessity like shelter and food.

    While *I* would not want to live without it, people still can pretty easily these days.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  18. Re:Interesting by jedrek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It also "won" because of the interface, something everybody on slashdot keeps ignoring. Do you remember what the interfaces of pre-ipod mp3 players were like? No comparison.

  19. 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?
  20. Re:The interwebs! by timster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But in modern industrialized societies, hypothetically turning off the entire Internet would have secondary effects on those who don't use it in their daily lives or work. Not that people would die in large numbers or anything.

    --
    I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
  21. 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.
  22. Re:Things Change at a Rapid Rate by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Insightful

    and since it existed when they were born, my children will think there was always an internet and that it was always big, and that people always had a computer or four in their homes.

  23. Re:The interwebs! by Bakkster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For example, don't you think that the automated and streamlined ordering systems that corporations use to reduce costs on necessary goods used by the poor would suffer?

    It's necessary in the same way that roads and highways are necessary for the developed world. Sure, we could do without, but there would be a discernable difference if you removed either.

    --
    Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
  24. 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.

  25. Re:Interesting by Juln · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Like the way they didn't even have a power button?

    I spent some time playing with my friends original b/w iPod a few years back and actually, I couldn't figure out how to do anything. Then I spent three minutes trying to find the damn power button. Wow, that was an amazing design.

    --
    Juln
  26. He did get some things right. by plopez · · Score: 3, Insightful

    *"What the Internet hucksters won't tell you is tht the Internet is one big ocean of unedited data, without any pretense of completeness. Lacking editors, reviewers or critics, the Internet has become a wasteland of unfiltered data."*

    That hasn't changed.

    *"What's missing from this electronic wonderland? Human contact."*
    Still no real change. Despite social networking sites. It just isn't the same.

    His point about teachers is still true. Technology is secondary to good teachers.

    I love this quote:
    *"But today, I'm uneasy about this most trendy and oversold community."*

    The interweb is still trendy and oversold.

    So, somethings have not changed. Not at the core anyway.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  27. Re:The interwebs! by Patch86 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I disagree. You could say the same about the paved road network.

    Yes, life would go on if we had to revert to 30mph single lane dirt tracks. Yes, you would be quite able to live your life individually by avoiding the road network (not own a car, not ride the bus). Yes there are alternatives to the road (rail, aircraft, canals, etc.).

    But that doesn't mean the road network isn't a necessity. If it were ripped up right now today then there would be serious repercussions- even for the minority who doggedly never use it. Businesses would crumble, quality of life would drop.

    If the internet were switched off tomorrow, there would be repercussions. Even if you never use it yourself, it would still effect you.

  28. 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.

  29. 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)