The real reason that many 'leaps' in technology fail is the cost/ease of use.
Cable Modem - 10 Mbs vs conventional 28.8 Kbp - 56K modem not really a success. - ISDN 128K...ho hum.
Actually, cable modems and DSL are pretty hot. The problem is that the companies involved generally have to upgrade their systems extensively. This costs money, so they expand slowly, in the areas with the best income/cost ratios. If they plan to offer it. There are many people who would get them in a moment, if it was offered in their area.
For example, I'm too far away from the switch for DSL. And the cable company in my area is so tiny they operate out of a trailer home. They have no plans to upgrade & offer cable modem service. So I told them that I have no plans to subscribe to their service until they do. Besides, their service is so bad that I get better picture quality off from broadcast.
As for ISDN, in many areas it comes out to costing over a hundred dollars a month for the line. It'd almost be cheaper to simply use multiplexed 33.6 modems. So unless you can use most of that bandwidth, it's simply not worth it. 53k not successful? Do you still see any slower modems for sale out there?
Zip Drive - 100 MB or conventional 1.44 MB - 2.88 MB Failed. - Someother 10s 20s MB disk failed.
Cost and ease of use/interoperability. I'm not paying $10 a disk for only a little more storage capacity, esp. when I'd have to haul the drive wherever I go, in order to access the data. Zip drives have done the best, but then you can get a fairly inexpensive portable drive for them that plugs into a parallel port, with software that's supposed to be easy. I currently use a CD burner for extra storage. I am considering a Zip drive, but the cost ratio... It'd almost be cheaper to get a portable burner (So I can use my work's LAN and T-3's for those big downloads...).
Back on Topic Now
This is the same problem that HDTV has, it's a incremental improvement that requires extensive (and expensive) replacement of existing equipment. It'd be more popular if somebody came out with a cheap tuner/converter that would downgrade the digital signal to analog for existing televisions. Or if it was like when the color television/stereo radio standards came out. If current televisions could still use the new signals, this wouldn't be a problem. But this was already done once when TV went color. The mandate back in the '60s for color was that existing B&W sets had to be able to still show the programs. This created a weird standard, with most of the signal being black & white, with an additional factor added to the end of the frequency. If you have poor reception, try setting it to B&W and you'll suddenly have a much better picture (just no color).
For a detailed explanation, go to http://www.ee.washington.edu/conselec/CE/kuhn/ntsc /95x4.htm Go to chapter III. Basically it says that the B&W signal is twice as wide, and only has to carry half the data. (1 signal for brightness vs. 2 signals for color). I have to agree though, even if HDTV uses the bandwidth better, it sounds like it could use some more robustness.
Slashdot Mirror
The real reason that many 'leaps' in technology fail is the cost/ease of use.
c /95x4.htm
Cable Modem - 10 Mbs vs conventional 28.8 Kbp - 56K modem not really a success. - ISDN 128K...ho hum.
Actually, cable modems and DSL are pretty hot. The problem is that the companies involved generally have to upgrade their systems extensively. This costs money, so they expand slowly, in the areas with the best income/cost ratios. If they plan to offer it. There are many people who would get them in a moment, if it was offered in their area.
For example, I'm too far away from the switch for DSL. And the cable company in my area is so tiny they operate out of a trailer home. They have no plans to upgrade & offer cable modem service. So I told them that I have no plans to subscribe to their service until they do. Besides, their service is so bad that I get better picture quality off from broadcast.
As for ISDN, in many areas it comes out to costing over a hundred dollars a month for the line. It'd almost be cheaper to simply use multiplexed 33.6 modems. So unless you can use most of that bandwidth, it's simply not worth it. 53k not successful? Do you still see any slower modems for sale out there?
Zip Drive - 100 MB or conventional 1.44 MB - 2.88 MB Failed. - Someother 10s 20s MB disk failed.
Cost and ease of use/interoperability. I'm not paying $10 a disk for only a little more storage capacity, esp. when I'd have to haul the drive wherever I go, in order to access the data. Zip drives have done the best, but then you can get a fairly inexpensive portable drive for them that plugs into a parallel port, with software that's supposed to be easy. I currently use a CD burner for extra storage. I am considering a Zip drive, but the cost ratio... It'd almost be cheaper to get a portable burner (So I can use my work's LAN and T-3's for those big downloads...).
Back on Topic Now
This is the same problem that HDTV has, it's a incremental improvement that requires extensive (and expensive) replacement of existing equipment.
It'd be more popular if somebody came out with a cheap tuner/converter that would downgrade the digital signal to analog for existing televisions. Or if it was like when the color television/stereo radio standards came out. If current televisions could still use the new signals, this wouldn't be a problem. But this was already done once when TV went color.
The mandate back in the '60s for color was that existing B&W sets had to be able to still show the programs. This created a weird standard, with most of the signal being black & white, with an additional factor added to the end of the frequency. If you have poor reception, try setting it to B&W and you'll suddenly have a much better picture (just no color).
For a detailed explanation, go to http://www.ee.washington.edu/conselec/CE/kuhn/nts
Go to chapter III.
Basically it says that the B&W signal is twice as wide, and only has to carry half the data. (1 signal for brightness vs. 2 signals for color).
I have to agree though, even if HDTV uses the bandwidth better, it sounds like it could use some more robustness.