I actually might be interested. An unfortunate experience on and off a motorcycle in 1975 (I saw the ground, then the sky, then the ground, then the sky again, then the nurse in the ER) left me with a left foot drop that makes the whole one down, five up problematic. It’s hard for me to believe there’s enough people like me to make it a growth market.
Procter & Gamble, in the past, had a history of developing a technology, and pressing ahead with marketing it, even when the consumer appeal / demand didn’t materialize as hoped.
The first example I can think of is Pringles; P&G began developing a way to make uniformly-shaped potato “chips” out of dried potatoes and other starches in the 1950s. The product took over a decade to develop, and was finally introduced in 1967…but it took a number of changes to the formula and the marketing program before the product finally took off, in the late 1970s / early 1980s.
The second example is the now-infamous fat-replacement Olestra. P&G discovered Olestra by accident in 1968, and then spent 25 years trying to get FDA approval, before finally being allowed to begin marketing it in salty snacks in 1996. By that point, stories about intestinal distress and “anal leakage”, and an FDA-required warning label, put a lot of potential consumers off of the idea; after a big initial splash, sales quickly dropped off, and there are now only a couple of products on the market which use it.
Sony Betamax. Our format is better. No, really, it is better. No, really. No, really…
Blackberry. iPhone, shmy-phone. Android, smandroid. People want our stuff more.
Another P&G example is Febreze. They originally made and sold it as an odor eliminator, but realized that people get used to the unpleasant odors in their home and don’t see the need to eliminate them. So they reformulated the product to add odors. Now it sells a lot of product. (See this article for more details. And personally, I wish they’d just sell an unscented version of the product.)
It was better. The primary issue was that JVC, which developed the VHS format, released the technology to other manufacturers, while Sony chose to keep the Betamax format proprietary.
Scientist: That appetite suppressant is amazing!
Scientist 2: Homer… you really have no desire to eat that food?
Homer: Food? I’m blind! Augh! Augh!
Scientist 3: Who’s gonna buy a pill that makes you blind?
Scientist 2: We’ll let marketing worry about that.
Your’re right. I should have said “Our idea on exclusivity of the technology is better”.
I don’t think the problem is technology. Movie critics tend to say that 3D doesn’t add anything significant to a movie. Even without the need for glasses I expect that will continue to be true. That has also been my experience, that 3D works but is gimmicky and doesn’t enhance my subjective experience. Now holographic video, where you are in the middle of a true 3D scene and walk around and see it from different perspectives, would be amazing. Today’s 3D is just an optical illusion based on parallax.
Maybe they are still smarting from the Newton.
Colt.
Back in the 80’s when there was a landslide of law enforcement agencies and the military switching to 9mm double-action handguns, Colt stubbornly stuck with pushing their .45 single action rather than just adding to it’s line.
Ever the Johnny Come Lately they did put out a 9mm in the 90’s, the Colt 2000 All-American (it was an absolute POS. I had a few come through my dealership) but by that time the new .40S&W was starting to be the flavor of the day.
Today the wave is small, lightweight polymer, concealable double-action pistols in 380. Colt has .380’s, but they are bulky, heavy, and single-action, just like almost all of their products have been for 100+ years. Rather than keeping their old stuff and adding to it, they want to live in the past.
in reference to Microsoft Office’s “ribbon”:
I would agree with you, IF they did something to make the learning easier. Would it have killed them to make a list of features, in sequence by the menus that we’re used to, and show us where each feature is hiding now?
Where is the High Def 3D porn?
I have no brief for IBM, but this is totally wrong. IBM made the market for small computers. Before that, it was the Apple II, a nice computer but not really suitable for serious use. IBM made two big mistakes. The first was not getting an exclusive license for the OS and allowing Gates to sell it to anyone. The second came a couple years later when they refused to sell a high end machine (using the first high end Intel chip, the 80386, the first one that avoided segmented architecture) because they were afraid it would impact their minicomputers. They were right, it did, but that didn’t stop Compaq from building such a machine.
Then they tried a new hardware and software combo that would stay proprietary, but the horse was out of the barn by then. They hoped programmers would program for them, but not many did.
There are at least two companies that pulled really boneheaded moves with microcomputers, worthy of Dilbert. The first was Dec whose founder Ken Olsen famously said in 1979 that he could not imagine a single reason anyone would want a computer in their home. Dec did eventually build a micro, but they hobbled it so many ways (a non-standard OS, diskettes that had to be bought from them pre-formatted, no software…) that it was hopeless. The second was TI, whose TI99-4 was a nice computer with no software. If you wanted to write software for it, you had to get a secret code and share royalties with TI. Every other computer maker looked at third party software writers as unpaid free labor. Of course, a few made a killing, but only a few. The guy who made that decision deserves to burn in the ninth circle of commercial hell.
One more thing about that computer - it came out at the same time as the Commodore 64, was more expensive to build, and had the problem you mentioned. Then TI decided to win the market by getting in a price war with Commodore. Not a good idea if you are more expensive.
Computer makers screw up a lot. Intel and the Itanic was mentioned above. AT&T screwed up the computer business over and over, both with PCs and with the 3B series of super minis.
no comment needed.
Quick Time Events in video games. No one likes them, but they keep getting included.
Not to hijack, but Colt pushed single action pistols on the police/military market in the 1980s? Like, pull the hammer back, Colt Peacemaker from the 1890’s style?
I assume that he’s referring to pistols based upon the 1911.
Actually it is was what the OP was asking for. It wasn’t a one time decision it was made repeatedly over multiple years to continue with the technology across various engine families and models even after the market had rejected it as evidenced by falling market share.
I’m still confused, doesn’t a 1911 work pretty much like the 9 mm Beretta as seen in Lethal Weapon?
Nope, the 1911 is a single action only, the Beretta 92 is a double action first shot, single action for every shot after until you decock.