# Similar technologies. One fails, one succeeds. **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [January 1, 2014, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/similar-technologies-one-fails-one-succeeds/677616 "2014-01-01T06:38:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2014, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/similar-technologies-one-fails-one-succeeds/677616/1 "2014-01-01T06:38:46Z")
In the 70’s [Quadraphonic sound](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadraphonic_sound) was tried, but never really caught on and went away. In the 80’s came Surround sound and it’s been with us to this day. For decades the video phone was tried and failed. Video conferencing for businesses has been around for a while now. And for the consumer market things like Skype aren’t that old, but video chatting on computers, while not huge, is much more successful than video phones. So what other technology pairs are there where one fails and a very similar one succeeds? ---
**Author:** ![randompattern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7993a0/32.png) [@randompattern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/randompattern)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2014, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/similar-technologies-one-fails-one-succeeds/677616/2 "2014-01-01T06:43:39Z")
Beta vs. VHS video systems ---
**Author:** ![usedtobe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ec9cab/32.png) [@usedtobe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/usedtobe)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2014, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/similar-technologies-one-fails-one-succeeds/677616/3 "2014-01-01T06:51:16Z")
Helicopter vs gyroplane. One will survive negative G’s; the other won’t. I suspect that is a large part of the matter. Plasma display vs LED ---
**Author:** ![flodnak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/838e76/32.png) [@flodnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flodnak)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2014, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/similar-technologies-one-fails-one-succeeds/677616/4 "2014-01-01T08:14:52Z")
HD DVD versus BluRay. Minidiscs and other technologies that were supposed to replace CDs flared out rather quickly, until mp3s came along. 110 and 126 film both did fairly well for point-and-shoot cameras before digital photography, but disc film never did catch on. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2014, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/similar-technologies-one-fails-one-succeeds/677616/5 "2014-01-01T09:29:49Z")
Oh yeah, I forgot about disc film until now. I wonder if FireWire vs USB can be included. FireWire was a strong contender, but I read that since USB 3 came out it left FireWire in the dust. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2014, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/similar-technologies-one-fails-one-succeeds/677616/6 "2014-01-01T09:53:58Z")
> [@Nobody](#): > > For decades the video phone was tried and failed. > Video conferencing for businesses has been around for a while now. And for the consumer market things like Skype aren’t that old, but video chatting on computers, while not huge, is much more successful than video phones. I think cost is a big factor here. Older “video phone” technology was very costly, for example one version involved closed circuit television cameras at both ends, not at all cheap and not really accessible to the average consumer. Nowadays, the typical laptop computer has a half decent camera built in, if you don’t have one adding one is minimal compared to the cost of the computer you already have, and you don’t even have to purchase and install a specialty program (I’ve been using Google chat lately myself). This makes it far more affordable. Granted, the quality isn’t perfect but it’s good enough for the average video call and that’s really 90% of what makes it successful. > [@usedtobe](#): > > Helicopter vs gyroplane. One will survive negative G’s; the other won’t. I suspect that is a large part of the matter. I disagree - a true helicopter can hover and perform a genuine vertical take-off or landing which a gyrocopter can not. I think the greater utility of those two is why the helicopter has been more successful. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2014, 9:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/similar-technologies-one-fails-one-succeeds/677616/7 "2014-01-01T09:55:01Z")
During the first dot com boom, [Application Service Providers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_service_provider) were a massively overhyped failure. Nowadays, [Software as a Service](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_as_a_service) is a massively thriving business. ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2014, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/similar-technologies-one-fails-one-succeeds/677616/8 "2014-01-01T10:17:36Z")
An ad from early 1997: [![](https://i.imgur.com/iwEUgaz.jpg) ](https://i.imgur.com/iwEUgaz.jpg) See also: > **[File:Lucent 1997 Ad.jpg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lucent_1997_Ad.jpg)** > > Lucent\_1997\_Ad.jpg (260 × 382 pixels, file size: 14 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg) > An ad describing aspects of Lucent's Inferno product that seem to have no other source. > The text: Introducing (drumroll) Inferno networking software... a new Bell Labs innovation. First operating system that lets all kinds of devices chat or share info with each other over any network (Internet, telecommunications, LANS, et al). Now the video game can talk to the computer; cell phone can access e-mail; voice mail via ... > **[Inferno (operating system)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferno_(operating_system))** > > Inferno is a distributed operating system started at Bell Labs and now developed and maintained by Vita Nuova Holdings as free software under the MIT License. Inferno was based on the experience gained with Plan 9 from Bell Labs, and the further research of Bell Labs into operating systems, languages, on-the-fly compilers, graphics, security, networking and portability. The name of the operating system, many of its associated programs, and that of the current company, were inspired by Dante Infer... > [@](#): > > …First operating system that lets all kinds of devices chat or share info with each other over any network (Internet, telecommunications, LANS, et al). Now the video game can talk to the computer; cell phone can access e-mail; voice mail via TV, etc. The video game console that “talked” to a computer was the original PlayStation. The cell-phone in the ad seems to have no alphabetic keyboard or substantial screen yet it could apparently access e-mail. Voice mail via TV, etc. These things eventually became popular with other companies - well except for voice mail via TV. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2014, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/similar-technologies-one-fails-one-succeeds/677616/9 "2014-01-01T16:09:33Z")
To add to what Broomstick said about videophones, never mind that the cost of video camera was trivial, it was the cost to use it that killed it. A typical long distance called cost $1 a minute, 3 minute minimum and the bandwidth required for video was orders of magnitude larger than for voice. Now, on Skype, the cost is 0. Makes a difference. Quad vs surround sound I cannot explain. ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2014, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/similar-technologies-one-fails-one-succeeds/677616/10 "2014-01-01T16:34:34Z")
> [@Nobody](#): > > Oh yeah, I forgot about disc film until now. > > I wonder if FireWire vs USB can be included. FireWire was a strong contender, but I read that since USB 3 came out it left FireWire in the dust. Trust me, FireWire was left in the dust long before USB 3 came out. It’s been obvious for years that USB has that race won. ---
**Author:** ![LC\_Strawhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@LC\_Strawhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LC_Strawhouse)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2014, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/similar-technologies-one-fails-one-succeeds/677616/11 "2014-01-01T16:51:31Z")
[DIVX](http://hometheater.about.com/library/weekly/aa062199.htm) was the original competitor to the DVD format for watching movies. ---
**Author:** ![gotpasswords](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c57346/32.png) [@gotpasswords](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gotpasswords)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2014, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/similar-technologies-one-fails-one-succeeds/677616/12 "2014-01-01T17:01:15Z")
In the US, Robertson lost badly to Phillips. Guess we don’t like square-tipped screwdrivers. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2014, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/similar-technologies-one-fails-one-succeeds/677616/13 "2014-01-01T17:10:38Z")
> [@Nobody](#): > > In the 70’s [Quadraphonic sound](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadraphonic_sound) was tried, but never really caught on and went away. > In the 80’s came Surround sound and it’s been with us to this day. There’s a critical difference between the two, though. John D. MacDonald put it best with quad sound: “I have never wanted to stand in the middle of a group of musicians. I want to be over here, with them over there.” Quad was also never used for movies, although there are several predecessors to “surround sound.” Surround sound is used only for movies, although a few enterprising studios that didn’t get the lesson of quad release music mixed for 5.1. It’s the same general idea, but put to very different uses. I think many cases listed so far are the same. There aren’t many instances of Technology B succeeding in exactly the same space as failed Technology A. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2014, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/similar-technologies-one-fails-one-succeeds/677616/14 "2014-01-01T17:17:09Z")
> [@flodnak](#): > > HD DVD versus BluRay. What most people failed to understand about this “battle” was that the material was identical on both discs - minor codec differences etc. aside, there was no technical advantage or even much difference between the two. Only the physical substrate was different. BR won because it came out of the gate promising larger disc sizes (which HD-DVD was capable of, with evolution)… and practical use hasn’t yet reached the limits of the original spec. Marketing controls how much crap is shoveled on each release. HD-DVD incorporated the feature of live-connection additions, which BR very quickly absorbed as the hideous “BD LIve” function. No differences other than name and hardware encoding… and IMVHO the wrong one won for the wrong reasons. > [@LC\_Strawhouse](#): > > [DIVX](http://hometheater.about.com/library/weekly/aa062199.htm) was the original competitor to the DVD format for watching movies. Only because it was accessible to video hacking, especially the bottom end doing things like pirating movies on CD-ROM substrate. It had almost no advantages for the commercial world. ---
**Author:** ![johnpost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f17d59/32.png) [@johnpost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnpost)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2014, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/similar-technologies-one-fails-one-succeeds/677616/15 "2014-01-01T17:23:04Z")
quad sound was best done with a quality quad source. a good reel tape machine or cassette deck was an added new cost. people were tending for smaller hardware at the nonaudiophile level, which conflicted. picture phones were costly and needed costly coaxial cable. there could have been performance limitations which could have lessened transmission costs with higher phone costs. ---
**Author:** ![FordTaurusSHO94](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f07891/32.png) [@FordTaurusSHO94](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FordTaurusSHO94)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2014, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/similar-technologies-one-fails-one-succeeds/677616/16 "2014-01-01T17:24:08Z")
Blu-Ray won because of a combination of payoffs and Sony including it with every PS3 sold. Had the X-Box originally come with an HD-DVD player built into the machine, it might have been a closer battle. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2014, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/similar-technologies-one-fails-one-succeeds/677616/17 "2014-01-01T19:23:44Z")
> [@LC\_Strawhouse](#): > > [DIVX](http://hometheater.about.com/library/weekly/aa062199.htm) was the original competitor to the DVD format for watching movies. I remember that. Having to pay each time you wanted to watch a disk you bought seemed monumentally stupid. I can’t believe they even tried it. > [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > It’s the same general idea, but put to very different uses. I think many cases listed so far are the same. There aren’t many instances of Technology B succeeding in exactly the same space as failed Technology A. Well yeah, that’s why I said similar. For example, there was consumer quadrophonic sound and there is consumer surround sound. Video phone manufacturers tried to create a consumer market for video chat. Webcam manufacturers succeeded. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2014, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/similar-technologies-one-fails-one-succeeds/677616/18 "2014-01-01T20:16:04Z")
Philips developed the car CD system-but never was successful 9they never solved the vibration/skip problem). They developed a competing technology in the 1990s-called “DCC”. It was a digitally coded cassette sound system, and it was very robust. Sound quality was very good. It was a massive flop-Philips lost over $2 billion on it.:smack: ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2014, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/similar-technologies-one-fails-one-succeeds/677616/19 "2014-01-01T20:28:39Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > I disagree - a true helicopter can hover and perform a genuine vertical take-off or landing which a gyrocopter can not. I think the greater utility of those two is why the helicopter has been more successful. Helicopters are very impractical machines – except when they’re not. They’re not fast, they don’t go far, they don’t carry as much payload as an airplane with the same power, and they’re more expensive to buy and maintain. But there are times when you _must_ have VTOL capability, and that’s what they do best. An autogyro is neither fish nor fowl. Many can ‘jump’ into the air, and with the right winds they can be VTOL. Since they are always in autorotation, engine failures are not as critical as in a helicopter. They lack the full capabilities of helicopters, and also the practicality of fixed-wing aircraft. Still neato-mosquito, though. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2014, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/similar-technologies-one-fails-one-succeeds/677616/20 "2014-01-01T20:35:00Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Philips developed the car CD system-but never was successful 9they never solved the vibration/skip problem). They developed a competing technology in the 1990s-called “DCC”. It was a digitally coded cassette sound system, and it was very robust. Sound quality was very good. > It was a massive flop-Philips lost over $2 billion on it.:smack: And there was DAT (Digital Audio Tape) too, but they both lost because record companies insisted on putting copy protection on both which limited if, and how many times you could copy songs. Seeing how with analog tapes and eventually CD-Rs where you could record what you want, how many times you want it, it’s no wonder neither succeeded. Edit: Here it is [Serial Copy Management System](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_Copy_Management_System) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/similar-technologies-one-fails-one-succeeds/677616.md?page=2)