http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1898610_1898625_1898627,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1898610_1898625_1898627,00.html)
I don't know that these are in any particular order, but I listed them in the order they've been presented in:
Windows Vista
Gateway (PC company)
HD-DVD
Vonage
YouTube
Sirius XM
Microsoft Zune
Palm
Iridium (sat phone)
Segway
I dunno about this list.... some of them are obviously total failures (Zune), but others were once successful and just declined quite a bit (Palm, Gateway).
Any time I see Segway though, I just have to laugh my ass off. Obviously the product of a hippy liberal think-tank not remotely grounded in reality. :)
Discuss.
Youtube is a failure?
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2009, 08:25:06 AM
Youtube is a failure?
I was surprised by that, but in reading the article the reason given is that it has failed to find a way to make money.... by that logic, I would think Facebook should be listed as well (maybe it's "too new" for inclusion, though).
This isn't a list of the top ten tech failures (though some do belong) but rather tech business project failures.
Quote from: Viking on May 15, 2009, 08:40:15 AM
This isn't a list of the top ten tech failures (though some do belong) but rather tech business project failures.
Yes, good point.
Quote from: Caliga on May 15, 2009, 08:24:22 AM
Any time I see Segway though, I just have to laugh my ass off. Obviously the product of a hippy liberal think-tank not remotely grounded in reality. :)
Discuss.
I must admit, going between buildings on one of those things can be a hoot. That, and Segway jousting.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 15, 2009, 08:46:52 AM
I must admit, going between buildings on one of those things can be a hoot. That, and Segway jousting.
What's hilarious to me is not the Segway itself (although it looks fucking ridiculous IMO), but all the hype about how it "was the most significant invention since the automobile", how it would "change civilization as we know it", and so forth. Once it debuted and it was clear that it was nothing more than a motorized 'gyro-stabilized' scooter and that it cost like $5K, I LOLed.
They had segway tours in San Fran. Made even a nerd like me cringe in sympathetic horror to see these tools on Segways and bike helmets with arm and knee pads racing (slowly) around the Wharf.
Quote from: Caliga on May 15, 2009, 08:26:02 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2009, 08:25:06 AM
Youtube is a failure?
I was surprised by that, but in reading the article the reason given is that it has failed to find a way to make money.... by that logic, I would think Facebook should be listed as well (maybe it's "too new" for inclusion, though).
youtube is barely 4 years old; it is still too early to tell as well I think.
*shrug* Guess so. Never in a million years would I invest in a concern that takes four years to figure out a business model that generates reliable revenue.
vonage? as a consumer, it rocks.
I would add BlueRay.
Quote from: saskganesh on May 15, 2009, 08:58:48 AM
vonage? as a consumer, it rocks.
I would add BlueRay.
Actually, I have Vonage too. It's been fine, aside from the faulty AC adapter that came with the VoIP unit... it blew out after about two years. But Vonage replaced it for free (and rushed it via UPS).
Quote from: saskganesh on May 15, 2009, 08:58:48 AM
I would add BlueRay.
Um...aren't they the only option for HD videos?
Vonage has good customer service, I might add. they went over and above when I had to call them.
Quote from: Valmy on May 15, 2009, 09:00:29 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on May 15, 2009, 08:58:48 AM
I would add BlueRay.
Um...aren't they the only option for HD videos?
are they? I wouldn't know. I just see the planned obsolesence of the DVD industry.
I think HD is overrated -- except for live sports.
Didn't google buy youtube for a massive chunk of change?
I'd say that the businessmodel of the YouTube founders not only worked, but should be praised as one of the biggest acts of genius in the history of mankind.
Quote from: Caliga on May 15, 2009, 08:26:02 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2009, 08:25:06 AM
Youtube is a failure?
I was surprised by that, but in reading the article the reason given is that it has failed to find a way to make money.... by that logic, I would think Facebook should be listed as well (maybe it's "too new" for inclusion, though).
I see ads on it all the time, how can it not be making money?
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 15, 2009, 08:49:54 AM
They had segway tours in San Fran. Made even a nerd like me cringe in sympathetic horror to see these tools on Segways and bike helmets with arm and knee pads racing (slowly) around the Wharf.
Anyone who tours Fisherman's wharf deserves pain. :angry:
Quote from: saskganesh on May 15, 2009, 08:58:48 AM
vonage? as a consumer, it rocks.
I would add BlueRay.
Has Bluray really failed? I mean, I think it's retarded and have no intention of upgrading my DVD collection, but it seems to be given alright given that there's an existing alternative with equal quality in about 99% of applications and half the price floating around, with an installed base of hundreds of millions.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 15, 2009, 09:19:48 AM
Quote from: Caliga on May 15, 2009, 08:26:02 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2009, 08:25:06 AM
Youtube is a failure?
I was surprised by that, but in reading the article the reason given is that it has failed to find a way to make money.... by that logic, I would think Facebook should be listed as well (maybe it's "too new" for inclusion, though).
I see ads on it all the time, how can it not be making money?
Most of the ads you see are from shitty advertisers, like Orange Julius, Fathead and a plethora of free MMORPGs. The real money is in real advertisers like Nike, the automakers, McDonald's or Pepsi.
Quote from: Neil on May 15, 2009, 09:50:54 AM
Most of the ads you see are from shitty advertisers, like Orange Julius
:mad:
Orange juice + non dairy creamer + high fructose corn syrup + caregeenan + eggshell powder = WIN. :mad:
Quote from: Caliga on May 15, 2009, 09:53:44 AM
:mad:
Orange juice + non dairy creamer + high fructose corn syrup + caregeenan + eggshell powder = WIN. :mad:
Orange Julius. :wub: :mmm: :w00t:
Do any other websites make a profit purely on ad revenue?
Quote from: Caliga on May 15, 2009, 09:53:44 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 15, 2009, 09:50:54 AM
Most of the ads you see are from shitty advertisers, like Orange Julius
:mad:
Orange juice + non dairy creamer + high fructose corn syrup + caregeenan + eggshell powder = WIN. :mad:
Irrelevant. They're still a low-grade advertiser who locate their stores in shitty dirt malls.
All this talk of Orange Julius makes me want one. :mad:
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 15, 2009, 10:24:08 AM
All this talk of Orange Julius makes me want one. :mad:
IBID. :mad:
Ah yes.
[size=-1]MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif., October 9, 2006 - Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) announced today that it has agreed to acquire YouTube, the consumer media company for people to watch and share original videos through a Web experience, for $1.65 billion in a stock-for-stock transaction. Following the acquisition, YouTube will operate independently to preserve its successful brand and passionate community.
I don't consider $1.65 billion a failure.
[/size]
:frusty:
Quote from: Caliga on May 15, 2009, 10:29:51 AM
:frusty:
What? :huh:
As a business project, Youtube was an astounding success!
It may not have been a great financial move by Google to buy it yet, but with the kind of cash those people have at hand, they can afford to make long term acquisitions and it wouldn't surprise me if youtube ends up turning a nice profit.
Quote from: Caliga on May 15, 2009, 08:26:02 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2009, 08:25:06 AM
Youtube is a failure?
I was surprised by that, but in reading the article the reason given is that it has failed to find a way to make money.... by that logic, I would think Facebook should be listed as well (maybe it's "too new" for inclusion, though).
They found a great way to make money: Sell it to Google.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 15, 2009, 10:33:49 AM
Quote from: Caliga on May 15, 2009, 08:26:02 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2009, 08:25:06 AM
Youtube is a failure?
I was surprised by that, but in reading the article the reason given is that it has failed to find a way to make money.... by that logic, I would think Facebook should be listed as well (maybe it's "too new" for inclusion, though).
Both you and Slargos are right, of course. But (obviously, I think) the criticism is that YouTube's not found a way it can generate money via its core functioning. Any company can make money for its founders by getting bought, but that won't keep it going in perpetuity.
They found a great way to make money: Sell it to Google.
Quote from: Caliga on May 15, 2009, 10:36:40 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 15, 2009, 10:33:49 AM
Quote from: Caliga on May 15, 2009, 08:26:02 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2009, 08:25:06 AM
Youtube is a failure?
I was surprised by that, but in reading the article the reason given is that it has failed to find a way to make money.... by that logic, I would think Facebook should be listed as well (maybe it's "too new" for inclusion, though).
Both you and Slargos are right, of course. But (obviously, I think) the criticism is that YouTube's not found a way it can generate money via its core functioning. Any company can make money for its founders by getting bought, but that won't keep it going in perpetuity.
They found a great way to make money: Sell it to Google.
edit: ARGH. Stupid board.
Quote from: Caliga on May 15, 2009, 10:36:40 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 15, 2009, 10:33:49 AM
Quote from: Caliga on May 15, 2009, 08:26:02 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2009, 08:25:06 AM
Youtube is a failure?
I was surprised by that, but in reading the article the reason given is that it has failed to find a way to make money.... by that logic, I would think Facebook should be listed as well (maybe it's "too new" for inclusion, though).
Both you and Slargos are right, of course. But (obviously, I think) the criticism is that YouTube's not found a way it can generate money via its core functioning. Any company can make money for its founders by getting bought, but that won't keep it going in perpetuity.
They found a great way to make money: Sell it to Google.
edit: ARGH. Stupid board.
:lol: you fail at teh internets
*edit* your extra quote line was messing me up :P
Quote from: HVC on May 15, 2009, 10:40:30 AM
Quote from: Caliga on May 15, 2009, 10:36:40 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 15, 2009, 10:33:49 AM
Quote from: Caliga on May 15, 2009, 08:26:02 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2009, 08:25:06 AM
Youtube is a failure?
I was surprised by that, but in reading the article the reason given is that it has failed to find a way to make money.... by that logic, I would think Facebook should be listed as well (maybe it's "too new" for inclusion, though).
Both you and Slargos are right, of course. But (obviously, I think) the criticism is that YouTube's not found a way it can generate money via its core functioning. Any company can make money for its founders by getting bought, but that won't keep it going in perpetuity.
They found a great way to make money: Sell it to Google.
edit: ARGH. Stupid board.
:lol: you fail at teh internets
So do you. :P
Edit: Crap, you updated it. :lol:
Anyway, I think listing youtube was nigh on retarded.
With 100 million users, they will find some way to turn a profit eventually.
Quote from: Slargos on May 15, 2009, 10:41:12 AM
Quote from: HVC on May 15, 2009, 10:40:30 AM
Quote from: Caliga on May 15, 2009, 10:36:40 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 15, 2009, 10:33:49 AM
Quote from: Caliga on May 15, 2009, 08:26:02 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2009, 08:25:06 AM
Youtube is a failure?
I was surprised by that, but in reading the article the reason given is that it has failed to find a way to make money.... by that logic, I would think Facebook should be listed as well (maybe it's "too new" for inclusion, though).
Both you and Slargos are right, of course. But (obviously, I think) the criticism is that YouTube's not found a way it can generate money via its core functioning. Any company can make money for its founders by getting bought, but that won't keep it going in perpetuity.
They found a great way to make money: Sell it to Google.
edit: ARGH. Stupid board.
:lol: you fail at teh internets
So do you. :P
Edit: Crap, you updated it. :lol:
See my edit :Embarrass:
lol you updated just as i was quoting so i quoted your new post. This forum is haunted!
Quote from: Slargos on May 15, 2009, 10:42:40 AM
Anyway, I think listing youtube was nigh on retarded.
With 100 million users, they will find some way to turn a profit eventually.
I agree. Having the network effect work for you is essential in the tech business. If you've got that, then you have a potential monopoly.
Quote from: Slargos on May 15, 2009, 10:42:40 AM
Anyway, I think listing youtube was nigh on retarded.
With 100 million users, they will find some way to turn a profit eventually.
There was a story of an analyst that estimated youtube is losing $500 million a year for Google. Google disputed the numbers, but the actual results are not public. If youtube is losing that much, it is a problem.
At first I thought Segway was a flop too, I remember all the 'IT' hype and the big 'Oh...' but it is surviving quite nicely with people actually using them. Obviously not the run away success it was hyped as (how could it possibly be) but not a total disaster.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ubergizmo.com%2Fphotos%2F2008%2F7%2Fsegway-police-unit-china.jpg&hash=389f80868f583efce27912040774d59799ab2829)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guzer.com%2Fpictures%2Fsegway-police-squad.jpg&hash=def66ce6e91117d9bbb47dc63050fe103bbe676f)
Facebook is a massive success. They might be cheap knock off ads but they're still ads.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 15, 2009, 11:59:42 AM
Facebook is a massive success. They might be cheap knock off ads but they're still ads.
As far as the media reports, facebook doesn't have great profits though.
Quote from: Caliga on May 15, 2009, 08:53:01 AM
*shrug* Guess so. Never in a million years would I invest in a concern that takes four years to figure out a business model that generates reliable revenue.
How much money did MSFT make in its first 4 years as a company?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 15, 2009, 12:06:55 PM
How much money did MSFT make in its first 4 years as a company?
Can't have been that much...that's 1976-80, when Microsoft was just doing BASIC and some other things, not even selling their Unix variant. Windows wasn't released until 1985.
Quote from: Neil on May 15, 2009, 09:43:57 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on May 15, 2009, 08:58:48 AM
vonage? as a consumer, it rocks.
I would add BlueRay.
Has Bluray really failed? I mean, I think it's retarded and have no intention of upgrading my DVD collection, but it seems to be given alright given that there's an existing alternative with equal quality in about 99% of applications and half the price floating around, with an installed base of hundreds of millions.
Luckily you don't have to as Bu-ray players generally do a decent upconverting job of reg DVDs (as does my obsolete and dirt cheap HD-DVD palyer) ... I thiunk that despite the planned obsolences angle Blu ray is Sony's only successful product besides the playstation franchise (and it succeded solely because it was packaged as part of that winning product (PS3) ... so I agree. not a fail. long term? Sure... all tech fails long term.
I dislike the Youtube inclusion also. the guys who created it changed the way people view video online, and made a fuckton of money from it's sale. Non-Fail.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 15, 2009, 10:50:57 AM
Quote from: Slargos on May 15, 2009, 10:42:40 AM
Anyway, I think listing youtube was nigh on retarded.
With 100 million users, they will find some way to turn a profit eventually.
There was a story of an analyst that estimated youtube is losing $500 million a year for Google. Google disputed the numbers, but the actual results are not public. If youtube is losing that much, it is a problem.
I call bullshit on said analyst then.... if that's based on some kind of lost profits from people viewing free stuff it's an EPIC Strawman. People do not pay for anything they can get for free. and will take free things they would never in a million years pay for.
anyone who doesn't realize this is trapped in the last century and needs a time machine to get to the present. Good luck.
For "tech failure", I would add IP telephones.
There's almost no benefit to the customer, very little profit to be made, and less reliability than landlines. No wonder it's a dud.
After reading the YouTube nomination, I see why it is included, as it is not (currently) an earner for Google, which is why they included it.
However, there are lots of other, bigger tech failures (like MSN Spaces) not included if ROI is the yardstick.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 15, 2009, 12:06:55 PM
Quote from: Caliga on May 15, 2009, 08:53:01 AM
*shrug* Guess so. Never in a million years would I invest in a concern that takes four years to figure out a business model that generates reliable revenue.
How much money did MSFT make in its first 4 years as a company?
But was it making money (even if it wasn't making much money), or just promising that it would make money someday? That's a key difference.
Quote from: Norgy on May 15, 2009, 12:27:00 PM
For "tech failure", I would add IP telephones.
There's almost no benefit to the customer, very little profit to be made, and less reliability than landlines. No wonder it's a dud.
VOIP phones should be much cheaper, (or much more profitable,) since it doesn't require the specialized circuitry of the Public Switching Telephone Network; you can just use routers. Reliability has been an issue for us on the Cellular end; UMTS was supposed to be able to handle calls through VOIP, but that technology hasn't emerged yet.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on May 15, 2009, 12:19:10 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 15, 2009, 10:50:57 AM
Quote from: Slargos on May 15, 2009, 10:42:40 AM
Anyway, I think listing youtube was nigh on retarded.
With 100 million users, they will find some way to turn a profit eventually.
There was a story of an analyst that estimated youtube is losing $500 million a year for Google. Google disputed the numbers, but the actual results are not public. If youtube is losing that much, it is a problem.
I call bullshit on said analyst then.... if that's based on some kind of lost profits from people viewing free stuff it's an EPIC Strawman. People do not pay for anything they can get for free. and will take free things they would never in a million years pay for.
anyone who doesn't realize this is trapped in the last century and needs a time machine to get to the present. Good luck.
It was based on the estimated cost of maintaining the site. Apparently keeping a zillion video clips for people to access at any time is quite expensive.
:(
I assumed that the LOL INTERNETS was a series of tubes that led through Teh Google to a giant electronic bag of holding. Man was I off. :blush:
Quote from: Caliga on May 15, 2009, 12:42:42 PM
:(
I assumed that the LOL INTERNETS was a series of tubes that led through Teh Google to a giant electronic bag of holding. Man was I off. :blush:
Yeah, you should know it is a box, not a bag. A CUBE to be exact.
Quote from: Norgy on May 15, 2009, 12:27:00 PM
For "tech failure", I would add IP telephones.
There's almost no benefit to the customer, very little profit to be made, and less reliability than landlines. No wonder it's a dud.
Switching to IP can save you a fuckton in long distance charges if your organization is even a little bit geographically diversified. And if your company is of any respectable size, then it's irresponsible not to be using it. It's become almost ubiquitous in the consumer market too. Maybe not in Norway though, I don't know.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 15, 2009, 12:51:55 PM
Switching to IP can save you a fuckton in long distance charges if your organization is even a little bit geographically diversified. And if your company is of any respectable size, then it's irresponsible not to be using it. It's become almost ubiquitous in the consumer market too. Maybe not in Norway though, I don't know.
It's probably a "Not in Norway/Europe" thing.
Landlines are just as cheap, since the threat of IP telephones brought the prices down in a very competitive market. Yes, we have those too. :cthulu:
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on May 15, 2009, 12:15:41 PM
Luckily you don't have to as Bu-ray players generally do a decent upconverting job of reg DVDs (as does my obsolete and dirt cheap HD-DVD palyer) ... I thiunk that despite the planned obsolences angle Blu ray is Sony's only successful product besides the playstation franchise (and it succeded solely because it was packaged as part of that winning product (PS3) ... so I agree. not a fail. long term? Sure... all tech fails long term.
To be sure. I have a Bluray player, but I don't own a single Bluray disc. My wife once rented a Bluray movie, but only once. Why waste the money, when DVD is just as good? Surely Sony can't be happy with that situation.
As for Sony, their consumer electronics remain successful, and that's the core of their business. Although the gadget business can be lucrative, they still have their core. and their movies.
Quote from: Neil on May 15, 2009, 01:38:35 PM
As for Sony, their consumer electronics remain successful, and that's the core of their business. Although the gadget business can be lucrative, they still have their core. and their movies.
Actually isn't Sony doing extremely poorly right now? :huh:
Quote from: Caliga on May 15, 2009, 01:46:39 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 15, 2009, 01:38:35 PM
As for Sony, their consumer electronics remain successful, and that's the core of their business. Although the gadget business can be lucrative, they still have their core. and their movies.
Actually isn't Sony doing extremely poorly right now? :huh:
It's likely. Everybody is doing extremely poorly right now.
Quote from: Neil on May 15, 2009, 09:43:57 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on May 15, 2009, 08:58:48 AM
vonage? as a consumer, it rocks.
I would add BlueRay.
Has Bluray really failed? I mean, I think it's retarded and have no intention of upgrading my DVD collection, but it seems to be given alright given that there's an existing alternative with equal quality in about 99% of applications and half the price floating around, with an installed base of hundreds of millions.
well that's why I think its failed. for the consumer mass, there's no real reason to upgrade, especially in a recessionary year where they are cutting discretionary spending. Technophilies will embrace it, but for the rest of the people who use and depend on technology, they'll likely be resistant to adapting it quickly.
Plus, blu-ray discs cost about twice as much as normal DVDs over here.
Quote from: Norgy on May 15, 2009, 01:26:22 PM
It's probably a "Not in Norway/Europe" thing.
Landlines are just as cheap, since the threat of IP telephones brought the prices down in a very competitive market. Yes, we have those too. :cthulu:
Here in a civilized world, landlines are at least twice as expensive as VoIP, and that's just for local calls. Part of the reason is that they have a lot of taxes and fees in their bill, which gives them a competetive disadvantage.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 15, 2009, 08:49:54 AM
They had segway tours in San Fran. Made even a nerd like me cringe in sympathetic horror to see these tools on Segways and bike helmets with arm and knee pads racing (slowly) around the Wharf.
Also in Philly. On an excursion to the Philadelphia Museum of Art about a year or two ago, we managed to catch a HUGE line of Segways coming up on a tour from Fairmount Park. :D
My buddy produced the Dateline NBC segment that announced the Segway to the world. :nerd:
He was under double secret probation the whole time he was working on it.
Quote from: Syt on May 15, 2009, 10:54:26 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ubergizmo.com%2Fphotos%2F2008%2F7%2Fsegway-police-unit-china.jpg&hash=389f80868f583efce27912040774d59799ab2829)
Indeed, over here our police force has also adopted the Segway (granted, they have to get off it to actually *catch* somebody, but it's good for the average rounds).
Mall securities also got it, and so did some tourist agencies that give tours of the capital. It *is* kinda useful for people who have to walk a LOT during the day.
It's also not that expensive, and certainly easy to park (take it home with you). I've actually thought of buying a Segway (most people in my workplace did), but I'd like them to be faster. I'll probably buy one when I get older, though.
Quote from: Syt on May 15, 2009, 10:54:26 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ubergizmo.com%2Fphotos%2F2008%2F7%2Fsegway-police-unit-china.jpg&hash=389f80868f583efce27912040774d59799ab2829)
:lmfao:
Wow, I didn't know it was possible to make a bunch of men with big guns and in big armor look completely emasculated. They all look like they are either about to take a dump, or have just been kicked in the nads by their Segways.
Segways could become really popular if we ever banned cars.
Maybe this be renamed "top ten tech products that aren't making vast amounts of money in the middle of a recession".
Quote from: Neil on May 15, 2009, 01:38:35 PM
To be sure. I have a Bluray player, but I don't own a single Bluray disc. My wife once rented a Bluray movie, but only once. Why waste the money, when DVD is just as good? Surely Sony can't be happy with that situation.
Silence! They'll hear you!
With some people any vague indication that DVD is just as good as next gen DVD is utter heresy. I can't see too much difference myself either.
Quote from: DGuller on May 15, 2009, 02:39:29 PM
Here in a civilized world, landlines are at least twice as expensive as VoIP, and that's just for local calls. Part of the reason is that they have a lot of taxes and fees in their bill, which gives them a competetive disadvantage.
My land line home phone service (AT&T) is cheaper than Vonage even with all the taxes and shit. The long distance part of Vonage would be nice, I guess, if I didn't own a cell phone.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 15, 2009, 06:25:08 PM
Maybe this be renamed "top ten tech products that aren't making vast amounts of money in the middle of a recession".
Actually, with things like Gateway and Palm on there, which were successful in their day, I'm surprised we don't see Sony Walkman, radio and vacuum tubes on there.
I have no problems with Vonage. It's exactly 70% less expensive month to month than comparable land-line service. A fucking no-brainer, from a business perspective.
Quote from: Scipio on May 15, 2009, 07:33:33 PM
I have no problems with Vonage. It's exactly 70% less expensive month to month than comparable land-line service. A fucking no-brainer, from a business perspective.
Yeah, like I said, I have it too. Princesca has a friend in Vancouver who she calls a couple of times a week. Our monthly cost for that: $0.
I'm torn on the Zune entry. I love my Zune; spec-wise, it's awesome, and when I got it, it was definitely more cost-effective for video playback than the equivalent iPod, but it was just plagued by tons and tons of glitches. :(
Quote from: Viking on May 15, 2009, 08:40:15 AM
This isn't a list of the top ten tech failures (though some do belong) but rather tech business project failures.
Yeah, and even that's debatable, as seen by the other posts here.
A list of tech failures would be stuff that didn't work like it was supposed to.
So Vista could stay, and you could fill the rest of the list with Chrysler products. ;)
Quote from: alfred russel on May 15, 2009, 12:40:41 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on May 15, 2009, 12:19:10 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 15, 2009, 10:50:57 AM
Quote from: Slargos on May 15, 2009, 10:42:40 AM
Anyway, I think listing youtube was nigh on retarded.
With 100 million users, they will find some way to turn a profit eventually.
There was a story of an analyst that estimated youtube is losing $500 million a year for Google. Google disputed the numbers, but the actual results are not public. If youtube is losing that much, it is a problem.
I call bullshit on said analyst then.... if that's based on some kind of lost profits from people viewing free stuff it's an EPIC Strawman. People do not pay for anything they can get for free. and will take free things they would never in a million years pay for.
anyone who doesn't realize this is trapped in the last century and needs a time machine to get to the present. Good luck.
It was based on the estimated cost of maintaining the site. Apparently keeping a zillion video clips for people to access at any time is quite expensive.
Didn't it take Amazon years and years to become profitable?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 15, 2009, 09:41:55 PM
It was based on the estimated cost of maintaining the site. Apparently keeping a zillion video clips for people to access at any time is quite expensive.
Didn't it take Amazon years and years to become profitable?
[/quote]
For them though it was quite clear to see when there would be a profit, though they were doing it online their buisness was just selling stuff, quite typical. With youtube though...its far vaguer.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 15, 2009, 09:41:55 PM
Didn't it take Amazon years and years to become profitable?
Business plan, business plan, business plan. Amazon was always a retailer, so they could easily draw outlines for retail revenues and, to an extent, cross-advertising revenues.
In the case of YouTube, it's a little harder, since parties that post videos are more likely to link them directly to their intended audience, and there's no clear alternate revenue stream.
Quote from: DGuller on May 15, 2009, 02:39:29 PM
Here in a civilized world, landlines are at least twice as expensive as VoIP, and that's just for local calls. Part of the reason is that they have a lot of taxes and fees in their bill, which gives them a competetive disadvantage.
Your loser continent intrigues me with its backwardsness.
Quote from: Norgy on May 16, 2009, 11:14:00 AM
Your loser continent intrigues me with its backwardsness.
Our loser VOIP companies put themselves at a huge disadvantage. They try to pad their costs with insane installation fees.
Did they: Bring a gun to the octagon?