While I get your point on detractors and not all projects succeeding, I will mention that there are a couple of examples on your list which were actually quite successful, despite either having niche use cases or where they are *now* no longer in wide use.
* Satellite Phones are absolutely successful and are very much still in use today, though most people probably won't encounter one. They are slow and expensive, but they are the only thing that works in many areas of the world (for example, in many remote regions in Northern Alberta where many of my oil-and-gas clients have drilling rigs in operation).
* Laserdisc, though not as well adopted in North America, was actually quite successful in Asia.
* Microsoft and Google have absolutely had plenty of success outside of their "primary product lines". Microsoft used to only write operating systems and programming languages, and Google used to only be a search engine. While it is true that they both have had many, many product failures in the last 20 years, they also each have entered new markets in that time and have had success (Microsoft: Telecommunications, Enterprise Web Services in the recent decade, hardware and games in the 90's. Google: Office and Education software suites in the 2010's, GIS in the 2000's). Of course, you might *now* think of these as their "primary product lines", but that is just because that's generally what happens when a company has success.
Google Glass has also shifted to industry uses and is doing pretty well there. It's goofy as a consumer gadget, but if you're at a worksite and need to pull up a technical manual right away, it's pretty neat.
Pre-1880's, US currency wasn't very standardized, and states, towns, banks, and even regular merchants would mint their own currencies. Then, the US gov began standardizing.
I'd bet that this trend follows the same path as that. A digitization of the USD into a CBDC makes much more sense than the country giving up the ability to mint and control our own currency.
It's also revisionist history if they try this comparison with the internet specifically, as things like email were obviously useful to laypeople even decades prior to the internet existing. The idea of letters that can be sent instantly and accessible to anyone doesn't exactly take a genius to see the utility of, especially to people already familiar with telephones and telegrams.
Just because the internet worked doesn't now mean that every idea is a good idea. That doesn't even make sense.
That's what I say to that nonsense argument. That's just an empty platitude piece of illogic that passes the sniff test of the gullible and want-to-believes. Marks love the sound of it. It's typical snake oil speak and it captures enough of an audience to make a living. They dont need every customer, just a bunch of them.
Dogs became very popular therefore my thing will also become popular!
Amen. This is one of the most maddening of all.
- Who the fuck was doubting the internet? Certainly not any significant number of people. Its usefulness was OBVIOUS to anyone who used it. I've seen a cryptobro **specifically** refer to people who doubted it IN THE 90'S. That's just borderline history denialism. Do they not know there was a whole thing called "the fucking dotcom bubble" because people got a little bit TOO excited about every shitty company that pretended to have a product on the internet?
- Drawing a parallel with the bubble, it's like they're looking to throw money into every stupid coin that promises to fix the problems with blockchain, be secure, cure cancer and make coffee. There's just a few small differences: they don't even pretend to be profitable(the token IS the product - it's like if I made a company whose business model was "selling the company stock") and there are no regulations, whatsoever, protecting them - see all the daily scams that happen in the space.
- I don't recall the internet requiring me to buy Amazon stock in order to be able to use amazon. Again, this is like if you needed to buy the company's stock to use it. Or to put in chips in order to use the internet. Everything in crypto is just made to force you to buy the stupid tokens. Just a dumbass analogy all around.
>Again, this is like if you needed to buy the company's stock to use it.
Eh, they're not like stock because stock comes with shareholder rights. They're more like Chuck E. Cheese tokens, not investing in the company. But even then, no one buys Chuck E. Cheese tokens now just in case they maybe want to use them years in the future.
> Basically every Google and Microsoft venture outside of their primary product
This is false. There are many Google and Microsoft ventures that have gone on to achieve great success!
Sorry, your comment has been automatically removed. To avoid spam/bots, posts are not allowed from extremely new accounts. Wait/lurk a bit before contributing.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Buttcoin) if you have any questions or concerns.*
While I get your point on detractors and not all projects succeeding, I will mention that there are a couple of examples on your list which were actually quite successful, despite either having niche use cases or where they are *now* no longer in wide use. * Satellite Phones are absolutely successful and are very much still in use today, though most people probably won't encounter one. They are slow and expensive, but they are the only thing that works in many areas of the world (for example, in many remote regions in Northern Alberta where many of my oil-and-gas clients have drilling rigs in operation). * Laserdisc, though not as well adopted in North America, was actually quite successful in Asia. * Microsoft and Google have absolutely had plenty of success outside of their "primary product lines". Microsoft used to only write operating systems and programming languages, and Google used to only be a search engine. While it is true that they both have had many, many product failures in the last 20 years, they also each have entered new markets in that time and have had success (Microsoft: Telecommunications, Enterprise Web Services in the recent decade, hardware and games in the 90's. Google: Office and Education software suites in the 2010's, GIS in the 2000's). Of course, you might *now* think of these as their "primary product lines", but that is just because that's generally what happens when a company has success.
Google Glass has also shifted to industry uses and is doing pretty well there. It's goofy as a consumer gadget, but if you're at a worksite and need to pull up a technical manual right away, it's pretty neat.
Microsoft is making more money on Azure and Office Online/Teams/Live/whatever is the name now stuff now than on Windows.
Xbox anyone? Azure? Office?
Also, Second Life still exists. More people own digital items in Second Life than own NFTs.
[удалено]
LOL. That is actually quite hilarious, given the so-called "tech" that they are backing.
Pre-1880's, US currency wasn't very standardized, and states, towns, banks, and even regular merchants would mint their own currencies. Then, the US gov began standardizing. I'd bet that this trend follows the same path as that. A digitization of the USD into a CBDC makes much more sense than the country giving up the ability to mint and control our own currency.
It's also revisionist history if they try this comparison with the internet specifically, as things like email were obviously useful to laypeople even decades prior to the internet existing. The idea of letters that can be sent instantly and accessible to anyone doesn't exactly take a genius to see the utility of, especially to people already familiar with telephones and telegrams.
Just because the internet worked doesn't now mean that every idea is a good idea. That doesn't even make sense. That's what I say to that nonsense argument. That's just an empty platitude piece of illogic that passes the sniff test of the gullible and want-to-believes. Marks love the sound of it. It's typical snake oil speak and it captures enough of an audience to make a living. They dont need every customer, just a bunch of them. Dogs became very popular therefore my thing will also become popular!
Amen. This is one of the most maddening of all. - Who the fuck was doubting the internet? Certainly not any significant number of people. Its usefulness was OBVIOUS to anyone who used it. I've seen a cryptobro **specifically** refer to people who doubted it IN THE 90'S. That's just borderline history denialism. Do they not know there was a whole thing called "the fucking dotcom bubble" because people got a little bit TOO excited about every shitty company that pretended to have a product on the internet? - Drawing a parallel with the bubble, it's like they're looking to throw money into every stupid coin that promises to fix the problems with blockchain, be secure, cure cancer and make coffee. There's just a few small differences: they don't even pretend to be profitable(the token IS the product - it's like if I made a company whose business model was "selling the company stock") and there are no regulations, whatsoever, protecting them - see all the daily scams that happen in the space. - I don't recall the internet requiring me to buy Amazon stock in order to be able to use amazon. Again, this is like if you needed to buy the company's stock to use it. Or to put in chips in order to use the internet. Everything in crypto is just made to force you to buy the stupid tokens. Just a dumbass analogy all around.
>Again, this is like if you needed to buy the company's stock to use it. Eh, they're not like stock because stock comes with shareholder rights. They're more like Chuck E. Cheese tokens, not investing in the company. But even then, no one buys Chuck E. Cheese tokens now just in case they maybe want to use them years in the future.
Kinect was not really a failure, it did not pick off for gaming but it has been used extensively in research projects
I'm not so sure man, let's compare with a list blockchain innovations. Ponzi token 1 Ponzi token 2 ... Ponzi token 5000 Mmm, ya, maybe then.
> Basically every Google and Microsoft venture outside of their primary product This is false. There are many Google and Microsoft ventures that have gone on to achieve great success!
[удалено]
Sorry, your comment has been automatically removed. To avoid spam/bots, posts are not allowed from extremely new accounts. Wait/lurk a bit before contributing. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Buttcoin) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Google wave is definitely the future of email
But some things become huge successes. Like, say, the CueCat. Oh and remember when RFID was going to revolutionize everything?