Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: What tech were you convinced would take the world by storm but didn't?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

651–660 of 1001 posts

Re: Ask HN: What tech were you convinced would take the world by storm but didn't?

#651

Post by germanier »

blattimwind wrote: post #448
vslira wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I second this feeling. I'm not a native English speaker but I often see myself hoping that it becomes ever more prevalent. Unfortunately there's a lot of resistance to accepting it as the official universal language, not in small part due to the anti-multeralist stance of the major anglo nations. One can only hope Brexit doesn't make German a virtual necessity to deal with the EU in the long term.

> One can only hope Brexit doesn't make German a virtual necessity to deal with the EU in the long term. The EU has had more than twenty official languages for many years, I don't think it is likely at all that this will suddenly change to one language. I also don't think there is any chance for English being removed, since it is the most widely understood language in the union (the UK being a member or not has no re…

Internally the EU uses almost only French, English, and (to a much lesser degree) German. Many documents are only available in French and English.

Re: Ask HN: What tech were you convinced would take the world by storm but didn't?

#653

Post by dbatten »

jasode wrote: post #512
bsaul wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

even if you don’t believe in very high quality audio like me, the fact is we’re listening to stereo music, but viewing movies on 5.1 systems. This would have been different with dvd-a. I would have loved to listen to a live concert cd with surround sound.

>5.1 systems. This would have been different with dvd-a. I would have loved to listen to a live concert cd with surround sound. As to your specific DVD-Audio example, I think it didn't widely catch on because most music is consumed (1) with earphones (2) in the car (3) as incidental background while multitasking. The scenario of "purposeful" music listening by sitting in the center sweet spot of a 5.1 setup is very r…

I agree with almost all of your examples... except for 3d. While almost everybody I know would say they prefer seeing a movie on a big screen (even though the phone/tablet is sometimes more convenient), I don't know _anybody_ that prefers 3d movies. They're utter garbage.

Re: Ask HN: What tech were you convinced would take the world by storm but didn't?

#654

Post by arca_vorago »

Animats wrote: post #92

Virtual worlds. The "metaverse" of Snow Crash. "Snow Crash", the TV series, has been green-lighted by Amazon. That may drum up more interest. Second Life comes close. They've had a working system for over a decade and have with adequate solutions to most of the problems. But it's hard to use, and not that many people are interested.

I hope one day I can do a good metaverse.

Re: Ask HN: What tech were you convinced would take the world by storm but didn't?

#655

Post by antjanus »

Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #363

I don't know if this has a name, but... ICQ-like "searchable" instant messaging. Let me explain myself. In the late 90s, there was an IM client called ICQ. For starters, its UI was leaps and bounds ahead of anything to be seen in the next decade, and it had functionality like bots or groups, that has again become widespread a few years ago. But what I'm talking about is the fact that I could look for "female, age bet…

one thing people still don't remember from ICQ was the ability to collaborate / live message. Ie. edit text in a shared environment. It was bonkers. You could be writing and someone else could change the font options for it. and type at the same time, even delete your messages.

I loved it. And this was back in 2000 maybe.

Re: Ask HN: What tech were you convinced would take the world by storm but didn't?

#656

Post by zolthrowaway »

ZirconiumX wrote: post #595
baldfat wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can get all the music I can listen to for $15 a month (Google Play Family which comes with YouTube Red) and share it with my wife and 4 kids. I think that people can get music on SoundCloud, Pandora or YouTube made the illegal less necessary. I personally prefer to just pay the money and get my music on all my devices and upload the music I have that isn't available. I also LOVE YouTube Red and it helps the content…

From a revenue point of view, streaming is not a very good way to support an artist[1][2]. The Verge article I linked to states that artists are paid "somewhere between $0.006 and $0.0084" per stream. If we are very pessimistic about the royalties of a CD sale - let's call it 20%, and say a single CD costs $10, that's ($10 x 20%) / 0.0084 = 238 streams to cover the cost of a single CD. If you take audiophile-level pa…

I disagree with this. Labels are the main beneficiaries of music distribution[0]. In addition, the non-committal nature of streaming makes it so much easier to get people to listen to your music. There are tons of artists I love with Even if royalties are the biggest source of income (which I don't believe to be true), I still think streaming is beneficial to small artists. Using your math of 238 plays per CD, at 10,000 listens they would have to sell more than 50 CDs for CDs to be more profitable for them. There are an incredibly high number of artists on Spotify who have 10k plays on a single song who probably couldn't have given their CDs away.

I've gone to shows to see the opening acts and co-headliners because of streaming services. I've bought merch from plenty of small artists that I never would have even known existed. I've listened to genres I had no interest in and found artists I like and support because of streaming services.

I feel like the exposure and the ability to produce your music (and actually have people be able to find and listen to it) massively outweighs any potential loss of revenue. There are potentially some medium sized artists who would have done better in the CD model, but probably not with how prevalent music piracy was in the 2000s.

[0]https://splinternews.com/buying-an-album-isnt-the-best-way-t...

Re: Ask HN: What tech were you convinced would take the world by storm but didn't?

#657

Post by senatorobama »

Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #492
Firegarden wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am certain we could easily create this using websockets and p2p browser data streams... whos coming with me? Crowd fund me and i will release a prototype

OK, I only ask for 10% of the profits for giving you the idea :) Just kidding. I would definitely support such a crowdfunding within my modest means. The problem is that I don't think the tech is the main issue (after all, ICQ did it with 90s tehc). Obtaining an userbase is the main issue, and network effects go against new contenders.

Not to mention.. dick picks.

Re: Ask HN: What tech were you convinced would take the world by storm but didn't?

#658

Post by CreepGin »

rodolphoarruda wrote: post #637
fsloth wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the biggest motivation for peer-to-peer networks was the lack of legal options for digitally accessing movies and music. The current streaming services and online stores have reduced this ache.

I agree. In fact, I started to realize I've been using sites like The Pirate Bay just to get a sense of what people are watching, new releases etc. Ratings would tend to be very low, of course, it's their culture to say that any movie sucks; but at least I can get a list of titles and then search for them in paid service providers.

I use Rottentomatoes
Post reply on HN