Museum of Failure • Hacker News Board

Re: Museum of Failure

#21

Post by dorfsmay » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 2:16 PM UTC

bullen wrote: post #15

I had an N-Gage, the first phone I talked on in stereo using headphones (obviously). It was probably the best portable device I ever had. Musicplayer, console, stereo phone!!! So much ahead of it's time it even makes a modern "smart" phones look wrong. You could change battery yourself without tools. Real buttons! How many misclicks do we count per day, probably a couple of billion?

When you stereo, do you mean different sounds for each ear? Or just having the same sound on each ear?

Wouldn't the former require two microphes?

Re: Museum of Failure

#22

Post by justintoon » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 2:29 PM UTC

Steltek wrote: post #13

Oh man, the Nokia NGage! I still remember the "taco talking" mockery (back when people used phones to make calls). Symbian OS was so much better than the competition. Apps and games were feasible, compared to the j2me wasteland. I remember it for not being a too far fetched idea as I playing with the software on my S60 device more than making calls. https://museumoffailure.com/nokia/

I believe the official term was "sidetalkin'" https://sidetalking.com

Re: Museum of Failure

#23

Post by doitLP » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 2:36 PM UTC

eCa wrote: post #19

Not an invention, but one of my favourite failures is Shackleton’s antarctic expedition[1], which among the many trials includes what must be one of the greatest navigational feats in history: 1300km in an open boat across the Antarctic Ocean after a year being stuck in the ice. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Trans-Antarctic_Exped...

Bligh’s open boat voyage[1] after the mutiny on the Bounty has them beat at 6400km, but the Shackleton expedition certainly had to deal with much more adverse conditions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutiny_on_the_Bounty#Bligh's...

Re: Museum of Failure

#24

Post by status200 » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 2:47 PM UTC

lsbehe wrote: post #3

I have to reload every page multiple times until it loads. Can we please stop having static websites rely on 65 (???) scripts.

I was thinking that this website should add itself to the list since it is so frustrating to use...

Re: Museum of Failure

#25

Post by jjulius » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 2:49 PM UTC

What are the years listed below the items on the home page supposed to denote? The DeLorean dates are "1989-1990", but it was sold, and production ended, in the early 80's.

There are symbols next to each date, but I can't find their meanings anywhere on the website.

Re: Museum of Failure

#26

Post by gw99 » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 2:51 PM UTC

I would be happy to produce something that ended up in there. At least it would serve an educational purpose :)

Re: Museum of Failure

#27

Post by ghaff » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 2:52 PM UTC

dorfsmay wrote: post #20

Visited last weekend. Interesting for sure. Funny to see how many times and for how long we've been trying to do VR! Some of the "failures" were unfair IMO, like minitel and Block Buster: It's like saying using wind sails on ships was a failure because it was replaced by steam engines.

In the case of Blockbuster, it's reasonable to argue that they should have at least taken advantage of their brand (and relationships) to get into the DVD rental by mail business which would have, relatively speaking, not been a big stretch. Though phasing out retail would have been disruptive.

Of course, streaming was a whole different game. (As would be original content.) And it's not like Netflix is looking especially robust at the moment.

Re: Museum of Failure

#28

Post by manholio » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 2:55 PM UTC

dorfsmay wrote: post #20

Visited last weekend. Interesting for sure. Funny to see how many times and for how long we've been trying to do VR! Some of the "failures" were unfair IMO, like minitel and Block Buster: It's like saying using wind sails on ships was a failure because it was replaced by steam engines.

VR is just the most recent incarnation of the "3D vision" gimmick every generation will rediscovered and then abandon. We had multiple waves of this fad, starting with the stereoscopic novelty postcards of the 19th century, the many 3D cinema revivals (the Avatar craze even saw the rise of ludicrous 3D TVs), and now Metaverse and its ilk.

It always fails because, once the novelty of the effect wears off, people realize it's basically pointless. The extra information 3D brings is not worth the logistic cost. So they revert to regular 2D cinema, classic virtual worlds like MMORPGs etc. which are much more comfortable to experience and deliver the same basic product.

Re: Museum of Failure

#29

Post by creeble » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 3:02 PM UTC

manholio wrote: post #28

dorfsmay wrote: post #20

Visited last weekend. Interesting for sure. Funny to see how many times and for how long we've been trying to do VR! Some of the "failures" were unfair IMO, like minitel and Block Buster: It's like saying using wind sails on ships was a failure because it was replaced by steam engines.

VR is just the most recent incarnation of the "3D vision" gimmick every generation will rediscovered and then abandon. We had multiple waves of this fad, starting with the stereoscopic novelty postcards of the 19th century, the many 3D cinema revivals (the Avatar craze even saw the rise of ludicrous 3D TVs), and now Metaverse and its ilk. It always fails because, once the novelty of the effect wears off, people reali…

I think this is a pretty good summary, but misses one key point: people don’t like wearing something that blocks their natural vision for very long. Some can’t even do it for a few minutes. It’s not like any other form of technology in that way. Even 3D TVs didn’t have this “feature”.

Gamers might be able to do it all day, and it will probably always have that market. But as a replacement for the flip-open or pull-out-of-your-pocket screen, never gonna happen. Sorry Zuck.

Re: Museum of Failure

#30

Post by lo_zamoyski » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 3:11 PM UTC

salmo wrote: post #6

I love this idea. So many failures follow the “first is not best”, then many failed business tales. But most of these are the expected and the analysis is shallow. Snark added is unnecessary. Many are fad products or acknowledged R&D experiments that I wouldn’t necessarily call “failures.” I expected more when having to give my email. A categorized page of bullets with Wikipedia links would be more useful. The detail…

Indeed. An entertaining idea in the abstract, perhaps, but this is just weak sensationalism and poor execution. I don't see anything substantive that explains how something failed. Instead of taking the right attitude of discovering where something ostensibly went wrong, it seems to relish in dismissive ridicule in the style of FailArmy.