10 Apple Product Flops

[mysterytramp]

The GUI is hardly an Apple creation. Google "Xerox Alto."

Nobody with half a lick of history doesn't give Xerox their due in the creation of the GUI. But also, no one with a half a lick of history also doesn't give Apple their due in having the chops to actually bring the GUI to market. This board would be XeroxRumors instead of MacRumors if that company could listen to its own engineers.

Palm isn't Apple. The Newton was an Apple failure no matter how you swing it, although I happen to like it and still use mine on occasion.

Palm and Apple are two different companies, but even if the Newton was a commercial flop, Palm would be nothing without it. BTW, the Newton's handwriting recognition, though widely lampooned, did not require learning a new alphabet, as Palm users had to. If anything, Apple is the Xerox Alto of the PDA.

mt

 

[iGary]

The Cube led to many other products that wouldn't be possible without its big power in a small package engineering.

 

[GSMiller]

Now they need to do an article titled "When Forbes Failed" because their website is moving about as fast as a fat girl on a treadmill. Anyone care to breakdown the list and post it here? I did manage to see the Lisa is on it.

 

[zap2]

TV is great...I thinking Apple made some money off it, even after R&D cost.....its a fun little device.

 

[bengal85]

maybe apple has had flops but not as many or as sever as windowws has which is good for mac

 

[miles01110]

This board would be XeroxRumors instead of MacRumors if that company could listen to its own engineers.
...
Palm and Apple are two different companies, but even if the Newton was a commercial flop, Palm would be nothing without it.

Subjective at best. There's no way you can say "Oh, well Palm never would have been successful without Apple" or "Xerox would have been successful if..." with any degree of credibility. It might stand to reason, but reality doesn't always take the logical path. The reality of the situation is that Xerox had the first GUI, and that the Newton was a failure. Apple popularizing the GUI or Palm being a spinoff from the Newton has nothing to do with it.

 

[AmbitiousLemon]

The GUI is hardly an Apple creation. Google "Xerox Alto."

Xerox were the first to have a GUI PC in the lab, but they never created a commercial product with it. They sold the idea to Apple who added the mouse and completed the desktop metaphor. When you look at Alto and LisaOS you will see Alto bares almost no resemblance to a modern OS while LisaOS is obviously the inspiration for MacOS, Windows and Linux GUIs.

Palm isn't Apple. The Newton was an Apple failure no matter how you swing it, although I happen to like it and still use mine on occasion.

You'd like to have it both ways and claim that Xerox Alto was the real success instead of Lisa and Mac but then not give Apple credit for inventing PDAs. Newton's failure was in Apple not following through. I bring up Palm to show that Newton could have been a wonderful success (since the same team created both). I think the failure here was simply in Steve's hastiness not in the product itself. In the end regardless of how you clarify the success or failure of the Newton, it was the first commercial PDA - and by being that first it created a market that flourished until PDAs were absorbed by phones.

...that only works with their proprietary software (iTunes). Apple is just as exclusive as the content providers, and it's hypocritical for them to cry when content providers don't open up their material for Apple's use.

I do not disagree at all. Its a shame Apple didn't follow the example of the iPod which played mp3s (the standard). But I still think it is much too early to call this one a failure, especially with the minimum investment Apple has made to the product (clearly a careful testing of the waters).

In the end my point was just that there are much better choices for Apple's top 10 worst failures since so many of these listed, while not immediate commercial successes, were tremendous industry changing technological successes that showed the way forward for either Apple or an entirely new industry. I'd pick Apple products that were commercial failures as well as nothing special from the technological standpoint if I were to build my own top 10.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Xerox were the first to have a GUI PC in the lab, but they never created a commercial product with it. They sold the idea to Apple who added the mouse and completed the desktop metaphor. When you look at Alto and LisaOS you will see Alto bares almost no resemblance to a modern OS while LisaOS is obviously the inspiration for MacOS, Windows and Linux GUIs.

Xerox did develop a GUI-based computer which they sold commercially, the Star. They never had their corporate heart into it, though, and it sold poorly. Also, it's a myth that Xerox sold anything to Apple. The Mac project was already underway at Apple when Steve Jobs made his famous visit to Xerox PARC. This visit was arranged by the Mac team at Apple (by Jef Raskin in particular) in order to convince Steve that a GUI could be workable and get him behind the Mac project. He got so behind the project that he took it over.

Also, it's not quite correct to credit Xerox with the GUI. What they did was implement many of the advanced computer interface concepts that had been floating around for a while, mainly in academia. This was important, but it was also something short of invention.

 

[rhett7660]

I LOVE MY APPLETV!

You and me both!! Love it.

 

[juanster]

lol this is awesome, brought me back to my younger days (not so long ago anyways) first computer we had at home has a B&W monitor and ran windows 95 i believe... i remmebr it ran word perfect, and it had a super fast 28.8 modem or somehting liek that.... wait,, thsi post makes no sense to be in this thread...im still leaving it tho for good times only..

 

[AmbitiousLemon]

Xerox did develop a GUI-based computer which they sold commercially, the Star. They never had their corporate heart into it, though, and it sold poorly. Also, it's a myth that Xerox sold anything to Apple. The Mac project was already underway at Apple when Steve Jobs made his famous visit to Xerox PARC. This visit was arranged by the Mac team at Apple (by Jef Raskin in particular) in order to convince Steve that a GUI could be workable and get him behind the Mac project. He got so behind the project that he took it over.

Also, it's not quite correct to credit Xerox with the GUI. What they did was implement many of the advanced computer interface concepts that had been floating around for a while, mainly in academia. This was important, but it was also something short of invention.

Thanks for clearing some of that up, I didn't know all that additional info. Apple did pay for the GUI concept though via stock they gave to Xerox for the privilege of that trip correct? So they did buy the general idea/concept.

 

[MisterMe]

Thanks for clearing some of that up, I didn't know all that additional info. Apple did pay for the GUI concept though via stock they gave to Xerox for the privilege of that trip correct? So they did buy the general idea/concept.

The payment was not exclusive to the GUI. Apple wrote a check to cover any prospective claim that Xerox might lodge against it for use of Xerox intellectual property.

While we are on the subject of the GUI, it is amazing that people think that the GUI is just one thing. However, no one would ever think that the CLI is just one thing. The differences between Apple's GUI and Xerox's were profound. Just one example--icons. Icons in the Apple GUI are nouns in the graphical language. In the Xerox graphical language, icons were verbs.

 

[IJ Reilly]

The payment was not exclusive to the GUI. Apple wrote a check to cover any prospective claim that Xerox might lodge against it for use of Xerox intellectual property.

Apple wrote no checks. They did give Xerox the opportunity to participate in Apple's IPO to the tune of $1 million, but that's all.

 

[MisterMe]

Apple wrote no checks. They did give Xerox the opportunity to participate in Apple's IPO to the tune of $1 million, but that's all.

I stand corrected.

 

[63dot]

I am a little bit worried about the aluminum Macbook and the Macbook Air over the long haul. Lack of firewire in one, and severe lack of ports and some reports of overheating in the other are not good signs.

I think the Macbook Pros are safe and will remain so for a long time.

 

[Beric]

Wrong.

Would you like to support this statement? I can easily provide you with a BTO HP for $1300 that outperforms a MBP, an HP for $900 that outperforms a $1499 MB; ect.

The Apple prices are out there, and they're insane.

 

[63dot]

Would you like to support this statement? I can easily provide you with a BTO HP for $1300 that outperforms a MBP, an HP for $900 that outperforms a $1499 MB; ect.

The Apple prices are out there, and they're insane.

I think Apple is going to surprise us all and within a couple of months, MWSF, my guess is that the white Macbook will come down to $799 and the aluminum Macbook will come down to $999. Too many good PC laptops are selling for well under a thousand dollars so Apple has to counter their prices.

By the time Apple gets a $699 laptop, let's say by Christmas 2009, the PC world will have a $450 laptop with similar specs. It's a never ending cat and mouse game. But at a certain point, laptops will be so cheap either way that price won't play an issue. I saw a mini non Apple iPod, like the shuffle, and it was just $10 dollars cheaper than Apple's iPod shuffle, but the difference at that point is negligent.

Five to ten years from now when an entry level Mac laptop is at $399 and the PC equivalent is at $299, price won't be a factor.

I paid $1599 for my G3 iBook in 1999 and I thought I was paying an incredibly fair price for the time. A year earlier, I was looking at Pentium laptops, entry level to mid level, from $2200 to $3000 dollars.

 

[Michael CM1]

I don't get AppleTV being on there. It's not a smash hit like most everything else they sell now, but it doesn't seem like a dud. It's main problem is the limited software and remote.

The other issue with AppleTV is most people aren't jumping into the buying video online ship. Most people still like DVDs and Blu-ray Discs, and you have to know the secret knock to get your DVDs on a computer and then on iTunes and then AppleTV. If you could rip DVDs and all of their features to iTunes like you could CDs, AppleTV could be a MASSIVE hit. Just create a decent-function remote (take a look at what any DVD or Blu-ray remote does) and make the software less like a 5-year-old iPod.

 

[RexTraverse]

The GUI is hardly an Apple creation. Google "Xerox Alto."

Thank you. I hate it when people ignore Xerox PARC's accomplishments. Windows, Menus, Buttons, Icons all working with a pointing device and all before Apple was even formed as a company. Gotta pay respect to the real history makers. Mac, Windows, Linux, all riffs on the original.

Also, someone asked for a company that has never come out with a failed product, easy - The Tapatío Hot Sauce Company. Sure, it's easier when you only have one product and it's a mind-blowing success, but the point is they've never had a failed product. And I love me some Tapatío.

 

[Cromulent]

I'm guessing Mr. Yogasingam must be a youngster who never had to transmit at 14.4.

That's what I was thinking 14.4k would not have taken 10 minutes. God knows where he got that from.

I remember my 14.4k modem, and being scared to download anything approaching 1MB because it would tie the phone line up for ages.

 

[sushi]

He lost me with "fanboy," and that was in the first paragraph.

Agree.

Everybody knows that Apple has made some products that haven't sold well. What company hasn't?

True.

Look at all the industry firsts in this list.

• Newton - First PDA. Better hand writing recognition than we have today. After Steve killed the project at Apple the employees left and created Palm. You can hardly call Palm a failure. IF you want to criticize you should criticize Apple for letting this one slip through their fingers.

Interesting perspective.

I was just getting into Newton development when the Newton was cancelled. Sad time. The Newton OS was really nice at the time, color and scalable.

IMHO, the problem with the Newton is that they released it too soon. The 100 was way underpowered and the handwriting recognition left a lot to be desired. In short, the 100 gave the Newton a bad reputation. One that it never outgrew.

By the 2100, the Newton had evolved into a very nice PDA that had great handwriting recognition, and worked very well. You could do so much with a Newton 2100.

In fact, today, there are simple web sites served by a Newton 2100. I would show some examples, but would be afraid of the traffic that it might generate. But cool nonetheless.

I was a beta tester for a nice PowerPoint like presentation software for the Newton. If you connected the Newton to an external display, you could show colors on a VGA display which was nice.

I used to travel extensively at that time around the world. The Newton was my constant traveling companion. It was great for long flights. The battery (rechargeable) lasted over 10 hours and when it died, you could always use regular AA batteries which are obtainable anywhere. They lasted around 20 hours if memory serves. Note, I still use the rechargeable ones but they are slowly dying.

The iPod touch is a nice device, but is a long ways away from being a Newton replacement. Unfortunately.

That's what I was thinking 14.4k would not have taken 10 minutes. God knows where he got that from.

I remember my 14.4k modem, and being scared to download anything approaching 1MB because it would tie the phone line up for ages.

The only time in my life, using commercial systems, that I actually out typed the computer was at 300 baud. 14.4K was super fast back then.

And no, it would not take 10 minutes to send a short chat comment.

Personally, I did not like the article much. Poorly researched and too many gross generalizations that did not portray how the devices really were in their timeframes.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Thanks for clearing some of that up, I didn't know all that additional info. Apple did pay for the GUI concept though via stock they gave to Xerox for the privilege of that trip correct? So they did buy the general idea/concept.

I don't know for a fact whether Apple and Xerox made any sort of technology-sharing deals. That question would be related to whether Xerox held key patents on the GUI concepts which Apple needed to complete the Mac project. I suspect that they did not -- if only because there was quite a bit of prior art around, and many of these concepts were too general to be patentable. For example, Douglas Englebart had created the first mouse while he was an academic. It was only later that he was hired by Xerox. If Xerox held a patent on the mouse, Apple would have had to buy the rights to sell a mouse -- and AFAIK, that did not happen.

 

[sushi]

I don't know for a fact whether Apple and Xerox made any sort of technology-sharing deals. That question would be related to whether Xerox held key patents on the GUI concepts which Apple needed to complete the Mac project. I suspect that they did not -- if only because there was quite a bit of prior art around, and many of these concepts were too general to be patentable. For example, Douglas Englebart had created the first mouse while he was an academic. It was only later that he was hired by Xerox. If Xerox held a patent on the mouse, Apple would have had to buy the rights to sell a mouse -- and AFAIK, that did not happen.

Interesting.

In those days, depending on the system, a mouse was much different than today's typical two button mouse. Many had 3 or 5 primary buttons. Some I used had an optical cross hair that you used to select items from palettes. Some systems required one monitor, others three monitors and a smart table. It seemed nothing was standardized between systems at the time.

There were also many so called GUI type interfaces, including Xerox's.

Apple's approach was consistency and ease of use for the typical consumer. They went with a one button mouse because of this. Apple was also very strict with their programming guidelines which greatly helped developers create consistent applications. So regardless of the application, the mouse input and use was very consistent.

 

[NT1440]

I was under the impression that Apple had created the drop down menu as an addition to what they got from xerox amongst other things before their version of the OS went to market??

 

[sushi]

I was under the impression that Apple had created the drop down menu as an addition to what they got from xerox amongst other things before their version of the OS went to market??

See if you can find a demo/video that shows the Parc Xerox project. Then compare to the original Mac OS.

There were very different in implementation. Yes, the drop down menu was Apple's idea AFAIK. The Parc Xerox system has pop up menus on the screen that cascaded.

Note, if nothing else, the movie Pirates of Silicon Valley shows a little bit of each.