Week 1 - Failure.

 "Behind every success, are lots of failures"


Navdy



    The goal of the company was to 'revolutionize automotive navigation'. They attempted to do this through the use of a HUD which would show various types of data to the user (Such as navigational data and the like). The point of the device was to make sure people would keep their eyes on the road, rather than peek down at their phones every now and then to check the map. It was meant to be configurable through a mobile app, and that was all the mobile input that was required - no looking at the device while driving. The reason for their failure was twofold: Money and actual usability.   
    While the idea itself sounds neat, the original price of $799 was far too great for the 'average Joe' that the product was aimed towards. Even though the price was soon cut down to $499, people started complaining about its actual usefulness. It turned out that the display itself would actually impair the user's line of view, unlike its high-end competitors that were inbuilt in more expensive vehicles - at which point a phone mount would have resulted in less direction than the HUD created to keep attention on the road. The final, albeit large nail in the coffin was their decision to try and make their own navigation system - something even the 'top dogs' of the business struggle with. It created unnecessary costs and diluted the production process, leading to the project's eventual demise in 2018.  [1][2]

Ouya



Perhaps a great example of the complicated nature of the gap between expectations and reality is the massive mess that was Ouya. Ouya was marketed as a console for people who truly value gaming. It wanted to prove that concurrent gaming systems were vastly overpriced and that consumers should not be paying for them. During its kickstarter, it showed off a dozen seemingly great ideas, a polished user interface, and a meticulously designed controller - all backed by a company that 'cares about gamers'. It met its kickstarter goal nearly tenfold, yet it was one of the most legendary blunders in the gaming industry. 
    Its main cause of downfall was its 'best' feature. During the entire kickstarter process, one of the  advertised tenets of the system was "Try it before you buy it. Every game is free, at least to try". This was later pulled back and cancelled, but I dare say it was their biggest mistake. It resulted in there being no actual games for the system for anyone to play. This entire promise made their target clientele a group of people who do not want to buy games. That, in turn, meant that developers had no incentive to create anything for the system. Why would anyone in their right mind devise a game for a small, vulnerable niche system and have their game played for free/cracked easily on the platform, if they could instead make a game for Steam or the PlayStation? The facts speak for themselves, and the return multi-platform developers earned, even per user, was abysmal on Ouya compared to platforms where a free trial/version was not forced. There are multiple other reasons for their failure, such as the actual rift the company had with its consumerbase (Every interview making it more and more apparent that they were entirely clueless on what gamers want and do), as well as the cheap quality and failure to keep promises despite meeting their funding goal several fold. 

Microsoft Bob



    The goal of Microsoft Bob was to make navigating a personal computer easier and more familiar. It replaced the desktop with a house that contained multiple rooms that the consumer could visit. These rooms contained familiar items such as a pen and paper or a clock - opening wordpad or telling the user the time, respectively. The program also featured a guide dog named Rover, who later made a 'cameo' in XP's "Search companions" feature. Despite being ahead of its time and being an amazing example of 'social interfacing', Bob was quite a heavy failure as it was criticized by both the media and its users.
    One of the main reasons for its failure was that, even though its purpose was to replace the supposedly complicated 'desktop', it ended up being more complicated than what it sought to improve - requiring reading several manuals and books to master it. Another reason is that the application was customizable - which in its essence is a great thing, but there was no way to share one's unique creation. The rooms/house were your own. Unless someone else were to visit the user physically, all the effort would be wasted - there was no reason to try and customize this virtual house, as there was no one to differ from. To add on top of this, Microsoft's various 'helpers' are notorious for being.. downright annoying. This is something nearly everyone who has browsed the internet in the early 2010s can agree on, seeing the memes of the infamous clipboard. [5] [6]

[1] - https://www.failory.com/cemetery/navdy . Accessed at 02-02-2021. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Week 2 - Failure.. and success!

Image
 Academset      Technically just a more advanced version of the original Computing Center for Collective Use, the Academset was one of the only few examples of a 'decent' network structure during the Soviet era. Initially built only to serve the staff of the Leningrad Scientific Center, it began expanding during the late 70s, when various other institutions (such as factories), started becoming integrated into the network. After that point, it started growing more and more until it officially became the "Leningrad information-computer network of the SSSR" and was fully fledged into its 'final' iteration - the Academset, which also established links between the satellite countries under the Soviet reign.       The network had several issues, most notably the usage of the OSI protocol demanding a high amount of main memory from the central computers. After the fall of the Soviet union, the mainframe of the network was destroyed and Russia gained access to 'g
Read more

Week 15 - Ethics

 Ethics Act Utilitarianism      Act utilitarianism is the single most beneficial theory in the world, period. It narrates that the 'right' course of action in any situation is one that would grant the most overall positive net gain to every party involved (or the least negative gain). This means that in every case, following the theory would provide the most good - being, on a surface level, the clear cut winner. However, it skips out the individual part - as long as one person's individual suffering would pay for a multitude of other people being happier, then it is all good in the eyes of this theory. Furthermore, it is very difficult to quantify just how 'valuable' an action is to any given person, as everyone has a different measuring stick and there is a whole lot to leave for interpretation in these scenarios. But how does this tie into IT?     Well, for this topic, I will sadly have to be as bland as one possibly can be and talk about self-driving cars. I kno
Read more