Thanks to GUIdebook for letting us borrow many of the Windows images in this story.

–David Worthington

Microsoft staffers talk MS-DOS 2.0 with the editors of PC World in late 1982 or early 1983. Windows 1.0 wouldn’t ship for almost another two years. From left: Microsoft’s Chris Larson, PC World’s Steve Cook, Bill Gates, Tandy Trower, and founding PC World editor Andrew Fluegelman.

In the late fall of 1984, I was just past three years in my employment with Microsoft. Considering the revolving doors in Silicon Valley at that time, I already had met or exceeded the typical time of employment with a high-tech company. Over that time I already had established a good track record, having started with product management of Microsoft’s flagship product, BASIC, and successfully introduced many versions including the so-called GW-BASIC which was licensed to PC clone vendors, various BASIC compilers, and a BASIC interpreter and compiler for the Apple Macintosh. As a result I had been given the overall responsibility for managingMicrosoft’s programming languages, which included FORTRAN, Pascal, COBOL, 8086 Macro Assembler, and its first C compiler for MS-DOS. It was at this point that things took a significant turn.

I had just gone through one of those infamous grueling project reviews with Bill Gates, who was known for his ability to cover all details related to product strategy, not only those on the technical side. Borland’s Turbo Pascal had just come out, seemed to be taking the market by storm, and looked like a possible competitor to Microsoft BASIC as the language that was shipped with every PC. While Microsoft had its own version of Pascal, it had been groomed as a professional developer’s tool, and in fact was the core language Microsoft wrote many of its own software products in before it was displaced by C.

At $50 for the Borland product vs. the Microsoft $400 compiler, it was a bit like comparing a VW to a Porsche. But while Turbo Pascal was lighter weight for serious development, it was almost as quick for programming and debugging as Microsoft’s BASIC interpreters. And Pascal was the programming language that most computer science students most typically studied. The new Borland product would require serious strategy revisions to the existing plans to port Microsoft Pascal to a new compiler architecture. But it also required thinking about how to address this with our BASIC products. Could a Turbo BASIC be on the horizon? In any case, Gates made it quite clear that he was not happy .

Returning to my office I was somewhat devastated. In the days that followed, as I tried to come up with a revised strategy, I was uncertain about whether I should even continue in this role. I had come to Microsoft from a consumer computer company where I had primarily managed a variety of entertainment and education software. Even in my early career at Microsoft I had managed its early PC games like Flight Simulator, Decathlon, and Typing Tutor. And I had loved managing BASIC, not just because it was the product the company was best known for, but because BASIC helped me get my own start in the PC business, and I believed it allowed a wide audience to tap into the power of PCs. Now my job had evolved to where I was managing a family of products mostly for a highly technical audience. So, I spoke with Steve Ballmer, then my direct manager and head of Microsoft’s product marketing group, and suggested that perhaps I was the wrong person for this job.

A couple of weeks later, Ballmer called me in and proposed that I transfer over to manage Windows. Sounds like a plum job right? Well, that wasn’t so obvious at the time. Windows had been announced the previous year with much fanfare and support from most of the existing PC vendors. However, by the time of my discussion with Steve, Windows still had not shipped within the promised timeframe and was starting to earn the reputation of being “vaporware.” In fact Ballmer had just returned from what we internally referred to as the “mea culpa” tour to personally apologize to analysts and press for the product not having shipped on time and to reinforce Microsoft’s definite plans to complete it soon.

Further, Microsoft’s strategy to get IBM to license Windows had failed. IBM had rejected Windows in favor of its own character-based DOS application windowing product called TopView. With IBM still the dominant PC seller, Microsoft would have to market Windows directly to IBM PC users. It would be the first time the company sold an OS level product directly to end-users (unless you count the Apple SoftCard, a hardware card that enabled Apple II users to run CPM-80 applications on their Apple IIs, which I had also previously managed). Since I had been the product manager that had the most experience with marketing technically oriented products through retail channels (rather licensed to PC vendors), Ballmer thought the job might be a good fit. In addition, he pointed out that since Windows was intended to expand the appeal of PC through its easier-to-use graphical user interface, it should appeal to my more end-user product experience and interests.

At that point Windows was no longer considered the company’s star project, as it had become a bit of an embarrassment. Even internally there were doubts among some in the company that Windows would ever ship. Also, because Ballmer had already burned though four product managers to try to get there–people who now had been either reassigned or were no longer at Microsoft–the product was developing a reputation for career death. Apparently prior to offering the job to me, Ballmer had tried to persuade Rob Glaser, already recognized as a bright, up-and coming talent, to take the position. But Glaser turned him down. When Glaser heard that I was offered the position, he even stopped by to counsel might that it would be a bad career move.

This made me think that perhaps the offer to me was a ploy by Gates and Ballmer to fire me because of their disappointment in dealing with Turbo Pascal and my suggestion that perhaps my assignment to managing programming languages was a poor choice on their part. It seemed clever: give me a task that no one else had succeeded with, let me fail as well, and they would have not only a scapegoat, but easy grounds to terminate me. So, I confronted Gates and Ballmer about my theory. After their somewhat raucous laughter they regained their composure and assured me that the offer was sincere and that they had confidence in my potential success.

So, in January of 1985 I transitioned over the Windows team, but even as I assumed my new role, I discovered that the Windows development architect and manager, Scott McGregor, a former Xerox PARC engineer, has just resigned. Ballmer himself took up McGregor’s role as the development lead in addition to his other responsibilities.

Shaping Up Windows

My first task was to assess of what was done and what was left to be done as well as come up with a marketing strategy of how to sell an OS add-on to end users, a task that was a significant challenge because no Windows applications existed at that time. How to sell a new application interface without any applications?

I discovered that while the three core functional components of Windows (Kernel–memory management, User–windowing and controls, and GDI–device rendering) were mostly in place there was still a substantial amount of work to be done, and Ballmer had given me only six months to finalize the product and get out the door. This didn’t bother too much since I had currently held the record for getting a product from definition to market in the shortest time.

There wasn’t much time to make changes. Ballmer was emphatic not to redefine what was already done, even though McGregor had changed Windows from its original overlapping windows design to a tiled windows model and every windowing system out there or under development featured overlapping windows. There also was not enough time to change the Windows system font displayed in title bars and control labels from a fixed width typeface to a proportional typeface, which made the overall look a bit clunky, especially in comparison to the newly announced Macintosh interface. Steve’s promise was that in the next release I would get creative freedom to make any significant changes to the product’s interface. I could add some functionality to make it more appealing to end-users, but overall the product needed to be finished, not further tweaked in any way that jeopardized getting it out that summer without further embarrassment.

Share/E-Mail

Even the best designers make mistakes…but this article isn’t about them. We’re about to, ahem, celebrate the worst consumer electronics designers through the lens of their faulty creations. Since I’m far from an all-knowing technology god, I’ve limited our survey to fifteen design problems that have not only bugged me through the years, but that are widespread enough to have bugged many of you too. These problems aren’t limited to current technology, but they all fall into the nebulous realm known as “consumer electronics.” You know: TVs, telephones, VCRs, DVD players, MP3 players, and more.

TV/Video Design Mistakes

Mistake #1: The Red Off Light

Device(s): TVs, DVRs, Receivers, Game Consoles, and more

Sing it with me:

TVs do it, Wiis do it
Even silly PS3s do it
Let’s do it. Let’s never turn off

The little red “off light,” common in most modern entertainment center equipment, serves as a constant reminder that your electronic gear never stops doing its job. It’s always sippin’ on outlet juice, even if you don’t want it to. If said equipment happens to be located in your bedroom, the off light also provides a laserlike beam of photons to tickle your eyeballs into unnecessary alertness.

It seems that most TVs, cable boxes, and even video game systems made after 2003 or so provide some sort of active glowing indicator that they’re “not running” — that is to say that they’re not actively doing what you want them to be doing. By definition, then, the indicator is completely redundant and pointless. (In the case of video game consoles, your electronic gadgets could be doing what you don’t want them to be doing: downloading random updates from the Internet.)

Remember when LED power indicators only glowed when a unit was turned on? It was helpful in cases when the device wasn’t behaving properly; the little power light let you know that the unit was receiving power. Then you could commence troubleshooting — perhaps you plugged the video connector into the audio connector?– and so on.

That was handy. But an off light?

What Were They Thinking? (Benj’s Theory)

It’s 2002 and you’re designing a new TV set. When it comes time to pick the power LED, you notice these nifty new bicolor or tricolor LEDs that combine two or three different colors into a single component. They’re cheap and plentiful, so why not use them? Then you can show everyone that your device works properly–even when it’s not working.

There is one small functional purpose for some “off lights,” albeit one that I still believe is completely unnecessary: in some devices, the power LED doubles as a diagnostic light for software problems. (For the last decade or more, people have been building software-controlled microcontrollers into everything, so if the programming is off, things don’t work. It’s not just an hardware design problem anymore.)

Sometimes power LEDs blink when the unit is “warming up” (booting, initializing, etc.) to let you know that, yes, something’s happening — you’re not just sitting there staring at a blank TV for 10 seconds right after you turned it on. If there’s an error, the LED can blink a certain pattern as well, letting a phone technician in India know that you just wasted $600.

There’s still no good excuse to have a light shine when your unit is powered off. I’m sure some will challenge that assertion, but TVs worked fine for 50 years without red LED off lights, so I know they’re useless.

Mistake #2: The Blinking VCR Clock

Device(s): Video Cassette Recorders

Who hasn’t owned a VCR that blinks? (OK, people under 20: put your hands down.) Almost every VCR ever manufactured shipped with an electronic digital numeric display somewhere on the unit. Its primary purpose was to show running time while playing a tape to assist in viewing, fast-forwarding, or rewinding a recorded program.

That display also had another important reason for being there. When electronics companies introduced VCRs in the 1970s, they marketed the devices as a way to record and time-shift broadcast TV shows, and let owners program them to begin recording at a certain date and time as guided by an internal clock. So it only made sense that the VCR displayed the current time on the front of the unit (even when it was off–you know, just in case you didn’t already have a timepiece).

So what’s the problem? When the VCR lost power, either through being unplugged from the wall, or when your house would experience a momentary power dropout, the unit would lose its internal memory settings. That’s because the VCR’s clock information was stored in a chip that required constant power to keep the clock active and running. Many digital clocks work around power outages by allowing you to install a separate backup battery to retain power to the clock memory while the main power is off. And most didn’t have battery backups.

And here’s the second problem: VCRs were notoriously difficult to program or set to the correct time. It usually involved weird buttons and hard to navigate on-screen menus (on later models). Even if you figured out how to program it, what’s the point of doing it if it’s just going to reset again?

That’s why VCR designers got away with the blinking clock syndrome: people were too lazy to program, so they didn’t care that their VCR could be programmed, so they didn’t demand VCRs with clock batteries. VCRs ended up being mostly used to play pre-recorded bought or rented movies, rendering the time-shifting functionality mostly an afterthought.

Ultimately, many VCRs did ship with auto-setting internal clocks that set themselves based on a broadcast time signature. Unfortunately, by the time this feature became widespread, VCRs were quickly being supplanted by DVD players and the “difficult VCR” stereotype was already firmly entrenched in the public consciousness.

What Were They Thinking?

The display flashes to indicate that the internal clock’s settings have been lost. It’s supposed to be helpful. It’s also cheaper to build VCRs that don’t require clock backup batteries.

Mistake #3: DVD Encryption

Device(s): DVDs, DVD Players

Today, it’s easy to forget that DVDs were designed to have undefeatable copy protection. After all, it was already a decade ago that a group of intrepid tinkerers defeated the DVD format’s “Content Scramble System” (CSS) and released what they’d learned onto the Internet.

Today, DVD encryption is such a joke that legitimate commercial applications openly integrate DVD ripping tools into their feature sets (although major software vendors shy away from it for fear of legal repercussions).

By extension, this design mistake goes for other forms of video copy protection as well: HDCP in HDMI connections causes hassles when it shouldn’t, and Bl-Ray’s DRM has already been cracked. Silly rabbits, DRM is for kids.

What Were They Thinking?

Adding a form of DRM to DVD media not only prevented the casual copy of DVD movie discs, but perhaps more importantly ensured that manufacturers of DVD players had to legally acquire a license to incorporate DVD decoding electronics into their designs.

In that second regard, CSS is not a design mistake. But it’s a mistake with regard to the legal and technical hassle it causes to DVD customers who have a legitimate fair use reason to copy their movies onto another medium.

In some ways, it’s also a mistake that people broke the encryption so easily– although that’s the best mistake on this list.

Share/E-Mail

Now that we know quite a bit about the iPad, a massive rush to judgment is already underway, with pundits predicting everything from historic success to epic failure. Which led me to wonder: How accurate were the first predictions that got made about the iPhone’s fate? So I went back and read scads of stories from the first couple of weeks after the phone’s announcement.

Overall, they weren’t bad. Lots of pundits said it was a landmark product with the potential to transform the phone business. But there were plenty of dissenting opinions, too. This article is devoted to them.

I’m not dredging up these stories to mock anyone. For one thing, some of them make reasonable arguments about the original iPhone’s limitations; it’s just that the phone managed to thrive despite them. For another, I thought that famous flop the G4 Cube would be an influential hit, and am therefore in no position to taunt anyone for making inaccurate forecasts about Apple products. I’m doing this because I think reviewing iPhone predictions is a useful exercise as we think about the future of the iPad.

A quick executive summary of some of the issues that writers most often brought up as evidence that the iPhone was headed for failure:

• Price: Many skeptics correctly noted that the iPhone’s starting price of $499 was a lot of money for a phone.
• Lack of apps: Naysayers reasonably criticized the phone for its lack of support for third-party applications.
• Not businessy enough. A phone that pricey needed stuff like Exchange support, the doubters pointed out.
• Cingular: The fact that the iPhone was only available on Cingular–which changed its name to AT&T Wireless before the iPhone shipped–was supposed to be a major problem.
• Entrenched competitors: How was Apple going to compete with the Nokias and RIMs and Microsofts of the phone world?
• Missing features: No keyboard? No removable battery?
• Hey, Apple is a cult: Those who squawk about Apple products often throw in a reference or two to mindless fanboys who’ll snap up anything Steve Jobs instructs them to buy. (I wonder what percentage of a specific market Apple must hold before everyone involved agrees it’s silly to describe its customers as cultish?)

As it turned out, none of these factors killed the iPhone, and some of them eventually went away. The iPhone was too expensive, too limited in apps, and not enough of a business tool to succeed? A year after the first iPhone went on sale, the iPhone 3G arrived–a $199 phone with an App Store and Exchange support.

Other things that doubters complained about didn’t change, but weren’t fatal flaws. Today, people still grumble about AT&T exclusivity, and yet the iPhone 3GS sells like gangbusters.  And I’m not sure when I last heard someone gripe about the on-screen keyboard and fixed battery.

Herewith, some representative pieces from January 2007 on why the iPhone was doomed, with thoughts from me–including comments from the authors on the iPad when I’ve been able to find them.

Hung Truong, “4 Reasons Why the Apple iPhone Will Fail,” January 9th, 2007:

Here are 4 reasons why the Apple iPhone will fail:

1. Public Acceptance:
The average person doesn’t even use the WAP browser on their phone, let alone any full blown OSX apps! What people want in a mobile phone is a phone; they don’t need all of these extras. Extra software just makes it more difficult to perform the main function of the phone: to make phone calls.

2. Price:
The price of the iPhone was announced at $499 for the 4GB model and $599 for the 8GB with a 2 year contract. Right now, you can get a T-Mobile MDA smartphonefor $0 after rebate. The mass market is not willing to pay this much for a phone.

3. Copyright and Regulations:
There already is an iPhone out. It’s the Linksys Wireless-G Skype iPhone. I hope Apple has a lot of money or lawyers to acquire the rights to the name.

Pair this with the fact that the iPhone doesn’t have FCC approval and we might never see the iPhone get to market. How did Steve make all of those phone calls anyway?

4. Battery Life:
The iPhone runs OSX! This is great for a laptop or a desktop computer, but does a phone really need OSX? The battery life was announced as 5 hours of talk time, browsing, or video. Basically, 5 hours of active use. What happens after that? Your phone is dead and no one can call you.

People are not going to use the iPhone’s features for fear of losing their connectivity when the battery runs out.

Harry says: I was shocked, shocked to learn that Hung Truong now says his iPhone bashing was cynical Diggbait–but now he’s listing reasons why the iPad will fail, and he says really means it this time.

Allen Stern, CenterNetworks, “Three Reasons Why the iPhone Won’t Be as Mega as Some Think,” January 9th, 2007:

Reason 1 – Price

The entry-model is $500, the mega-model is $600. This is not an iPod at $249. Can the average American (you know the ones who own an iPod) afford this? I think not. I am sure there will be some incentives to switch but overall the price will be a barrier to entry. But not to the early adopter crowd. Walk down 43rd street in Manhattan from 5th ave to 6th ave. Ask every person with an iPod if they will get this device. I bet maybe 3% will say yes, and thats a very aggressive figure.

Reason 2 – Locked to Cingular

I am a Cingular customer. How many are not? Will you switch to get this phone? Some will, many won’t. Assuming it is GSM, I am sure someone will hack an unlock code but many won’t know how. What about those who recently signed deals with the other carriers? Will they spend the $200 or so to break their contracts? Doubt it! I can’t wait to read the posts on Consumerist.. they will go something like this “my wireless provider won’t let me out for free because I want an iPhone.”

Reason 3 – Data Rate Plans

I wrote about this last week with the MySpace deal. The data rate plans will kill this phone. I hope Cingular gets their act together and becomes an industry leader with regards to data pricing but today it is absolute crap. This device will use a lot of data when using the Cingular network (I understand it gets WiFi but that’s not available free everywhere!). Can the average American afford $600 for a device and then another $30ish over their normal rate plan for some data? Nope.

Harry says: Allen Stern is not only not predicting that the iPad will be a bomb, he’s saying it’ll be a hit, and that he wants one.

Philip Greenspun, “Apple iPhone,” January 9th, 2007:

Apple introduces its first phone today.  It is a bit tough to tell from looking at Apple’s Web site, but it appears that this is yet another smartphone that is not a flip-phone.  In other words, if it brushes up against something in your pocket it will make or answer unwanted calls.  Basically all Japanese phones are flip-phones and it baffles me as to how American consumers are denied the simple interface of “open to make or answer a call; flip closed to hang up”.

Apple gives us an MP3 player, which other brands of smart phones have had for several years.  What I want is a phone that won’t make calls from inside my pocket.

Harry says: If Greenspun couldn’t tell from Apple’s site whether the iPhone was a flip phone or not, he wasn’t looking very carefully. (For the record, the iPhone autolocks in a manner that comes close to eliminating the possibility of pocketdialing.) I haven’t seen him say anything about the iPad.

Share/E-Mail

Today, Apple is announcing its first true tablet. It took the company thirty-four years to get around to it, and it’s just about the only outfit in the business that abstained until now. Whether the device looks brilliant or misbegotten, all evidence suggests that there won’t be much that’s repetitious about it. Even so, it’s worth looking back at more than two decades of attempts to get tablets right–none of which really succeeded, and some of which failed on a monumental scale.

“Tablet” is a squishy term. For the purposes of this story, I’m limiting it to general-purpose computing devices (usually running general-purpose operating systems) aimed at consumers and business professionals. That rules out the two areas where tablet-esque gizmos have found success: PDAs (and their descendants, touch-screen smartphones) and units designed with specialized business applications in mind. But it still leaves numerous platforms and devices to contemplate. And the list that follows is far from comprehensive.

Grid Systems GRiDPAD (1989)

Distinguishing characteristics: 10-inch monochrome screen, tethered pen; 1MB of RAM, two memory card slots, and a proprietary network interface. Ran MS-DOS with proprietary pen extensions.

Original price (including software): about $3,000

The critics speak: “I was quite impressed by the pen interface and how easy it is to learn.”–Rod Chapin, InfoWorld

What happened: By tablet standards, the GRiDPAD—-which was designed for businessy applications such as data collection in the field—-was well reviewed and seems to have sold reasonably well. But AST (which bought GRiD Systems from Tandy, which had acquired it in 1988) ran into trouble in the mid-1990s. When it collapsed, the GRiDPAD disappeared.

Relevant factoid: The GRiDPAD was an early creation of Jeff Hawkins, who went on to sell more pen-based devices than anybody else when he founded Palm and invented the PalmPilot.

The Momenta Computer (1991)

Distinguishing characteristics: 10-inch transflective monochrome screen, detachable keyboard, flip-up screen, tethered pen. Ran MS-DOS with proprietary pen extensions based on Smalltalk; came bundled with pen-based word processor, spreadsheet, and communications applications.

Original price: $4,995

The critics speak: “Every time I look at the Momenta or use it, I think it should be knocking my socks off. But in actual use, the compromises of its design keep getting under my skin.”–Rafe Needleman, InfoWorld

What happened: Momenta started out as one of the most-hyped startups of the early 1990s, but its machine–innovative though it may have been–was slammed for being overpriced and underpowered. After burning through $40 million, laying off most of its staff, and making multiple changes in leadership–and only around ten months after its product hit the market–the company closed up shop in August of 1992.

Relevant factoid: Momenta founder Kamran Elahian started successful companies before and after, but chose to keep MOMENTA as the license plate on his Ferrari as a sign of humility.

Compaq Concerto (1992)

Distinguishing characteristics: 9.5-inch monochrome display, handle that doubled as stand, detachable keyboard. Ran Windows for Pen Computing, Microsoft’s first unsuccessful attempt to give Windows a tablet interface.

Original price: $2,499

The critics speak: “My only really happy pen-based experience has been with Compaq’s unique Concerto…”–Kevin Strehlo, InfoWorld

What happened: The Concerto was one of numerous tablets from the early 1990s that had everything going for it except for the general disinterest of the PC-buying public. Compaq responded to disappointing sales by slashing the Concerto’s price by $1,000. Then it discontinued the system altogether in 1994.

Relevant factoid: Concerto must be one of the most-used monikers in tech history. It’s also been used for an add-on for Lotus Symphony, call-center software, and a Netscape plug-in.

AT&T Eo 440 Personal Communicator (1993)

Distinguishing characteristics: 5.9″ by 4.3″ transflective monochrome screen, pen, optional cellular phone/modem module (with handset that sat on top of the screen). Ran Go’s PenPoint operating system.

Original price: Around $3,000 for a fully-loaded model. (There was a $1,599 bare-bones version, but it didn’t even have enough memory to run the e-mail program.)

The critics speak: “The Eo Personal Communicator, from Eo Inc. and AT&T, is a pen-based computing device of staggering technical achievement. But I wouldn’t buy one.”–Mark Stephens, InfoWorld

What happened: AT&T reportedly burned through $40-$50 million to buy Go, the company that created the PenPoint pen operating system, and Eo, its hardware spinoff. After the gadget flopped, Ma Bell decided to refocus its energies on devices that packed similar functionality into a more phone-like shape–which was a visionary move considering that smartphones didn’t exist yet. But months later, in July of 1994, it just gave up.

Relevant factoid: Jerry Kaplan, cofounder of Go and Eo, wrote about the companies’ short, ill-fated life in his Silicon Valley classic Startup. It’s still in print.

Share/E-Mail

The brightest inventors on the planet keep coming up with ideas that never amount to much–even when they set out to solve real problems, and even when their brainchildren foreshadow later breakthroughs. And professional tech watchers have long proven themselves prone to getting irrationally exuberant about stuff that just isn’t ready for prime time.

Thanks to Google Books’ archives of Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, LIFE, and other magazines that frequently reported on futuristic gizmos, we have a readily accessible record of technology that failed to live up to the initial hype–including random notions that never got off the drawing board, startlingly advanced products that didn’t find a market, and very rough drafts of concepts that eventually became a big deal. The best of them are fascinating, even when it’s not the least bit surprising that they flopped.

Herewith, fifteen inventions–not that all of them ever got built–that were at least a decade ahead of their time. They’re in chronological order, starting with the inspiration that gave this article its title.

1. Thomas Edison’s Metal Books

As described in: Cosmopolitan, February 1911.

What it was: Among the numerous brainstorms and predictions that Thomas Alva Edison shared with Cosmopolitan readers in an exclusive interview was his vision of 40,000-page books that would be two inches thick and weigh a pound–because their pages would be made of metal, not paper:

Even the pages of books may be made of steel, though Edison regards nickel as a better substitute for paper…”Why not?” asks Edison. “Nickel will absorb printer’s ink. A sheet of nickel one twenty-thousandth of an inch thick is cheaper, tougher, and more flexible than an ordinary sheet of book-paper. A nickel book, two inches thick, would contain 40,000 pages. Such a book would weigh only a pound. I can make a pound of nickel sheets for a dollar and a quarter.”

Here…is a prospect of real culture for the masses Forty thousand pages in a volume! A single volume the equivalent in printing space of two hundred paper-leaved books of two hundred pages each! What a library might be placed between two steel covers and sold for, perhaps, two dollars!

That’s a lot of exclamation points!

Flies in the ointment: I feel disrespectful expressing skepticism about an idea pitched by the greatest inventor of all time, but…I’m skeptical that it would have worked. Also, wouldn’t it have been tough to flip ahead to, say, page 17,356?

When did the basic idea become practical? I know of no evidence that Edison or  anyone else ever printed a single book on nickel. (A Google search for “books printed on nickel” returns one result–a Publisher’s Weekly story referencing the Edison interview.) The first time anyone crammed massive numbers of books into one booklike device that real people could buy may have been when the Rocketbook and Softbook were released in 1999–not that very many people bought either of them.

Modern counterpart: The Kindle, the Nook, Sony’s Readers, and every other current gadget for reading digital tomes…even though they all cost a lot more than $2. And is it going too far to say that Edison had a 1911 version of the upcoming Apple tablet in mind?

2. The Automobile Wireless Telephone

As seen in: Popular Mechanics, February 1913.

What it was: An brainchild of Los Angeles inventor E.C. Hanson, who successfully made wireless calls over a distance of 35 miles from a phone installed in his roundabout.

Flies in the ointment: You thought the telescoping antennae on early brick phones are comically archaic? Hanson’s car phone required that the car in question be outfitted with telephone poles fore and aft, supporting “aerial wires and high-voltage insulators.”

When did the basic idea become practical? Experimentation with mobile phones continued for decades, but they only started to make sense in 1983 when Motorola shipped its DynaTAC, the first true cell phone–a full seven decades after Hanson’s experiments.

Modern counterpart: Your iPhone, BlackBerry, Nexus One, or Pre. Or even your humble flip phone.

3. The Telenewspaper and Electric Writer

As seen in: Popular Mechanics, June 1928.

What they were: Items in a “home of the future” depicting the typical house of 2000, designed by architect R.A. Duncan and exhibited in London. Besides the expected flying car in the garage, the place had a high-tech study with:

…a built-in radio and loud speakers, a built-in television set to see the day’s events and a built-in telenewspaper for visible radio projection of the day’s news. An electric writer, to transmit by radio similar messages, and an elaborate lighting-control panel, were also included.

That’s as far as the magazine’s explanation goes. If the room already has a TV, I’m assuming that the telenewspaper would have presented news in words and pictures displayed on a screen. The electric writer, meanwhile, appears to involve an in-wall display and some sort of box with buttons. I can’t see any evidence of QWERTY capability–maybe there was a wireless keyboard.

Flies in the ointment: The illustration in the magazine shows a house dwarfed by a huge honkin’ antenna, looking a bit like the ones at the top of San Francisco’s Twin Peaks. With experimental television broadcasts barely underway, it was awfully premature to be talking about homes with multiple displays built into the walls. Also, shouldn’t the telenewspaper and the electric writer be one device, or at least share one display?

When did the basic ideas become practical? In the 1980s and 1990s, more and more people began using electric screens to read news and transmit messages, although the screens usually weren’t built into walls and the transmissions used telephone wires rather than radio waves.

Modern counterparts: Google News and Gmail.

Share/E-Mail

Here (after the jump) is what they had to say–once you’ve read their hopes, dreams, and ambitions, share your own in the comments. Happy new year, and thanks for being part of the Technologizer community.

Share/E-Mail

No brand is guaranteed eternal health. (The two most powerful tech trademarks of the mid-1980s were arguably Compaq and Lotus; both are still around, but in greatly diminished form.) The brands in this story haven’t just lost a little of their luster. Most were once among the most respected names in tech, but ran into financial hardship and got sold (often repeatedly) to new owners who were usually mostly interested in strip-mining whatever goodwill the brands retained with the American public.

If you ever loved any of the names in this article–and chances are that you once had a high opinion of at least a few of them–prepare to feel a tad glum.

12. Commodore

What it was: Jack Tramiel’s groundbreaking computer company. In the 1970s and 1980s, it released one of the first PCs (the PET 2001), the best-selling PC of all time (the Commodore 64), and (after Tramiel left) one of the best PCs ever (the Amiga). But post-Tramiel management eventually ran the company into the ground. It went belly-up in 1994.

What it became: Commdore’s golden age may have been a quarter century ago, but the name remains recognizable enough that multiple companies have acquired it with giddy visions of using it to launch new product lines. Germany’s ESCOM and the Netherlands’ Tulip both did so; both quickly gave up. Most recently, a company called Commodore Gaming revived the nameplate yet again for a line of high-end Windows desktops, but its current site is almost entirely devoted to old Commdoore 64 games which are now playable on the Wii. Bottom line: The Commodore line of computers has now died at least four times.

And yes, I did consider giving Commodore’s still-extant Amiga brand its own slot on this list–but I’m too confused by its current status. Maybe you can explain it to me?

11. Heathkit

What it was: I’m too young to have ever built a Heathkit during their glory days, but I certainly remember wanting to put one together. There was a time when there was no better way to establish your geek cred than to assemble a Heathkit radio, TV, stereo system, or other piece of electronic gadgetry–and doing it yourself saved you money, too. (Among the company’s fans: Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, who assembled a hundred Heathkits, and the distinguished literary critic Hugh Kenner.)

When the personal computer revolution came along, Heathkit became a significant manufacturer of early PCs, too, leading to its 1979 purchase by Zenith. But increasingly sophisticated, miniaturized electronics made it tough to save money by assembling a kit rather than buying a ready-made item. In 1992, Heathkit stopped selling kits.

What it became: Heathkit, which like many of the companies in this story has gone through repeated changes in ownership, is still around. Its current name is Heathkit Educational Systems, and it sells training materials for the PC, telecommunications, and life sciences industries. The vestigial “kit” in its name serves as a reminder that it’s quite literally not the Heathkit it used to be.

10. Bell & Howell

What it was: Incorporated in 1907, Bell & Howell was a major manufacturer of imaging equipment (from Charlie Chaplin’s movie camera to the slide projector at your junior high) as well as microfilm products. This later business eventually led to it getting into the online services business. Even if you never bought any of its products, the name rang a bell, and suggested sturdy, reliable quality.

What it became: The information-services part of B&H is now a perfectly respectable company called ProQuest. And Kodak owns Böwe Bell & Howell, which makes scanners. But the once-great brand name has otherwise been turned over to a licensing company that lets third parties slap it on pretty much everything except for the products it was once associated with. You can buy “Bell + Howell” laptop bags, razors, and headphones, as well as a pseudo-hearing aid hawked on late-night TV and a pest-repellent device. It’s undignified, I tell you.

9. Westinghouse

What it was: With origins dating to 1886, Westinghouse was one of the greatest American conglomerates–Pepsi to General Electric’s Coke. Among its dizzying array of businesses: electrical equipment, nuclear power plant equipment, aircraft engines, air conditioning, elevators, refrigerators and other appliances, gas turbines, locomotives, and robots. In 1995, however, it bought CBS, changed its name to CBS Corporation, and began to sell off its non-broadcasting businesses.

What it became: Bits and pieces of Westinghouse still exist–if you need to build a nuclear plant, you might want to give it a call, and there are still White-Westinghouse appliances. But Westinghouse is now primarily a shell company that licenses its name out to other manufacturers who want a familiar-sounding nameplate for their products. You can buy Westinghouse TVs and monitors, doorbells, light bulbs, and photo frames. But there is no real “Westinghouse”–the once-mighty behemoth of American commerce is now just a logo for rent.

8. AltaVista

What it was: AltaVista was the first blockbuster search engine– a remarkable piece of technology that began as a Digital Equipment Corporation research project and became the Google of its era. In fact, when Google came along, the easiest way to explain it was to say that it was like AltaVista, only better.

What it became: When brands get sold, they usually get damaged in the process. AltaVista had five owners in five years: Digital (1995-1998), Compaq (1998-1999), CMGI (1999-2003), Overture (2003), and Yahoo (2003-present). It grew less relevant with each change of hands; if you weren’t aware it’s still with us today, I’m not surprised. But here it is.

The About AltaVista page boasts that it’s “a leading provider of search services and technology” and that it “continues to advance Internet search with new technologies and features designed to improve the search experience for consumers.” As far as I can tell, though, AltaVista results are slightly rehashed variants of what Yahoo gives you for the same queries. Using it is like visiting an old friend who’s been lobotomized.

7. AT&T

What it was: A telephone service company founded by the inventor of the telephone, Alexander Graham Bell, in 1875. It went on to become synonymous with phones and phone service in the United States–and was broken up into a long-distance company and separate “Baby Bell” local-service companies as the result of a 1982 agreement after it was sued under U.S. antitrust law.

What it became: AT&T is the current name of the former SBC, the telecommunications giant which ended up owning half of the Baby Bells. It adopted the brand when it acquired AT&T in 2005. I thought it was an odd name change at the time, since the name AT&T brings to mind associations of the telephone’s old, monopolistic, land-line past, not its high-speed wireless future. The name may be venerable, but it doesn’t evoke warm and fuzzy feelings: I can’t prove it, but my gut tells me that the company’s current subpar reputation–among iPhone owners, at least–is at least slightly crummier than it would have been if it had kept the SBC moniker.

But AT&T is also on this list–despite still being attached to one of the largest and most successful companies in America–because its current use underscores the completely ephemeral nature of branding in the telecommunications industry. “AT&T” may have been around as a name for 135 years, but it’s nothing more than three letters and an ampersand. That was proven when hundreds of AT&T Wireless stores expensively rebranded themselves as Cingular stores when Cingular bought AT&T’s wireless arm…and then expensively re-rebranded themselves as AT&T less than three years later.

Then there’s the San Francisco Giants’ ballpark. It’s sported three different names in the past six years: Pacific Bell Park, SBC Park, and now AT&T Park. One more merger, and it may end up as Verizon Park, Comcast Park, or Google Park.

Share/E-Mail

First, an announcement: We have a winner for the Olive 4 Hi-Fi Music Server that we offered to tempt you to submit your predictions. We picked Aaron Neyer (whose fearless forecasts you’ll find below) in a random drawing as explained in our original post. Congratulations, Aaron!

The Olive folks, incidentally, have a limited-time special offer that Technologizer readers qualify for: If you buy an Olive 4 by December 31st, they’ll throw in the recent 17-CD set of remastered Beatles albums for free. Here’s a special page to visit if you want to take advantage of the deal.

Okay, end of announcement. Prediction highlights follow after the jump (you can read all the submissions here). Once you’ve read them, feel free to add some last-minute forecasts of your own. And happy 2010!

Apple

Evan: The Apple tablet will finally be announced by Phil Schiller, not Steve Jobs. The low-end model will have a price point of $699. Wi-Fi, 3G, tethering to iPhones, compatible with all existing iPhone/iPod Touch apps. Its name will not have an “i” before it (it won’t be “iTablet”, etc.)

Evan: Apple will finally discontinue hard drive-based iPod Classic, replacing the 160 GB mainstay with a 128 GB flash memory-based iPod Touch.

Randy Giusto: 2010 will be the year of Apple in the enterprise. We’ll see new strategies and organizational structures in Cupertino and at the store level (between the stores and Apple Enterprise sales). Led by a big push for iPhone in the enterprise, Apple will also cherry pick some enterprise verticals like design, CAD/CAM, and engineering, working with SW developers like Autodesk to gain ground on Windows. The second leg of this strategy will be with small and medium enterprise (SME) accounts, again, with the iPhone being a leading entry point for many businesses. The news and hype may be all about the tablet (if it even happens), but the real story will be around Apple’s quiet execution of a new enterprise strategy.

Andy: Apple will finally launch a subscription plan for music, and maybe videos.

Jill Elswick: Apple will allow Google Voice on the iPhone.

Ryan C. Meader: Apple will release their tablet, and every other company under the sun will attempt to produce a “me too” version. That’s why the software (and unique features in web sites that target it) will be so unique.

Renchub: Apple will not release a tablet computer, at least not one that’s a big iPod touch. Get over it already. Aside from the Gee-whiz factor of having a tablet computer, how would you use it in day to day life?

Renchub: Apple will lose market share to Windows, because of the success of Windows 7, and not due to a massive upswing in netbook sales.

Darryl: Apple will decouple its Mac OS from their hardware allowing it to be a platform of choice for cloud-based solution.

Tom Markworth: Apple will launch iPhone and iPod models with a magnetic power/data cable, abandoning the years-old dock connector. The use of wireless phone chargers will multiply. The entire mobile industry will begin to rethink the use of fragile, proprietary power cables.

Google

Heulenwolf: Tech media will finally get what ChromeOS is about – and stop calling it the comeback of the thin client – when an actual product comes out and they can see it. ChromeOS is about getting the consumer to the browser as quickly and efficiently as possible (where Google makes money) and about making the browser more useful (so that Google can make more money).

Jake: At the end of 2010, you still won’t know anyone who can explain what a Google Wave is.

Pete Steege: Google Water Cooler launched; quickly dominates traffic for cat videos, funny photos and chain emails.

Evan: Chrome OS will be released to quiet hoopla and will fail to gain more than 1% market share in 2010.

Aaron Neyer: Google will control more and more. They’re programs and services will become more popular than almost any other. Google Chrome will improve to become a leading web browser. Chrome OS will become a very popular operating system as cloud computing becomes increasingly popular. Many more of Google’s things will grow popular and new things will emerge. Current things that will likely expand include G-mail, Picasa, Android, Google Maps and Earth, Google Docs, Google Voice, and obviously Google Search. I think Google will try and make even more programs and services, so they can control more, things expanding to possibly even a Google Security Suite, although that might be stretching it a bit.

Google will also expand into the hardware field, starting with the Google Nexus phone. Soon they will be producing their own netbooks running Chrome OS and Chrome OS may expand or become an entirely new operating system that would do more for notebooks or desktops, which could be produced by Google. Google could make more and more phones besides the Nexus and possibly even create their own network, which completely changes the way we think about phones by making it all VOIP, making it much cheaper, but relying more on your 3G, or 4G network, as I believe by then, 4G network will be very widespread.

Randy Giusto: Google Wave will start to show some practical applications by mid-year but 2010 will still largely be a experimental year for the platform, although other communication/conferencing/sharing platforms will get increasingly nervous and see their business models threatened.

Dattatray Jadhav: Google’s Chromium OS will be released and will fail big time as I don’t see much potential in web based computers I mean, what Google is offering is already there on smartphones. Why would I use an extra laptop just for that?

Tim Joiner: Google will be hit with a major privacy breach, involving Gmail. Massive amounts of private email will be on the torrents. Celebrities and politicians alike will be skewered.

Stephen Turner: The war of words between Murdoch and Google will continue. However, Murdoch won’t remove his articles from Google altogether. Google will make just enough concessions that he can keep them on Google without losing face.

JustCallMeBen: Google buys Canada and makes it Ganada, a free playground for everyone, as long as they wear their GPS-trackers and camera-equipped goggles.

Bill R.: A city, university or large school district will begin adoption of Google’s Chrome OS for most of its users. An experiment sponsored by Google.

Melissa Cleaver: I think that Google will rule the world…google apps will be on everything we own, including our own TV!

Microsoft

JustCallMeBen: Microsoft will try to repeat the success of Windows 7 on Windows Mobile 7, but people won’t care.

Scott T.: Steve Ballmer will step down from the helm of the world’s largest software company. Coinciding with this event will be the return of BIll Gates in a day-to-day roll at the company. They will attempt to spin this in a way to make his return appear like the “triumphant” return of Steve Jobs to Apple.

Evan: Microsoft will create a spin-off of Indie Games that emphasizes non-gaming applications, and open an API that allows arbitrary networking. Expect to see applications for websites like Flickr and Wikipedia, and perhaps a generalized RSS reader, pop up on the console.

Renchub: Microsoft will release a hand held gaming platform that will play X-box and classic windows desktop games. It will be hated, but sell like hotcakes because they are willing to take the financial losses to move units.

Alvin: Microsoft will cancel Windows Mobile.

The Web

Heulenwolf: Wide adoption of HTML 5 by web app developers is necessary for offline usage and to move away from proprietary, closed plugins like Adobe Flash for rich content. Frankly, full screen, HD-ish video playback through a browser shouldn’t require a Core 2 Duo. Unfortunately, I think this one is more of a wish than a prediction for 2010, too, but it would be nice.

Jake: The “cloud” will experience a dramatic and highly public failure involving stolen data.

Bill Pytlovany: Advertising will finally show up on Twitter.

JHM43: Media 2.0 meets Gov 2.0 to create Community 2.0. In Community 2.0, the relationship between government, the press, and the citizenry evolves into something that is much more transparent, engaging, and active. It is about redefining the idea of the Fourth Estate . Members of the former audience are now producers, not just consumers. Members of the former constituency are now actors, not just voters. Community 2.0 creates a living, evolving ecosystem of citizens.

Michael: Facebook’s recent policy woes continue into 2010, as the company tries to backpedal from its new privacy settings fiasco. Led by several high profile defectors in the media, users abandon the site in what starts as a trickle, but becomes a monsoon as more and more people fall victim to the site’s new openness allowing sensitive data to fall into untrustworthy hands. By the end of the year, Twitter has overtaken the ‘Book in users.

Bill: Cloud computing will be all the rage, but no one will care to call it cloud computing because “cloud” will be viewed with either increasing suspicion (over security and reliability) and/or because it will no longer resonate as a “cool” marketing term.

Mike: Facebook starts letting retailers sell products straight from their Fan Pages. Consumers have the option to share stories with all of their Facebook Friends about their purchases, and Facebook gets a small cut of the revenue. It’s a win-win-win situation.

Simcha: In 2010, we will see more and more companies and governments building their own “cloud”, in order to get the benefits of the cloud, minimizing the hazards. This move will lead to an increase in hardware sales. (everyone has computer + the company has lots of computers in its own ‘cloud’) This will also give linux a big push, both in market share and in contributions to the kernel.

Digital Entertainment

Dan: 2010 will be the year of high quality music downloads and personal media “lockers,” (I hate that word. We need to come up with a new term for that. Maybe our own personal clouds, or our own personal media servers that we don’t really own?)

Anyway, 2010 will see the proliferation of high quality music downloads. The first shot will be fired by Apple or Amazon, obviously. Apple will begin selling Apple Lossless files and Amazon will begin selling aiff and flac. Actually, if you look at HDTracks and what they are selling, that is along the lines of the options that Amazon will make available. Although, it is possible that eMusic will throw the first punch here and surprise us all by adopting high quality before anyone else.

Heulenwolf: As DRM’ed music gradually fades from the market and is replaced by un-DRM’ed music and streaming services (e.g. Apple’s acquisition of Lala), the music industry will start to get it. Just like in the days of the cassette tape, they can make money even when consumers copy their stuff. In fact, as CD sales continue to drop, adapting to the new web-based music delivery model will be their only way to stay in business. Lawsuits against little old ladies by the RIAA will drop sharply. The movie industry, on the other hand, won’t get it. The MPAA will continue to sue and lobby worldwide to protect their aging business model without realizing that podcasts and IPTV are gradually taking the space they could have on-line. Consumers and the developers of Boxee, the Roku box, and libdvdcss will be blamed.

Alastair Goldfisher: Pandora will reach profitability in 2010 just as Apple continues its push into streaming music and buys the VC-backed online radio music company for between $100M and $150M. That’ll be a return of about 2x to 3x for investors.

Mark Prestash: In 2010 the movie industry will finally “get it” and adopt a more customer friendly movie streaming policy. With all of the devices that can now stream content from the web (roku box, the soon to be released boxee box, TIVO, popcorn tv, voodoo box, and the more upscale blu-ray players) Hollywood will begin to support those devices with more current releases and move away from the old “staggered release” model. I would gladly pay a few bucks more a month for my Netflix account if there were more current releases available to watch streaming. The new streaming model could come in a PPV form, a DL to own, or just streaming from websites you all ready pay a subscription to. The streaming version should have all the extras that come on a disc (making of, audio commentary etc) as this adds value to the customer.

Mark Prestash: 3-D T.V. will fail in 2010 in a big way. The sets are very expensive, they require the viewer to wear special glasses, and there will be almost no content to view in 3-D for quite a long time. I’m sure the digital TV conversion is still hurting many television stations financially, so adding more/new hardware and software for 3-D TV broadcasting may just not be economically viable for them. lastly, if viewing 3-D TV is anything like the crop of 3-D movies Hollywood pumped out this year, I’m not impressed. Sure the content had an extra dimension to it, but it was in no way shape or form so good and ground-breaking I want the technology in my living room.

JustCallMeBen: Hulu will stop being free… At least as we know it: most popular shows will be pay-per-view, at least for a short period after broadcast.

Smartphones

Randy Giusto: The eight smart phone ecosystems (old term- operating systems) – iPhone, Android, BlackBerry, Windows Mobile, Palm, Symbian, Maemo, and Samsung’s new Bada will consolidate down to five as competition increases and developer resources to sustain them all remain thin. Samsung’s Bada will fail (why do we need yet another smart phone platform?), Palm will get acquired as it struggles to establish any foothold outside the US and WebOS will end up in other things, just not phones. Nokia moves fully from Symbian to Maemo based on a backlash of developers who are fed up with writing apps for Symbian because it’s hard (too many versions) and is not optimized for the web. But even Maemo won’t be popular and the pressure will be on Nokia to move to Android. I’m just not sure they will make the shift by the end of 2010. Windows Mobile struggles badly but makes it through the year, but just barely. RIM will not be sold, but will see increased enterprise competition (not from Microsoft) and will find a harder consumer market to compete in. RIM will start re-development efforts on its OS, go on an acquisition spree, as it must become optimized for the web. So 2010 will end with iPhone and Android strong, RIM and Nokia in transition, and Windows Mobile on the ropes.

wsquared: Android-based smartphones will gain, if not surpass the iPhone’s market share, with full Flash support and a quickly growing app store.

Andy Maslin: Because of pressure from cheaper unlimited call offers, cell phone plan prices drop dramatically. SMS and MMS costs remain high, and even increase further on some carriers. Other data costs remain static (at least on traditional carriers).

Alvin: Palm will fail or be purchased for less than $10M.

JustCallMeBen: Android will win some significant market-share from the iPhone, but the iPhone will still be the dominant mobile OS. Windows Mobile won’t be significant by the end of the 2010.

Hardware

Jeff Hayes: I think 2010 will be the year of both the LED AND the OLED. LED backlights are already starting to replace CFLs in LCD TVs, but except in some of the higher-end model’s, the jury’s still out on which is the superior technology. With time and technical improvements that’s bound to change. As for OLED (organic LED) technology has been around for several years, but quite expensive (Sony debuted an 11″ OLED monitor for $2,399, I believe, back when Harry was still editor of PC World). But the tech has been slowly getting less expensive and getting to be the norm on cell phones and other small screens and is now becoming more of a standard on laptop screens. I predict a major price breakthrough on OLED will bring it to ever biggerscreens and that possibly even some HD TVs will be available on OLED by the end of 2010.

NickAVV: Transparent OLED displays lead to wearable visor computers with Augmented Reality, although without a good way to control them they would be set to perform specific tasks, such as giving you walking/driving navigation overlayed on reality, or information on restaurants and other businesses floating next to them.

wsquared: Archos will update the Archos 5IT to include a capacitive touch screen, Android Elcair, Snapdragon processor, both front and rear web cams, and access to the full Android Market. This will be a strategic move to be the top competitor (and lower-cost alternative) to the $800 Apple Tablet. Archos will announce the Archos 7IT (with the aforementioned specs) when the Archos 9 fails to gain traction.

John: Cameras and printers will become sufficiently connected that you can take a picture in Kathmandu and have it print in Toledo, i.e. the camera/printer equivalent of GoToMyPC.

Jeff Hayes: I see 2010 as the year that Touch Computing COMES ALIVE! HP has had a few touch computer models for several years, now, but with Windows 7 including it native in some versions, I think by Q3 we’ll see A LOT of new monitors, computers and all-in-ones that are touch-based, and by the end of the year you’ll probably have your pick. Within two to three years, it will likely be very difficult to find a monitor that’s NOT touch-based, but we’re talking just about 2010. The iPod and a few other cell phones already have similar capabilities, so MILLIONS of people are already familiar with the concept somewhat, and Bill Gates was demonstrating tabletop touch computing on the news a year or more ago. I think we’ll see this sort of thing first in high-end bars, ON the bars themselves, as a way to play games, order drinks, play songs or TV or whatever the bars choose… But it won’t be long before there will be “touch tables” in homes, as well as millions of touch-screen computers — particularly laptops, which will likely roll out more quickly.

Brian Wilkes: 300GB solid state hard drive for $200 by the end of 2010. Interest in the BlueRay media will not increase, it will be replace by Net Flix and like services like it. 3 TB Hard drive by the end of 2010. 52 inch Plasma TV for under $500. Google Chrome OS will gain a huge market share.

Jonathan Hirshon: 2010 will be the year of dimensionality – 3D on the Web from WebGL via HTML 5, uber-accelerated 3D on the desktop via Tesla, plus everyone having supercomputer-levels of performance via OpenCL even on older 3D cards, killer 3D interfaces via OpenGL ES on iPhone, Droid and HTC (plus others). 2D gets a kick in the ass via Direct2D, giving killer font renderings on Windows, Cairo does the same for the Web through Firefox, Apple laughs and gives Quartz its long overdue launch in the new tablet for killer 2D font renderings. :)

Darryl: MANY notable universities and colleges will drive the replacement of text books with eBooks creating a new markets for course material and annotations for entrepreneurial grad students acutely familiar with peer-to-peer networks.

JustCallMeBen: The first 13″OLED laptop will be released. Nobody will be able to afford it.

ChrisF: Projection technology will make a big breakthrough shrinking the device size needed and eliminating the costly projector bulbs.

About (Blush) Technologizer

Sharla Lane: Technologizer hits 5,000 followers on Twitter

Bill Pytlovany: Technologizer will expand and receive support from a well known Internet content provider.

Leigh Anne Varney: Harry McCracken and Technologizer will be recognized (finally) for journalistic integrity and prescience!

Random

Dan Schaeffer: Personal jet packs and flying cars. (I will make this prediction every year until it comes true.)

Share/E-Mail

I’ve been thinking about that era of blissful ignorance lately. Coverage of Apple’s supposedly-upcoming tablet device (allegedly to be known–maybe–as iSlate) is building to a similar crescendo. Just as with the iPhone, the tablet is already the subject of gazillions of words’ worth of rumors, reporting, guesswork, wishing, and hoping.

Can we learn anything about Apple tablet pre-coverage from the pre-coverage of the first iPhone? I think so. So I revisited much of the early iPhone scuttlebutt for this article. Herewith, choice bits from a bunch of old stories, with summaries of what they got right and wrong…and then some overall thoughts.

The art sprinkled through this story consists of concept iPhones rendered by fans and other interested bystanders prior to the real iPhone’s debut. I’m entertained by them all–but please note that none look even a little bit like the phone that Steve Jobs brandished at Macworld Expo.

Let’s start with a surprisingly early, remarkably prescient iPhone story, shall we?

John Markoff in The New York Times, August 18th, 2002 (almost four years and five months before the iPhone was announced, and less than ten months after the iPod’s debut):

And now come signs that Mr. Jobs means to take Apple back to the land of the handhelds, but this time with a device that would combine elements of a cellphone and a Palm -like personal digital assistant.

Mr. Jobs and Apple decline to confirm those plans. But industry analysts see evidence that Apple is contemplating what inside the company is being called an “iPhone.”

Certainly, Apple’s push into the market for a hand-held communicator would be an abrupt departure for Mr. Jobs, who continues publicly to disavow talk of such a move. But analysts and people close to the company say that the plan is under way and that the evidence is manifest in the features and elements of the new version of the Macintosh operating system

Now, with the release of the newest version of the Macintosh operating system, Mr. Jobs appears intent on taking Apple itself into the hand-held market. The move would play into Apple’s so-called digital hub strategy, in which the Macintosh desktop computer is the center of a web of peripheral devices.

Mr. Jobs continues to be coy. He insists that he still dislikes the idea of the conventional personal digital assistant, saying that the devices are too hard to use and offer little real utility. But a telephone with personal digital assistant features is another matter.

“We decided that between now and next year, the P.D.A. is going to be subsumed by the telephone,” he said last week in an interview. “We think the P.D.A. is going away.”

And even while protesting that the company had no plans to introduce such a device, he grudgingly acknowledged that combining some of Apple’s industrial design and user-interface innovations would be a good idea in a device that performed both phone and computing functions.

Scorecard: This is eerily on-target for a story published so many years before the iPhone appeared. It gets the name right, correctly talks about the phone being based on OS X, treats it as a pocketable computer rather than an iPod that makes calls, and even has Steve Jobs saying it sounds logical. Markoff was so accurate so early in part because he’s a brilliant reporter, not a rumormonger or an idle speculator. Weirdly, though, he also benefited from thinking about the iPhone so far in advance: In 2002, the iPod was not yet a phenomenon, and it was therefore less tempting to immediately assume that an iPhone would be an iPod variant.

Paul Sloan in Business 2.0, April 2005 issue:

Apple fans–and a fair number of nonfans–lust for some sort of Apple phone. The infuriating design and general clunkiness of most mobile phones today cry out for the Apple touch. Jobs has teamed up with Motorola to make a phone that will let users play a handful of songs downloaded from iTunes. But this could be just a prelude to Apple’s entrance into the phone market. With Motorola, Apple has already helped build a prototype of a combination phone/iPod that resembles the iPod in look and feel, according to someone familiar with it.

An Apple phone’s functions could be accessed hassle-free with the iPod’s scroll wheel, and the numbers could work with a slide-out keyboard or a simple touchpad system on the screen. It seems certain that Apple could vastly improve on current phones’ finger-snarling methods of retrieving contacts, calendars, and music.

As appealing as the idea is, there’s a big barrier to Apple’s making a cell phone or phone/iPod combination without a partner. Jobs would need to collaborate with the wireless carriers. Carriers often place demands on phone makers, even insisting on certain functions, and Jobs, ever the control freak, would never put up with that. Yet as beefier phones hit the market–Samsung is set this year to roll out the first cell phone with an internal hard drive, making it far better than current phones for storing music–Apple could feel pressure to strike back.

Scorecard: Correctly argues that Apple could create a superior phone experience; mentions the red-herring scroll wheel and slide-out keyboard ideas, but also says Apple might use “a simple touchpad system on the screen.” Rightly says that Jobs wouldn’t accept the normal manufacturer-carrier relationship but isn’t bold enough to guess he could cut a deal with a major carrier to give Apple an unprecedented degree of control. Overall, not bad!

Harry McCracken (hey, that’s me!) at PC World, March 22nd, 2006:

Australian site Smarthouse is reporting that insiders at [a] Taiwanese manufacturing powerhouse are saying that Apple is definitely working on its own phone. I’ll believe it when Steve Jobs pulls it from his jeans pocket at a keynote and pronounces it incredible, but it does seem like a logical move: I’m not sure if there’s a single phone in the world that’s at good at doing what it does as the iPod is at doing what it does. A terrific music phone could be the kind of game-changing product that’s Apple’s core competency.

Playing devil’s advocate, though, designing wireless phones is no cakewalk–there’s a reason why there aren’t all that many companies in the world that do it. Even with help, it would be a huge step for Apple.

And the swiss-army knife philosophy of today’s phones seems anything but Jobsian. Would the iPhone play music, capture still photos and video, do e-mail and browsing, and be a mobile gaming platform (oh, and let you make phone calls)? Or could Apple get away with introducing an elegant device that did voice, music, and possibly video extremely well–and didn’t even try to do anything else?

Scorecard: I’m smart enough in this PC World post to declare I’m playing devil’s advocate and to toss out questions rather than make definitive statements–a squishy approach that’s hard to fact-check. I do, however, say I think it’s unlike Steve Jobs to make a phone that could play music, capture images, retrieve e-mail, surf the Web, play games, and make phone calls. Wrong!

Mike Hughlett in the Chicago Tribune, May 8th, 2006:

Mark Stahlman, a stock analyst at Caris, said a phone venture would be a “distraction” for Apple. “It’s so different from what they’ve done to date.”

He noted, too, that the wireless industry is known as a particularly competitive business.

The same couldn’t be said for the MP3 business before the iPod took off, he said. Ditto for the computer business when Apple released its first model in the late 1970s.

Once the industry became fiercely competitive, Apple’s market share dropped and today is in the low single digits.

“Apple has done extremely well when it has had no competition,” Stahlman said.

Scorecard: Judge for yourself, but FYI, analyst Stahlman also thought it was unlikely Apple would offer movies for the video-enabled iPod and said that Apple’s Boot Camp would probably lead to a decrease in Mac sales.

Michelle Meyers at Cnet, June 6th, 2006:

Although they agree that the idea of the AppleBerry–a combination iPod/BlackBerry–is enough to send gadget addicts directly into rehab–bloggers just aren’t biting on the iPhone rumor mill’s latest flavor-of-the-month. The concept of the hybrid fruit began to propagate around the Web after analyst Peter Misek of Canaccord Capital suggested Apple Computer and BlackBerry maker Research in Motion might be working on a product together based on the advice of their common partner, Intel. The pairing combines Apple’s design expertise with RIM’s relationships with carriers and handset makers, Misek said.

Scorecard: AppleBerry? AppleBerry?

Jeremy Horwitz at iLounge, September 7th, 2006:

Of course, the new patents sound suspiciously like what YourMacLife suggested was about to be released as the iPod phone. The concept can be summed up simply as a touchscreen-based phone with the ability to switch interfaces – one could be a phone screen, another could be an iPod screen, and yet more could be for any sort of other function imaginable – video playback, game playing, GPS, and so on. All on a single-screened phone. Will any or all of these features be included in an iPod phone? Does Apple envision this as being the next-generation iPod, or a separate device? And will third-party developers be able to create applications for the platform?

Scorecard: It took two generations for the iPhone to get GPS and third-party apps, but otherwise: bingo!

Share/E-Mail

Digital Entertainment

Prediction: “I think what’s going to be the big news story of 2009 is the further personalization of entertainment. Apple has been on the cutting edge of this with such items as the iPod and iTunes, but I see a dark horse coming up that is going to change the game. But mass-communication as we know it is going to begin a steady decline, with people preferring to listen to their own portable video and audio libraries, on their own schedule and terms, and eschewing the old model of “I must be home at 9 pm to watch Desperate Housewives”. Broadcast television, which is already slated to go all-digital in February, is going to soon become as quaint as 78 rpm records.”–Dave Mackey

Reality? Entertainment certainly got more personal–and less schedule-based–in 2009, thanks to services and software such as Hulu and Boxee, and the growing sophistication of smartphones as audio and video devices.

Prediction: “Blockbuster will finally declare bankruptcy after admitting defeat to competing internet download and cable on-demand movie services.”–Scott Olson

Reality? Blockbuster is hurting–and changing–but it remains solvent.

Prediction: “The TV-room finally gets an all-in-one product that will enable viewers to surf the internet, watch the internet (videos and movies) and share their home media to the other folks on the couches. The essential difference this product has over the other contenders is that it seamlessly fits into the existing computing environment in homes. No clunky and manual file transfers between devices, cable disconnects and re-connects, etc.”–Niraj Shah

Reality? If someone introduced this product in 2009, tell me about it–I wanna buy one!

Prediction: “Blu-Ray discs will be the last successful generation of optical discs, as digital distribution through ubiquitous broadband becomes viable.”–Simon Goldring

Reality? Digital distribution certainly made inroads this year. I’m guessing Simon’s right that Blu-Ray will be the last successful optical format, but we didn’t learn for sure this year.

Prediction: “Blu-ray will go mainstream. Prices will go into the sub-$150 range for players, and movies will come down in price to match those of DVDs.”–The Human Yawn

Reality? Blu-Ray is indeed under $150. Blu-Ray movies still list for more than DVDs, but Amazon.com sometimes charges less for them than for the DVD.

Prediction: “The lawsuit against Real over RealDVD will be shot down because it holds no ground (and I can finally download it); Real countersues because of lost revenue”–The Human Yawn

Reality? Sadly, RealDVD isn’t faring well in court and remains unavailable.

Prediction: “LCD TV’s will get much cheaper–20-30% drop–which will force plasma to take note and follow suit.”–Jeff Shuey

Reality? I’m not sure about percentages, but both LCDs and plasmas have gotten even cheaper this year.

Gadgets and Gizmos

Prediction: “Cameras will become “self-aware” and recognize networks AND will make recommendations to ‘connect’ and share pics/videos.”–Jeff Shuey

Reality? Wi-Fi cameras are still around, but if there were any usability breakthroughs this year I missed ‘em.

Prediction: “Yes, the “Dick Tracy” wrist communicator is just around the corner for the masses. No, it’s not your grandfather’s LCD. watch/calculator–it’s a PDA, mobile-phone and bio monitor device all in one sleek package.”–Jose Almodovar

Reality: Watchphones exist, though I haven’t seen them on the wrists of the masses yet.

Prediction: “I predict that we’ll get a new Kindle from Amazon capable of color graphics. In conjunction with the release of the new Kindle, one of the major comics companies–probably Marvel Comics–will start releasing content for the device. Marvel already has a digital comics initiative, so that makes the most sense.”–Ray Cornwall

Reality? The Kindle, like all E-Ink e-readers, remains defiantly monochromatic–unless you count the Kindle app for the iPhone, which did come out this year. And Marvel got into the iPhone comics game, although not through Kindle.

Windows

Prediction: “Microsoft will continue to flog the hell out of Windows Vista without actually mentioning the name of the product in television ads.”–Dave Mackey

Reality? Dead on, Dave.

Prediction: “What I’ve seen so far of Windows 7 is promising and I think many people really really want it to succeed. My real prediction is that Microsoft will actually price Windows 7 so that people might actually buy it instead of trying to get a copy from their friend. When Vista first came out, Bill Gates said it would be ‘less than a hundred dollars’. That was the price for Vista Basic which was useless and a downgrade from Windows XP. Expect fewer versions of Windows 7 to be available to ease the confusion.”–Bill Pytlovany

Reality? Microsoft offered steep discounts for Windows 7 preorders, and cut some prices permanently. There are fewer versions of Windows 7 than of Vista, but I’m still confused.

Prediction: “Windows 7 releases in a single version format, early and to high praise…for $199.”–Scott Bartley

Reality? Win 7 has certainly been well-reviewed, and it shipped on time, but there are still a bunch of versions.

Prediction: “Windows XP will limp along until Windows 7 is released. I think around 6 months to a year after the Windows 7 release.”–Mike Lopez

Reality? Too early to tell. I’m guessing XP is starting to fade away, but it’s going to be a loooong time until it’s not surprisingly popular.

Prediction: “Windows 7 will fail to excite, but meet modest market success as a (late) market replacement for Vista. Microsoft continues to remain a powerhouse in the enterprise but increasingly less relevant in consumer markets.”–D.R. Gardner

Reality? Excitement is in the eye of the beholder, but I don’t think there’s any question that Windows 7 gets high marks from most of the people who’ve tried it. It wasn’t, however, a great year for the company in terms of consumer products. Exhibit A: The ongoing meltdown that is Windows Mobile.

Prediction: “As we all know, Microsoft will likely release Windows 7. I expect it will be their best Windows version and will be secure, reliable and compatible in every way. However, despite its dependability, the perceptions of Windows Vista will carry over and will adversely impact sales. This perception will force Microsoft into selling Windows 7 upgrades at a very low price to increase sales. Perhaps sub $50. My guess $29.99 for the Home Premium or equivalent.”–Jim Bednarz

Reality? Windows 7 seems to be selling decently if not downright well, and so far hasn’t been subject to additional price cuts. Actually, with the recent end of the Windows 7 Family Pack, Microsoft imposed an effective price hike on multi-PC households.

Prediction: “Vista will rapidly become the latest Windows ME as Windows 7 becomes more recognized as the leap forward that Microsoft was originally promising with Longhorn. Enterprises will rejoice.”–Dave McCall

Reality? I’m not sure if enterprises are giddy over Windows 7, but many are receptive, at least, in a way they weren’t towards Vista.

Apple

Prediction: “Late in the year, Apple will have a new product in response to the emerging Netbook category. Essentially, it will be a MacBook nano — small, lightweight and very polished.”–Niraj Shah

Reality? Apple has another week to announce the MacBook nano. If it blows that timetable, it can still announce a tablet in January and make Niraj’s prediction come nearly true.

Prediction: “Being relatively anti-Apple, this isn’t good news for me, because this will be a killer product. Really. A TV which looks great, has a very intuitive interface and a remote that you will want to have on your TV table and which lastly lets you rent/buy movies and TV shows. Wow. Get the Apple stock before this one is announced.”–Lars Henriksen

Reality? Rumors of Apple making TVs have been around for eons, but they remain just that: rumors.

Prediction: “I predict we won’t see an iPhone Nano.”–Lacy Kemp

Reality: We didn’t.

Prediction: “Apple will make a huge push into the enterprise. They’ll target everything from SOHO to small business to the largest enterprises. The remote wipe feature we saw in the iPhone was just the beginning.”–Bob Van Valzah

Reality? It’s been more of a gentle nudge than a huge push, but Apple continues to add stuff of interest to business customers, such as the online version of iWork.

Prediction: “Apple will merge the MacMini and Apple TV to createa more powerful market competitor in an effort to maintain and grow market share in home entertainment.”–D.R. Gardner

Reality? The Mac Mini continued to evolve, but Apple TV didn’t much–and they remain unmerged.

Prediction: “After flirting with Microsoft, Adobe will be swallowed up by Apple. These moves will cause the same consternation as the Microsoft-Yahoo proposed merger the year before. Microsoft will make a grand overture to take over Adobe, but the EU will demonstrate its disapproval, causing Microsoft to drop out. Adobe stock suffers in the aftermath, and with no new products to introduce in 2009 comes to the verge of bankruptcy before being saved by cash-rich Apple. In order to get EU and U.S. government approval, Apple agrees to continue making identical Adobe products for the Mac and Windows, as well as Linux–Andre Hinds

Reality? I guess it’s possible this will all happen in the last week of the year. Seems unlikely, though.

Prediction: “Apple’s market share will grow considerably. Apple will ship Snow Leopard and it will sell well. No new devices, but possibly some updated hardware (most likely the Mac mini). At least one record label will go DRM-free in iTunes.”–The Human Yawn

Reality? Apple’s market share grew, Snow Leopard sold well, it introduced no all-new devices but did update the Mini (and other machines).  And the iTunes Store went DRM-free for music.

Prediction: “Steve Jobs will be leaving Apple, or at least stepping down in some way, shape or form. While it saddens me to say it, I think that time’s almost here.”–Dave Moyer

Reality? Well, he did go on medical leave, which may count as “stepping down in some way, shape or form.” But he also returned from medical leave.

Prediction: “Apple will announce in 2009 that Steve Jobs is stepping down as CEO in 2010.”–Bill Baker

Reality? The year is nearly over, and Steve Jobs is CEO of Apple.

Prediction: “Steve Jobs will retire or take on a less significant role by the end of 2009.”–Jason Power

Reality? Only those who work directly with Steve Jobs know if his role has changed. But his contributions still appear to be enormous, and the man remains anything but retiring.

Overall, not bad! Your collective punditry was certainly more savvy than that of some folks who get paid big bucks to make these sort of predictions.

Coming soon: A recap of the predictions you’ve made for 2010, so I have it handy a year from now when it’s time to rate your powers of prediction all over again…

Share/E-Mail