Talk:List of commercial failures
|
|
| Contents |
is this really NPOV?
- More to the point, is it at all quantifiable? How do you compare how much of a flop something is? Also, why make it so colloquial? How about list of product failures? (and don't forget Nerds cereal. ;-) Cheers, --KQ 00:06 Sep 9, 2002 (UTC)
I structured this so its more like an article than a list. I also had some disagreements about the Titanic and Beos, for reasons I will explain.
I felt like the Titanic sinking was a tragedy, not a flop. To me a flop would be more like giving it your best effort, and failing due to a complete misjudgement.
As for BeOS, it kept Be afloat for a very long time and had a dedicated fanatical user base. I'd contrast this with the newton, that while it has a fanatical user base, the Newton was discontinued relatively quickly
Feel free to disagree with me and put it back if you disagree. I'd think this article can be NPOV if we explain why each one was a flop, and on what measure.
- It's a tragedy and a flop. It was shown to be unsinkable, and to be the best trip of your life. neither one would turn out to be right.
Alan D.
The Newton wasn't "discontinued relatively quickly". It was John Sculley's baby, and was only dropped when Steve Jobs (who had reportedly never liked the idea of pen-based computing) returned to Apple. There were something like ten different Newton models produced over the product line's four-year life. --Fubar Obfusco
NeXT is not a flop - less than BeOS. It was a real technical success NeXT wasn't realy profitable but it din't went Bankrupt it's was buyed by Apple and is the basis for Mac OS X.
- NeXT was a flop as a hardware line.
Yes but less than Be hardware. Jobs was Gasse model and Gasse made the same mistakes it may well some chances to become the CEO of Apple in 5 to 10 years :-).
The Lisa is not a flop, even a minor one, it's a Mac before the Mac. Take a Lisa update technology, change your advertising and here is a Mac. The Lisa was a huge succes under the name of Macintosh !
- Um, the Lisa and Macintosh teams were different. The Lisa was a flop.
- Yep, the Lisa and the Mac had nothing in common. It was a like a proof-of-concept; yes, we could build a computer with a graphical interface like the Xerox star. But it was large, slow, expensive, and a marketing failure. The Mac was redesigned from the ground up: new hardware, new OS, new software, new target market. --LDC
update technology = new hardware, new software change advertising = new market target nothing more to say. Mac = Lisa + lesson from experience and more work Remember we should talk about major flops.
Thousands of Lisas were physically destroyed so they could be used as a tax writeoff. That's at least a "big flop". I suppose "major" flop would be if it put the company in dire straits, like I've heard the Apple III did. Really, any Apple Macintosh could be considered at least a "flop" (not Major) from the gauge that it was always intended to be a "computer for the masses". It's always been "niche".
--alan d
Well Apple is still there not Atari not Apricot not Be not Amiga not Next not Wang.
Microsoft Bob. 'Nuff said. Modemac
- Microsoft Bob wasn't a flop. Microsoft Bob made Melinda happy, and when
Melinda is happy, Bill is happy :) .
It's become apparent I've unintentionally baited a Mac Nazi, so I'm sorry I've instigated this vandalism by the mentally challenged. Frankly, even I agree this page isn't worth the trouble of reverting it back. I thought it could be interesting, but not if its going to incite abuse by people that would rather vandalize than offer any constructive criticism or make valid changes.
--alan d
Provocation can be constructive sometime. I think we should keep it removing the concept of "major flop" and turn it to an article about flops.
I would be amicable to this. I thought things were going good because people were debating, but some people took it personally. I like this article because it's interesting. As long as it's not a raw list, I don't see why it shouldn't be here (NPOV too).
--alan d
- An impressive cast was wasted in this controversial epic produced by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church.
The "cast was wasted" thing is opinion. Even if I agree with you, it's still opinion. --Ed Poor
I don't know how you write about this topic without interjecting opinion, but thanks for changing it. --Gregory Pietsch
The Adventures of Baron Münchhausen wich version German original or remake ?
I didn't write that entry, but it would almost certainly have to be Terry Gilliam's version, which did belly-flop pretty badly.
--alan D
From the article:
- Ford Motor Company and General Motors, who only had lukewarm interest in the technology, have dropped production of their electric car models.
Not a flop, IMO, as it's an open secret that they knew very well what they were doing - the auto industry's pretend support of e-cars has even been parodied on The Simpsons. Mkweise 04:28, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Over a billion dollars spent is pretty expensive make-believe. No? M123 04:32, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I deleted the (faulty) link to De Havilland Comet. This aircraft was not a "major flop" - it went on to sell quite a lot and is still flying as the BAe Nimrod. In any case the worth of a project may not have anything to do with sales. While the early crashes meant that it lost its lead for jet transport to the US, the problems were identified and fixed. In fact the crash investigations led to a huge amount of research into metal fatigue, so the Comet did aviation a great service. The point is the accidents were not the end of the story, it was just a setback, albeit a fairly substantial one. Contributors should be clear what a "flop" really means, and not just add their own pet subjects - to include some of the cutting edge things here such as Comet out of context smacks of shadenfreude. I would also remove Concorde from this page for the same reason, though I've left it in since at least the link is qualified with "arguably" GRAHAMUK 00:46, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I believe that Concorde counts as a flop because although it was a fantastic technical success it was a total failure in the marketplace. Note the inclusion of the CV-880, CV-990 and F-20 Tigershark: all worthy aircraft which nevertheless resulted in huge losses for their manufacturers. GCarty 13:54, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
(Update - aircraft which failed technically have now been moved to 'flops in science and engineering' - 'Aviation flops' now includes only functioning aircraft which flopped in the marketplace).
Perhaps the CueCat should be listed? For those who don't remember it, it was a bar code reader shaped like a cat. Noone really used it, even though it was given away freely at RadioShack.
I hope you don't mind, but I revamped the presidential campaigns section to include some of the more disastrous candidacies in American history. There really are a lot of embarassments in that category.
There are a few items which are local flops, but performed very well in other locales. For example, the entire Amiga range might have been a flop in the US, but here in Europe it was a success. I remember Amigas being more numerous then either IBM compatibles, Macs or Ataris well up to 1990 around here. So does it deserve to be called a flop then? DarkLordSeth 02:57, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I was surprised to see WebTV as a flop. Ok, not *that* surprised. Even though it's heavily disliked, many, many people seem to use the system; there are websites devoted to webtv-specific homepages, that sort of thing. Rhymeless 05:32, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have listed NeXt in the article due to its commercial failure as a company. I agree that NeXt OS was a technical success. Dyl 15:31, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
Inherently POV
This list is completely POV. I'll just give a few examples.
- Many regard Ross Perot's 1992 campaign as successful, because President Clinton was forced to give more focus to balancing the budget than he otherwise would have, even though a balanced budget amendmant was not passed. Also, he was the most successful third party candidate in 80 years.
- The 1972 Election was plagued by controversy, namely the Watergate scandal, and really could not be regarded as a flop by either candidate.
- Musical comebacks often don't go very well, these are not flops, so much as a change of trends in music.
- How can one call cold fusion research a "flop"? That makes little sense, as it was simply invalid research, and did not lead to cold fusion. Other research has been faked or found invalid, and many times research does not lead directly toward a proclaimed goal. Its the nature of the beast.
This article will have to be divided into some less general articles, for example List of commercial flops, List of failed comebacks by musical artists, List of landslide victories in politics, List of invalid scientific results, etc.
—siroχo 13:35, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
Truman Capote, Linda Ronstadt?
Can't recall the details. I think Truman Capote's Breakfast at Tiffany's was to have been staged as a play, but was cancelled in dress rehearsals. Also, Linda Ronstadt was to have starred in a production of Puccini's La bohème but that was likewise cancelled before the first performance. Anyone have information? Fg2 01:59, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
Non Flops
I removed these:
- The Boeing 737-600 and 757-300 failed to receive the orders that Boeing originally expected. The 737-600 is still for sale, however, and as the development cost was shared with other 737 models, it might not be considered a flop in the traditional sense. The Boeing 767-400ER, while receiving only a few orders, wasn't a flop because it was intended to be a niche aircraft for Delta Air Lines and Continental Airlines to replace their L-1011 and DC-10 fleets.
- The McDonnell Douglas (now part of Boeing) MD-87 and MD-90 failed to receive orders as compared with the Boeing 737 family and Airbus A320 family.
- Sales of the Airbus A318 and A340-200 are less than what Airbus expected.
These don't count as flops - sales marginally lower than predicted, or whatever, are not flops in the usual sense. Neither is something a flop simply because a near competitor outsold it. Seems to me someone got a bit carried away there. Graham 05:36, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Sales were not MARGINALLY lower than expected; Boeing, Airbus, and McDonnell Douglas expected WAY MUCH MORE orders than what actually has been sold. The only exception is the Boeing 767-400ER, which wasn't expected to be a huge seller. It was a niche aircraft designed for Delta Air Lines and Continental Airlines. Andros 1337 01:08, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, they do not count as flops in this the context of this article. The whole aviation industry is in downturn, that is likely to be temporary. You can't list everything just because it's affected by a recession. Not only that, but these entries have far too much obsessive detail. Stay focused. Graham 01:54, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Many of those aircaft were in production LONG before the September 11 attacks. In fact, the MD-90 production was stopped in 2000, and the MD-87 was stopped even earlier. In the case of the Boeing 757-300, it isn't expected to sell anymore because the 757 line was recently stopped. The Airbus A318 has been around for a while before the 9-11 attacks, so Airbus is not expecting huge orders out of it. The A340-200 is no longer in production. Andros 1337 22:24, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Once again, they were removed without consensus. This needs further discussion. Once again, September 11 is a very weak argument. Andros 1337 13:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Once again they were REINSERTED without consensus - yes, this needs discussion, so why did you put back these non-flops without doing so? My argument about these have nothing to do with September 11, they have everything to do with the fact that they are not flops, listed in the article as if they were. Compare with the other entries in the same section - they are not in the same category at all. I reiterate, these entries do not represent flops in the usual meaning of the term, they contain too much obsessive geeky detail, and seemingly have been included for no other reason that they happen to be your pet subject. Why not contribute the information to more appropriate articles, such as those on the particular models listed?Graham 03:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You shouldn't be blanking out a certain issue you are in disagreement with. You should use {{sectNPOV}} instead. Andros 1337 01:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
NPOV
This list is very non-NPOV. Many of these things are so unquantifiable that really most anything you say in not neutral.
Carson M.
- Although you have a point, I strongly disagree with your implication that things must be "quantifiable" to be neutral or factual. The biggest problem I see with the list is that although IMHO most of the things on it really are widely regarded as flops, most of the explanations are simply bald assertions.
- I agree. Just because something can't be definitively defined doesn't make it "inherently POV." There are many concepts that don't necessarily fit into a concise, specific definition, such as terrorism, mental illness and love. But that doesn't mean those articles are "inherently POV" or don't belong on Wikipedia. I don't think this article needs an NPOV tag. If this article has a POV, it's that "flops exist." However one may define a "flop," I'm prepared to argue that there's nothing "inherently POV" about saying something is or is not a flop. There's almost no dispute that, say, the Edsel was a flop and the Ford Mustang wasn't. This article does a reasonably good job of defining the term "flop" and specifying things that are "arguably" flops, such as the Space Shuttle and the Apple Newton. --Szyslak 01:13, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- In the case of things that are generally thought to be flops but are disputed, the appropriate thing is to acknowledge the opposing view, briefly. The article itself contains an appropriate disclaimer, Obviously, due to the subjective nature of "success" and "meeting expectations", there can be disagreement about what constitutes a "major flop" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:03, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- This whole article does indeed teeter on the edge of POV. But the concept of a "flop" exists, and we must address it. Many flops (Ishtar, Apple Newton, Ford Edsel) are so widely thought of as flops that it would be POV to NOT include them! The ironic thing is, in many cases, well-known "flops" are actually reasonably successful (objectively) - it's the unknown ones (Heaven's Gate, Taligent, Lincoln Blackwood) that are the real flops. Anyway, we'll have to keep our guard up, but this page should exist. --SFoskett 15:40, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
---
Added peter Andre to list of flops. Someone might also want to add Beagle 2
Shape of a flop
What does the sales curve look like for a flopped product? The Ford Edsel was the second-best new marque launch ever, but was dead in four years. Is that a flop? Compare this to the launch of Daihatsu in the USA, a marque that never sold well from day one and withdrew quicker than Edsel. I know it's all about expectations not being met, but lots of products fail without being major flops, especially in the automobile world. The difference between the Edsel and the Daihatsu are almost as remarkable as the differences between both and Honda! --SFoskett 19:37, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Can tests be considered flops?
Can a product that never left the test market stage really be a flop? I mean, after all, if it never went national, most people have never heard of it, so how can it be a flop?? --Woohookitty 06:05, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Some questions
Why is Winamp3 listed here? Winamp is a free application, so Nullsoft wouldn't make any money from it anyway (except for users of Winamp Pro). Also, should Surge be listed here? It was pulled off the market rather quickly in the US. --Idont Havaname 01:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have a third question: what about GD-ROM? It was a technology that seemed to have been developed for the Sega Dreamcast, and it appears to have been used little elsewhere (I'd think it would've been rendered obsolete by the DVD-ROM). --Idont Havaname 01:22, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think that makes it a commercial failure in and on itself, just a proprietary storage format. If the Dreamcast failed because of this format (expensive to duplicate for publishers), then one might argue GD-ROM was a flop because its sole vehicle was. As it stands I'm not really familiar with the console, though ;) Hooloovoo 00:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Neogeo Pocket Colour - Why is it considered a flop?
Why has the Neogeo Pocket Colour been listed on this list? It certainly sold better than the Wonderswan (which hasn't been listed) and was selling well in the US before SNK went bankrupt. I've read various reports of the platform doing well against the GBC. Compared to some products on the page, it didn't sell badly at all. Halo 12:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Are you kidding? The NeoGeo Pocket did better than the Wonderswan, but that's not saying much. Most handheld consoles go the way of the dodo pretty quickly in comparison to Nintendo's offerings, and it looks like the PSP is going to be the only one that holds its own in comparison against the DS. I think you only have to look at the shelf life of the NGP and the low number of titles released for it to see why it's considered a flop.
Commerical Failures in aviation
While the dispute continues on whether the listed Boeing and Airbus aircraft are flops or not, I have a question to ask.
Would the Lockheed L-1011 be considered a flop? I believe that it failed to meet Lockheed's goal of being competitive with the DC-10, causing Lockheed to pull out of the commercial airliner industry. Andros 1337 02:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Toyota Echo?
Gee, I really find this hard to believe. Is it right? I see tons of Echos on Route 128, and a guy at the medium-sized business where I work loved his first one and bought a second one, I believe in 2004. I've been shopping for a different Toyota model and the local dealer has Echos displayed prominently along with its Camrys and Corollas and Priuses. Consumer Reports praises the model and ranks it second on a list of eight "small cars with manual transmissions" and includes it as one of three in that category with check-ratings. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:54, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Receiving no response, I am removing the following item from the article until someone knowledgeable can comment and provide a citation or other good evidence. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Toyota Echo - Sales of the US version of the Yaris subcompact car fell from 50,000 in 2000 to just 3400 in 2004. Sales in Canada of both the sedan and hatchback versions remain strong.
Electronica?
What? How can Electronica, as a genre, be considered a flop? It's still alive and strong...
- I didn't add that, but I think what's meant here is the music industry's invention of the moniker "electronica" and then attempt at promoting it and certain acts as the Next Big Thing. At least, the inclusion of that on this list made a lot of sense to me, as someone involved with the production of sythesizer music. Obviously electronic music in general is still going strong, but no one I know who produces or listens to electronic music calls it "electronica", and I've even heard some composers take offense at their music being called that, because it's seen as an invention by the media moguls solely for the purpose of selling new pop culture items. Jeeves 05:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Commodore failing for TEN years?
I'm not sure who wrote the piece on the Commodore +4. It was a flop, but Commodore certainly wasn't a failure for the ten years following that. Did someone forget the Commodore Amiga, one of the most influential computers of the 1980s and 1990s? Mind you, it is true that Commodore did produce a long series of flops following the Amiga. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 11:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)