One decade in failed technologies

The 90s was the pinnacle of the Information Age. Technologies were introduced by the score. Some delivered, and will stay on to perform in the next decade. Participants in the CIOL Millennium Poll rooted for the World Wide Web as the most successful technology of the 90s. We also asked them about technology that failed to deliver, and among those that got a drubbing were artificial intelligence, ActiveX, and infrared.

Artificial Intelligence



Demonstrations in artificial intelligence range from robots making omelets to IBM's Deep Blue beating the Grandmaster at his own game. However, after four decades of research and millions of dollars in investment, the only useful AI applications worth a mention are those in science fiction novels.

Ray Kurzweil, inventor of the Kurzweil electronic keyboard, text-to-speech converter, and voice recognition software (incidentally, #5 on our list), provides an interesting insight into the future of AI. Thirty years into the future, he sees a wireless network of intelligent nanobots (nanometer-sized robots) traveling through capillaries in the brain to solve disorders. (see The Story of the 21st Century in External Links)

ActiveX



ActiveX controls were independent mini-programs that could be customized and plugged into larger applications. The idea was to facilitate code reuse. The fact that it would work only on Microsoft Internet Explorer was self-defeating. However, the greater reason for ActiveX drawing so much flak was the potential it offered for malicious programming. Erasing hard disks was a trivial, stealing passwords from unsuspecting users was possible, and guarding against ActiveX email viruses was is a full-time job for Outlook Express users. (See Risks of using ActiveX in External Links)

Although Java Applets are thought to be the more portable, more secure alternative to ActiveX controls, the real equivalent lies in Java Beans, Sun's component software packaging and distribution technology.

Web TV



WebTV was intended to be a simple way for lay persons to get onto the Web without having to learn how to use a computer. The standard television set could be Web-enabled by plugging into a set-top box. While WebTV excelled on the usability factor, the grouse was from Web designers whose pages didn't render properly. As if designing for two very different browsers wasn't bad enough, now they had to contend with a whole new platform that its own interpretation of HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. If interactive television must become a success, it must be compatible with present standards, and should be able to accommodate those of the future.

Infrared



The Infrared Data Association (IrDA) was the first attempt at developing affordable, standard wireless connection technology. It did manage to snap the cords off keyboards, mice, and notebook computers, but didn't quite make it on the large scale for which it was planned. In the words of Michael Watson, president of IrDA, "We failed because we tried to go through a wall when we should have been… working with key application partners more closely".

Now, the IrDA is using its experience to help Bluetooth, the next promise in wireless technology, steer its way to success in the new decade. From users' point of view, the greatest hassle with IrDA was the inconvenient "point-and-shoot" style - two devices that need to exchange data had to have their infrared sensors aligned with each other. Bluetooth connects over radio links, has a speedier transmission rate, works at a greater range, and products are already out in the market. (See Bluetooth - unwiring Planet Earth in Related Links)

Voice recognition



The failure of voice recognition software has less to do with technology than with lack of application. Over the years, there has been remarkable improvement in recognizing cross-cultural variations in accents. However, it has not been popular with two of the largest user segments - home and office - for an entirely different reason. You just can't have people dictating to their computers in office; the clackety-clack of keyboards is tolerable for now, thank you. Also, one can laugh at a TV screen, but talking to a computer is quite another matter.

Push



If you haven't heard of push technology, it's probably because its death was as swift as its rise. Standard usage of the Web involved retrieving, or "pulling", information, with push technology, users could subscribe to channels, and information would be sent to them. The only thing Marimba and Pointcast pushed was their luck, when they hailed push as the next revolution on the Web. (See What is Push? under External Links)

Web users are a fickle-minded lot. They decide when they want information. Push was an attempt to bring regularity into something that was essentially an irregular, unorganized activity. Other problems: bandwidth and storage limitations due to indiscriminate downloading, lack of standards between the two browsers, confusing interface. For now, we'll stick with push's toned down cousin, e-mail newsletters.

The bottom line



Common to all technologies that failed is the gap between what was supposed to be and what actually was. In most cases, it was not the concept that failed, but the implementation. Therefore, they will all get a second chance to reemerge in new avatars as products of old experiences. After all, the future belongs to technology.