Forums | MacLife

Haha the Newton - funny how Apple tried sort of tried to make a tablet and failed miserably. Speaking of failed Apple Tablets...
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/jo … /1300.html

Indeed.
ie. Newton copy/paste >>> iPhone copy/paste

I had a Newton, an eMac, and Clarisworks.

I'll give him the Newton.

The eMac did fine in its target market.

Clarisworks/Appleworks was a competitor to Works, not Office, and it trounced it, thank you very much.

My dad had an eMac - worked fairly well, but he did have to have a component of the CRT monitor replaced under warranty.

Still works well as a word processor for my grandmother

I personally own a Newton Messagepad 2100. Took many many notes on it during college. Smaller and lighter than a laptop (even with the external keyboard), far better battery life. I still consider it a better eBook reader than my iPhone or the Kindle. I've had a chance to handle the earlier newtons on occassion, and yes - they all sucked ass for processor speed and memory space. The 2100 however got it just about right.

A few elements from the Newton OS showed up in later apple products too But damnit if the excellent Copy-Paste scheme isn't on the iPhone yet, a shame.

The eMac was so popular that Apple moved it out of EDU only and made it available retail.
Hardly a failure.

No offense, but why would you link to Gizmodo instead of the site that actually did the writeup?
http://www.oobject.com/category/12-fail … -products/

Anyway, out of the whole list the only failures are:
Pippin
Apple 3
Lisa
TAM (it counts that they never sold even 10K of them at the full price with concirge sevice, IMO.)
Cube (and even that was moderately succssful, it was more of a controversy than a failure.)

I have a Newton 2000.

still works and kinda fun to pull out once inna while when the nerdie ones are all showing off the blackberries and iphones.

The article has very little substance. It's just a list.

I'm not even sure that the author is familiar with misery.

Yeah, AppleWorks was very successful.  You can't call something a failure just because it was succeeded after 16 years.  In the tech world, that's about as successful as you can get.

The eMac, as Pariah mentioned, was a hit.

The iPod U2 Special Edition doesn't even qualify as a "failure," it was a marketing gimmick.  Apple figured that a few prospective buyers would be stupid enough to pay extra for black paint, and they were right!  We know the U2 edition met Apple's sales projections, because if it fell short, then Apple would've lowered the price to match the white version.  They didn't need to.

I would say that Apple's biggest failures in the company's darkest days were all of the over-funded projects; some of which, never saw the light of day:  Copland, OpenDoc, QuickDraw 3D, off the top of my head.

dv wrote:

The eMac did fine in its target market.

The education market is very strange. IIRC, Bren has a education iMac that seems... well pitiful. Price above all else, I suppose.

ScifiterX wrote:

Mr. T wrote:

The iPod U2 Special Edition doesn't even qualify as a "failure," it was a marketing gimmick.  Apple figured that a few prospective buyers would be stupid enough to pay extra for black paint, and they were right!  We know the U2 edition met Apple's sales projections, because if it fell short, then Apple would've lowered the price to match the white version.  They didn't need to.

Same with the TAM

The TAM did fail to meet its expectations. It was $10K including personal devliery and concierge installation, which very few people wanted to pay. The service was canned and the price was massively slashed, and it still took months for them to be sold off.

~Coxy wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

Mr. T wrote:

The iPod U2 Special Edition doesn't even qualify as a "failure," it was a marketing gimmick.  Apple figured that a few prospective buyers would be stupid enough to pay extra for black paint, and they were right!  We know the U2 edition met Apple's sales projections, because if it fell short, then Apple would've lowered the price to match the white version.  They didn't need to.

Same with the TAM

The TAM did fail to meet its expectations. It was $10K including personal devliery and concierge installation, which very few people wanted to pay. The service was canned and the price was massively slashed, and it still took months for them to be sold off.

Yeah.  According to wikipedia, the machine initially retailed for $7,499 and quickly dropped down to $1,995, which was "at or below the cost of production."

Personally, I wouldn't have bought one if only for the LCD.  LCD's were terrible 10 years ago.  My old 17" CRT from 1996 did 1280x960 @85Hz in 24-Bit color with perfect blacks.  The TAM, released two years later, was 12.1", 800x600, with 16-Bit color, charcoal-grey blacks, shaky contrast, and uncontrollable motion blur.  Form over function, I guess.