Fully Equipped

Update 7/20: After reader feedback, I have dropped Windows Media Center and Nintendo's Game Boy Micro from the list and added Apple's Power Mac G4 Cube and Microsoft's Smart Display initiative (codename Mira). Thanks for all the comments.

Here we are just months away from closing out the first decade of the 21st century, which means a lot of publications will soon be in look-back mode, taking stock of all the good--and bad--things that happened over the last 10 years. While we've still got a few months to go before hitting 2010, I thought I should get a head start on the whole best/worst roundup fad that's about to flood the Internet (Time magazine has already done the 10 Biggest Tech Failures of the Last Decade, but it was pretty lame; this one's much better, I swear).

The Gizmondo in its heyday.

(Credit: ImageShack)

Before we get to the list, let's get the parameters straight. This isn't a list of all the most spectacular tech failures. I chose to exclude dot-coms, corporate debacles (AOL-Time Warner), search engines (i.e., Cuil), and assorted other Web 2.0 flame outs (I'll let Webware handle that). No, this is a roundup of gear, the stuff that turns on and off, the stuff I've been covering for almost 10 years at CNET (yes, I started in 2000).

It's also important to define just what a flop is. In my book it's simply something that was really hyped but didn't live up to its promise or expectations. And while the word "flop" has a negative connotation, we here at CNET have a lot admiration for the designers, engineers, and everybody else who put their heart and soul into bringing these products and technologies to the world. Some of them didn't deserve their fates. They were ahead of their time or just marketed poorly. Whatever the case, we appreciate the vision, risk taking, and hard work that went into creating these things.

But enough sentimentality (I meant it, really). Let's get to the biggest tech flops of the decade. If you disagree with any of them or have more to suggest, please post a comment. If we missed any clear candidates, we'll modify the list.

Click on any image to start the slideshow. (Note: The list is in chronological order).

The decade's 25 biggest tech flops slideshow

More:

Hz so good: The marketing of 240Hz TVs may rely heavily on test patterns.

(Credit: Akihabara News)

Every year it seems there's a new catchy spec in the HDTV realm everybody likes to talk about. A few years back it was 1080p resolution. Then we heard about 120Hz, which is supposed to reduce motion blur in fast-moving images on LCD TVs. Well, this year, the latest and greatest spec is 240Hz, which is supposed to do what 120Hz does, but better.

Not too long ago, our video guru David Katzmaier gave his initial impressions on 240Hz in a post titled "Is 240Hz worth waiting for?" When he wrote that piece, he'd just seen his first 240Hz TV in action and wasn't sold on the new technology. Now that he's reviewed four 240Hz HDTVs and has a fifth review (the LG 47LH55) in the works, he's still not sold, but he admits the verdict isn't totally clear-cut.

Part of the problem is that there's a difference between what your eye sees in everyday material you watch and objective testing done with test patterns. As Katzmaier notes in his post, "Standard LCD and plasma TVs refresh the screen 60 times per second, or 60Hz, which is plenty fast enough to eliminate flicker and create the illusion of motion from a series of still images. In fact, most sources sent to your display arrive at the nominal rate of 30 frames per second, and each frame is repeated once by the television to achieve 60 total fps."

240Hz LCD HDTVs compared

For most people, including me and Mr. Katzmaier, it's very difficult to see the impact that "faster" LCD sets have on picture quality. We spent some time in our AV lab watching various source material from 120Hz TVs and 240Hz models and it's really hard to detect any difference (it's hard to detect any difference between 120Hz and 60Hz models, too). To be clear, I'm referring here to motion-blur reduction because of faster refresh rates, not to dejudder processing, which smooths out motion and makes film-based material shot at 24fps look more video-like. When dejudder is engaged, you can easily spot its impact on the picture. (It's also worth mentioning that the dejudder processing on the 240Hz TVs we tested so far wasn't any better--or worse--than than the dejudder on 120Hz TVs).

Eventually, of course, manufacturers will completely phase out 720p TVs. But it may take a few years. While the number of new 720p models is dwindling, several manufacturers, including Sony, Samsung, LG, and Panasonic, are putting out entry-level lines in 2009 that feature 720p TVs and we're getting a lot of readers asking whether they should save some dough and buy them. With that in mind, here's the word on 720p vs. 1080p, updated for this year.

1. What's so great about 1080p?

1080p resolution--which equates to 1,920x1080 pixels--is the current Holy Grail of HDTV resolution. That's because most 1080p HDTVs are capable of displaying every pixel of the highest-resolution HD broadcasts. They offer more than twice the resolution of step-down models, which are typically 1,366x768, 1,280x720, or 1,024x768. These days, HDTVs with any of those three of lower resolutions are typically called "720p." Nobody wants to remember all those numbers, and "768p" doesn't really roll off the tongue.

2. How much extra does a 1080p TV cost?

When I wrote my original article a few years ago, you had to pay a premium of about $1,000 to get a 1080p model at the same screen size as a "720p" set. While the gap has certainly narrowed, there's still a notable difference. In the case of a 32-inch LCD, for instance, you're looking at around a $200-$250 price bump. For example, the Samsung LN32B360 goes for $549.99, while the step-up 1080p version, the LN32B530, goes for $799.99. Sony has a similar price delta when it comes to its 32-inch LCDs.

As you move up the LCD-size chain, your 720p options basically disappear. Samsung and Sony, the two biggest names in LCD, don't even produce 720p LCDs larger than 32 inches anymore. You can still find older big-screen 720p models, like the 40-inch Samsung LN40A450, but they're becoming a rare breed.

This Panasonic 50-inch 720 plasma costs much less than the 1080p step-up model.

(Credit: Panasonic)

When it comes to plasma, Panasonic's entry-level 42-inch TC-P42X1 720p carries a price of around $899.99, while the step-up 1080p version, the TC-P42S1, come in at $1,199.99 (street prices will vary, of course). Move up to Panasonic's 50-inch models and you're looking at more like a $700 delta, with the 720p TC-P50X1 coming in around $1,000 and the TC-P50S1 selling for $1,700--though Panasonic's S1 series does feature more-efficient, higher-contrast NEO-PDP panels. (Note: We do expect prices to drop slightly on all these models as the year progresses).

3. Why is 1080p theoretically better than 1080i?

1080i, the former king of the HDTV hill, actually boasts an identical 1,920x1,080 resolution, but conveys the images in an interlaced format (the i in 1080i). In a tube-based television, otherwise known as a CRT, 1080i sources get "painted" on the screen sequentially: the odd-numbered lines of resolution appear on your screen first, followed by the even-numbered lines--all within 1/30 of a second. Progressive-scan formats such as 480p, 720p, and 1080p convey all of the lines of resolution sequentially in a single pass, which makes for a smoother, cleaner image, especially with sports and other motion-intensive content.

... Read more

'Save me Panasonic, you're my only hope.'

(Credit: Panasonic)

With Pioneer and Vizio recently announcing their exits from the plasma market, there's been a lot of chatter about the technology's short and long-term viability. Some of plasma's problems are PR related. Lingering questions--justified or not--about burn-in and energy efficiency have become part of the public conscious and remain a stumbling block at point of sale. Ultimately, however, there are more simple economics at play. Far more factories are available to produce LCD displays than plasmas, which haven't been able to maintain their price advantage as margins have eroded and the performance gap between the technologies has narrowed.

But let's not dwell on how we got here. The key question is how can plasma survive? And for better or worse, the answer is really in the hands of Panasonic, the brand that has most closely linked its TV fortunes to the technology. Yes, Samsung and LG make lots of plasmas--and some good ones, too--but both are also well-committed LCD and well hedged should plasma go away (Panasonic makes some LCD TVs as well, but nothing larger than 37 inches, while plasma starts at 42). Alas, with Pioneer's departure--a sad day for those who value great TV picture quality--Panasonic is left to carry the plasma mantle largely on its own.

Can it keep plasma from perishing? Well, I hope it can, because the TV space is already commoditized enough and it would be shame if we went down to one flat-panel technology (sure, OLED is being hyped as the display technology of the future, but it's years away from mass-market adoption). However, Panasonic's got to take make some key moves to keep plasma from running out of gas. Here they are:

Is success in the cards? The Dark Knight Blu-ray sold 600,000 copies on launch day.

(Credit: Warner Bros.)

I've been seeing a lot of articles lately about Blu-ray's fuzzy future, how it's doomed, and how its success will be short-lived even if it does take off. Well, that may well end up being the case, but I gotta say, from where I'm sitting, there's a far greater probability that Blu-ray will do just fine--for a long time. And I'm not saying that because I'm a fanboy or a shill for Sony. I'm saying it because a lot of simple market factors point toward it doing just fine. Here are nine reasons why I'm right.

1. Digital downloads will not eliminate the need for discs anytime soon.

Let's address this first since this is the biggest factor that people cite when trumpeting Blu-ray's defeat. If you haven't noticed, here at CNET we spend a good amount of time covering new streaming video platforms and services and really enjoy testing these new products. Everything from Hulu to Netflix streaming video to Slingbox to Apple TV to Vudu all show promise. That said, all these products have some limiting factors, including lack of content selection, pricing hurdles, and most particularly, bandwidth issues, which affect video and audio quality.

If the picture doesn't pop, it's not HD.

(Credit: CNET Australia)

"Dude, what do you think? Pretty good, huh? I got the one you guys [CNET] recommended."

I look at the TV and there seems to be something a little off about it. I move closer and say:

"You have HD?"

"Yeah," he replies, pointing to the cable box sitting underneath the TV.

I tell him to turn it to an HD channel. Something in the 700s (the HD channels for Time Warner Cable in New York are all in the 700s).

"I have it on an HD channel."

For good measure, I have him turn to 702, CBS HD. (Now that we're owned by CBS, I always tell people to go to CBS HD first. Naturally.)

"Dude," I say, "You're not watching HDTV."

"I'm not?"

"No, you are not."

On New Year's Eve, I was dealing with a Sony Bravia. About 3 years old. Cosmetically, really good looking. It wasn't displaying HD, however, even though there was an HD box sitting right next to the TV.

I took a quick look at the box's rear and lo and behold, there was a yellow composite video cable running from the back of the cable box to the back of the TV. Sound was carried by the standard red/white composite cables.

"I hate to break it to you," I said to my host (I didn't say dude because he was a buttoned-up dude who you don't call dude), "but you're running video to your expensive TV through the worst possible video connection."

This was actually the fourth time I'd encountered just such a scenario in the last couple of years. Three times the owner had screwed up and in the fourth instance, a "professional" installer had--remarkably--hooked my friend's system up with a composite video cable. (Shame on my friend; double shame on the installer).

In this case, part of the problem was that the cable box was fairly old and had a DVI connection but no HDMI. That meant the owner would have had to purchase a DVI-to-HDMI cable, then run the sound to the TV with the red/white composite cables (he didn't have an AV receiver in the mix). For a lot of people, that's just too complicated. Of course, today all new satellite and cable HD boxes feature HDMI connections, which makes things much simpler if all you're looking to do is hook your set-top box up to the TV and get HD video and stereo sound through your TV's speakers. But somehow people occasionally manage to screw that up, too. (Watch our "How to connect high-def to your HDTV" explanation here).

Anyway, to make a long story short, in the middle of the party I magically turned the composite cable into component cables (no, the colors don't match up, but in a pinch you can always convert the yellow/white/red composite cable into a red/blue/green component cable) and pumped the HD into the set that way. The sound had to be passed through a separate red/white composite cable, but people always tend to have an extra set of those lying around, so we were cool there.

I then fiddled around with the cable box's video-output settings and the Sony's settings until everything was how it was supposed to be (at least in terms of getting the pictured displayed at the proper aspect ratio and resolution). Unfortunately, a lot of this stuff is still too complicated for the average person to deal with (and sound is a whole other matter entirely).

When I finally got the HD working, the small crowd erupted in applause and the owner of the TV stood back and looked at the set, stunned. I was briefly Moses parting the Red Sea.

Alas, I think this situation is more prevalent than I initially thought. I had guessed that around 10 percent of HDTV owners weren't actually watching HD. But it may very well be closer to the 20 percent the LRG survey cites.

What do you guys think? Anybody willing to admit to being an embarrassing victim of the think-you-have-HD-but-you-really-don't syndrome? (Or maybe you're just worried you have it and need advice). And has anyone helped save a friend with an HDTV afflicted with non-HD syndrome?

We've been keeping an eye on prices for Blu-ray players and it appears that a handful of budget-brand models are starting to crack the $150 barrier. The other day Woot.com had the Memorex MVBD2510 player at $139.99 for a one-day sale and now TheNerds.net is selling it for $146.99 (shipping included) and Buy.com has it at $149.99. That's on top of both the Samsung BD-P1500 and the Sony BDP-S300 slipping in and out of sub-$200 territory at Amazon and other outlets.

The Wall-E Blu-ray costs $10 more than the DVD: Is that too big a premium in a tight economy?

(Credit: Amazon)

While $150 isn't bad, I think we're going to see $99 fairly soon, with a couple of stops at $129.99. As we found out with HD-DVD players, $99 really is a magic price point, though it is worth pointing out that these budget Blu-ray players are only profile 1.1, while the $99 HD DVD players were fully up to spec and allowed for firmware upgrades via Ethernet (the cheap Blu-ray players can't be updated and sometimes simply can't play certain movies). Profile 1.1 players aren't BD-Live enabled, which means you won't be able to access certain interactive features--for better or worse.

BD-Live issues aside, I'm betting we'll see $99 for a Blu-ray player inside of four months, if not sooner, the way the economy is going. We can debate exactly when it will happen (feel free to comment), but in the near future the initiation fee for entering Club Blu-ray will be relatively negligible--or at least not a serious stumbling block.

That said, the bigger problem is prices for Blu-ray movies compared to DVDs. For example, if you take a look at Wall-E, which currently sits atop Amazon's Blu-ray bestseller list, it costs $24.95 versus $14.99 for the DVD. Granted, the Blu-ray version comes with three discs (there's a two-disc version for 50 cents less, but why bother?) and the DVD is only a single disc. The fact is the majority of blue-chip Blu-ray titles cost around $25, with some, like Iron Man, coming in at $20. (It's also worth noting that you don't get the free shipping on Amazon on anything less than $25, which makes you understand the price has been set where it is for a reason).

I realize that manufacturers, retail outlets, and studios want to preserve margins as long as they can and they've made an effort to present Blu-ray as a premium format that deserves to be marked up. But asking people to pay 50-75 percent extra when everybody's cutting back already is going to crimp sales of both Discs and players.

The smart people are opting to rent rather than buy (Netflix charges an extra buck for Blu-ray rentals, but it's still a good deal, especially when you consider you get its free movie streaming service thrown in). That said, I know folks who say they'll only consider switching to Blu-ray when players are $99 and the price gap between DVD and Blu-ray movies is minimal. Of course, others will never switch, preferring instead to download zero-cost illegal pirated flicks or stream legal free content from Hulu, Netflix, and others.

What do you guys think? At what point is Blu-ray really going to take off (if ever)? Is one of these stripped-down, cheap players worth buying? And are Discs too expensive?

Around the holiday season we get a lot of e-mails from readers agonizing over what TV to buy. With the economy the way it is, consumers aren't completely shying away from buying new TVs, but they're on tight budgets and appear to be predominantly interested screen sizes 52 inches or smaller. The big problem with going bigger is that you jump into a whole new price class when you start looking at the Panasonic 58-inch plasma--and it gets worse when you check out Pioneer's 60-incher. The exception to all this is DLP-based rear-projection HDTVs, where Samsung and Mitsubishi are the only real remaining players. Remarkably, Best Buy is selling our editors' choice Samsung HL61A750 for $1,600 and the 67-inch inch model in the same line goes for $2,000. Meanwhile, Best Buy has the 65-inch Mitsubishi WD-65735 for a mere $1,500.

Baby got back: On the surface, Samsung's 61-inch 1080p LED-Powered DLP HDTV looks like a plasma or LCD--but it's not.

(Credit: Samsung)

But rear-projection is a dying breed, right? Or, as one reader commented, "Everyone seems to be getting out of the rear-projection market. What happens if Samsung completely kills it? What happens then? Will they service my TV?"

Yes, most pundits agree that rear-pro is indeed on its way out. I've said as much in earlier columns. And in his review of the Samsung HL61A750, senior editor David Katzmaier wrote, "The way things are going, 2008 or 2009 may be the last year for rear-projection, lasers notwithstanding." As for lasers, he was referring to Mitsubishi's Laser TV, which, at $7,000 is a whole other beast we won't get into (Mitsubishi hasn't sent as a unit for review, but we hope we get our hands on one at some point). But with Sony, Panasonic, Hitachi, and others exiting the rear-pro market, things look pretty bleak. We used to have three technologies to choose from in this category (LCD, LCoS, DLP) and now we're down to DLP (the aforementioned Laser TV is actually a laser-powered DLP set).

Ironically, the bad economy may save rear-projection. That Samsung HL61A750 is one of the most popular products on CNET and it would appear that many people are willing to give up the whole thin factor of plasma and LCD for more screen size at a lower price point. The Samsung solves a couple of problems inherent to rear-pro DLP: it uses LEDs instead of a conventional bulb, which eliminates the rainbow effect (some people can see brief streaks of color with bulb-based DLP). The LEDs also last much, much longer than bulbs--they give you about 20,000 hours of life.

Rear-projection still has its disadvantages, aside from the obvious fact that it's not flat and so usually can't be hung on a wall. RPTVs lose brightness and picture fidelity when seen from off-angle--to either side or especially above and below. Than again, so do flat-panel LCDs. RPTVs can also be subject to geometry errors, where some lines that should appear straight, such as the bars to either or above and below the screen, are instead subtly curved. The middle of the screen on DLPs is usually brighter than the edges, and other uniformity problems can be seen on some models.

In reality however, most of these picture quality issues are subtle and well worth the savings to big-screen shoppers. So, the big question simply is, if the manufacturers jettison the remaining rear-pro TVs, will they keep servicing them should they break down?

I'm not in the business of making guarantees, but if you look at Sony, they've continued to support and provide parts for their LCoS-based SXRD TVs in the field (there are plenty of them), so I think that's a pretty good indication that Samsung and Mitsubishi will do the same. All I know is that I'll soon be in the market for a new large-screen TV and unless 58-inch and 61-inch plasmas get a whole lot more affordable over the next 6 months, I'm strongly considering rear-pro. It's hard not to at these prices.

Anybody agree or disagree? Please comment.