Home ›

Book Review: In Search of Stupidity: Over 20 Years of High-Tech Marketing Disasters

Dec 08, 2003  By Marco Fioretti
 in
A fun read that also offers a few lessons for the new paradigm.

by Merrill R. Chapman

APRESS, 2003

ISBN: 1-59059-104-6

$24.99

In Search of Stupidity: Over 20 Years of High-Tech Marketing Disasters is a time-travel trip through two decades of technology plagued by stupidity. Both new and old high-tech flops are present, most already forgotten. The dot-com chapter should be read now while it still hurts, but some unknown jewels are here too. Did you know that, for some inexplicable reason, a "sound library" that allowed users to add pissing and similar sounds to any program for only 49.95 USD didn't succeed? The book tells this tale together with those from Apple, Borland, IBM, Motorola, Napster, Netscape and others.

Hardware failures such as Iridium and the IBM Peanut are included, but only the world of commercial proprietary software is covered. If you expect to find such reasons as "not going open source" or "not using free software" listed as the root of a mistake, you'll be deluded. The Linux guys are almost never mentioned. When it happens it is very, very brief, practically off topic. The longest coverage occurs in the glossary:

open source: both a movement and a process of creating software that believes that the underlying source code of products should be freely accessible to users. Many open source programmers believe Bill Gates is Satan. Bill Gates believes many open source programmers are communist.

When Microsoft actually did something stupid, marketing-wise, the author points it out without pity. Overall, however, the company is mentioned as the example to follow, because it so far has been able to make much fewer mistakes than the other companies.

In spite of this, or maybe exactly for this reason, In Search of Stupidity is worth reading. First of all, it is important to understand what the other half of the software world thinks and expects. Secondly, the book is well written and entertaining. Both style and vocabulary are accessible to non-programmers; the writing is clear and simple, but never dumbed down.

Recognizing that many of the described errors happen also in the Free Software community, be they bad project management, coding for needs that don't exist or falling in love with new technologies "just because" may also be useful. Discovering which ones they are obviously is left as exercise for the reader.

The Good and the Bad

In Search of Stupidity is right on target and amusing. If it lack something, it is the acknowledgment that free software changes the rules, making it possible for software profits to shift from purely selling binaries to services. On the other hand, it is written by a veteran of the proprietary software industry for that industry and honestly is presented as such.

______________________

Articles about Digital Rights and more at http://stop.zona-m.net CV, talks and bio at http://mfioretti.com

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Re: In Search of Stupidity: Over 20 Years of High-Tech Marketing

Anonymous's picture
Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 12/10/2003 - 03:00.

"much fewer mistakes"??????

It's MANY fewer mistakes!!!!

"Much" is used for things that arent' enumerable.
"Many" is used for things which are numerable, like mistakes.

You can say "Much water" but not "Much boats".
You can say "Many cakes" but not "Many sugar".

"Many" is an adjective, while

Anonymous's picture
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 08/17/2005 - 15:08.

"Many" is an adjective, while "much" is an adverb. As such, "many" cannot modify the adjective "fewer". Only an adverb can modify and adjective. "Much fewer" is simply more correct than "many fewer", despite its cacophony. "Many" modifies a noun: "many apples", but "much" modifies the adjective: "much fewer apples" or "far fewer apples".

Re: In Search of Stupidity: Over 20 Years of High-Tech Marketing

Anonymous's picture
Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 12/11/2003 - 03:00.

wow -- way too harsh!

cut the guy some slack, why don't ya?

by way of comparison, how's your italian?

and, as long as we're being pedantic, what grammar book ever told you it was okay to add emphasis to a statement with FIVE CONSECUTIVE EXCLAMATION MARKS!

hunh?????????????

Re: In Search of Stupidity: Over 20 Years of High-Tech Marketing

Anonymous's picture
Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 12/11/2003 - 03:00.

Thanks for your support, especially the "how's your Italian" bit.
I don't mind the initial comment though (as I hope it is evident in my
first answer) . I'm grateful whenever I'm patiently and politely reminded how my English can be further improved.
Ditto for learning more about current English/American slang: in other words,
what are the exact meaning and origin of "cut the guy some slack"?
I get the general meaning, but I'm really curious.

Thank you in advance,
Marco Fioretti

Re: In Search of Stupidity: Over 20 Years of High-Tech Marketing

Anonymous's picture
Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 12/15/2003 - 03:00.

The first poster was probably trolling. "Much fewer" is definitely
more common than "many fewer", which sounds like a made-up phrase.
The most idiomatic is "far fewer", acc. to http://www.grammardoctor.com/archive7.htm
Thanks for the nice review.

Re: In Search of Stupidity: Over 20 Years of High-Tech Marketing

Anonymous's picture
Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 12/10/2003 - 03:00.

Duly noted.
Being a non native english speaker, I have studied and understood
the rule you mentioned: this time, for some reason, it just inverted itself in my brain. Thanks for pointing it out. Sometimes no amount
of cross-revision by both author and editor will catch all mistakes.
Marco Fioretti

White Paper
More Resources
Fabric-Based Computing Enables Optimized Hyperscale Data Centers

Today’s modular x86 servers are compute-centric, designed as a least common denominator to support a wide range of IT workloads. Those generic, virtualized IT workloads have much different resource optimization requirements than hyperscale and cloud applications. They have resulted in a “one size fits all” enterprise IT architecture that is not optimized for a specific set of IT workloads, and especially not emerging hyperscale workloads, such as web applications, big data, and object storage. In this report, you will learn how shifting the focus from traditional compute-centric IT architectures to an innovative disaggregated fabric-based architecture can optimize and scale your data center.

Learn More

Sponsored by AMD

White Paper
More Resources
Red Hat White Paper: Using an Open Source Framework to Catch the Bad Guy

Built-in forensics, incident response, and security with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6

Every security policy provides guidance and requirements for ensuring adequate protection of information and data, as well as high-level technical and administrative security requirements for a system in a given environment. Traditionally, providing security for a system focuses on the confidentiality of the information on it. However, protecting the data integrity and system and data availability is just as important. For example, when processing United States intelligence information, there are three attributes that require protection: confidentiality, integrity, and availability.

Learn more about catching the bad guy in this free white paper.

Learn More

Sponsored by DLT Solutions