"I think it's coming along," said Tim, "though we expect—" "I think it sucks!" said Jobs.
His vehemence made Tim pause. "Why?" he asked, a bit stiffly.
"It just does. [...] Its shape is not innovative, it's not elegant, it doesn't feel anthropomorphic."
This is from "Code Name Ginger: The Story Behind Segway and Dean Kamen's Quest to Invent a New World". The chapter with the meeting with Jobs is available here:
I liked that rant, until I reached the part making fun of FETs: "What the hell does a FET do? Nobody knows, but I guarantee some nerd spent months writing a graduate thesis on why it's important (and failing)."
That's just ignorant. FETs are week ~3 of an intro EE class. It's like saying "What the hell does a function do?" to make fun of C.
Well it is Maddox (if you are unfamiliar, read some of his other rants). His goal is not so much technical commentary as make-you-angry commentary. He makes ZSFA look like an apology. In fact, this was actually the least inflammatory writing I've probably ever seen from him.
So yeah, rest assured he put that in there just to rile people up.
Not even the great majority of programmers know what a function does; programmer talk must sound like the script of Idiocracy to mathematicians ("Hey, this function returns an integer and sets a flag on error".)
That was so great. That article opened my eyes to visual design - or started the process. (And the Bezos thing shocked me - how could such a smart and accomplished guy be such conspiracy theorist? Weird.)
Just a point of information: the original essay did not use the phrase "caught on." PG said: "The Segway hasn't delivered on its initial promise, to put it mildly.
Given that the hyped promise of the Segway was literally to revolutionize public transportation as we know it, I'd say the statement is accurate.
Plenty of that hype was media speculation and did not come from DK. 'IT' and 'Ginger' and a veil of secrecy were just about the only pre-release things that came from there, the hype blew it up way beyond reasonably expectations. The segway - which is innovative in many ways and has done a lot for robotics - could only dissapoint by the time it was released, no matter what it really was.
For the price of a segway you can get a motorcycle or a scooter or a moped or an electric bike, and drive it on city streets. Yet most Americans still drive cars. What benefits does a turbocharged Segway offer that these other options don't?
If you could flip a switch and the segway could go operate in the 10-70mph range, and flip it back to operate in the 0-10mph range, you could transition from street to sidewalk (vehicle to pedestrian.)
This would be worth the extra money and not be uncool.
Even at 70mph you'd still run into the problem pg expouses - looking like an effortless dork.
As for this bit - "imagine something that worked like the Segway, but that you rode with one foot in front of the other, like a skateboard. That wouldn't seem nearly as uncool." - have you seen the Scarpar? It's only 35mph, but definitely, definitely cool.
are you serious? this may be what the segway needs. Extreme segway sports. If i saw someone going 70 mph on a segway, my first thought would certainly not be 'what a square'.
... maybe. Looks a bit wobblier, but look at it in context - they are on a cycle path and they fit in perfectly well. Someone on a Segway would stand out quite a lot.
The i2 model can fit through a doorway. It can be picked up and moved by a reasonably fit person. It can be used indoors or out, and with some accessories can carry a small amount of cargo.
The general public bias against Segways is kind of understandable. Most people aren't capable of thinking outside the box. I'm always a little surprised when the hacker/entrepreneur community seems to jump on that bandwagon though. Even moreso today when so many people claim to be "green" advocates and will proclaim that we need to explore other modes of transportation, yet bash anything that doesn't have 4 tires and a steering wheel.
A bicycle can fit through a doorway, be picked up and moved, and carry a quite large amount of cargo. For the price of a Segway it could be equipped with a motor of similar speed and efficiency, or it can be run on human power. Unlike the Segway, the bicycle can go in the street and on dirt trails, has much greater maximum speed and range, and is cheap and easy to repair.
Sure, the Segway has advantages too - but when people suggest that it should go at 25mph in city streets, it's worth considering whether the Segway's unique properties actually contribute anything. Different tools are better for different jobs.
I'm all in favor of thinking outside the box, but things like cargo bicycles are more practical and interesting (though less sexy and high-tech) for my own city transportation needs: http://www.xtracycle.com/cargo-utility-bicycles.html
I don't think Segways were ever really intended to compete with bicycles. People make that comparison alot, but it's really not valid.
A closer comparison is a scooter or moped type of device. Those will fit through some doorways, but being gas-powered they are generally excluded from use or storage in most indoor areas. Cost is comparable, although the scooter would win out on distance and top speed. Most scooters are also too heavy for a single operator to pick up and move, and they also don't generally break down to fit easily in the trunk of a vehicle.
Segway's, even the non off-road models do quite well on dirt/trails, so that isn't an advantage for the bike. They could go in the streets as well, the only limitation there is erratic legislation, so it's hard to make a direct comparison.
My feet can fit into all kinds of places where Segways can't, and when I use them to move around I get the benefits of aerobic exercise and whole body movement.
Yes I go up and talk to people that ride segways whenever I see them usually in malls and the like and most use them because they are partially handicapped and have trouble walking and the segway makes them look normal.
I'll second that. I have a relative who can stand fine, but can't walk for long distances. The Segway makes it possible for him to travel distances that he otherwise would not be able to travel. He doesn't look like a dork when he rides it (in my opinion). Perhaps everyone just assumes that if you own a segway you are a pompous windbag with more money than sense. I wouldn't be surprised if most people see it as a luxury item that only the "elite" can afford, and therefore they resent the device's presence (as well as the rider's). Perhaps calling the person lazy is the best thing they can come up with which is derogatory. "Get that thing off the sidewalk you rich jerk" probably doesn't seem to have as much sting.
Posters on e.g. segwaychat.com have often said they'd like to have more speed. But I can't imagine falling at 20mph... it's bad enough falling at 12.5mph, believe me.
(The "dork factor" is what prevents me from doing the smart thing and wearing a skate helmet. Instead I only wear a pair of wraparound shades. Stupid peer pressure...)
But I can't imagine falling at 20mph... it's bad enough falling at 12.5mph, believe me.
I've never ridden a segway, but I have crashed my bike at this speed. I imagined that it would be really bad, but having done it a few times, it is really not that bad. You are moving parallel to the ground, so most of the energy is absorbed by the pavement slowly grinding the top layer of your skin off. Somewhat painful, and very bloody, but not life threatening.
I imagine that riding into a wall at 20mph would be pretty bad, though. All that energy instantly acting to crush your bones and internal organs. I haven't actually tried it, so this is just speculation. (Please report back if you try it ;)
(Oh, and as for the helment; I always wear one, but I have never landed on it while crashing. Let your arms and legs do the work :) I think you have to do something weird to land on your head.)
I managed to land on my head n the middle of the road from a bicycle accident when I was in high school. I hit a pothole and me and the bike went slightly different directions, I was tucking to roll when the top bar of the bike came down across my ankle and stopped the roll. That was the closest I have ever come to being knocked out, and it was very, very close.
EDIT: Although I was very dazed at the time, my ankle was actually injured worse than my head.
>> I think you have to do something weird to land on your head.
Not weird, just reckless. Like tolerating faulty rear breaks for a little while. What was I thinking :)... Anyway, the helmet took it and the dog that prompted the full stop got away unscratched...
Yeah, gotta be careful with respect to maintenance. I crashed earlier this summer because I shifted my chain into the spokes, locking the rear wheel in a turn. I knew the limit screw was set improperly, but I figured it was not enough to cause any problems. Well, I was wrong. I landed on my leg, though, and unclipped quickly enough that I didn't even scratch myself too badly. (Threadlock is your friend, BTW, so the limit screws don't unscrew themselves. I still pull the derailer cable before each ride to make sure the chain can't be shifted off the cogs, though.)
Also, did you use your front brake? I tend to see my rear brakes as a backup; I use it if the front brake fails, if the front wheel has poor traction, or if I'm descending and just want to slow the acceleration. The front brake can develop about 5x more stopping force, since the front wheel can't skid. And, if you are used to using it, you won't go over the handlebars in an emergency. http://sheldonbrown.com/brakturn.html
I used both but only the front worked. So I landed on my helmet, bike on top. Quite the other way than you, I tend to use mostly the rear break. Not being used to rely on the front, not in a "to the floor" way anyway is what got me. That and the lack of proper adjustment tolerated to the rear one.
A couple of weeks ago in Paris there were a dozen or so people riding black Segways near the Eiffel Tower. Must've been a meeting of the local chapter or something.
I think it ultimately comes down to price. When the Segway first came out, it was available for pre-order on Amazon for $10000! This is an extremely high price, which is orders of magnitude higher than the alternatives: bicycles, motorized bicycles and scooters, motorized skateboards, etc.
The high price instantly relegated the product into a niche. At that price, the Segway is only viable for businesses (consumers can't afford it) that can really justify the need for the product.
Imagine for a second that the first Segway came out at a price of $1000, and that the price gradually dropped to $400 - $500. I think a good number of early adopters would have bought the first dorky-looking version. These people would have used the Segway, and some would have complained about the look. Some people would have started customizing it and making it look cooler, go faster, attach jets to it, etc. Gradually, the manufacturer would have listened to the customers, and would have started making many versions of the product, some for kids, others for teens, adults, etc. They would have created off-road extreme versions of it and one-wheel versions of it.
Basically, I believe that there is a healthy demand for getting around town quickly, and that if the price of the Segway was right, the mass market would adopt it. Mass market adoption would then quickly iron out the dorkyness of the Segway though many iterations of the product.
True, but you also wrote "So there may be a way to capture more of the market Segway hoped to reach [by redesigning it to make the operator look more active]".
In all honesty, for how many people do you think "how I look while riding it" is the single factor stopping them from buying a Segway? Your statement implies that this is not the vanishingly small number of people I would expect it to be.
"capture more of the market Segway hoped to reach"
instead of
"capture the market Segway hoped to reach"
I know firsthand that Segways aren't that useful, because for a couple years I could ride the Segwell whenever I wanted, and all I ever did with it was tool around on the street in front of YC. That is why I qualified these passages the way I did. And that's enough; I'm not going to start cluttering essays with clauses to head off every misinterpretation someone might post on a forum.
I suppose I could create a separate page for each essay, answering in advance all the mistaken objections I knew people would raise about it. ("Note that I did not claim that this is the main problem with the Segway, just one of many" etc, etc.) It seems like a waste of time, but it would take less than this discussion has.
"Note that I did not claim that this is the main problem with the Segway, just one of many"
I think the title of the essay (The Trouble with the Segway) kinda does imply that this is the main problem. The title suggests that the essay will explain the Segway's lack of success. Perhaps a different title would have prepared the reader for what was actually in the essay. How about "The Segway's other problem". Personally, I'm starting to think that the real problem is this: it lacks dignity.
I'd wager responding to the vultures is unproductive. The majority of readers follow your point. Respoding just fuels their linguistics lawyering further.
People do consider other people's reactions. Since people riding a Segway are seen as "uncool", many people won't even consider buying one. They don't get to the point where they're looking at pros and cons; buying one isn't even a consideration.
That isn't true and that's easy to prove: old ladies don't care what anyone thinks about those upright cloth shopping carts with the little wheels they use, I don't even know what the right name for them is. The Segway could be a motorized one of them.
Hip urban web 2.0 Ruby rockstar ninjas are not the only market for tech.
From a utility standpoint a Segway's would be perfect for traveling around a Zoo / Disneyland. Rent them for ~30$ a day and it could be vary popular and profitable.
However, there seems to be little gain from owning one because they have the same downsides of a bike. Plus, you need to charge them, and you need to more concerned with them getting stolen.
So, the consumer Segway market is basically an expensive vanity item. But, few people actually want to be seen on them due to look and feel issues.
There are city tours that use Segways (see http://citysegwaytours.com for instance). The dork factor isn't that big of a deal if you're already easily flagged as being a tourist (fanny pack, camera hanging off your neck, etc.).
It also makes a lot of sense in that it allows you to cover significantly more territory than you'd otherwise be able to on foot and you're not trapped in the same kind of bubble as you would be on a tour bus.
When you add up the negatives, the cost, the limited range, the fact that it's awkward in many common situations, and it's going to make you look like a dork... I think that's one of the things that would tip the balance for me.
Of course I wouldn't even consider a segway, because the range and cargo capacity are not sufficient for a motor vehicle; and I prefer a bike for local motion.
I don't think anyone would have that thought process. However, if it was released initially without a pole and ridden sideways it would have been taken up by a young early adopter base who would have made it seem cool. People aren't immune from cultural effects, and for most people the thing the segway has over walking is being fun, cool and futuristic.
> In all honesty, for how many people do you think "how I look while riding it" is the single factor stopping them from buying a Segway?
Many people, especially those in the market for a new form of walking (people with serious dough), will spend money on impulse, not based on practical utility. Image is a huge selling point for most consumers, though they may not acknowledge it.
Image is a huge selling point for most consumers, though they may not acknowledge it.
Agreed. I mean, look at Macs. Granted, Macs have technical merit, but how many people who use Macs actually bought them for technical superiority and how many others bought them because Apple makes them look cool?
I think there is a select group of people for whom the Segway has a legitimate use--I'm thinking along the lines of people who have trouble walking long distances (say, more than 5-10 minutes). I've seen a lot of people using the Segway for this purpose.
But as a normal means of transportation? No. Price, need, rules for usage etc. are pretty big hindrances for purchase.
IIRC, Kamen was contractually prohibited from marketing the Segway as a health aid after selling the wheelchair with similar technology to J&J. One Segway dealer told me that a 3rd party retrofits them with seats for use by those who can't stand/walk for long periods but don't really need a wheelchair.
Those who say, "Well, you could use a bike, wheelchair, etc." don't understand the use case. A person who can't walk long distances might use it in the mall to go from store to store. Then, when he sees something he wanted to look at, he could get off and browse around for a few minutes. It's the walk from the parking lot to the shoe section at WalMart that gets them -- it's not the few minutes spent perusing the boots.
Actually, electric wheelchairs are superior for this purpose. People with mobility issues generally aren't going to want to stand for the 5-10 minutes. I've never ridden one, but if it requires core strength at all to lean-steer, then that rules it out for most people with disabilities.
Americans in the middle class and above aren't strangers to spending substantial amounts of money on stuff that they don't need. Segways are useful enough that I could imagine them gaining a substantial market share if it were fashionable to use one.
Now, that doesn't mean that they would catch on if they weren't dorky. But even at the outrageous price that they were marketed at, I think it's conceivable that they could -- I think they'd have similar chances to other potential fashions. So I actually think I agree with PG more than you. Price and insubstantial benefit are both major problems with the Segway (and frankly I'm being a little devil's advocate here, the price was ridiculous -- but cut it in half or so and I think it stops being prohibitive), but the aspect of Segway that made it impossible for the thing to succeed was its dorkiness.
It's not prohibitively expensive, most people can afford the $5.5K price tag. It's just that for 1/10th of the price, you can buy a bicycle that does the same exact job.
Dean Kamen has got to be one of the most arrogant engineers in the world (though obviously really talented too). You can't bring up why Seqway's were retarded without mentioning that personality.
I might also point out that the reason they failed so spectacularly was a ridiculous level of hype. "Revolutionize transportation" just doesn't fit a reconfigured motorized bicycle.
Having aggressively ridden one while towing a rollerblader with a bungee cord, I can say for sure the most successful marketing would have been as an entertainment and recreational vehicle. Then they'd be like ATVs, but permissible in urban areas. Also, you wouldn't compare the price to a bicycle (10X) but to an ATV (0.5X depending)
Dean may be arrogant, but I find it hard to fault him when his foundation of the FIRST robotics league for high schoolers has impacted my life so significantly. I participated in the 2006 year with my high school as a senior and now I'm working at a major commercial and government robotics company. His outreach to students through the FIRST organization is one of the best science technology activities for teenagers.
I am also a big fan of FIRST but think he has the problem of having had success early in life and therefore doesn't know his limitations. Take a look at the FIRST logo for instance - it sucks. And the name, FIRST robot competition, makes it difficult to explain to someone and impossible to brand: "What do you mean first robot competition, I have been hearing about robot competitions for years."
The Segway is a classic engineering failure, a solution in search of a problem. They developed the iBOT wheelchair:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBOT
and where looking for a way to sell a commercial version. I think the quote "medical device styling" is right on. If, instead of using his usual industrial design firm, he had given this to IDEO and had them pump out 20 different versions they might have had something.
Perhaps. He's not the only person involved with FIRST (probably not even the most important), and my praise has more to do with the actual event than the person. Honestly, when it comes down to it, I could care less about someone's personality. It's more about their actual achievements (of which he's had both hits and misses).
Except that Kamen has achieved something, while Wolfram has not achieved much. Kamen created new technology that helps people. What has Wolfram achieved in the last 30 years?
Well, I don't use Mathematica, so it does not help me. There are other computer algebra systems out there. There are substitutes. By contrast, Kamen created medical devices that help save lives (e.g., dialysis systems, insulin pumps, etc). I love software, but some problems can't be solved with software alone...
Though Wolfram started Mathematica, he has not been actively contributing to it for many years. So, while Mathematica has helped many mathematicians, the kudos go to Wolfram AND his programmers. As much as Wolfram loves to project the image of the lone-wolf genius (and fail to give credit to other people), the truth is that Mathematica is a huge team effort these days.
So, imagine that Mathematica had not been created. Mathematicians would be using other computer algebra systems. If Kamen had not invented his stuff, people would have died. They're playing entirely different games. Sure, Wolfram was a teenage genius that got his PhD in particle physics at Caltech at age 21 or so... but he needs to invent cold fusion (or something huge like that) to attain the fame and notoriety his ego demands.
Keep downvoting. I would appreciate if someone had the balls to stand up and say what is it that Wolfram has achieved. OK, he has a cool software company, but for a guy who wanted to revolutionize Physics, that's a meager accomplishment.
I can think of tens of Caltech alumni who accomplished much more than Wolfram, but who are less inclined to publicize themselves. Some examples:
- Arnold Beckman: invented the pH meter, founded Beckman Instruments, and funded tons of great research. Has two buildings at Caltech named after him.
- Linus Pauling: revolutionized Chemistry, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Won 2 Nobel prizes.
- Charles Townes: invented the maser, won the Nobel prize.
- Bill Shockley: co-invented the transistor, won the Nobel prize.
- Donald Knuth: invented TeX, wrote TAOCP.
- Gordon Moore: founded Intel, started the microprocessor revolution, changed the world.
- Irving Reed: made important contributions to the field of error-correcting codes.
- Carver Mead: revolutionized electronics, founded tons of companies. He's one of the greatest technologists of the last 50 years, and yet few people know of him.
- Bill Gross: started IdeaLab and founded tons of cool startups.
So.. what is it that Wolfram has achieved? His papers on Cellular Automata are cute, but not earth-shattering. ANKOS is a recreational book with more artistic value than scientific value. Mathematica is great, but we could do well without it as there are tons of other CAS'es out there. Alpha is still hype. For someone of such high intellectual caliber, Wolfram has not accomplished much indeed.
Feel free to downvote. Or, if you actually have anything insightful to say, go ahead and destroy my argument.
The best thing the Segway has contributed to society are the antics of Will Arnett's character, Gob, on Arrested Development. He showed just how dorky the Segway really is.
I put the Segway in the same category as the fanny pack. They both seem like they ought to be useful, but for the most part both are more trouble than they're worth in actual practice. Plus they offend our sense of aesthetics in hard to define ways.
Plus they offend our sense of aesthetics in hard to define ways.
Human beings probably have long-adapted evolutionary modules influencing which appearances of other human beings look cool and which look dorky. It's hard to fight human nature on such things.
The fanny pack enjoys some islets of popularity; for example, fixie-riding hipsters and ccw fans. I'd be surprised if they caught on among comedy/UFC fans, but it could happen.
I have a Segway (a black i2). I'm sure that people think I'm a dork, but that doesn't bother me. It's fun to ride, and it gets me to class on time, unlike the bus.
Graham's comments are dead-on, but don't let that stop you from getting one if you want. What other people think (especially the average man on the street) doesn't matter as long as you don't want anything from them.
It is just signaling, not design. The segway does emit a strong signal, which is why its design is hated...
Few people hate or love the design of the ford taurus, for example. And, few would call it great design or horrible design. It emits a weak signal.
I'd argue that if kamen changed the segway design it would just appeal to a different set of people, it wouldn't really be better. There is nothing wrong with the design. It is simple and without stupid frills.
It's not sensitive, it's intelligent. Fashion is a matter of presenting yourself in ways that display your best attributes. It's design that applies to the self.
Why are we allowed to critique a web site for having small type and a shitty font and bad colors, but we can't criticize people with poor fashion sense? They're one and the same. The fact that fashion is subject to marketing doesn't make it inherently worthless.
For once I can't disagree with a thing Paul said in this essay. When you ride a Segway, you look lazy. You're expending no muscle and you're not going particularly quickly. If you want to go faster, ride a bike, or jog. By riding a Segway you tell me you're too slobby to learn to job. That's not going to be the truth in all situations, but that's what it says nonetheless.
Why are we allowed to critique a web site for having small type and a shitty font and bad colors, but we can't criticize people with poor fashion sense? They're one and the same.
Because websites are there to be looked at, people who are just going about their lives are not. Websites with small type and bad colours are hard to read but supposed to be read, people's clothing has minor effects on their ability to do what they're doing in most cases. Websites don't have feelings, people do. Many websites are built by designers who ought to be good at design, there's no such expectation that us ordinary people would or should have such skills. Website type is about usability, fashion is about taste - which is subjective and individual. With a website it matters what experience the viewer has, with a person it matters what experience the person themselves has.
They're not one and the same, they're different in just about every respect I can think of.
Because websites are there to be looked at, people who are just going about their lives are not.
Whether your or my ideal includes it, a deft sense of social signalling is one of the precise things we humans are both (a) good at and (b) judgmental of. On the African savanna, it evolved as an incredibly useful and efficient tool for deciding if another human was friend or foe.
The trouble with the segway is that is isn't better than a bicycle. The 12.5 mph top speed of the segway feels slow to me when I'm on my bike. My range on a bike is also further than the segway and it also makes me healthier.
What the segway needs is to be made faster, you must go faster than 25 mph and it needs to compete better against bicycles and scooters.
I agree that the dork factor is working against the Segway, but I don't think it's the dominant factor in it's failure. If Segways were significantly better solutions to the problem of transportation in dense areas, ordinary people would have started to use them and the dork factor would have faded away.
In my view the biggest reason for the Segway's failure is that it's a product designed for an infrastructure that doesn't exist. Kamen and his team envisioned cities without cars when they were designing the Segway. Unfortunately all that's available are crowded sidewalks, making the Segway the most expensive way to move along at walking pace.
I agree on the infrastructure part. Still it does seem like we're moving in the direction they've envisioned. Some European countries are now closing some streets to car traffic and NYC recently closed sections around Times Square. The car culture is changing but it's going to take a while.
Even then though, I don't think the Segway will ever succeed in that market as currently designed. It is dorky. Problem is, I don't know what an alternative should look like. It feels like I'll know it when I see it.
Try this thought experiment and it becomes clear: imagine something that worked like the Segway, but that you rode with one foot in front of the other, like a skateboard. That wouldn't seem nearly as uncool.
So there may be a way to capture more of the market Segway hoped to reach: make a version that doesn't look so easy for the rider. It would also be helpful if the styling was in the tradition of skateboards or bicycles rather than medical devices."
There's such a thing as an "electric skateboard", Randall Munroe (creator of xkcd) is fond of them.
Sure the segway has it's issues (as does Dean Kamen) but that didn't stop him from amassing a cool billion + dollars so it seems he's doing something right.
The guy holds 100+ patents and instead of resting on his laurels he just keeps going. He certainly has my respect (for the work he did, that he got wealthy of it is secondary to me).
Anybody that would want to use a segway but doesn't because it makes them look smug has self confidence issues that the segway could never cure. If you need it and can afford it use it otherwise don't. Image doesn't enter in to the equation.
That's the same nonsense that top gear gets in to, cars for hairdressers and that sort of crap.
I know people that are never wrong. They also don't accomplish much, in fact they are so 'safe' I doubt they'll ever do something in the first place.
If you do a lot chances are that you'll be wrong plenty of times. Given the average score of hits:misses Dean Kamen is comfortably outperforming pretty much any poster on HN, on top of that he seems to be a half decent human being trying to solve problems that really matter. His success rate is only part of the picture. Sure he's got an ego and there seems to be a disconnect with respect to how some 'ordinary' people perceive his products. But I guess that once you reach that level you have to be a very balanced person not to let it get to you in some way.
There is some correlation between having a billion dollars in excess income and being out of touch.
The Segway features in Weird Al Yankovic's "White and Nerdy", lumped into the same category as doing vector calculus for fun, fluency in Klingon and wearing a pocket protector...
I disagree with the assertion that the reason people dislike Segways is because they make the rider look smug. I think it's because the people you see riding them ARE dorks. It's more of a guilt by association issue than anything.
I'm with pg. Take the recent movie with the mall cop. I only saw the trailer (I swear!) but a cop in uniform, even the rental version, isn't really dorky. But put him on a Segway and hilarity ensues!
Another thought experiment:
1) Cop on a horse
2) Cop on a motorcycle
3) Cop on a mountain bike
4) Cop on a Segway
I've ordered them, I think, from toughest to dorkiest. Maybe you could swap the horse and motorcycle (though horses are huge). But is there any doubt the Segway is in last place and by far?
Mmm, I think rental/mall cops are plenty dorky. They don't have guns, or for that matter any other tools to subdue perps, do they? That makes them pretty harmless in my eyes.
Throw some dubs or spinnas on those bad boys, and they'd still look like dorks.
Funny, personally I think that cars with spinners and huge rims looks quite a bit more dorky then Segways.
The big difference between the two is that the Segway never had a sufficiently counter-cultural fan base, and therefore had exactly the wrong sort of exclusivity.
Exactly--20" rims and spinners got popular because of the people who initially bought them. If you started seeing rappers riding Segways, things would be a bit different.
I'm pretty sure (from the background) that the photo is from the Segway tour in the distillery district in Toronto (Ontario,Canada)... and I've seen people on them that _don't_ look that dorky, but they do look touristy because there was a tour guide leading them around IIRC. They might have looked a bit smug too, but not just because they were on the Segway, I remember them being dressed sort of yuppie-like which is only contributed to the fact that they are on an expensive-looking vehicle. (I'm really pulling on my memory here, this was probably around 2006 or 2007 and I just happened to see them go by. Not necessarily something that is burned into my memory.)
I see tourists doing Segway tours all the time here in SF. Personally, I prefer the Go Car tour. Instead of having to wear a lime green vest for protection and tool around a few blocks, you get to ride in a GPS-navigated car. You can take it where ever you please as well, but I digress.
I would buy a Segway if it looked like something from Mad Max.
I hate to admit it, but pg is right. Even in a cooler design, in black, and wearing SWAT gear with machine guns etc, they still makes them look like dorks.
Maybe... if segways had become wildly popular, we wouldn't think so? Fashions do change perceptions (consider the 70's). But in this present reality, I think pg is right.
I'm fascinated by how few of you agree that it failed because it looks smug. It seems so obvious! People on Segways look like they feel entitled to coast around standing at a podium, a mobile soapbox. That's it, plain and simple. Price: irrelevant. Utility: irrelevant. Inspiring instinctual revulsion in onlookers: relevant. It's the vehicular embodiment of Comic Book Guy's voice.
Edit: This is probably why a lot of geeks have a blind spot here.
Edit2: And it's not the laziness or uncoolness of it that's the problem either. Take the goddam Hoverround -- if anything's worthy of scorn, it is. And yet it sells like crazy. No, the exact, specific problem with the Segway is you look like you're standing at a podium.
Too bad my YC application for a Segway-style skateboard startup got rejected :P
(It was probably my lousy application that sunk it, combined with the fact that my co-founder couldn't move to the Bay Area, combined with the difficulty in scaling a manufacturing enterprise at rates that would interest VC money).
...and make it about half the size, half the weight, and not homemade-looking. I still have some of the spares from that project (the original was stolen) that I'll try and put something together with soon.
Spot on. Kamen just needed to change the design a bit so it would look cool and fun to ride. Add a seat, make the rider lean into it, angle the handlebars, whatever.
The bottom line is you need to make the person look like they are "driving" and "riding" and not "being transported."
All they needed to do was the "teenager test" -- put it in front of a bunch of high school kids and see if they'd ride it in front of each other.
I think the current version would easily pass that test. I went to the Best Buy store in Palo Alto where you can demo one for free. The guy there told me that after hours they race it around the store and parking lot, etc. Customer demos are limited to "turtle mode" but it was still incredibly fun to ride.
I could see teenagers mocking it if they could't afford one (which most could not) but there is no doubt it's one of the most fun things I've ever ridden -- probably even more fun than skateboarding.
I think people are yelling insults because they know a Segway is a really expensive toy and they are jealous they can't blow that amount of money on something so frivolous.
I dislike the Segway because they're dangerous to pedestrians on sidewalks. On a sidewalk there are no rules. Want to toss your candy wrapper? Just head straight for the trash can over there. There are no lanes, though people generally keep to the right. Don't want to keep to the right? OK, walk on the left. We pedestrians are conditioned to listen for possible collisions (runners, faster walkers, bikes), but it's just not possible with the Segway. It's too quiet. Several times I've been very startled by a Segway brushing past me on the sidewalk, leaving feeling relieved that I didn't get hit. The only good thing about them is there are so few out there, that it's not a common problem. If there were a lot of them, there would be frequent collisions with pedestrians.
I would like to give a completely different reason why the Segway sucks.
Great public transit blows it out of the water.
Consider a trip to a city like Berlin and then travel from there to Munich, with lots of travel in the city. Renting a Segway isn't adequate because you commonly want to travel long distances. You also don't want to deal with theft, break downs, weather patterns, etc.
Now consider your habits in your local city - travel is prohibitive based on how far you can walk or with driving parking is commonly a problem.
Selling a bunch of expensive single person transportation units is solving the wrong problem. Making great public transit for cities solves transportation needs.
High quality public transportation plus bike sharing kiosks at every station and spread around nearby (i.e. a bunch of cheap single person transportation units) seems like the perfect transportation solution to me. Bikes extend the reach of the transit system by at least a mile, which would be a godsend given the lack of transit-supportive density in most American cities.
I meant paid bike sharing, like Velib. Despite JCDecaux's complaints, I think they're still making money off of it. From what I've read, their losses on the program are paid by the city after a certain point.
I'd like to respond to the last paragraph, which seems like the relevant point for a startup audience.
"It was too easy for them; they were too successful raising money. If they'd had to grow the company gradually, by iterating through several versions they sold to real users, they'd have learned pretty quickly that people looked stupid riding them."
This is less an issue of funding and more an issue of their belief that they would make a "new cool"/"paradigm shift"/"disruptive tech." Although this might often be correlated with funding, I think that's because funded disruptive technologies are the ones that make waves (heh). Segway was a company that had the balls to believe that cities would change shape for them; it seems ludicrous to think that looking silly (now) would pose much of a threat to their confidence, money or not.
So instead of pg's conclusion that it was the funding that inhibited them, I suggest it's the very nature of disruptive technologies. Some of these fail and we laugh about it; others actually change the fabric of modern life.
In fact, perhaps it's because they had such a big, outrageous dream that they captured the public imagination (and possibly funding). Outrageous propositions like "technology that changes the shape of industrialized cities" are the sort of black-swan-esque gamble that VCs seem to adore. (Nicholas Taleb's extremistan / pareto principle) Not to mention that it makes a great story for the media.
It isn't fair to compare people's reactions to a Segway/Segwell with their reactions to the Eunicycle, because the latter still hasn't worn off its novelty. People probably initially smiled when they saw the first Segways too. Given enough time and hype, people will insult you on the Eunicycle the same way.
The mall cops on segways with the helmets literally make me chuckle every time I see them. I feel they are only able to stop crimes by making thieves laugh endlessly.
For me, seeing a Segway always calls to mind the image of Martians in Bugs Bunny cartoons: http://www.guba.com/watch/2000901951. I tend to assume that is in the subconscious of a great many Americans and contributes to the fact that we find them so laughable.
At my university, the campus security used Segways. I imagine that they were able to cover ground more easily than on foot and it was easier to stop and talk to people than if they were on bicycles (referenced by another commenter). The campus was small enough that there wasn't much road access within.
They didn't look that dorky either, even with their helmets.
Contributing to the segway-smug/ridiculous factor is the fact that the segway is parodied in so many movies and television shows, most notably with JP in Grandma's Boy or in other movies like Paul Bart: Mall Cop. It's such an odd looking mode of transportation that it's easy to use it as some ridiculous prop.
Considering the insult, may be the car driver is just a "flag waving, war loving, homophobic, yellow-ribbon-on-gas-guzzling-SUV, 'patriot'" angry at someone they consider to be a "latte sipping, tree hugging, segway riding, book reading, weed smoking, 'unamerican' atheist elitist hippie".
There is a market for the Segway, its just not the one they assumed it would be. Thats very common. They assumed consumers would want one - in fact police like them. Smaller market, raised too much money. Lesson there some place: , insufficient early customer contact.
Smugness can be a factor, but there is this general goofiness about the Segway. Whenever I see a Segway tour downtown (OMG its a Segway-gang! Run for your lives!) or someone "walking" their dog with a Segway in my neighborhood, I can't help but start snickering.
Walking your dog on a Segway sounds ultra dorky, but I've seen Segway tours go by and they didn't look too dorky to me. Though I have a co-worker that uses a combo of Segway and transit to commute; it looks a little dorky.
Was going to downmod, but instead I'll reply: a friend of mind died riding a scooter from one driveway to the next at very low speed. A helmet (we had helmet laws) would have saved him. I'm trying to get my kids to understand this when they ride their bikes.
The Segways with the treaded 'off-road' wheels look so awkward as to be laughable. I'm just picturing some guy with huge biceps and tattoos riding the thing talking about how he goes 'off-roading' on his Segway. And it just makes me chuckle.
Would it be possible to have Paul's essays auto added here, and a link here from the essay? Would mak it feel more like what it is, his comment section.
Difference is people in cars are going places that are too far to walk. The perception is that any place you'd go on a segway you'd be able to walk to as well. For the hassle of parking and plugging it in, I'd certainly choose walking over the segway.
Really? I frequently walk home from work - just over 2.5mi. If I wanted to get all superior, I can proclaim that anyone driving for a trip less than 2 miles is lazy, but who am I to judge?
"walking distance" varies for everyone, and I know plenty of people who get in cars to go to the corner store.
I get way less than I used to, but people have gotten used to seeing me. When there are insults, it's usually high school age boys screaming out the car window as they drive by. "Faggot!" "Mall cop!" "Walk, you lazy bastard!"
Funny: they never do it when their cars are stopped.
Can somebody please tell me why this was downmodded? I think inquiry regarding natural language is pretty normal. I've waited patiently until this was off the front page, so it's definitely not all about attention-seeking. I am truly curious.
"I think it's coming along," said Tim, "though we expect—" "I think it sucks!" said Jobs.
His vehemence made Tim pause. "Why?" he asked, a bit stiffly.
"It just does. [...] Its shape is not innovative, it's not elegant, it doesn't feel anthropomorphic."
This is from "Code Name Ginger: The Story Behind Segway and Dean Kamen's Quest to Invent a New World". The chapter with the meeting with Jobs is available here:
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/3533.html