My Front-Row Seat (Part 2): The Indispensable Lessons from Innovation's Epic Fails

April 25, 2025 Wayne Saggers 0 Comments

In Part 1, we celebrated the incredible advancements and game-changing innovations I've witnessed over the last quarter-century. It's been a thrilling ride, watching technology reshape our world in ways previously confined to science fiction. But innovation isn't just a highlight reel of successes. For every breakthrough that sticks, there are countless ideas, products, and services that... well, didn't.

And that's not just okay; it's essential. Failure isn't the opposite of innovation; it's often a crucial, albeit sometimes painful, part of the process. It provides the data, the insights, and the humility needed to eventually get it right. From my front-row seat, I've seen some spectacular flame-outs, some quiet fizzles, and some ideas that were perhaps just ahead of their time (or behind the curve). Let's take a chronological walk through some notable innovation stumbles of the last 25 years and unpack the wisdom they offer – key takeaways crucial for anyone involved in bringing new ideas to life.

We were just emerging from the dot-com bubble's burst, but the belief in tech's power to change everything lingered. Whispers of a secret invention, codenamed "Ginger," built incredible hype. Steve Jobs reportedly said it could be bigger than the PC. It was expected to reshape cities and how we moved. In late 2001, the Segway Personal Transporter was unveiled.

The core idea was a revolutionary self-balancing, two-wheeled electric vehicle designed for easy, intuitive personal transport. A true piece of innovative engineering.

Its failure in the mass market stemmed from several factors. The reality couldn't match the astronomical hype. Its $5,000 launch price put it out of reach for most. Then came the practicalities: Where could you ride it legally? Sidewalks? Bike lanes? Roads? Regulations varied wildly and were often prohibitive. It was too slow for substantial commutes but often too bulky for crowded pedestrian areas. While technologically impressive, this product failure highlighted that it didn't solve a pressing, everyday problem for enough people to justify its cost and limitations.

The critical lesson learned here is the need to manage expectations – hype can be dangerous if the reality doesn't deliver overwhelmingly. Crucially, innovators must understand the practical, regulatory, and infrastructural barriers their creation faces. It's not enough to be clever; successful innovation needs to fit seamlessly and affordably into the existing world or provide such immense value that the world adapts around it. Segway eventually found its niche markets, but the transport revolution stalled.

High-definition televisions were finally becoming mainstream. Plasma and early LCD screens demanded content sharper than standard DVDs could deliver. The stage was set for the next generation of physical media, but the industry couldn't agree on a single standard, leading to a costly battle for dominance.

Two competing formats emerged: HD DVD, backed primarily by Toshiba and Microsoft, and Blu-ray, championed by Sony (and integrated into their powerful PlayStation 3 console) along with other major electronics firms. Both offered superior HD picture and sound, representing a clear technological step forward.

The reason this format failed was a classic, costly format war. Consumers hesitated, afraid of choosing the "wrong" side, remembering past battles like Betamax vs. VHS. While technically similar, Blu-ray
gained crucial momentum when key Hollywood studios, notably Warner Bros., exclusively backed it in early 2008. The PS3's success also functioned as a Trojan horse, placing millions of Blu-ray players into homes. HD DVD simply couldn't recover from this loss of content and hardware distribution momentum.

From this technology adoption battle, we learn that in struggles for technical standards, the ecosystem and key partnerships are often more decisive than marginal technical differences. Gaining support from content creators and having strong distribution channels created network effects that HD DVD couldn't overcome. Fragmentation confuses consumers and delays adoption; industry consensus, while difficult, often proves better for market growth.

Smartphones were ubiquitous, apps were booming, and the tech world was buzzing about the "next big thing" – wearables and augmented reality. Google, seen as the pinnacle of forward-thinking innovation, unveiled Google Glass in 2012/2013, generating massive excitement and significant public debate.

The concept involved a head-mounted display in the form of eyeglasses, offering hands-free access to information, notifications, camera, and communication via voice and touch. It felt like science fiction made real.

Despite the futuristic appeal, Glass stumbled hard as a consumer product. The $1500 "Explorer Edition" price was prohibitive for widespread adoption. Major privacy concerns erupted almost immediately – the potential for covert recording led to the derogatory term "Glassholes" and bans in some public places. It felt socially awkward and intrusive to many. Ultimately, the actual utility for the average user wasn't compelling enough to outweigh these significant social and cost barriers.

The powerful lesson from Google Glass is that technological feasibility does not equal market readiness or social acceptance. Innovators must proactively consider and address the ethical and social implications of their creations from the outset. Pushing boundaries requires bringing society along, not just fellow technologists. Without a clear, compelling value proposition that overcomes user friction (cost, privacy fears, social stigma), even boundary-pushing tech will struggle for consumer adoption.

The smartphone world was a clear duopoly. Apple's iOS and Google's Android reigned supreme, boasting strong ecosystems and loyal user bases. Amazon, dominating e-commerce and making inroads with Kindle devices, decided it was time to enter this challenging market with its own phone in 2014.

Amazon's idea was a smartphone tightly integrated with its vast ecosystem of services, featuring unique selling points like "Dynamic Perspective" (using cameras to create interface effects based on head position) and "Firefly" (a tool to identify products, music, movies using the camera).

This product failed primarily because the unique features were perceived largely as gimmicks that didn't significantly improve the user experience and sometimes hindered usability or battery life. The phone launched at a premium price, comparable to established iPhones and high-end Androids, but lacked their polish and, crucially, their vast app libraries (relying on Amazon's much smaller Appstore). Being initially locked to a single carrier (AT&T in the US) further limited its market appeal. It simply didn't offer a compelling enough reason for users entrenched in other ecosystems to switch.

The lesson learned for business strategy here is that breaking into a mature, ecosystem-driven market requires truly meaningful differentiation and value, not just technological novelty. Understanding the high switching costs for users is crucial. Core functionality, app availability, competitive pricing, and broad availability often matter far more than flashy but ultimately superficial innovations.

Silicon Valley was awash with venture capital. The Internet of Things (IoT) was hot, connecting everything from thermostats to fridges. The "wellness" industry was booming. Juicero launched in 2016, attempting to blend all these trends into one sleek package.

The product concept was a beautifully designed, Wi-Fi connected, initially $700 (later $400) countertop machine that used incredible force to squeeze juice from proprietary, subscription-based packets of pre-chopped fruits and vegetables. It was marketed for its convenience and ability to deliver a "perfect" press.

Its spectacular failure became legendary after Bloomberg News revealed in 2017 that the expensive, complicated machine was effectively redundant – you could squeeze the juice packets by hand and get nearly the same result. The machine was a monument to over-engineering, offering minimal real value over its manual (and free) alternative. It became an instant symbol of Silicon Valley tech solving non-existent problems, a true cautionary tale in product development.

The key takeaway from Juicero is the imperative to focus relentlessly on genuine customer value and avoid complexity for complexity's sake. Does your innovation solve a real problem in a way that justifies its cost and effort? Always question if the technology serves the core purpose or just adds unnecessary layers. Juicero is a hilarious but stark reminder to validate the fundamental need before building the Rolls-Royce solution.

The streaming wars were intense, featuring giants like Netflix and Disney+. Meanwhile, TikTok had exploded, proving the immense power of short-form mobile video. Backed by staggering funding ($1.75 billion!) and Hollywood heavyweights, Quibi launched in April 2020 with a novel concept designed for this landscape.

The idea behind Quibi was a mobile-only subscription service offering high-production-value, short-form content ("Quick Bites," under 10 minutes) featuring big stars, specifically designed to be watched on the go during moments like commuting.

Its rapid failure was driven by several factors, massively amplified by circumstance. Its launch coincided precisely with global COVID-19 lockdowns. Its target audience (commuters, people with downtime outside the home) vanished overnight, stuck indoors with large TV screens, making the mobile-only restriction feel pointless or frustrating. The content, despite its budget, struggled to find a clear identity or viral traction. Users couldn't easily share clips or screenshots, hindering word-of-mouth marketing. The subscription model also felt steep against free, highly engaging competitors like TikTok and YouTube. The platform shut down just six months after launch.

The stark lesson from Quibi is that context is king, and market timing can be brutal. Understanding how, where, and when your target audience consumes content or uses your product is vital. A business model needs to align with user expectations and the competitive landscape. Ignoring fundamental user behaviours (like wanting to watch on any screen or share content easily) can be fatal, even with massive funding and star power.

Looking back at these examples – and countless others – the lessons for innovators are clear. Innovation requires more than just a clever idea or advanced technology. It demands a deep understanding of the user, the market dynamics, the social context, the business model viability, and the real problem being solved.

The missteps are where the most valuable learning often happens in business and technology. They refine our understanding, expose flawed assumptions, and push us towards better, more viable solutions. So, while Part 1 celebrated the shiny successes, let's raise a glass (perhaps not a Google Glass) to the failures too. They are the unsung, sometimes comical, but always essential, teachers on the long road of innovation. They remind us to stay humble, stay curious, and importantly, to keep learning from failure.

Tell us about any catastrophic failures that you've learnt valuable lessons from in the comments below