Stock Bull, I agree with you that consortiums don't always work out, but you had sited lack of money, marketing ability, and lack of OEM inclusion as the major reasons for the failure. I find it hard to believe that these companies don't have any money, are unable to market, and can't put the devices in their own machines. It seems more like a choice that they have made, possibly following in the footsteps of IOM's previous success.
The differences being, Zip originally filled a void in the market--low-cost, removable, easily-accessible, high-capacity storage. Zip drives were significantly better and/or cheaper than any other option. I recall being excited when I saw a little story in USA today several years ago about the Zip drive, but I don't think LS-120 or the Syquest entries stirred up much emotion. Previously Syquest drives and Magneto Optical devices were available, but the price of the drives, media, and sometimes both put these formats out of reach of the majority of the now targeted market. LS-120 is too late to fill a void, and must now be relegated to the role of competitor as opposed to innovator.
Presently, I'd have to say the Superdisk is a failure. Do you believe otherwise?
later
Chucky |
