Scooter this, buddy.

[chipotle]

Back when the Segway HT--a/k/a "Ginger" and "IT," the two-wheeled scooterish thing--was first revealed, I found myself defending it against a lot of people making incessant, often ill-informed jokes and derisive comments. It reached a point of high irritation, I think, because so many of my friends and acquaintances are sf/fantasy fans who often tend to be more starry-eyed than I, yet when something real came along, by and large they weren't willing to even give it the benefit of the doubt.

Well, poking around a bit just now led me to two articles about the Segway from Dan Bricklin. The opening paragraph of the first article, written before Bricklin had gotten to use a Segway hands on, begins:

Make sure you understand disruptive technologies. Their first incarnations often seem like toys compared to existing technologies. The Segway embodies lots of disruptive technologies. I'm pretty familiar with a previous one: The combination of electronic spreadsheet and the personal computer. The combination was first viewed as a toy compared to "real" computers and financial forecasting tools. It only sold about 10,000 copies in the first 10 months and was barely mentioned in the business press for a couple of years.

Bricklin is understating things a bit when he says he's pretty familiar with spreadsheets--he wrote VisiCalc. If you're interested in the Segway, whether as fan, skeptic or just someone who likes to think about the future, read both of Dan's articles.

Comments

Re: Disruptive technology...

[dajagr.livejournal.com]

Okay, that's what I get for relying on secondary hype; I didn't know where the primary hype came from.

I agree with you that "How will this benefit me right now" isn't the question that the current release is designed to answer; the problem is that that's the question a lot of the detractors want it to. They're saying, "Disruptive technology? Pfeh, I'm not disrupted." They were expecting *poof* and the world changes--and there was no *poof*. It's not designed to foment an immediate revolution, though; it's the first step in a longer road, and people are more fixed on the ultimate destination than on the road that's between here and that destination.

I think the "not radical enough" and "won't modify cities" critiques are actually complementary: the idea is that, if they were truly radical enough (whatever that means quantitatively), that cities would restructure themselves to allow people to take maximum advantage of the Segway. The reality is, though, that the redesign envisioned is a gradual one.

I think a lot of people are expecting a this as a disruptive technology, gradual or not, to become a permeating one--to have cities and lifestyles designed around the Segway in the way that they're now designed around the car. The block that some are seeing is that the two designs are, to an extent, incompatible, and they don't see people giving up the tried-and-tested car for this newcomer that has several perceived disadvantages (some of which are related to the current car mentality and are more differences than disadvantages).