A system allowing to travel LA to SF in 30 minutes, without the hassle involved with air travel, WOULD be revolutionary, regardless of how good or bad is the marketing department of its company.
http://www.paulgraham.com/segway.html
No one predicted this would be the problem, and indeed most people still haven't come to Graham's conclusion. In that sense, concrete metrics are irrelevant. The hyperloop is just as likely a priori to have some sort of similar fatal flaw. This is the problem with getting too excited about any new particular device; there's too much that can go wrong between zero and revolutionary.
Doerr has been equally bullish about Google Glass. Still, Glass is fast developing a stigma, and it’s not even on the market yet: It’s been called a “Segway for your face.” [1]
[1] http://pandodaily.com/2013/05/23/john-doerr-doesnt-think-goo...
> But when he rides the Segwell, they shout abuse from their cars: "Too lazy to walk, ya fuckin homo?"
> Why do Segways provoke this reaction? The reason you look like a dork riding a Segway is that you look smug. You don't seem to be working hard enough.
What is wrong with people?
Where do they travel in European cities? Bicycle paths?
Regarding seeing them being used by tourists etc. I imagine the prohibition exists when framed in 'this will change everything - everyone will have one!' context, which is different from the reality of 'these are actually rubbish - almost nobody wants one'.
The first mobile phone users looked like smug jerks and show offs as well (What, are you too lazy to walk to a wired phone ? Are you so important that people must be able to contact you at any time ?) , yet the functionality offered was so useful that in the end everybody followed suit.
While I'd love a Segway, it's usefulness is much less than my cellphone to me. Maybe if cities had been redesigned around it, things would be different
For me, the appeal is that I live a 20 minute walk from the train station I use for my commutes. A lot of the time I don't mind that walk, or I take the bus. I don't have a car. A Segway would make the bus uninteresting except in really bad weather - it'd be about as fast and not tie me to the bus schedule. It'd also make dragging shopping around easier.
But those are slight conveniences, and conveniences that are even less of a deal for someone with a car (who'd just drive their shopping home), and that has become less important as time has passed: These days I have a shortcut to a countdown display for my local bus stops on my phone, so while I sometimes have to wait, when leaving home I can wait in my living room and walk out just in time for the bus, and when returning I always know if it's worth waiting for the bus or starting to walk or flag down a taxi. And we get the shopping delivered to our door step, in a one hour time slot every week, and if we forget to order, they automatically put together an order that is ok based on our usual order pattern, so grocery shopping is totally off my radar.
I still think it'd be great if Segway's get to the point where they become accepted, and maybe they still can (around London, there's tons of people on silly looking kick scooters, some of which are motorized, so clearly some people are prepared for alternatives...).
But they'd first become revolutionary if they reach a sufficient level of use displacing cars that it'd change city cores, and that, I'm afraid would take a miracle or a lot of time.
This just isn't true. The reason that Americans give up cycling as they get older is because it's inconvenient. Plenty of cities in other countries make cycling convenient, so a lot more people do it. Sure, there's a substantial portion of the population (15-20%?) who aren't physically capable of cycling, but that doesn't mean that getting closer to 40% of people commuting on bikes like Amsterdam does is impossible.
https://secure.flickr.com/photos/16nine/sets/721576183922194...