Dot-com Boom's Biggest Duds, From Flooz to iSmell

Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "WSJ.com looks back on some of the boom's biggest busts, and catches up with once-optimistic inventors. A creator of the unfortunately named iSmell, a USB device meant to 'print' smells transmitted by websites or videogames, says, 'It was a heartbreaking experience, because we had put so much into it.' The digital currency known as Flooz crashed and burned when a ring of thieves defrauded the company out of $300,000 using stolen credit cards. Microsoft flushed iLoo down the crapper. CueCat, meanwhile, got a second life as a bar-code reader that doesn't pick up personal information. 'The cat got butchered, but it has spawned a cottage industry,' says the device's inventor."

CueCat

[jeeperscats]

so how many people had like 45 of those things?

PointCast

[LoadStar]

I actually miss PointCast, particularly the screensaver featuring live data that was pushed to it. Most of the other features of PointCast are easily found in any number of RSS readers these days... but I have yet to find an RSS screensaver as functional as the PointCast screensaver.

PointCast was just ahead of it's time... it really needed the always-on high speed home connections that only really became widespread years after it went under.

Biggest Internet loser ever? Easy.

[mbkennel]

Time Warner. They bought AOL and never looked forward since.

Re:Kozmo.com

[iocat]

Kozmo was profitable exactly where you think it would be (dense cities like NYC, Boston and SF). They tried to expand, too fast, to places that were too spread out (LA, Houston, etc). It was a rad service while it lasted, though.

Re:Also

[R3d M3rcury]

"Reminds me of when I could order groceries online, but that was cancelled due to the lack of popularity."

At least here in Southern California, you still can. Albertson's still will deliver groceries. But the "Amazons of the Grocery Business" (like WebVan) are long gone.

Re:Nostalgia, Anyone?

[DerekLyons]

The simple fact of the matter is shipping costs are nothing compared to the overhead of rent (or construction + property tax), utilities, cashiers and sales reps and customer service reps (who can't be outsourced, unlike online stores' reps), uniforms for the reps, general upkeep and maintenance, etc.

Here in the real world, online companies have to pay rent (or construction + property tax) and utilities - they don't operate out of the back of a pickup truck. (And those premises require upkeep and maintenance too.)

They don't have to pay cashiers - but they do have to pay pickers and packers. (In fact their costs are *higher*, because they have to pay for support as well as pickers and packers - where a B&M store can (and does) pay use it's cashier for all three.) Their costs for packing materials are higher too - but they pass that right on to you.

One of the great myths that emerged out of the dot bomb era is that somehow online stores have 'no overhead' as compared to B&M store.

How Amazon et al win out over the B&M stores is volume from a single facility and from placing that facility where they can pay the least taxes and wages. (The last being a luxury that B&M stores don't have.) They can also automate and thus reduce labor costs. Generally, they handle the product less than a B&M store which also reduces labor costs even sans automation.

Yet another item for the list...

[starX]

Lists of dotcom era flops. How many times will this issue come up in every major publication? It's kind of like "I love the (variable decade)" on VH1; the occaisional trip down memory lane is enjoyable, but it seems like we have another one of these every few months. Is there some sort of underlying psychological problem whereby we have to convince ourselves that these ideas were bad? It's kind of like we're all trying to convince ourselves that we're better off, despite the economic down turn, because we don't have as many silly ideas kicking around.