菲爾·愛德華茲 李小雪

In 1879， Henry Morton， a leading scientific mind and president of the Stevens Institute of Technology， called one man’s tinkering a “conspicuous failure.” The man was Thomas Edison. The invention was the light bulb.

That was obviously wrong， and the light bulb turned out to be a solid invention. But Morton’s statement was also revealing. Sometimes it’s genuinely difficult to know whether new inventions will be duds or hits. Who knows—maybe our grandkids will come to love Google Glass， Segways， and Dippin’ Dots.

Morton’s pronouncement shows just how hard it is to predict the future. In his case， he didn’t doubt that Edison’s lightbulb was useful. His main objection was that there was no way to carry electricity long distances and get light bulbs in every home （even Edison couldn’t figure that out on his own）. Forecasting the fate of a new invention often means forecasting broad social and technological changes—and that’s incredibly hard.

With that in mind， here’s a look at seven other important inventions—from the bicycle to nail polish to the answering machine—that had their doubters early on. There’s a lot to learn from wrong predictions：

Bicycles： “The popularity of the wheel is doomed”

Today， we think of bikes as a major source of transportation， but they started out as a trendy fashion statement. That’s why some critics were skeptical that they’d stick around （spoiler： they did）.

Bikes had a rapid rise： on August 20， 1890， The Washington Post called bicycling a hot fad for fancy ladies and not just for the “bleached-haired， music-hall type” anymore （read： hipsters）. The craze was driven by improved technology， as big-wheeled bikes became closer to the ones we use today. The bicycle’s growth was so rapid that on February 29， 1896， The Washington Post called bicycling the national sport.

But then the fad faded. On August 17， 1902， the Post called bicycling a passing fancy， and experts declared “the popularity of the wheel is doomed.” Critics thought bikes were unsafe， impossible to improve， and ultimately impractical for everyday use. On December 31， 1906， The New York Sun rendered its verdict： “As a fad cycling is dead， and few individuals now ride for all the good they claim to see in the pastime when it was fashion.”

The Sun turned out to be wrong. Over the years， bikes acquired better tires， and sturdier frame. America’s roads also got smoother. That made bicycles an increasingly practical option—and not just a passing fad.

Automobiles： “The prices will never be sufficiently low”

In 1902， The New York Times called the automobile impractical —and they had a few good reasons why. In the wake of the bike fad of the 1890s， reporters and analysts were wary of the “next big thing” in transportation. As one critic put it：

Automobiling is following the history of cycling with such remarkable closeness in almost every detail， both as a sport and an industry， that the question is often asked if the present period of expansion will be followed by a collapse as complete and as disastrous as was that of the cycling boom of a few short years ago.

The Times complained that the price of cars “will never be sufficiently low to make them as widely popular as were bicycles.” It didn’t help that some of the early proposals for an auto-centric transportation system were outlandish. In 1902， The Steel Roads Committee of the Automobile Club of America was angling for a steel highway system. Bizarre proposals like that made it harder to believe the car would ever make it big.

But it did. Once Henry Ford perfected the mass production of automobiles， the price came down and cars took off， eventually becoming the dominant form of transportation.

Liquid nail polish was a “strange and unique fad”

In 1917， Cutex invented the closest thing to modern mass-market liquid nail polish. But it took a while for nail polish to hit the mainstream. In 1927， The New York Times reported on it as a “London fad，” and the year before， writer Viola Paris took to the pages of Vogue to assess the new invention. “There seems to be some doubt，” she wrote， “in the minds of a great many women as to whether nail polish is in any way harmful or， at least， not so good for the nails as the powder or paste polish.”

As late as March 31， 1932， the Atlanta Daily World questioned how long colored fingernails could possibly stick around. “Dame fashion， whimsical and wayward as the wind，” the paper snarked， “has so many strange and unique fads that her latest vagary， that of tinting the fingernails... has become quite popular.”

Ultimately， nail polish wasn’t just a passing fancy. Better manufacturing processes， a new age of mass marketing， and clear advantages over powders and pastes helped it stick around.? ? ? ? ? ?■

Talkies： “Talking doesn’t belong in pictures”

In 1928， Joseph Schenck， President of United Artists， seemed confident about one thing： talking pictures were a fad.

He told the New York Times that “talking doesn’t belong in pictures.” Though he conceded that sound effects could be useful， he felt that dialogue was overrated. “I don’t think people will want talking pictures long，” he said， and he wasn’t alone.

In 1967， actress Mary Astor recalled the mood when the silent era drew to a close. She wrote， “The Jazz Singer was considered a box-office freak，” and that talkies were “a box-office gimmick.” In an early talkie screening， she and her colleagues thought “the noise would simply drive audiences from the theaters... we were in an entirely different medium.”

In the end， however， talkies proved out to be more compelling than the old mediums. Audiences adjusted， audio-recording technology improved， and a new generation of Hollywood bigwigs embraced dialogue.

Cheeseburgers： “Typical of California”

Most sources credit Lionel Sternberger with inventing the cheeseburger in 1934， though there’s a lot of debate. Regardless of who came up with it， the notion of beef and cheese was initially regarded as a crazy California novelty rather than as a revelation.

The first time the New York Times wrote about cheeseburgers in 1938， they ranked the burgers as a Californian eccentricity， putting them third in a list along with nutburgers， porkburgers， and turkeyburgers. In 1947， a Times writer actually deigned to try a cheeseburger， albeit skeptically：

At first， the combination of beef with cheese and tomatoes， which are sometimes used， may seem bizarre. If you reflect a bit， you’ll understand that the combination is sound gastronomically.

In the end， plenty of people agreed that the cheeseburger was “sound gastronomically.” And once fast food chains—like McDonald’s—included it on their menus， it was guaranteed a place on the American plate.

Answering machines： “In the beginning， it was pure yuppie.”

It didn’t take long for people to see how answering machines could be useful. But when they were first introduced， it seemed like the telephone companies would squash them in favor of their own hardware and services.

In 1973， a story about the bourgeoning voicemail phenomenon noted that answering machines weren’t even allowed in most homes. Robert Howard， a spokesman for the New York Telephone Company， claimed that illegally installed machines posed a hazard to line repairmen. Since the 1940s， most companies had banned them， and AT&T said “there is no need for the device.”

Even once answering machines moved from quasi-legal purgatory in 1975， thanks to an FCC decision， the devices were still seen as a niche yuppie annoyance. That might be why it took until 1991 for the New York Times to reluctantly accept answering machines with a telling headline： “For Yuppies， Now Plain Folks Too.”

The answering machine made it big because technology， laws， and telephone culture changed. Answering-machine technology became easier to manage and answering services faded away.

Laptops： “Was the laptop dream an illusion？”

In 1985， the New York Times report-

ed on the tragic demise of a once promising trend—laptops， the newspaper said， were on their way out. From now on， airplane tray tables would hold beers and cocktails instead of computers.

The Times doubted the potential of laptop technology， and with good reason： they were heavy， pricey， and had poor battery life， all of which made it hard to imagine them becoming mainstream.

It was a reasonable complaint， but short-sighted：

The limitations come from what people actually do with computers， as opposed to what the marketers expect them to do. On the whole， people don’t want to lug a computer with them to the beach or on a train to while away hours they would rather spend reading the sports or business section of the newspaper. Somehow， the microcomputer industry has assumed that everyone would love to have a keyboard grafted on as an extension of their fingers. It just is not so.

Laptops took a few more years to become practical， but technology improved enough that the laptop became lighter， more durable， and easier to use.

1879年，史蒂文斯理工學(xué)院的首席科學(xué)家兼院長亨利·莫頓稱一名男子的忙活根本就是“徒勞無功”。這名男子是托馬斯·愛迪生，而這項發(fā)明是燈泡。

莫頓那么說顯然不對。最終證明，燈泡是一項卓越的發(fā)明。但是他的言論也揭示了一個道理：有時，真的很難斷定新發(fā)明會百無一用，還是會風(fēng)行一時。誰知道呢？也許我們的孫輩會愛上谷歌眼鏡、賽格威電動平衡車和得意點液氮冰激凌。

莫頓的聲明還告訴我們，未來多么的難以預(yù)測。就他而言，他并不是懷疑愛迪生的燈泡是否有用，他主要是覺得遠(yuǎn)距離輸電不可行，電燈無法普及到戶，所以才加以反對。即便是愛迪生也不可能獨立解決這個問題。預(yù)測一項新發(fā)明的命運常常意味著要預(yù)見廣泛的社會和技術(shù)變革，這的確難于上青天。

明白了這一點，我們不妨一起看看起初也曾遭人質(zhì)疑的其他七項重要發(fā)：自行車、指甲油、答錄機等。錯誤的預(yù)測中也有頗多可以學(xué)習(xí)之處。

自行車：“輪子注定風(fēng)頭不再”

如今我們把自行車當(dāng)作重要的交通工具，而在其誕生初期，自行車是新潮時尚的代名詞。也正因如此，有些批評者懷疑它們能否長久流行下去（打臉：它們的確長存?。?。

自行車可謂是一朝崛起：1890年8月20日，《華盛頓郵報》稱自行車不只是“染白頭發(fā)的雜耍人員”（即嬉皮士）的專用品，也是時髦女郎的心頭愛。當(dāng)時的技術(shù)取得了進展，使大輪自行車更加接近我們現(xiàn)在所騎的自行車，因而引發(fā)了這陣風(fēng)潮。自行車的數(shù)量一路飆漲，到了1896年2月29日，《華盛頓郵報》稱騎自行車已為全民運動。

但接著這股狂熱就退卻了。1902年8月17日，《郵報》稱騎自行車已經(jīng)過時，專家們也宣稱“輪子注定風(fēng)頭不再”。批評者認(rèn)為自行車不安全、沒有改進空間，因而終究不適用于日常出行。1906年12月31日，《紐約太陽報》提交了對自行車的宣判：“自行車只是曇花一現(xiàn)，今已消亡。流行騎自行車的時候，很多人聲稱作為消遣自行車有種種好處，但現(xiàn)在，他們當(dāng)中也很少有人騎了?！?/p>

最終證明，《紐約太陽報》錯了。數(shù)年后，自行車的輪胎越發(fā)厚實，車架越發(fā)堅固，美國的道路也越發(fā)平坦。因此，自行車日益成為實用的出行工具，并非曇花一現(xiàn)。

汽車：“價格永遠(yuǎn)不會親民”

1902年，《紐約時報》稱汽車不實用——他們的確言之有理。19世紀(jì)90年代自行車的風(fēng)潮過后，記者和分析家們就很警惕交通界的“下一個寵兒”。正如一位批評家所言：

汽車緊跟自行車的步伐，不論是作為一項運動，還是一個產(chǎn)業(yè)，兩者幾乎在各個方面都驚人地相似，所以總有人懷疑，汽車是否會重蹈幾年前自行車的覆轍，此時雖是風(fēng)風(fēng)火火，彼時卻落得轟然倒塌、一敗涂地的下場。

《紐約時報》還發(fā)牢騷，說汽車的價格“永遠(yuǎn)不會降至親民，讓其像自行車那樣普及民眾”。早期有人提議建立以汽車為中心的交通體系，這些提議當(dāng)時被認(rèn)為實屬荒誕，毫無助益。1902年，美國汽車俱樂部鋼鐵公路委員會還謀求建立一條鋼鐵公路系統(tǒng)。類似的離奇提議使人們更難相信汽車會做大。

但汽車確實做大了。亨利·福特剛一完善汽車的批量生產(chǎn)線，價格便急轉(zhuǎn)直下，汽車隨之流行起來，最終成為了主要的交通工具。

指甲油是一陣“古怪而獨特的潮流”

1917年，蔻丹公司發(fā)明了最接近現(xiàn)代大眾化指甲油的東西。但是過了一段時間，指甲油才成為主流。1927年，《紐約時報》報道了指甲油，稱之為一股“倫敦潮流”。而1926年，作家薇奧拉·帕里斯就在Vogue雜志上用了幾頁篇幅來評估這項新發(fā)明。她寫道：“很多女性心目中似乎有些疑惑，指甲油是否對人體有害？或者至少它不如指甲粉或指甲膏對指甲益處大吧？”

遲至1932年3月31日，《亞特蘭大世界日報》發(fā)出質(zhì)疑，涂色的指甲還能挺多久？該報出言不遜，稱“女性時尚，如風(fēng)一樣突如其來、任性難測，不乏種種古怪而獨特的潮流。最近一次突發(fā)奇想則是給指甲染色，現(xiàn)已蔚然成風(fēng)?！?/p>

指甲油終究不只是一時的潮流。生產(chǎn)程序的改良，大眾市場時代的來臨，以及它相對指甲粉和指甲膏的顯著優(yōu)勢，都促使它一路堅挺。? ? ? ? ? ? ? □

（未完待續(xù)）

有聲電影：“有聲對白不屬于電影”

1928年，藝術(shù)家聯(lián)合會的主席約瑟夫·申克似乎對一件事情把握十足：有聲電影只會風(fēng)光一時。

他對《紐約時報》說：“有聲對白不屬于電影”。雖然他也承認(rèn)音效頗有用處，但他覺得對白被高估了。他說：“我覺得人們不會喜歡有聲電影太久。”這種想法在當(dāng)時并不罕見。

1967年，女演員瑪麗·阿斯特回憶了默片時代落幕之際的氛圍。她寫道：“《爵士歌王》被視為一部賣座怪片”，有聲電影被看作是“票房噱頭”。在早期的一部有聲電影上映時，她和同事們都認(rèn)為“噪音肯定會把觀眾從劇院嚇跑……我們處于一種完全不同的媒介中。”

然而，事實最終證明，有聲電影比舊的媒介更引人入勝。觀眾適應(yīng)了有聲對白，音頻錄制技術(shù)取得了進步，新一代的好萊塢大亨們也紛紛擁抱了有聲電影。

奶酪漢堡：“典型的加利福尼亞怪味”

雖然爭議不斷，大多數(shù)資料都將1934年奶酪漢堡的發(fā)明歸功于萊昂內(nèi)爾·斯滕伯格。不論是誰想到了這個主意，剛開始的時候，人們都認(rèn)為把牛肉和奶酪搭在一起是個瘋狂的點子，是一種故作新奇的加利福尼亞吃法，而非別出心裁的美食。

1938年，《紐約時報》首次報道了奶酪漢堡，把它評定為一種加利福尼亞怪食，與堅果漢堡、豬肉漢堡、火雞漢堡一起上榜，位列第三。1947年，盡管疑惑，《時報》的一位作者還是親自嘗了嘗奶酪漢堡：

“如今牛肉、奶酪、番茄不時被搭在一起，乍一嘗，可能有些不同尋常。但稍作回味，就會發(fā)現(xiàn)它們其實只是看起來搭配合理而已?！?/p>

后來許多人也持相同的看法。可一旦像麥當(dāng)勞這樣的快餐連鎖把奶酪漢堡印上了菜單，它就在美國人的餐盤上牢牢占據(jù)了一席之地。

答錄機：“起初不過是雅皮士的玩意兒”

雖然答錄機的實用價值很快就為人們所認(rèn)知，但它在問世之初，似乎遭到了電話公司的打壓，因為這些公司更想推行自己的設(shè)備和服務(wù)。

1973年，一則關(guān)于語言信箱正蓬勃發(fā)展的報道指出，在大多數(shù)家庭里，是禁止安裝答錄機的。羅伯特·霍華德是紐約電話公司的一名發(fā)言人，他聲稱，非法安裝答錄機會給電話線維修人員造成安全隱患。其實自20世紀(jì)40年代以來，大多數(shù)公司都禁了答錄機。美國電話電報公司曾說“這種服務(wù)沒有市場?！?/p>

多虧了美國聯(lián)邦通信委員會的一項決議，答錄機于1975年擺脫了此前種種近乎合法的刁難，但它仍然被視為是少數(shù)雅皮士的玩意兒，不受待見。也許正因如此，一直等到1991年，《紐約時報》才不情愿地接受了答錄機，刊出了醒目的頭條：“雅皮士愛之，普通人亦然?！?/p>

答錄機的崛起源于技術(shù)、法律以及通信文化的變革。隨著答錄機技術(shù)變得更易操控，代接電話服務(wù)便逐漸消亡了。

便攜電腦：“便攜電腦只是虛空一夢？”

1985年，《紐約時報》報道說，曾經(jīng)前景大好、而今悲劇謝幕的新潮產(chǎn)品——便攜電腦正在走向窮途末路。從此以后，飛機上的小桌板將不會放置電腦，取而代之的是啤酒和雞尾酒。

《時報》質(zhì)疑便攜電腦的潛能，也算是有理有據(jù)：它們體型笨重、價格昂貴、電池不耐用。這些缺陷使得人們很難想象便攜電腦可以成為主流。

以下這份抱怨雖合理，但缺乏遠(yuǎn)見：

種種局限源于人們實際使用電腦所做的事情，而非營銷者期待它們能做的事情。總體而言，為了消遣起見，人們并不想拖著電腦去海灘或上火車，反倒更愿意閱讀報紙上的體育或商業(yè)版面。然而，微電腦行業(yè)卻料定每個人都會樂于擁有一個鍵盤，仿佛嫁接在他們的手指上，使其延長?？墒聦嵅⒉蝗缭?。

雖然便攜式電腦過了好幾年才臻于實用，但技術(shù)的突飛猛進使它們不僅更加輕便，也更持久易用。□