Talk:Vaporware

Command and Conquer Belongs Here

Please stop removing my entry on Command and Conquer. If you bother to research the patches cited, you will discover that indeed they were promised but have failed to materialize after often years without being mentioned by the developers despite inquiry by interested parties. This entry belongs exactly where it is.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.135.85 (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the entry is that it is not neutral and the entry has no sources at all. For example you have stated "EA Games is famous for their announcement of Vaporware Patches which never materialize" yet you haven't given a single reliable source for its "famous" reputation. If it is as famous as you claim it to be then a source should be easy to find.--Sin Harvest (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be BOLD and assume you agree with the points I have made if you still do not make a reply by tomorrow. --Sin Harvest (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Source added.

older entries

Hello, I have added the 'confusing' cleanup tag as I have been using computers and have had a deep interest in how they work (i.e. learning how to program in various languages and keeping up with various GPL software and building my own computers rather than just typing the odd letter) for approx 17 years and I really don't understand what this article is all about. The way it is laid out is as if people are trying to add to a list the most recent or the most unique example of vapourware they can find in order to prove they are the only person who was clever enough to find that particular example. I believe this alienates the reader and doesn;t rally provide an explanation. What hope does average joe wikipedian hsve? Pigeonshouse 19:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Is Vaporware really a type of software distribution? That whole template at the bottom seems to be more about "Words ending in -Ware" Ayumbhara

---

A recent edit makes minor corrections in a sentence which I question altogether. The article says "A widely cited example of this is Microsoft's strategy in Windows 95 against IBM's OS/2." How was this vaporware?

It has been widely asserted (and I happen to believe it to be true) that Microsoft executed what was called a "head-fake" in connection with OS/2 and Windows 3.0 (not Windows 95). That is, publicly they told the press—and also told developers in at least some meetings—that OS/2, which they were jointly developing with IBM, was the OS which developers should be targeting, the future of GUIs on the PC, etc. When Windows 3.0 came out, Microsoft seemed to be giving it far more attention and promotion than expected. Developers were caught unprepared. At least some major developers had targeted major efforts toward OS/2 and were not ready for the emergence and mainstream success of Windows 3.0. Microsoft, in particular, was ready with Excel when Windows 3.0 launched, while Lotus's release of 1-2-3 was greatly delayed.

This was, however, the exact opposite of vaporware. Windows 3.0 existed and so did OS/2. Furthermore, OS/2 was shipping, and, if I remember correctly, was up to at least version 1.2 when Windows 3.0 was announced (it was established and modestly successful, not embryonic or easily killed). And neither Windows 3.0 nor Windows 95 was vaporware. Windows 95 shipped in, IIRC, 1995—late 1995 but 1995.

The deception, if there was a deception, on Microsoft's part was to minimize the importance of Windows 3.0 in order to secure a headstart for their own application development for the system.

Anyway, if nobody gives a rationale as to why "Microsoft's strategy in Windows 95 against IBM's OS/2" was an example of vaporware, I think I'm going to remove that sentence.

Comments and discussions welcome. Dpbsmith 11:36, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Perhaps a "List of vaporware" reference table article might supplement this one? -- LGagnon

---

I don't know if the recent addition of the Phantom console should count. Many people suspect it of being vaporware, but in all fairness we should wait until it is proven to be such. -- LGagnon

Good point. But I think that the definition should be changed, because the article seems to be contradictory. The definition says "never emerges", but then the article talks about "may actually materialize after a long waiting time". I think it should be safe to say that a product is vaporware if it is considered to be such by the market. Consider Wired News' Vaporware Awards (which should be covered in more details, by the way). Vox populi vox dei - if people thought Win2k and OS X were vaporware, weren't they? Ditto for, say, Half-Life 2 (top vaporware in 2003) and Phantom (number 3 in 2003). The fact that they may be released doesn't change the fact that they were vaporware at certain stage.

If that's the case, a lot of software and hardware could be considered vaporware. There are tons of pieces of software and hardware that are believed at first to never see a release. With that much to consider, we'd have too much to mention to be fair, and it would just look rediculous eventually. It's best that we just concentrate on what was never released for the sake of fairness and not going overboard with a list of could-have-beens. -- LGagnon

Again, that makes sense, but you can't prove a negative. If we stick to the letter of the existing definition, we may not include any product, unless the company developing it goes under, their office is demolished, all blueprints and prototypes burned and all the personnel executed. Otherwise, there is always a chance the product will see the light of the day.

I think a better solution would be to admit that there are two definitions - one strict (as defined now), another more commonly used and describing the product, which as presented to the public is mostly vapor. This second definition is clearly used when people talk about DNF and in Wired News' Vaporwire Awards. By this definition we can call DNF vaporware, because as of today there are still no solid proofs that the game actually exists. Phantom was rightly called vaporware, because it was a known risky concept and only a few mock ups were ever shown (until the release). The fact that Phantom was finally released and DNF might very well be released this year or next does not make them not vaporware. It just makes them vaporware finally realised as a real product.

We really need another definition, because otherwise we would have no right to call DNF vaporware and that would be horribly wrong.Paranoid 18:10, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

VapourWare is software/hardware that may never be released, or is delayed for an exended period of time and if it is released it does not come out as advertised (sometimes but rarely for the better) --Weyoun6 07:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the comment that "Phantom was finally released" - it was never actually released, Infinium Labs simply showed up to E3 with what might have been a PC in a custom mod case and custom keyboard. There is no proof to this day that this was the actual console. The best case scenario would be that this was the only known prototype of a console that was never put into production or released for sale to the public. It is to this day still widely regarded as an unrealized project, and by many people as hoax, if not an outright scam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.99.186.98 (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Advice from Wikipedia:Peer review

• The statement about the Hurd is wrong, for one. Just for starters, it was not started in 1984. Suggest time on Wikipedia:Peer Review. Dan Gardner 04:22, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Not sure if this can ever be much of an article to feature. I mean you've got what vapourware is (two lines enough?) and then it's just examples. If there is a way to expand it, I suppose it is an interesting topic to feature - non-techies may not be familiar with it. Zoney 14:51, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Naming Conventions

Vapourware?

Really? Can anyone from a Commonwealth country confirm this spelling? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:34, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

• It gets slathers of hits both in Google and Google Groups--about 13,000 for "vapourware" in Groups, compared to 25,000 for "vaporware"--and the meaning from context seems to be the same as that of "vaporware," so it looks OK to me. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

British english?

Why is the article at vapourware and not vaporware? Does british english trump american english? I think the article should be at vaporware. --DannyBoy7783 17:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I moved this back as it qualified as a speedy move, IMO. Feel free to undo if there is a genuine need to discuss this further. older ≠ wiser 16:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Why does American English trump Commonwealth English? I don't think there is any reason any spelling is superior to the other.--Sonjaaa 20:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Airware?

I've removed the comment that it can also be called "airware" because

• I've never heard it called that;
• The American Heritage Dictionary has an entry for "vaporware," but the entry does not mention "airware" as an alternate, and has no entry for "airware"
• A quick eyeball scan of the first few hundred Google hits for "airware" turns up only legitimate company names, mostly not software companies, and no indication of its use in a software context;
• A quick eyeball scan of the first hundred Google hits in Google Groups turns up references to legitimate products, software and otherwise, that are actually named "airware" and no indication of its use as a synonym for "vaporware."

If anyone wants to reinsert it they should provide some kind of source citation that shows that it is really in widespread use as a synonym for "vaporware." Dpbsmith (talk) 20:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK - I'll go along with that. I remember hearing the term "airware", but I guess it has fallen out of use, like so many other short-lived innovative terms. By the way, the reason Google turns up so many commercial hits has to do with who pays them for product placement. Try submitting a new webpage to them - it's not free the way it was in the early days. Cbdorsett 21:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Other Candidates

Spore

At what point is it safe to call Spore (video game) vapourware? There is a lot of talk about it, and a lot of demos, but no release date ever announced.--Sonjaaa 20:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably after several years more- a delay of less than a year is hardly considerable for vapourware. We'd probably have to wait for a media outlet to declare it vapourware first though. Also, the release date was slated as Fall 2006 and is currently being reported as sometime in 2007, so that's not too major. --Wafulz 14:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It qualifies as vaporware because of the time difference between first announcment, first gameplay footage and promotional content, and the current expected release date. That's a big enough delta already. Mathiastck 07:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Tiberian Sun

Would Command and Conquer Tiberian Sun qualify for this page? I remember they announced it years before it actually came out and everyone was upset at all the delays. Papercrab 00:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If it actually exists, it is not vapor. --FOo 01:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It qualifies for a mention in the "Redemptive Software" category with other products that were eventually delivered with huge delays and frequent release date pushbacks, like Prey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.99.186.98 (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Half-Life, TeamFortress 2, Prey

Both were considered "vaporware" for many years (HL took 7 years to be released, TF2 even longer.) There's also Prey. My point is that there are some software which were initially considered "vaporware" but were pleasant surprises. JAF1970 11:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Non Software

How about non software works of intellectual property which never got finished? Sibelius's 8th symphony was a masterpiece of vapour. - Zimriel (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Selling hardware by promoting vapor software

Perhaps we should include the PS3 console in the Overambitious Hype category. Sony has been promoting sales for the console since 2006 by brandishing screenshots and trailers of Metal Gear Solid 4, which has only JUST received a july 2008 release date, itself a vaporish product on its own. In effect, Sony promised vapor software to sell existing hardware. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.99.186.98 (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Maybe it is just me but it seems the article is rather extreme on both sides of the spectrum when describing companies delaying products anyone else think so as well? --Sin Harvest (talk) 07:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)