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.--67.170.135.85 (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The source you have given just links to the EA forums, not even to a specific thread that mentions the vaporware 1.10 patch. Also forums are genereally not reliable sources specifically I'm pointing to it being self-published. --Sin Harvest (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

As it was first coined in the US, and is not widely used in the UK or other English-speaking countries, I have no problem with its US spelling Quiensabe (talk) 07:22, 6 May 2008 (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)

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)

GnR's Chinese Democracy

Guns N' Roses Chinese Democracy is one of the biggest examples of non-software based vaporware, but one that finally materialized, albeit perhaps 8 or so years later. Under "Types" of Vaporware, I think we'd have to add a section for "Striving for Perfection" or something like that. Someone care to do a little writeup? --Fshafique (talk) 23:32, 23 November 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)

Yes I don't think software qualifies as vapourware just because release dates are pushed back - there is the implied requirement that the development time be vastly in excess of the expected development period, eg: more than twice the expected time. There is also the burden of lack of communication - products that have long development times but provide regular updates or proof of progress can't really be labelled vapourware. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjharrison (talk • contribs) 17:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hoaxes

The Hoaxes section, at least as it exists now, really doesn't seem to fit into this article. To me, the definition of vaporware is clear enough, but if the contrast between it and a hoax is needed, it could be done in one sentence integrated in the introductory section of the article. If a hoax section was to be maintained then it needs actual computer hardware or software examples, as right now it sends people off to read about perpetual motion machines which really isn't that helpful to the article. I'll leave it as is for a day or so just in case there is a strong objection to changing it. Mantisia (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Lack of focus

The "Types" section lacks focus, as evidenced most clearly by the "Lack of focus" section. Reasons for software being labeled vaporware fall into a spectrum. On the one end, typical over-promised and under-delivered due to underestimating engineering realities. Most of the "Types" of vaporware listed fall into this category, but this is too common, and not exactly what the term vaporware means. The middle of the spectrum is marketing hype, which is usually where the term vaporware is applied. It can include anticompetitive practices, but it is also attached to good ideas released as "marketing hype" in an attempt to build customer/client and contributor/investor support for something that might never be built otherwise. The far end of the spectrum might include hoaxes that nobody ever intended to build. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.7.52 (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Timesplitters 4, The Witcher: Rise of the White Wolf

May I just point out that these two games could be designated as vapour/vaporware? Timsplitters has passed to new developer, apparently, yet there is nothing to confirm that it is being worked on. The port of The Witcher is believed to be on "indefinite hold", but that was quite a while ago, and there is little to show that the developers are busy. Otherwise, a promising article despite the many issues it has.

Starcraft II

This game is in beta now, so it really is no longer vaporware. 74.69.251.170 (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Stargate Worlds

Would Stargate Worlds be considered Vaporware since it has yet to be released or put into beta testing? Andy5421 (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Expansion and rewrite

I've been researching this topic off and on for a while now, and I'm ready to start expanding the article. Most of the information here will probably stay, its just going to be rearranged, reworded, elaborated on, and cited with reliable sources. I have the outline and organization planned out, and most of the content is ready to be written, but you are welcome to help. —Sebquantic (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

moving some information

some of the info that was in the article is sourced, but I think goes into took much detail, or provides examples that are redundant. I'm going to move them to their respective main articles per WP:SS: —Sebquantic (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Vaporware awards section -> Wired News
2. DivX research study -> DIVX (Digital Video Express)
3. Apple FullWRite Professional -> this info is already in FullWrite Professional (in greater detail)
4. Thor-CD stuff -> Thor-CD
5. Silicon Film -> History of the camera
6. team fortress 2 -> is already in the development section of Team Fortress 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vaporware/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC) You're lucky, this article was on my radar recently and I saw you were making improvements to it. Overall, it's of a pretty good quality, but there are some things that need to be addressed.

On the radar for deletion or improvement? :) Changes might come slow this week because of other things going on, but I'll be working on your concerns. —Sebquantic (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm concerned about a lot of the prose; in many parts, it's awkwardly worded, in others, it just plain doesn't make sense.
  • Examples: "The United States Justice Department accused IBM of intentionally announcing its System/360 Model 91 computer (pictured here installed at NASA) three years before its release to gain competitive advantage over its competitor, a practice later referred to as "vaporware" "→first off, since it's a complete sentence should have a period at the end. Secondly, "a practice" implies a verb—vaporware is a noun. Even "practiced vaporware" doesn't exactly sound right.
  • "InfoWorld wrote in 1985 that popular use of the world by the press was unfair to developers, who often have legitimate reasons for announcing early of releasing late." What does announcing early of releasing late mean?
  • Lots of comma splices; use semi-colons or split them into multiple sentences.
• I think the beginning of the article is a bit too wordy—it takes readers a while to learn what the heck the article is about. Instead of "Vaporware is a word used by writers to describe a product, usually computer hardware or software. It has no single definition, and has grown more inclusive over time. It has been used to describe products advertised bombastically that do not meet a writer's expectations. It has been used to describe products not released on the date announced, either because of unexpected problems, or because it does not exist. Labeling a product "vaporware" usually implies a negative opinion of it, or its developer." how about something along the lines of "Vaporware is a product, usually computer hardware or software, used to describe products [...] It has no single definition, and has grown [...]" and so on.
  • "Vaporware is a product, [...] used to describe products [...]"? Eh? Sounds redundant. Not trying to mock you, though; you probably suggested it because the article suffers from the "refers to" disease (with, in this case, "is a word used to" at sentence one). The authors need to figure out whether the article's about the word or the concept (with maybe an etymology paragraph or two). --an odd name 23:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
    • You got me :P My point is that the prose can be streamlined. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• What about later news? This focuses a lot on the '80s and '90s, but not that much is said about the Aughts. Some statements need to be put in the context of when they were said and how much time is elapsed.

• I didn't see any papers or articles saying news things about the word itself after 2000ish. (unless I missed something) It's still used all the time obviously, but I think everybody just accepted it as part of the vocabulary and moved on. What if I replace some of the older examples (like Ashton-Tate's dBase) with examples that happened last decade. That, plus rewording some things so the reader knows the word is still used in these ways today? —Sebquantic (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• I found some print sources that I think could be incorporated into the article. Send me an email and I'll reply with an attachment. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll try and send you something tonight (EST). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

With the merger of the awful list it should be auto-failed. All you have to do is look at it to wonder where NPOV went. Just look at the Scarlet camera bashing. It's one of the many hardware products in Wired's list, and not even the top hw product there. Plus, that's just a list for 2009. Where's the historical perspective. The other entries have the similar issues. Pcap ping 04:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The existence of valid cleanup tags in the article is grounds for a quick-fail... SnottyWong talk 21:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, I accidently removed this from my watchlist and promptly forgot about it. Snotty is correct, in that there are cleanup tags meriting a quick-fail; Sebquantic, can you address those in a timely manner? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like he can't; just fail it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Antitrust allegations

Just happened to read this article. Although interesting, the section about "antitrust allegations" presents a hopeless systemic bias. The entire section is written as if US legislation was the only in the world. Given that this article is looking for GA status, this must surely be fixed up. Is there violations of antitrust or similar problems in other jurisdiction, or is this only illegal in the US? If the latter is true, then that in itself is worthy of mention. Otherwise, discussion of other geographic areas must be discussed, such as for instance EU or Japanese legislations, two large software manufacturing entities. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you know which states' competition laws could arguably cover preannouncement like in the US? The only examples I'm finding are of other states (UK, japan, etc) accusing Microsoft of unreleated antitrust violations. —Sebquantic (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I know very little about the issue or the legal framework of any of these countries—I had never even heard of the term vaporware until I read the article last night. If you can find sources that indicate that antitrust is only an issue in the US, then that should be clearly stated in the article. Note that the term antitrust is in itself skewed towards the US, as it is only the US judicial system that uses the term—other jurisdiction normally refer to it as competition law or similar terms. Although the US judicial system has produced some oddities through the years, it is uncommon that it is the only country in the world were a particular action is illegal, although for instance it may be that in the US the issue is covered by antitrust laws while in EU it is covered by marketing laws or similar. In my experience, EU legislation about competition and consumer protection is stricter than in the US, but exceptions always exist. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been doing some occasional research on this, but still not sure what to do. Most country's competition laws seem to be based on the Sherman Act. For instance, Japan's Antimonopoly Act is an almost verbatim copy of it drafted after WWII, and apparently it's Section IV is very similar to the Sherman Act's Section II. The economic and social pillar of the EU's laws also cover monopolies. The problem is that I'm not finding any discussions about how those laws have been interpreted to include preannouncements by non-American computer companies. I get the impression from reading some of these source that they aren't. This would make sense if true, because even in the US I don't think there have been any high profile cases since the 90's (US V. Micorsoft) because it's so hard to prove a company did it on purpose.

I can think of two ways to take care of it:

1.

• Remove the Antitrust section, and use the IBM and Microsoft as specific examples somewhere else in the article
• Change a few sentences to let the reader know software products are called vaporware by English-language press in other countries.

2.

• Leave the tag and wait until somebody can do more thorough research.

I'm leaning toward 1, but what do you think? —Sebquantic (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Black Mesa Source

Call me crazy, but nearly seven years of "Development" makes it clear that the Dev team cannot get this done. Hell, go to their forums. They're more interested in banning and trolling the forum goers more than posting media updates. This whole project is a joke.--FlareKitsune (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

To call a third party MOD vapourware, when it is being developed by people for free in their spare time, and then to personally attack it because you have issues with the way they run their own forums, is ridiculous. Why don't you try and make something of this scale before attacking them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.123.75 (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Xanadu "surfaces"

Im removing this, reading the manifests of Ted Nelson its clear "Xanadu" is suposed to be a worldspawning network based hypertext system. Xanaduspace is just something that happens to have the same letters, but its just a static 3d engine with the same static 3 texts. To call it "surfaced" is like to calling a broken ligher the rocket you promised so long ago. --16:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Duke Nukem Forever

I see that DNF has made it into the list of former (surfaced) vaporware. All we have seen the last 24 hours is a demo. 3d Realms has released both screenshots and demos before, and then postponed the game. Untill we actually see a finished, released game, I propose that we remove DNF from the list, and let it remain vaporware. TheIncredibleNix 16:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheIncredibleNix (talk • contribs)

I agree untill it's shipped to stores or can be legaly downloaded from store, it is still Vaporware. Just moving it to new developer which promises to launch it realy isn't too much different from before status... --82.130.29.94 (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I moved it back up in Games, but did not re-write the text about it. TheIncredibleNix 19:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheIncredibleNix (talk • contribs)

Hello, I apologize if this is not the correct place to mention this, but in:

A promotional screenshot of Duke Nukem Forever shown in 2007. The game's early announcement in 1997, continued promotion, and apparent abandonment 12 years later made it synonymous with the word vaporware in the software industry. Its latest release window is "in 2011".[15]

Isn't "...and apparent abandonment 12 years later..." a typo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.36.151 (talk) 08:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Battlefield 1943 for PC

Can someone please add this to the games section? I don't know how to do it properly. Thanks. 174.5.11.131 (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC) I would hardly call it vaporware its just a console port of battlefield254Jackson (talk)

Project Milo

Im adding it to the games list seeing as though it has no release date and many aruing if it was a real game — Preceding unsigned comment added by 254Jackson (talk • contribs) 02:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)