Editing Vaporware

{{Short description|Product announced but never released}}
{{distinguish|Vaporwave}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=March 2021}}
[[File:360-91-panel.jpg|thumb|280px|The U.S. Justice Department accused IBM of intentionally announcing its [[IBM System/360 Model 91]] computer (pictured) nearly two years early to hurt sales of its competitor's computer.]]

In the computer industry, '''vaporware''' (or '''vapourware''') is a product, typically computer [[Computer hardware|hardware]] or [[software]], that is announced to the general public but is late, never actually manufactured, or officially canceled. Use of the word has broadened to include products such as automobiles.

Vaporware is often announced months or years before its purported release, with few details about its development being released. Developers have been accused of intentionally promoting vaporware to keep customers from switching to competing products that offer more features.<ref>[http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Vapour-ware Vapour-ware definition of Vapour-ware in the Free Online Encyclopedia]. Encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com.</ref> ''[[Network World]]'' magazine called vaporware an "epidemic" in 1989 and blamed the press for not investigating if developers' claims were true. Seven major companies issued a report in 1990 saying that they felt vaporware had hurt the industry's credibility. The United States accused several companies of announcing vaporware early enough to violate [[Competition law|antitrust laws]], but few have been found guilty.

"Vaporware" was coined by a [[Microsoft]] engineer in 1982 to describe the company's [[Xenix|Xenix operating system]] and appeared in print at least as early as the May 1983 issue of [[Sinclair User]] magazine (spelled 'Vapourware' in UK English).<ref>{{Cite book |url=http://archive.org/details/sinclair-user-magazine-014 |title=Sinclair User Magazine Issue 014 |date=May 1983}}</ref> It became popular among writers in the industry as a way to describe products they felt took too long to be released. ''[[InfoWorld]]'' magazine editor Stewart Alsop helped popularize it by lampooning [[Bill Gates]] with a ''Golden Vaporware'' award for the late release of his company's first version of [[Windows 1.0|Windows]] in 1985.

==Etymology==
"Vaporware", sometimes synonymous with "vaportalk" in the 1980s,<ref name=Shea1984/> has no single definition. It is generally used to describe a hardware or software product that has been announced, but that the developer is unlikely to release any time soon, if ever.<ref name=BRJ2001-3>[[#refBRJ|Bayus; Jain; Rao (2001)]] p. 3.</ref><ref name=PrenLang1994-11>[[#refPrenLang|Prentice; Langmore]] (1994) p. 11.</ref>

The first reported use of the word was in 1982 by an engineer at the computer software company [[Microsoft]].<ref name=Flynn1995-1>[[#refFlynn|Flynn (1995)]], p. 1.</ref> [[Ann Winblad]], president of [[Open Systems Accounting Software]], wanted to know if Microsoft planned to stop developing its [[Xenix]] [[operating system]] as some of Open System's products depended on it. She asked two Microsoft software engineers, John Ulett and Mark Ursino, who confirmed that development of Xenix had stopped. "One of them told me, 'Basically, it's vaporware'," she later said. Winblad compared the word to the idea of "selling smoke", implying Microsoft was selling a product it would soon not support.<ref name=Shea1984>[[#refShea|Shea (1984)]].</ref>

[[File:Esther Dyson Monaco Media Forum.jpg|thumb|left|Influential writer Esther Dyson (pictured here in 2008) popularized the term "vaporware" in her November 1983 issue of ''RELease 1.0''.]]

Winblad described the word to influential computer expert [[Esther Dyson]],<ref name=Shea1984/> who published it for the first time in her monthly newsletter ''RELease 1.0''. In an article titled "Vaporware" in the November 1983 issue of ''RELease 1.0'', Dyson defined the word as "good ideas incompletely implemented". She described three software products shown at [[COMDEX]] in Las Vegas that year with bombastic advertisements. She stated that demonstrations of the "purported revolutions, breakthroughs and new generations" at the exhibition did not meet those claims.<ref name=BRJ2001-3/><ref name=dyson1983>[[#refDyson|Dyson (1983)]], pp. –6.</ref>

The practice existed before Winblad's account. In a January 1982 review of the new [[IBM Personal Computer]], ''[[BYTE]]'' favorably noted that IBM "refused to acknowledge the existence of any product that is not ready to be put on dealers' shelves tomorrow. Although this is frustrating at times, it is a refreshing change from some companies' practice of announcing a product even before its design is finished".<ref name="williams198201">{{cite news|url=https://archive.org/stream/byte-magazine-1982-01/1982_01_BYTE_07-01_The_IBM_Personal_Computer#page/n37/mode/2up |title=A Closer Look at the IBM Personal Computer |work=[[BYTE]] |date=January 1982 |access-date=19 October 2013 |author=Williams, Gregg |pages=36 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140809042358/http://archive.org/stream/byte-magazine-1982-01/1982_01_BYTE_07-01_The_IBM_Personal_Computer |archive-date=9 August 2014 }}</ref> When discussing [[Coleco]]'s delay in releasing the [[Coleco Adam|Adam]], ''[[Creative Computing]]'' in March 1984 stated that the company "did not invent the common practice of debuting products before they actually exist. In microcomputers, to do so otherwise would be to break with a veritable tradition".<ref name="anderson198403">{{cite news|url=https://archive.org/stream/creativecomputing-1984-03/Creative_Computing_v10_n03_1984_Mar#page/n65/mode/2up |title=Coleco |work=Creative Computing |date=March 1984 |access-date=6 February 2015 |author=Anderson, John J. |pages=65–66 |author-link=John J. Anderson |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150405172428/https://archive.org/stream/creativecomputing-1984-03/Creative_Computing_v10_n03_1984_Mar |archive-date=5 April 2015 }}</ref> Recalling that a [[Lanier Business Products]] [[word processor (electronic device)|word processor]] became available immediately after its announcement, ''[[Creative Computing]]'' wrote that year, "If we were to re-enact that scene today, I wouldn't get my machine for at least six months, maybe a year".<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Blanchard |first=Dale |date=July 1984 |title=Getting into word processing; let's talk business. |url=https://www.atarimagazines.com/creative/v10n7/187_Getting_into_word_process.php |access-date=2025-03-15 |magazine=Creative Computing |page=187}}</ref>

After Dyson's article, the word "vaporware" became popular among writers in the personal computer software industry as a way to describe products they believed took too long to be released after their first announcement.<ref name=Flynn1995-1/> ''[[InfoWorld]]'' magazine editor Stewart Alsop helped popularize its use by giving [[Bill Gates]], then-CEO of Microsoft, with a ''Golden Vaporware'' award for Microsoft releasing [[Windows 1.0x|Windows]] in 1985, 18 months late. Alsop presented it to Gates at a celebration for the release while the song "[[The Impossible Dream (The Quest)|The Impossible Dream]]" played in the background.<ref>Garud (1997); Ichbiah cited in [[#refBRJ|Bayus; Jain; Rao (2001)]] p. 3.</ref><ref name=BRJ2001->[[#refBRJ|Bayus; Jain; Rao (2001)]], p. 5.</ref>

"Vaporware" took another meaning when it was used to describe a product that did not exist. A new company named [[Ovation Technologies]] announced its [[Productivity software#Office suite|office suite]] Ovation in 1983.<ref name=Flynn1995-2/> The company invested in an advertising campaign that promoted Ovation as a "great innovation", and showed a demonstration of the program at computer trade shows.<ref name=Flynn1995-1/><ref name=jenkins1998/> The demonstration was well received by writers in the press, was featured in a cover story for an industry magazine, and reportedly created anticipation among potential customers.<ref name=jenkins1998>[[#refJenkins|Jenkins (1998)]].</ref> Executives later revealed that Ovation never existed. The company created the fake demonstration in an unsuccessful attempt to raise money to finish their product,<ref name=Flynn1995-2>[[#refFlynn|Flynn (1995)]], p. 2.</ref> and is "widely considered the mother of all vaporware," according to Laurie Flynn of ''[[The New York Times]]''.<ref name=Flynn1995-1/>

Use of the term spread beyond the computer industry. ''[[Newsweek]]'' magazine's [[Allan Sloan]] described the manipulation of stocks by [[Yahoo!]] and [[Amazon (company)|Amazon.com]] as "financial vaporware" in 1997.<ref name=allan1997>[[#refSloan|Sloan]] (1997)</ref> ''[[Popular Science]]'' magazine uses a scale ranging from "vaporware" to "bet on it" to describe release dates of new consumer electronics.<ref>{{cite journal|access-date=2010-04-15|title=What's New|journal=Popular Science|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=eVMLO1GM9uQC&q=vaporware&pg=PA15|date=1 March 2007|page=15|issn=0161-7370}}</ref> Car manufacturer [[General Motors]]' plans to develop and sell an electric car were called vaporware by an advocacy group in 2008<ref>{{cite news|first=Ken |last=Bersinger |date=5 April 2008 |title=Road for electric car makers full of potholes |work=Los Angeles Times |access-date=2010-04-19 |url=http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-garage5apr05,0,626587.story |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100327113807/http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-garage5apr05%2C0%2C626587.story |archive-date=27 March 2010 }}</ref> and ''[[Car and Driver]]'' magazine retroactively described the [[Vector W8]] supercar as vaporware in 2017.<ref name ="ShittyVectors">{{cite magazine|url=https://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-story-of-when-we-mostly-tested-a-vector-w8-feature|title=The Time We Tested a Vector W8 Highlights Why We Test Cars in the First Place|date=2 December 2017|last=Csere|first=Csaba|magazine=Car and Driver}}</ref>

==Causes and use==

===Late release===
{{Pull quote|float=right|width=45%|The term is like a [[scarlet letter]] hung around the neck of software developers. [...] Like any overused and abused word, vaporware has lost its meaning. |author=James Fawcette|source="Press' Vaporgate", 1985}}
A product missing its announced release date, and the labeling of it as vaporware by the press, can be caused by its development taking longer than planned. Most software products are not released on time, according to researchers in 2001 who studied the causes and effects of vaporware;<ref name="BRJ2001-" /> "I hate to say yes, but yes", a Microsoft product manager stated in 1984, adding that "the problem isn't just at Microsoft". The phenomenon is so common that [[Lotus Development Corporation|Lotus]]' release of [[Lotus 1-2-3|1-2-3]] on time in January 1983, three months after announcing it, amazed many.<ref name="Shea1984"/>

[[Software development]] is a complex process, and developers are often uncertain how long it will take to complete any given project.<ref name="BRJ2001-" /><ref name=johnston1995>[[#refJohnston|Johnston; Betts (1995)]].</ref> Fixing errors in software, for example, can make up a significant portion of its development time, and developers are motivated not to release software with errors because it could damage their reputation with customers. Last-minute design changes are also common.<ref name="BRJ2001-" /> Large organizations seem to have more late projects than smaller ones, and may benefit from hiring individual programmers on contract to write software rather than using in-house development teams. Adding people to a late software project does not help; according to [[Brooks' Law]], doing so increases the delay.{{r|Shea1984}}

Not all delays in software are the developers' fault. In 1986, the [[American National Standards Institute]] adopted [[SQL]] as the standard database manipulation language. Software company [[Ashton-Tate]] was ready to release [[dBase IV]], but pushed the release date back to add support for SQL. The company believed that the product would not be competitive without it.<ref name=jenkins1998/> As the word became more commonly used by writers in the mid-1980s, ''InfoWorld'' magazine editor James Fawcette wrote that its negative connotations were unfair to developers because of these types of circumstances.<ref name=fawcette1985>[[#refFawcette|Fawcette (1985)]].</ref>

==== Duke Nukem ====
[[File:Duke Nukem Forever at PAX Prime 2010 (4956509224).jpg|thumb|''Duke Nukem Forever'' booth at [[PAX Prime]] 2010]]
Vaporware also includes announced products that are never released because of financial problems, or because the industry changes during its development.<ref name=jenkins1998/> When [[3D Realms]] first announced ''[[Duke Nukem Forever]]'' in 1997, the video game was early in its development.<ref name=Thompson2009>[[#refThompson|Thompson (2009)]].</ref> The company's previous game released in 1996, ''[[Duke Nukem 3D]]'', was a critical and financial success, and customer anticipation for its sequel was high. As personal computer hardware speeds improved at a rapid pace in the late 1990s, it created an "arms race" between companies in the video game industry, according to ''[[Wired News]]''. 3D Realms repeatedly moved the release date back over the next 12 years to add new, more advanced features. By the time 3D Realms went out of business in 2009 with the game still unreleased, ''Duke Nukem Forever'' had become synonymous with the word "vaporware" among industry writers.<ref name=kesten2009>{{cite news |first=Lou |last=Kesten |date=14 May 2009 |title=Developer's demise is death of 'Duke Nukem Forever' |newspaper=Lexington Herald-Leader |url=https://www.kentucky.com/news/business/technology/article43999164.html |agency=Associated Press}}</ref><ref name=Iwa2009>{{cite news| ref=refIwa| first=Yukari Iwatani| last=Kane| date=7 May 2009| title=Duke Nukem Nuked| work=The Wall Street Journal Blogs| publisher=Dow Jones & Company| url=https://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/05/07/duke-nukem-no-more |url-access=subscription}}</ref> The game was revived and released in 2011. However, due to a 13-year period of fan anticipation and design changes in the industry, the game received a mostly negative reception from critics and fans.

A company notorious for vaporware can improve its reputation. In the 1980s, video game maker [[Westwood Studios]] was known for shipping products late. However, by 1993, it had so improved that ''Computer Gaming World'' reported "many publishers would assure [us] that a project was going to be completed on time ''because'' Westwood was doing it".<ref name="cgw199308">{{cite news|url=http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/index.php?year=1993&pub=2&id=109 |title=Westwood Studios Partnership Hits Jackpot |magazine=Computer Gaming World |date=August 1993 |access-date=12 July 2014 |pages=32 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714154744/http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/index.php?year=1993&pub=2&id=109 |archive-date=14 July 2014 }}</ref>

===Early announcement===
Announcing products early—months or years before their release date,<ref name=PrenLang1994-1>[[#refPrenLang|Prentice; Langmore]] (1994) p. 2.</ref> also called "preannouncing",<ref name=prentice1996-3/> has been an effective way by some developers to make their products successful. It can be seen as a legitimate part of their marketing strategy, but is generally not popular with industry press.<ref name=prentice1996-4>[[#refPrentice|Prentice (1996)]], p. 4.</ref> The first company to release a product in a given market often gains an advantage. It can set the standard for similar future products, attract a large number of customers, and establish its brand before competitor's products are released.<ref name=jenkins1998/> Public relations firm Coakley-Heagerty used an early announcement in 1984 to build interest among potential customers. Its client was [[Nolan Bushnell]], formerly of [[Atari Inc.]] who wanted to promote the new [[Sente Technologies]], but his contract with Atari prohibited doing so until a later date. The firm created an advertising campaign—including brochures and a shopping-mall appearance—around a large ambiguous box covered in brown paper to increase curiosity until Sente could be announced.<ref name=Shea1984/>

Early announcements send signals not only to customers and the media, but also to providers of support products, [[Regulatory agency|regulatory agencies]], financial analysts, investors, and other parties.<ref name=prentice1996-4/> For example, an early announcement can relay information to vendors, letting them know to prepare marketing and shelf space. It can signal third-party developers to begin work on their own products, and it can be used to persuade a company's investors that they are actively developing new, profitable ideas.<ref name=prentice1996-3>[[#refPrentice|Prentice (1996)]], p. 3.</ref> Microsoft described this in 1995, during ''United States v. Microsoft'', as "not in fact vaporware, but pre-disclosure" if not done with "a desire to mislead".<ref name=Flynn1995-1/> When [[IBM]] announced its Professional Workstation computer in 1986, they noted the lack of third-party programs written for it at the time, signaling those developers to start preparing. Microsoft usually announces information about its operating systems early because third-party developers are dependent on that information to develop their own products.<ref name=prentice1996-3/> Alsop proposed in 1995 that instead of early public announcements, companies should, using [[nondisclosure agreement]]s, privately notify important customers.<ref name=Flynn1995-1/>

A developer can strategically announce a product that is in the early stages of development, or before development begins, to gain competitive advantage over other developers.<ref name=BRJ2001-4>[[#refBRJ|Bayus; Jain; Rao (2001)]], p. 4.</ref> In addition to the "vaporware" label, this is also called "[[ambush marketing]]", and "[[fear, uncertainty and doubt]]" (FUD) by the press.<ref name=prentice1996-3/> If the announcing developer is a large company, this may be done to influence smaller companies to stop development of similar products. The smaller company might decide their product will not be able to compete, and that it is not worth the development costs.<ref name=BRJ2001-4/> It can also be done in response to a competitor's already released product. The goal is to make potential customers believe a second, better product will be released soon. The customer might reconsider buying from the competitor, and wait.<ref name=haan2003>[[#refHaan|Haan (2003)]].</ref> In 1994, as customer anticipation increased for Microsoft's new version of Windows (codenamed "[[Windows 95|Chicago]]"), [[Apple Inc.|Apple]] announced a set of upgrades to its own [[System 7]] operating system that were not due to be released until nearly two years later. ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'' wrote that Apple did this to "blunt Chicago's momentum".<ref>[[#refZachary|Zachary; Carlton]] (1994)</ref>

A premature announcement can cause others to respond with their own. When [[VisiCorp]] announced [[Visi On]] in November 1982, it promised to ship the product by spring 1983. The news forced [[Quarterdeck Office Systems]] to announce in April 1983 that its [[DESQ]] would ship in November 1983. Microsoft responded by announcing [[Windows 1.0]] in fall 1983, and Ovation Technologies followed by announcing Ovation in November. ''InfoWorld'' noted in May 1984 that of the four products only Visi On had shipped, albeit more than a year late and with only two supported applications.<ref name="Shea1984"/>

{{Pull quote|float=right|width=45%|my own estimate is that at the time of announcement, 10% of software products don't actually exist [...] Vendors that are unwilling to [prove it exists] shouldn't announce their packages to the press|author=Joe Mohen|source="vaporware epidemic", 1989}}
Industry publications widely accused companies of using early announcements intentionally to gain competitive advantage over others. In his 1989 ''Network World'' article, [[Joe Mohen]] wrote the practice had become a "vaporware epidemic", and blamed the press for not investigating claims by developers. "If the pharmaceutical industry were this careless, I could announce a cure for cancer today – to a believing press."<ref name=mohen1989>[[#refMohen|Mohen (1989)]].</ref> In 1985 Stewart Alsop began publishing his influential monthly ''Vaporlist'', a list of companies he felt announced their products too early, hoping to dissuade them from the practice;<ref name=Flynn1995-1/> among the entries in January 1988 were a [[Verbatim Corp.]] [[optical drive]] that was 30 months late, [[WordPerfect]] for Macintosh (12 months), IBM [[OS/2 1.1]] (nine months), and Lotus 1-2-3 for OS/2 and Macintosh (nine and three months late, respectively).<ref name="alsop19880118">{{Cite journal |last=Alsop |first=Stewart II |date=1988-01-18 |title=The Official P.C. Letter Vaporlist |url=http://vintagecomputer.net/cisc367/PC-Letter_19880118.pdf |journal=P.C. Letter |volume=4 |issue=2 |pages=2}}</ref> ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' Magazine began publishing a similar list in 1997. Seven major software developers—including Ashton-Tate, [[Hewlett-Packard]], and [[Sybase]]—formed a council in 1990, and issued a report condemning the "vacuous product announcement dubbed vaporware and other misrepresentations of product availability" because they felt it had hurt the industry's credibility.<ref name=messmer1990>[[#refMessmer|Messmer (1990)]].</ref>

==Antitrust allegations==
In the United States, announcing a product that does not exist to gain a competitive advantage is illegal via Section 2 of the [[Sherman Antitrust Act]] of 1890, but few hardware or software developers have been found guilty of it. The section requires proof that the announcement is both provably false, and has actual or likely market impact.<ref>[[#refBRJ|Bayus; Jain; Rao (2001)]], p. 11.</ref>
False or misleading announcements designed to influence stock prices are illegal under United States [[securities fraud]] laws.<ref name=PrenLang1994-15>[[#refPrenLang|Prentice; Langmore]] (1994) p. 15.</ref> The complex and changing nature of the computer industry, marketing techniques, and lack of precedent for applying these laws to the industry can mean developers are not aware their actions are illegal. The [[U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission]] issued a statement in 1984 with the goal of reminding companies that securities fraud also applies to "statements that can reasonably be expected to reach investors and the trading markets".<ref name=PrenLang1994-17>SEC (1994) cited in [[#refPrenLang|Prentice; Langmore]] (1994) p. 17.</ref>

Several companies have been accused in court of using knowingly false announcements to gain market advantage. In 1969, the United States Justice Department accused IBM of doing this in the case ''[[History of IBM#1960–1969: The System/360 era, Unbundling software and services|United States v. IBM]]''. After IBM's competitor, [[Control Data Corporation]] (CDC), released a computer, IBM announced the [[IBM System/360 Model 91|System/360 Model 91]]. The announcement resulted in a significant reduction in sales of CDC's product. The Justice Department accused IBM of doing this intentionally because the System/360 Model 91 was not released until two years later.<ref name=gerlach2004>[[#refGerlach|Gerlach (2004)]].</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=IBM Antitrust Suit Records |url=http://www.hagley.lib.de.us/library/collections/manuscripts/findingaids/ibmantitrustpart2.ACC1980.htm |access-date=2010-04-14 |publisher=Hagley Museum and Library |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100408174629/http://www.hagley.lib.de.us/library/collections/manuscripts/findingaids/ibmantitrustpart2.ACC1980.htm |archive-date=8 April 2010 }}</ref> IBM avoided preannouncing products during the antitrust case, but after the case ended it resumed the practice. The company likely announced its [[IBM PCjr|PCjr]] in November 1983—four months before general availability in March 1984—to hurt sales of rival home computers during the [[Economics of Christmas|important Christmas sales season]].<ref name="nyt19831102">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1983/11/02/business/ibm-s-speedy-redirection.html |title=I.B.M.'S Speedy Redirection |access-date=2011-02-25 |date=1983-11-02 |work=The New York Times |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130916060236/http://www.nytimes.com/1983/11/02/business/ibm-s-speedy-redirection.html |archive-date=16 September 2013 }}</ref><ref name="freiberger19840109_16">{{cite news|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ey4EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA20 |title=IBM indicates March as likely PCjr delivery date |work=InfoWorld |date=9–16 January 1984 |access-date=4 February 2015 |author=Freiberger, Paul |pages=20 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150516072142/https://books.google.com/books?id=ey4EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA14&ots=qxysACmBMb&pg=PA20 |archive-date=16 May 2015 }}</ref> In 1985 ''The New York Times'' wrote<ref name="pollack19850120">{{Cite news |url=http://www.nytimes.com/1985/01/20/business/the-daunting-power-of-ibm.html |title=The Daunting Power of I.B.M. |last=Pollack |first=Andrew |date=1985-01-20 |work=The New York Times |access-date=2017-07-03 |page=Section 3, Page 1 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}</ref>

{{quote|Because of its position in the industry, an announcement of a future I.B.M. product, or even a rumor of one, is enough to slow competitors' sales. Some critics say that I.B.M. is trying to lock out competitors when it issues statements outlining the general trend of future products. I.B.M. insists the practice is necessary to help customer planning.}}

The practice was not called "vaporware" at the time, but publications have since used the word to refer specifically to it. Similar cases have been filed against [[Eastman Kodak|Kodak]], [[AT&T Inc.|AT&T]], and [[Xerox]].<ref name=stern1995/>

US District Judge [[Stanley Sporkin]] was a vocal opponent of the practice during his review of the settlement resulting from ''[[United States v. Microsoft Corp. (2001)|United States v. Microsoft Corp.]]'' in 1994. "Vaporware is a practice that is deceitful on its face and everybody in the business community knows it," said Sporkin.<ref>Yoder (1995) cited in [[#refBRJ|Bayus; Jain; Rao (2001)]], p. 5.</ref> One of the accusations made during the trial was that Microsoft has illegally used early announcements. The review began when three anonymous companies protested the settlement, claiming the government did not thoroughly investigate Microsoft's use of the practice. Specifically, they claimed [[Microsoft]] announced its Quick Basic 3 program to slow sales of its competitor [[Borland]]'s recently released Turbo Basic program.<ref name=stern1995>[[#refStern|Stern (1995)]].</ref><ref name=Flynn1995-1/> The review was dismissed for lack of explicit proof.<ref name=stern1995/>

==See also==
*[[List of vaporware]]
*[[List of commercial failures in video games]]
*[[Technology demonstration]]
*[[Osborne effect]]
*[[Development hell]]
*[[Abandonware]]

==Notes==
<!--<nowiki>
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref> and </ref> tags, and the template below.
</nowiki>-->
{{Reflist}}

==References==
{{refbegin|30em}}
*{{cite journal|ref=refFlynn|first=Laurie|last=Flynn|date=24 April 1995|title=The Executive Computer|journal=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/24/business/information-technology-the-executive-computer.html?scp=5&sq=vaporware&st=cse|access-date=2010-04-14}}
*{{cite journal|ref=refDyson|first=Esther|last=Dyson|date=28 November 1983|title=Vaporware|journal=RELease 1.0|page=5|url=http://downloads.oreilly.com/radar/r1/11-83.pdf}}
*{{cite journal|ref=refShea|first=Tom|last=Shea|date=7 May 1984|title=Developers Unveil 'Vaporware'|journal=InfoWorld|volume=6|issue=19|page=48|issn=0199-6649|access-date=2010-04-13|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ti4EAAAAMBAJ&q=vaporware&pg=PA48}}
*{{cite journal|doi=10.1509/jmkr.38.1.3.18834|ref=refBRJ|first1=Barry L.|last1=Bayus|first2=Sanjay|last2=Jain|first3=Ambar G.|last3=Rao|s2cid=11197089|date=1 February 2001|title=Truth or consequences: An analysis of vaporware and new product announcements|journal=Journal of Marketing Research|volume=38|issue=1|pages=3–13|issn=0022-2437|url=https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/downloads/7s75dn449}}
*{{cite journal|ref=refJohnston|first1=Stuart J.|last1=Johnston|first2=Mitch|last2=Betts|date=13 February 1995|title=Industry debates U.S. vaporware probe|journal=Computerworld|page=2|issn=0010-4841}}
*{{cite journal|ref=refJenkins|first=Avery|last=Jenkins|date=5 October 1988|title=Long overdue; The reasons behind vaporware|journal=Computerworld|page=10|issn=0010-4841|url=https://archive.org/details/computerworld2227unse19/page/n16/mode/2up}}
*{{cite journal|ref=refGerlach|first=Heiko A.|last=Gerlach|year=2004|title=Announcement, entry, and preemption when consumers have switching costs.(econometric analysis)|journal=RAND Journal of Economics|volume=35|issue=1|pages=184–202|issn=0741-6261|jstor=1593736}}
*{{cite journal|doi=10.1111/1467-6451.00204|ref=refHaan|first=Marco A.|last=Haan|s2cid=12899963|date=1 September 2003|title=Vaporware as a Means of Entry Deterrence|journal=The Journal of Industrial Economics|volume=51|issue=3|pages=345–358|issn=0022-1821}}
*{{cite journal|ref=refStern|first=Richard H.|last=Stern|date=April 1995|title=Microsoft and vaporware|journal=IEEE Micro|volume=15|issue=2|pages=6–7|issn=0272-1732}}
*{{cite journal|ref=refMessmer|first=Ellen|last=Messmer|date=22 October 1990|title=Software firms form group to raise ethics|journal=Network World|volume=7|issue=43|page=9|issn=0887-7661|access-date=2010-04-14|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ThAEAAAAMBAJ&q=vaporware&pg=PA9}}
*{{cite journal|ref=refMohen|first=Joseph|last=Mohen|date=19 June 1989|title=Seeking a cure for the vaporware epidemic|page=32|journal=Network World|volume=6|issue=24|issn=0887-7661|access-date=2010-04-13|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zxwEAAAAMBAJ&q=vaporware&pg=PA32}}
*{{cite journal|ref=refFawcette|first=James E.|last=Fawcette|date=10 June 1985|title=Press' Vaporgate|journal=InfoWorld|volume=7|issue=23|page=5|issn=0199-6649|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4C4EAAAAMBAJ&q=vaporware&pg=PA5}}
*{{cite journal|ref=refPrentice|first=Robert|last=Prentice|year=1996|title=Vaporware: imaginary high-tech products and real antitrust liability in a post-Chicago world|journal=Ohio State Law Journal|volume=57|issue=4|issn=0048-1572}}
*{{cite news|ref=refThompson|first=Clive|last=Thompson|date=21 December 2009|title=Learn to Let Go: How Success Killed Duke Nukem|work=Wired News|publisher=Condé Nast Digital|url=https://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/fail_duke_nukem/all/1|access-date=2010-04-15}}
*{{cite journal|ref=refSloan|last=Sloan|first=Allan|title=Financial Vaporware|journal=Newsweek|date=28 April 1997|volume=129|issue=17|page=57}}
*{{cite journal|ref=refPrenLang|first1=Robert A.|last1=Prentice|first2=John H.|last2=Langmore|year=1994|title=Beware of vaporware: product hype and the securities fraud liability of high-tech companies|journal=Harvard Journal of Law & Technology|volume=8|issue=1|issn=0897-3393|access-date=2010-04-16|url=http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v08/08HarvJLTech001.pdf}}
*{{cite journal|ref=refZachary|first1=G. Pascal|last1=Zachary|first2=Jim|last2=Carlton|date=7 March 1994|title=Software rivals vying to define how PCs work|journal=The Wall Street Journal |edition=Eastern|issn=0099-9660}}
{{refend}}

==External links==
*[[Community Memory]] [http://memex.org/cm-archive7.html postings] from 1996 on the term's origins crediting [[Ann Winblad]] and Stewart Alsop.
*[http://cdn.oreillystatic.com/radar/r1/11-83.pdf ''RELease 1.0'' November 1983] — a scanned copy of Esther Dyson's original article

=== ''Wired'' Magazine Vaporware Awards ===
{{See also|Wired (magazine)|label 1=''Wired'' (magazine)}}
{{div col|colwidth=28em}}
*[https://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1997/12/9431 Vaporware 1997: We Hardly Knew Ye]
*[https://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1998/12/16974 Vaporware 1998: Windows NT Wins]
*[https://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2000/01/33142 Vaporware 1999: The 'Winners']
*[https://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2000/12/40484?currentPage=all Vaporware 2000: Missing Inaction]
*[https://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2002/01/49326 Vaporware 2001: Empty Promises]
*[https://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2003/01/57023?currentPage=all Vaporware 2002: Tech up in Smoke?]
*[https://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2004/01/61935?currentPage=all Vaporware 2003: Nuke 'Em if Ya Got 'Em]
*[https://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/01/66195?currentPage=all Vaporware 2004: Phantom Haunts Us All]
*[https://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/02/70143?currentPage=all Vaporware 2005: Better Late Than Never]
*[https://www.wired.com/software/softwarereviews/news/2006/12/72350 Vaporware 2006: Return of the King]
*[https://www.wired.com/gadgets/gadgetreviews/multimedia/2007/12/YE_Vaporware Vaporware 2007: Long Live the King]
*[https://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/news/2008/12/YE8_vaporware?currentPage=all Vaporware 2008: Crushing Disappointments, False Promises and Plain Old BS]
*[https://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/12/vaporware-2009-inhale-the-fail/ Vaporware 2009: Inhale the Fail]
*[https://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/01/vaporware-2010-the-great-white-duke?viewall=true Vaporware 2010: The Great White Duke]
{{div col end}}

{{software distribution}}

[[Category:Vaporware| ]]
[[Category:Software release]]