Tech’s biggest losers in 2024

The tricky thing about naming the year’s biggest losers in tech is that in 2024, it once again felt like everyone lost. Amid the depressing spiral that is social media, the will-they-or-won’t-they dance of banning TikTok in the US and the neverending edited and deepfaked content that has everyone questioning what’s real, the world lost. And it is lost.

But a few areas this year stood out as particularly troubling. Specifically, AI and dedicated AI gadgets proliferated more than ever, spreading not only to our digital assistants and search engines but to our wearables as well. We also saw more deterioration in Intel’s standing and bid farewell to a robot maker, as well as Lightning cables. I’m pretty happy about that last one, though.

Our annual collection of the worst tech developments each year is shorter than usual, but that might be because we’re all exhausted. And also because most of the bad things can be attributed to AI, social media or misinformation. Still, we journey down this nightmarish memory lane, hopefully so we can avoid similar pitfalls in future.

Generative AI in every possible crevice

2024 was a year in which consumer-facing AI tools became harder and harder to ignore. That’s thanks to the tech giants Google, Meta and finally Apple baking AI tools into some of the most-used software on the planet. And in this push to get AI in front of everyone, I cannot help but stop and wonder who exactly is asking for this, and is anyone actually using it?

In the past few months, I’ve been testing a Samsung Chromebook with a host of AI tools built-in as well as trying the various Apple Intelligence features that have rolled out through the autumn. It all came to a head in one of Engadget’s Slack channels in early December, just after Apple launched its generative emoji and Image Playground features. Getting Image Playground to spit out AI-created pictures was easy enough, and Genmoji does feel like the logical next step after Apple introduced its personalized Memoji back in 2018. But across the board, the results felt uninspired, off-putting and -— perhaps worst of all -— extremely lame.

Since I take so many pictures on my iPhone, there are tons of images categorized under my name in the Photos app (it will group together similar faces for years, if you let it). With hundreds of images to pick from, Image Playground should have no problem making a convincing facsimile of me… playing the guitar on the moon, right? Well, yes and no.

In this image, as well as ones created of my colleagues Cherlynn Low, Valentina Palladino and Sam Rutherford, there are a few facial characteristics that made me feel that the AI-generated cartoon I was looking at was at the very least inspired by these people. But they all gave off serious uncanny valley vibes; rather than being a cute digital cartoon like we all built with Bitmoji back in the day, these results are soulless representations with no charm and mangled fingers.

In a totally different vein, I just had occasion to try out Google’s “help me read” summarization features on a 250-page government report. I knew I did not have time to read the entire document and was just curious what AI could do for me here. Turns out, not much. The summary was so brief that it was essentially meaningless — not unreasonable, as it tried to parse 250 pages into about 100 words. I tried this trick on a review I was writing recently, and it did a much better job of capturing the gist of the article, and it also accurately answered follow-up questions. But given that the final product amounted to maybe four pages, my impression is that AI does a decent job of summarizing things that most people can probably read themselves in the span of five minutes. If you have something more complex, forget it.

I could go on — I’ve been having a blast laughing at the ridiculous notification summaries I get from Apple Intelligence with my co-workers — but I think I’ve made my point. We’re in the middle of an AI arms race, where massive companies are desperate to get out ahead of the curve with these products well before they’re ready for primetime or even all that useful. And to what end? I don’t think any AI company is meaningfully answering a consumer need or finding a way to make people’s lives better or easier. They’re releasing this stuff because AI is the buzzword of the decade, and to ignore it is to disappoint shareholders. — Nathan Ingraham, deputy editor

Humane AI Pin and other AI gadgets

This year, no two devices arrived with more manufactured hype than the Humane AI Pin and Rabbit R1. And no two devices were more disappointing either. Both Humane and Rabbit made the argument that people were ready to drop their phones for something smarter and more personal, but neither of their devices were actually good or useful.

Of the two, Humane was easily the biggest loser of 2024. The company achieved the ignominious honor of reaching net negative sales because former buyers began returning the AI Pin faster than new units could be sold. I wish I could say its troubles stopped there, but they didn’t. After Humane first warned customers that the AI Pin’s charging case was a fire risk, it issued a formal recall in October. In the intervening months, the company has reportedly tried to find a buyer without success.

Rabbit has certainly faced its own share of troubles, too. After being roundly panned by reviewers in May, a hacker group announced in June that the R1 had huge security holes. In July, it came to light that user chats with the R1 were logged with no option for deleting.

Last I checked, Humane has since pivoted to making an operating system that it expects other companies will want to add to their devices, but here’s the thing: poor software was a big part of what made the AI Pin bad in the first place. You have to give the company points for trying, but at this point, I would be surprised if Humane is still in business by this time next year. — Igor Bonifacic, senior reporter

Google Search and AI Overviews

This observation has been making the rounds all year long, but if you compare Google from 10 years ago to what it is now, the difference is stark. With the introduction of AI Overviews this year, it felt like Google finally made search results utterly impossible to use without scrolling. Forget sponsored results, newsboxes and discovery panels and all the different modules taking up the top half of the results page for any given query — in 2024, Google decided to add yet another section above everything, pushing the actual list of websites even further down.

Since its initial release in the US in March, AI Overviews told people it was okay to put glue on pizzas or to eat rocks. In spite of the general tendency for AI to get facts wrong, Google continued to expand the feature to more countries, while admitting that the overviews could be “odd, inaccurate or unhelpful.”

Not only that, it also began to add ads to Overviews, meaning that in addition to the unreliable AI-generated results at the top, people could pay to put what they want to promote in that precious real estate, too. Throw in the fact that the actual results boxes and rankings are all susceptible to SEO gaming by websites trying everything they can to garner a higher spot on the list, and you’ll find that Google’s search results are basically pay-for-play at this point. And while that will continue to earn the company billions of dollars, it makes finding actually good, high-quality results much more arduous for the discerning user.

It gets worse when you consider the priority Google’s search engine has on iPhones and Android devices. This year, the US government declared Google a search monopoly, saying the company paid the likes of Apple, Samsung and Mozilla billions of dollars a year to be the default search engine on their devices and browsers. Then there’s Chrome, which is the world’s most popular browser with its own dubious history around tracking users in Incognito mode. Can we even trust what we see on Google Search any more?

People have begun to quit using Google Search altogether, with the rise of alternatives like DuckDuckGo and Kagi, a search engine you’d pay $10 a month to use, as well as OpenAI’s SearchGPT, which launched this year. But I’m not convinced that the vast majority of users will switch to these options, especially since one of them costs money and another involves more AI. I can understand that it’s hard to make a product that adapts to your users’ needs while also keeping your shareholders happy. If only Google (or any big company, really) could re-rank its priorities and bring back a search engine that simply connects people to the best that the internet has to offer. — Cherlynn Low, deputy editor

Intel

The road to every great tragedy is paved with people making the most self-serving decisions at the worst possible times. Which brings us neatly to Intel as it burns through its last remaining chances to avoid becoming a business school case study in failure.

Earlier this month, it fired CEO Pat Gelsinger halfway through his ambitious plan to save the chip giant from its own worst instincts. Gelsinger was an engineer, brought in to fix a culture too beholdened to finance types who can’t see beyond the next quarter.

Sadly, despite telling everyone that fixing two decades’ worth of corporate fuck-ups would take a while and cost money, it came as a surprise to Intel’s board. It ditched Gelsinger, likely because he was trying to take a longer-term view on how to restore the storied manufacturer’s success.

It’s likely the accursed MBA-types will now get their way, flogging off the company’s foundry arm, kneecapping its design team in the process. It’ll take Intel a decade or more to actually feel the consequences of ignoring Gelsinger’s Cassandra-like warnings. But when TSMC reigns alone and we’re all paying more for chips, it’ll be easy to point to this moment and say this was Intel’s last chance to steer out of its own skid. — Daniel Cooper, senior editor

Fans of Apple’s Lightning connectors

We knew the writing was on the wall when the iPhone 15 debuted with USB-C in 2023, but this year put Lightning’s shambling corpse in the grave. The Apple-only connector was a revelation when it debuted in 2012’s iPhone 5, replacing the gigantic iPod-era 30-pin connector. Unlike the then-ascendant micro-USB port that dominated Android phones and other small devices in the early 2010s, Lightning was thinner and — this was key — reversible, so there was no wrong way to plug it in.

It eventually made its way to a large swath of devices in the Apple universe, including AirPods, iPads, Mac accessories and even a Beats product or two. But even Apple relented and started flipping new products to the similarly sized (and likewise reversible) USB-C, albeit years after it had become the dominant standard for data and power connections worldwide. With even holdouts like the AirPods Max and the Mac input devices getting USB-C retrofits in 2024, only a handful of legacy Lightning devices — the iPhone SE, iPhone 14 and old Apple Pencil — are left on Apple’s virtual shelves, and all will doubtless be gone by this time next year. That’s OK: Lightning served us well, but its time has passed. All hail our universal Type-C overlords.

So while the death of Lightning is a flat-out win for cross-device charging for the whole world going forward, anyone whose home is still bristling with soon-to-be-replaced Lightning charging stations can be forgiven for feeling a pang of nostalgia in the meantime. — John Falcone, executive editor

Moxie the robot dies

When I wrote about Moxie, the child-friendly robot from Embodied, I was charmed by its adorable design and chatty demeanor. It was meant to serve as a companion to children, something that could help them read or simply have conversations. I was less charmed by its $1,499 to $1,699 price, alongside an eventual $60 a month subscription. And now Moxie is officially dead, as Embodied announced it’s shutting down operations due to “financial challenges” after a failed funding round.

Dead home robots aren’t exactly a new phenomenon (remember Jibo?), but Moxie’s demise feels particularly rough, since it was a device mainly meant to help kids. Imagine having to tell your child that their robot friend had to shut down because of “financial challenges.” Embodied said it would offer customers age appropriate guidance to help discuss the shutdown, but no matter how you spin it, it’ll be a tough (and possibly traumatizing) conversation for your youngin. Perhaps it’s good to learn early though that all of your smart devices will die. (Not our pets though, they are immortal.) — Devindra Hardawar, senior editor