Wow, this is a provocative article! I hope you guys got your flame suits on! Allow me to be the first to start the inevitable bickering with a few points of dissension.
First, just because a technology has been phased out does not mean that it was a failure. One technology I am referring to here is laserdisc, which I would definitely not regard as a failure. True, it did not have widespread adaptation, but for a good long while all the video stores around me did have a laserdisc kiosk, if not whole shelves full of titles. This is a technology that lasted for more than 20 years! Anyone with a decent home theater system had a laserdisc player back in the day. Furthermore, maybe the first laserdisc players were noisy, but none of the players I have ever used were noisy. Also the article notes that the discs were easily damaged, but in my experience DVDs were a lot more vulnerable. This is also only discussing its use in consumer audio, and not its widespread use as an archival medium. I don't think laserdics can fairly be regarded as a failure. Hell, many DVD titles were just ports of older laserdisc transfers. It was a technology that had a good run and then was phased out as something better came along, but it was not a failure.
I would also say, referring to the Finial laser turntable, that the idea of using lasers to read records instead of a stylus isn't really a failure, although it didn't become a thing for consumer use, so I have to partially disagree with that one, although I understand the article was discussing a particular record player. Using lasers to read records is still a thing, although it is mostly used for archiving purposes rather than home audio. The idea itself is not a failure and still is in use, although its applications as a consumer product certainly did not catch on.
As for DAT tapes, was there ever even a push for that to become a consumer technology? I don't regard this as a failure, since it was so widely adapted for professional use for so long. If you wanted to make digital studio recordings, DAT was the way to go before hard disk space became so cheap. It was also used to make digital field recordings for a long time. This is not a failure at all, just a technology that had its time and then was phased out in favor of something better. DAT has to be regarded as a success in its realm.
I don't regard H-PAS as a failure, it is just something that didn't catch on in a big way. I think it is still a good solution for systems that don't have room for subs. Let's say you are in a tight apartment or bedroom and only have room for a couple bookshelf speakers, H-PAS is a great way to get decent bass from a couple normal sized bookshelf speakers. Most bookshelf speakers that claim 40 Hz extension don't really deliver, but H-PAS (or K-BAS) actually does. H-PAS still has its place.
As for 'Atmos-enabled modules', or bouncey-house speakers, I think the jury is still out. I think its an OK idea for those who want an Atmos system but can not install in-ceiling speakers. Of course, there are all kinds of limits to these types of speakers, but they do have their place in certain situations, and manufacturers are still producing them. I agree that Dolby's claims that they are better than ceiling speakers are absurd and rather stupid. I have experienced both types of systems and conventional ceiling speakers is easily a better system, as logic would suggest.
