They was, and they fails because too underspecced and ultimately useless to produce anything due to the too little screen and keyboard. The commercial idea was build fast tech, so systems with very limited shelf life and regular replacement to ensure revenues for the OEM while pushing people to use "the cloud" because of course there is not enough storage nor bogomips to do anything.

Another example are "in-browser apps" for anything, meaning not a locally served UI but a third party service. These are attempt to push people to zero ownership transferring what they need to do "on someone else computer".

LLM push is on the same line, see: https://youtu.be/5yy6XvuO2aM substantially saying "if we made LLM the sole UI users know we could drive users life an answered prompt at a time", not much different than the old Brin & Page talks about the Google Glasses and the "demasculinizing smartphones" pushing something ahead of time but in the same LLM line: voice-UIs.

Any of these attempt have a similar outcome: people "posses" but not own remote controlled devices/devices dependent on third party services and can only use them at the price and condition the substantial owner impose and change as it want. Cars? Modern connected ones, some even without "local keys" you can only unlock and start with your mobile, the same. Smart door bell? Idem.

Aside you see people keeping pushing the Franklin dream of taxes on curtains and a cannon in every street to wake up people in the morning, like the last statement from Indian Infosys founder "against the weedends, people must work 70 hours/week" https://x.com/HSajwanization/status/1857914277576732677 also https://x.com/MehulFanawala/status/1857096635647394145 etc. This is the trend toward smart-cities (even if ALL of them experimented from the old Fordlandia to current Neom, Innopolis, Arkadag etc are FAILURE) where the inmates^wslaves^winhabitants own nothing living "IoT surrounded" in a well developed "great narrative" a fictional world where they live to work consuming stuff to live but the much they could earn the more they spend to sustain psyco-physically their unbearable life.

On the other side it's the old FLOSS model, where there is the Bazaar, not the Cathedral and anyone cooperate owning their own.

You might state that's beyond the unique device/service I've cited, and yes it is, but is the trend the Σ of them offer as outcome to the society. Just for you: let's say you've had a netbook, and you have a smartphone: where are your photos stored? On your iron or on Google Photos/iCloud? Your contacts are managed my Google/Apple or with a personal Baïkal/Radicale/Sabre/Davis+DavX⁵? Do you own your financial transactions thanks to OpenBank and alike (signed XML/JSON/PDF from your banks etc) or you just see them on third party website and you can't prove anything if something happen? Your money are locally stored cash/taler (GNU) you can exchange P2P or you are bound to Visa/Mastercard/Amex/*? Could you control your car's OTA or the vendor from remote have a much more powerful access than yours? That's meaning having no ownership.

Now try to imaging what those who want these agenda need to achieve their goals? How they can convince you to give up ownership or force you without retaliation? Something you can't own.