undefined | Better HN

0 pointsanexprogrammer9y ago0 comments

It's always been the software. VHS beat Beta, both beat V2000. V2000 was the best quality by far. VHS took a long time to get close. VHS had the most films.

Same with PCs - the software done it. MS Office, Wordperfect, etc. Lots of more interesting, more sexy machines in the market became also-rans.

I'm glad cars never quite got to the same homogeneity or we'd all be driving a Datsun Sunny or something equally horrific.

I wish the market had settled for 5 or 6 different PC / phone / chip architectures, as I think the progress would have been more interesting, and much much further. Damnit Motorola should have kept making 680x0s, they were much nicer than Intels to program.

0 comments

dognotdog9y ago

> I'm glad cars never quite got to the same homogeneity or we'd all be driving a Datsun Sunny or something equally horrific.

Well, cars are incredibly homogenous ( https://medium.com/swlh/the-zombie-mobile-b03932ac971d#.mu5k... )

Some niche markets exist, but 98% of what's being bought is a completely interchangeable middle ground compromise, made by huge companies that are only looking at maximizing short term profits, without care for technological, economic, or sociological advancement.

In every industry that requires large up-front costs for economic mass production, this is true. Hopefully, 3D printing and its sister technologies will make manufacturing many things on a smaller scale more affordable, and disperse the (mass-) consumer-producer dichotomy once again, in favour of local on-demand production of everyday items.

Only with such a level and flexible playing field can you expect innovation to thrive: if it becomes affordable to buy (or create) the best tool for the job, instead of relying on mass-produced mediocrity because one-off items increase one or two orders of magnitude more in cost than in marginal utility.

coryrc9y ago

That's bullshit. Tight margins plus physics (aerodynamics and safety) plus minimum fuel standards with lower SUV standards yield "crossover" vehicles that look the same. If we could still buy station wagons, we would; they died out with higher fuel efficiency standards, but by now they'd all look pretty similar too.

That Chevy Volt concept is awful. The actual car is tremendously improved; the blind spot of the concept could obscure the Sun it's so large and that's just one obvious failing. There's a reason you don't see weird shit: cars now are really good, so variances are most likely worse.

Last rant: the New Beetle. Same cost and size as the VW sedan, but less room inside, because the design is space-inefficient and a gimmick.

anexprogrammerOP9y ago

Very interesting link, thanks. I'd always presumed that much of the blanding and corner rounding going from concept to production was about crash and person impact regulations. I'd also assumed that was the reason Citroen lost their French idiosyncracy etc.

I never understood the appeal of crossovers either - ugly, pointless things in my eyes. Especially the Porsche Cayenne, a VW something with new badge and much higher spares prices.

There's still just enough small players to keep some interest, though it's an ever dwindling number.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse