And that’s why the phone company didn’t go around ripping out everyone’s landlines while cheerleaders for the primitive mobile phone technology declared it was time for universal adoption
Reposted from
Michael Paulauski♨️
Yes, many of these technologies did find success once their issues were ironed out.
But for a long time, nobody saw the purpose of having a brick that had to be plugged into a car, that had terrible reception, that people claimed caused *cancer*, all so you could take phone calls while driving.
But for a long time, nobody saw the purpose of having a brick that had to be plugged into a car, that had terrible reception, that people claimed caused *cancer*, all so you could take phone calls while driving.
Comments
I’m partial to the “think of the children” approach but there are others
We have incredibly annoying people pushing 2 extreme & silly viewpoints. One is ‘ai will make every human obsolete’ & the other is ‘ai doesn’t now & will never have a use case.’ And both extremes are ignoring the reality that all emergent tech has a pointing at the muddy middle.
1. I expect this from the right, not the left
2. The most persuasive arguments are actually true
It's possible that these people are actually in the minority and everyone with a nuanced understanding is just staying quiet. Like 97% of the people I follow don't even talk about this.
The use case was clear and compelling; the cost and form factor and service based limitations were not. That’s why it took a while for product/market fit, and mass adoption.
Bad analogy.