3 ms·
It probably wasn't how many B&W sets were sold, but who owned them, that drove the compatibility. Sets being expensive luxury items meant you didn't want to ups
by mysterydip 5y ago
It probably wasn't how many B&W sets were sold, but who owned them, that drove the compatibility. Sets being expensive luxury items meant you didn't want to upset the existing userbase.
- dylan604 5y agoI wasn't meaning that it was the number alone that set the direction. Yes, they did not want to deal with bad PR of telling everyone that your very expensive device that you've had for no more than 2 years is now antiquated requiring the purchase of a new device. Could you possibly imagine the mass public spending $1000+ dollars each year on a brand new device? The PR hit from the masses must be extremely negative that no industry would ever do that, right? Some device that is nothing but entertainment? Each year? Replacing a fully functional device annually? No, surely the masses would never accept that.
- mysterydip 5y agoExcept that $1000 in early 1950s is equivalent to $10k today. Would you spend that every year? (typed on a 6 year old iPhone 6S)