5 ms·
Probably just cheaper.
by diogenescynic 5y ago
Probably just cheaper.
- Someone1234 5y agoMore reliable too. The old music player was far more resilient compared to a non-toy, but still suffered from gunk/grime on both the records and pin.
- sulam 5y agoRight, a fully mechanical version would have far higher DPPM, and as a result likely not be profitable.
- rrss 5y agoI don’t understand how it could be made profitably 50 years ago but not today.
- zokier 5y agoIt's not a question of being profitable or not profitable, but of being profitable or more profitable. Also the market situation probably is very different, nowdays there is most likely more demand for cheaper toys and more competitive pressure to keep prices down.
- ginko 5y agoI wonder if this was originally planned to be more like the original with songs mechanically encoded in the disks but they either found the cheap microswitches in the tone arm to not have the right reaction speed or they realized developing the sound generation for the IC took too long/needed a more powerful+expensive micro controller so they went with this instead.
- IAmGraydon 5y agoNot sure what you mean. The original had no electronic parts. It was basically a hand-wound music box with interchangeable discs.