"I believe it's because product design was generally worse 'back in the day.'" I don't agree with this generalization. Here's an example: A stereo receiver, ev

"I believe it's because product design was generally worse 'back in the day.'" I don't agree with this generalization. Here's an example: A stereo receiver, even today's A/V receiver, has a certain number of physical inputs. Back in the day, you had buttons on the front to select the input you wanted, clearly labeled. One press gets you the source you want, every time. Many receivers today force you to press an Input button or turn a wheel to iterate through a list of inputs, a list of unknown size and unknown beginning and end. This is because the display idiotically doesn't show a complete LIST of the inputs at once, or even a moving dot to show you where you are in the list. So you could be one input below the one you're trying to select in the list, but if you happen to turn the dial the other way you'll go through 10 inputs to get back to it. Granted, this is much less commonly encountered now because nobody is going over to his receiver to put a disc in the player, but it was a problem for many years when people were still doing so. In some cases, older designs were also better for safety. When safety is on the line, the best design (or at least universally-understood standards) often percolate to the top and stay there. A sad example of this was Jeep's attempt to "innovate" with a disastrously defective gear shift, which killed Star Trek actor Anton Yelchin: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jun/20/star-trek-actor-anton-yelchin-death-jeep-grand-cherokee-recall https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jun/20/star-trek-actor... But I also acknowledge that there have been major safety improvements. The other day I rented a chain saw for the first time and was comforted to see the safety brake on it.