Originally Posted by
ksryder
Right? By the logic of these types of threads we should all be content with our 16" screen B&W Zenith televisions and AM mono car radios.
The difference in usability between a small CRT and say a 21-24 inch modern flatscreen is immediately apparent, nevermind the more serious issue of energy usage and the never quite settled x-ray concern that put several pounds of lead in the glass of each.
What aspect of an older steel frame bike comes close to that for an ordinary user? And if you do find something, what prevented that specific aspect from being addressed in isolation?
A lot of the features being pushed are more like the "smart TV" idea - which sounds great, but doesn't necessarily enhance most users experience over a chosen stand alone streaming box, creates vendor/provider lock in, makes you a data source, precludes maintainability, and creates many new often seen failure modes leading to embarrassingly short service life for the whole purchased product.
One of the main thing to realize with the smart TV trend is that manufacturers do it as a distraction and to have something to "differentiate" when the process of showing pixels on glass is fairly consistent across brands within a given size and price tier. There may be differences a buyer should be paying attention to, but the smart features are a big dog-and-pony show distraction to keep attention away from matters of substance.
So with a bike, what people should be asking is if it fits, has the gearing and can take the tires for their desired riding, then durability, parts standardization, if they're going to be able to self maintain or what that's going to cost. When was the last time feature-driven marketing wasn't designed specifically to conceal or even intentionally frustrate those last points?