Alidar Jarok wrote:
The 1970s is an odd cut off since we now have fuel injection instead of carburetors, computer-controlled systems to increase efficiency (incorporating by reference the massive advances in computer technology since the 1970s), etc. Automobile technology today is about as different from 1970 as 1970 was to 1930.
"Different". An interesting choice of words. Meant to obscure the fact that the incremental/limited changes you mentioned did not bring any substantial advancement
Not due to the cosmetic approach used by Jobs, though. This was a marketing move - a very successful one. Technologically, it consisted of market-ready touch-screens and little else.
I'd like to point out an inconsistency in your approach here.
In the first quote, you dismiss technological changes as irrelevant because they didn't really affect the way we do things
In the second, you dismiss changes in the way we do things
as irrelevant because they didn't require significant technological changes, just a different application of existing technology.
Both are advancements. If you think one or the other kind of change is more important, that's fine; but if you think neither is important, than what, prey tell, would
No inconsistency, Lindley:
First quote: I dismiss the incremental technological improvements that occurred because they didn't advance WHAT the technology can do to any substantial degree.
Second quote: I dismiss the cosmetic changes that occurred because they don't/can't advance WHAT the technology can do.
What would impress me?
A car that can travel 1000 km for 1 $;
LEO cheap enough to make orbital tourism/asteroid mining/etc
feasible, leading to anyone who wants to make a few billions $ and has the now relatively modest means needed to kickstart a business in space flocking to the new market;
These would be actual substantial technological improvement; as opposed to the cosmetic changes or the shaving off a few percentages in efficiencies we recite in order to convince ourselves that some fields are advancing.