Live data from Hacker News

Guess What's the Fastest-Adopted Gadget of the Last 50 Years

theatlantic.com

21–30 of 55 posts

Re: Guess What's the Fastest-Adopted Gadget of the Last 50 Years

#22
post #12
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, it's 7 years after first introduction to market . There are lots of products which spent a long time going nowhere and then suddenly exploded once they became sufficiently refined.

Such as the iPod? Or are you thinking of a different example? Actually I might be way off with the iPod...

No, the graph shows markets for entire product categories. Individual products might have faster initial growth (because previous iterations for that market would be ignored), on the other hand they are fast to be discontinued.

Re: Guess What's the Fastest-Adopted Gadget of the Last 50 Years

#23

If you take another look at the figure, the highest correlating factor isn't whether the "gadget" (by which they mean consumer technology, not any specific device) is for "consumption of entertainment" or "communication or production of media", as the text of the article suggests. It's simply how complicated the technology is--dare I say, how innovative the technology is--and the reason is simple: the more innovative…

Also, more advanced technology is going to be much more expensive when it first hits market than simpler refinements on existing technology.

The boom box was a significant price reduction from the standard hi-fi setup of the 70s. Cell phones, on the other hand, were prohibitively expensive for many years after their initial introduction.

Re: Guess What's the Fastest-Adopted Gadget of the Last 50 Years

#27

If you take another look at the figure, the highest correlating factor isn't whether the "gadget" (by which they mean consumer technology, not any specific device) is for "consumption of entertainment" or "communication or production of media", as the text of the article suggests. It's simply how complicated the technology is--dare I say, how innovative the technology is--and the reason is simple: the more innovative…

I think I get your point but I don't think it entirely matches the graph. Is an answering machine more technologically advanced than a portable CD player?

Edit: What I'm really trying to get at is that there are so many factors that go into adoption. Trying to sum it up by how 'advanced' the tech may be is a gross oversimplification

Re: Guess What's the Fastest-Adopted Gadget of the Last 50 Years

#28
post #23

If you take another look at the figure, the highest correlating factor isn't whether the "gadget" (by which they mean consumer technology, not any specific device) is for "consumption of entertainment" or "communication or production of media", as the text of the article suggests. It's simply how complicated the technology is--dare I say, how innovative the technology is--and the reason is simple: the more innovative…

Also, more advanced technology is going to be much more expensive when it first hits market than simpler refinements on existing technology. The boom box was a significant price reduction from the standard hi-fi setup of the 70s. Cell phones, on the other hand, were prohibitively expensive for many years after their initial introduction.

It depends on what considers to be a boombox.

A strong case could be made for the Panasonic Dynamite 8-track player from the early/mid 1970's.

[http://lh6.ggpht.com/-6pUpoW8QOVY/TyVslmmS4gI/AAAAAAAAI2k/HP...]

I don't recall seventy percent adoption of boomboxes in 1982.

Re: Guess What's the Fastest-Adopted Gadget of the Last 50 Years

#29

My guess was the keyless entry remote, which I expect is now very close to 100% penetration in the US. I wonder if that was one considered for the chart.

I'm in the 0%! But in all seriousness, I think the problem here is that these were actually introduced back in the early 80s on high-end cars. So it took a lot longer than 7 years to become widely adopted.

Re: Guess What's the Fastest-Adopted Gadget of the Last 50 Years

#30

I think this is apples to oranges comparison due to differences in prices. Early cell phones cost much more than boom boxes or CD players and they carried a monthly fee with them.

Yeah, that. CD players were highly desired but very expensive in the early days. Boom boxes came in and were probably cheaper than a decent hi-fi.
Post reply on HN