Ahead of his time, confirm or deny? >using overlays to replace

>wood panneling

lol fucking 70's was retarded

Deny, overlays are a gimmick. Besides what was this ahead off? Giving people a lesser system?

>>3436547
Letting tech advance enough to actually program video elements.

>>3436547
Lesser than what, Faggot? Shit was literally the first home console.

>>3436737
Than a computer or arcade numbnuts.

>>3436662
And how does it do that?

>>3436367
It's comfy af, moron

>>3436767
I don't think you're appreciating the level of technology in 1972. There was pretty much one arcade game - Pong and computers were million dollar pieces of equipment only laboratories and universities had. If you were a college technology student you might have gotten to play Hunt The Wumpus

>>3436367
It's far superior to the comparatively garbage designs we have now.

>>3436335
Of course it was ahead of it's time. It was the first home video game console. Back in 1972 this shit blew people away. You could play these newfangled "video games" in your fucking home for free. Yes there was a time when you couldn't do that. It's worthless by today's standards but it's important and deserves a place in video game history.

>>3436875
>computers were million dollar pieces of equipment
That's wrong. The PDP-1 cost $120,000 in 1962.
http://s3data.computerhistory.org/pdp-1/DEC.pdp_1.1963.102652408.pdf
In 1972 you could probably get a complete system for far less than $100,000
There were simpler computers for less than $10,000 like the HP 9800 series.

>>3437316
Who fucking gives a shit how much they cost? Barely any households even had a computer until the 80's and it wasn't until Apple came along in the mid 70's that anyone even wanted one.

>>3437351
>Who fucking gives a shit how much they cost?
If someone vastly overstates how much they cost then it matters.
Let's keep in mind that 10,000 were a lot of money, even luxury cars were less than that.

>>3437398
Way to miss the point, so I'll outline it for you. The point was they were really expensive and barely anyone had them in their homes.

>>3437585
That changed when kits like the Altair 8800 became available.

>>3437585
>I got called out so it's suddenly not really relevant
Shut the fuck up.

>>3437598
You gonna make me? I didn't think so.

>>3437592
When was that? Did a significant number of households have them?

>>3437297
No.

>>3437678
Yes. Early 70's design and style was far superior to today's in terms of things like cars, household appliances, mechanical tools, furniture, etc. Things lasted longer too.

>>3437676
1974. Maybe not the general public but it got computers into the hands of hobbyists.

>>3437707
Well my original point was that something like the Odyssey would have been revolutionary at the time because of how primitive and minimally appealing computers were at the time. Also consider the fact that home video game machines didn't exist before it.

>>3437693
Isn't that mostly because of planned obsolescence?

>>3437746
Yeah, but as early as 25 years ago a lot of things were built to last as long as possible because companies took pride in the quality of their product. Now most things are made with profits, and only profits, in mind. You don't make as much money when your tools last 20 years. Money is the primary concern now, and has been for a long time. They don't care if you appreciate how well built their product is. All they care about is how much money they can squeeze out of you.

>>3437746
In fact it's entirely because of planned obsolescence. We have the technology to build things that last 10 times as long as they did 50 years ago, but you know, money.

>>3436782
>i'm a moron because I have different taste than you

okay kid

>>3437783
>the 70's was retarded because you don't like a design choice

Okay, kid.

>>3437793
>make futuristic space oddyssey design
>make sure to not forget some retarded ass wood panels

yes, the 70's were retarded and so are you grandpa.

>>3437760
While I don't deny that, keep in mind how complex shit is today.

If I have a smart phone, the two most likely things to break are the battery and the screen.
Batteries naturally wear down and have a huge focus on making better ones that last longer.
The touchscreen is of course glass, and even saphire glass has it's limits.

The rest of the phone will probably last decades.

>>3437804
An analog for this back then would be vacuum tubes.

You can get really high quality ones, but they all have a fragile glass envelope, and eventually the heater will burn out.

>>3436367
It's more eco-friendly than being addicted to plastic shit that further drives the need for oil.
It also looks better.

>>3437809
>It also looks better.

No.

The worst about the Odyssey is Baer's behavior. Pretending to have invented video games and suing everybody trying to release game systems.

>>3437798
>get called out for being a hypocrite
>repeat original argument

That's nice, dear.

>>3437804
But think of the incredible technology we have now. There's no way we don't have the means of making a smart phone battery that is not only durable but lasts 10 years or more. The same goes for the casing and the screen. The problem is that it would be more expensive to make things that durable, and how are the CEOs of tech companies going to maintain their multi million dollar mansions and their high end luxury/sports cars without those extra millions they're saving by making them crappy? Sam Walton, the guy who started Walmart back in the 60's, had millions of dollars but he lived in a little crappy house and drove an old 70's Ford truck. That's how humble he was, and almost everything sold in Walmart stores was made in the USA. After he died in the early 90's, it all went to shit. Now most of their crap is made in China because it's cheaper and the company just sucks overall. Read up on him. I recommend it.

>>3437812
Yes. Video game consoles now have this sterile robotic "beep boop" design.

>>3437812
It makes it adhere with the rest of the house if you have a classic house.
If you fell for the ikea "modern" family housestyle that looks cheap and gets out of fashion very fast then I feel bad for you son.

>>3437813
That's just classical American behaviour, look at the Macross history in the US.

>>3437824
Baer wasn't really American.

>>3437815
You have a slightly distorted view if technology and it's limits.

Lithium ion batteries (the kind in your phone) have reached a plateu in development. There's not much left to improve on theme, which really only leaves us with persuing alternate battery chemistries, most of which that have been discovered so far are either incredibly new and undeveloped, or offer less than 500 recharges.
There are zink-air batteries which could power your phone for a week, but they aren't rechargable.

The also, saphire glass is obscenely strong and really expensive.
Because of this, they use a faily thin layer of it for the screen.
That thin layer is strong enough for most all scenarios, assuming that you aren't dropping it on concrete without a case.

Really, the biggest limiting factor for smart phones now is how thin everyone wants them.
If the iphone 6 was as thick as the 4, it could have nearly 3 times the battery life.

>>3437836
If thinness desire is the issue then the problem is with general human stupidity. Regardless, tech companies make their products of a certain limited quality for purely monetary reasons. They will always find a way to make their product last for a few years at the most so you come back more often, with more money.

>>3437845
Like I said, I don't deny that, but it mostly only applies to cheaper things or specific companies.

Although, with cellphones, they create planned obslenence through software, rather than hardware.

Android is particulary nasty about this, and IOS 8 didn't play so nice with iphone 4s.

Also, it looks like I spoke a little to soon about Li-ion batteries.
This was in my newsfeed this morning: http://news.mit.edu/2016/lithium-metal-batteries-double-power-consumer-electronics-0817

Li-ions had platue'd but here's a pretty big breakthrough.
First market to get them will probably be quadcopters and hobby RC, since there's a huge pressure for larger, lighter batteries there.

>>3437592
>>3437598
>>3437707
>In 1972 the $99 Odyssey game console was competing with the $10,000 mainframes and the $600 Altair 8800 that wouldn't be released for two more years
This is how retarded you sound

>>3437854
Also, don't forget the ~540% inflation we've had since then.

>>3437860
The difference between a $100 console and a $10,000 computer isn't larger than the difference between a $10,000 computer and a $1,000,000 computer.
That's the claim you need to consider.

>>3437861
I'm trying to compare apples to apples but yeah the Odyssey probably depreciated a bit by 1972. In that Anon's hypothetical world though, consumers had the option of playing Star Trek on $10,000 mainframes or maybe he's suggesting they were travelling through time to the late 70s and playing Space Invaders at the pinball hall.

>>3437868
How autistic are you? Do you take everything literally?

>Computers back then were a million dollars
>UM NO ACTUALLY THE PDP-1 WAS APPROXIMATELY $120000 US DOLLARS IN 1962 AND IN 1972 THEY WERE LESS THAN 100000 AND THERE WERE SIMPLER ONES THAT COULD BE PURCHASED FOR AROUND 10000.

>>3437868
Actually the difference is exactly the same - 100x. Are you suggesting that consumers were buying $10,000 computers in 1972 to play games on them? Because we're discussing video games here. Your nitpicking my hyperbole is pure pedantry.

>>3437884
That's the factor. The difference is $9900 and $990000 respectively.

>>3437886
see>>3437880

Autism

>>3437891
I saw it. I just didn't feel like responding to it.
Sorry it that hurt your feelings.

>>3437892
>Autism

>>3437909
You're quoting the wrong post.

>>3437809
>It's more eco-friendly than being addicted to plastic shit that further drives the need for oil.

Wood paneling was always plastic painted to look like wood.

File: Wood%20Panelling%20for%20Study%20American%20White%20Oak%20Veneer%20Stained%20in%20Medium%20Oak[1].jpg (72KB, 994x560px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 994x560px

>>3438104
No