
The best is the last - aaronbrethorst
http://ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2016/4/20/the-best-is-the-last
======
partisan
I like the article a lot, but the main point is tautology.

It's like the saying, "It's always in the last place you look". The reason
they stop developing antiquated technology is because it has become outdated.
And because people stop investing in improvements, the last of the generation
is therefore the best of it.

Take the XC-99. It's beautiful, to be sure, but is it the best possible piston
powered plane? Could better materials provide a different design, improved
speed, more internal space and a higher carrying load? Could better engines
provide a better gas mileage, higher power output, less noise, better
performance at altitude? I think you can see that improvements could be made.
They weren't because it didn't make sense to.

To say that the technology is best when it's ripe for replacement could just
be flipped around. Technological advances happen when they happen and whatever
gets replaced was the best we could do before then.

~~~
tantalor
But propeller driven-aircraft aren't obsolete; they became turboprop.

Take a look at Super Tucano for a modern example.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano)

[http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/23/world/la-fg-
ecuador-...](http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/23/world/la-fg-ecuador-
warplane23-2010feb23)

Only $10M each!

~~~
partisan
Well, yes. And that is due to the fact that jet engines don't scale down to
personal aircraft of the size of the Super Tucano. Nor would it make sense to
do that. I am sure there are plenty of people who enjoy flying their turbo
props and would find a jet less enjoyable. But for the purposes of long
distance travel, no one wants to sit in a plane for several more hours because
they find flying in a piston powered plane charming. I want that Boom plane
here now, in fact. The shorter the flight, the better.

~~~
Bjorkbat
I'm mildly confused by your comment. It seems that you're implying that the
Super Tucano is a personal airplane.

Just checking to make sure that you know it's actually a warplane, and that
countries are buying it because it's downright outstanding for ground support.

[http://motherboard.vice.com/read/low-and-
slow](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/low-and-slow)

~~~
partisan
Sorry for the mis-wording. I understand it is a warplane; I read the articles
in the past few weeks about the impending death of the A-10 Warthog and the
use of the Super Tucano in private military fleets.

My point was that the segment of small turbo prop planes is alive and well and
so innovation, of course, continues there, but that isn't the same segment of
larger passenger or cargo planes that the article is speaking of.

~~~
Bjorkbat
Ah, gotcha. Just wanted to clarify.

------
drb311
Idlewords has a better talk on a similar theme, using planes as an example:
[http://idlewords.com/talks/web_design_first_100_years.htm](http://idlewords.com/talks/web_design_first_100_years.htm)

Engineers alive in the fast rise period assume this fast improvement goes on
for ever. But it doesn't. Once a technology gets good enough the innovation
shifts to lowering costs, not improving the product.

Do check out the link above, it's one of the most thought provoking tech
pieces I've ever read.

------
phillc73
And then that old tech is still around for a long, long time....

Piston aeroplanes are still flying today. New ones, in small 2, 4 and 6 seat
capacity are still being built[0]. Some older piston aeroplanes, perhaps in
the region of 40-60 years old, are being overhauled and modernised for
commercial flight training use.[1] Some larger 8-12 seat piston aeroplanes are
still in use carrying commercial passengers and cargo[3] and also have various
modernisation upgrade options available.[4]

Of course there are modern turboprop aeroplanes which can do the same jobs
better - for some definition - but the issue is economics. The capital
investment in a turboprop outweighs the cost of maintenance and Avgas in an
older piston engine design. (This is changing due to the fact of Avgas
becoming very scarce in many regions of the world.)

The point being, I wouldn't expect the PC, with keyboard and mouse paradigm,
to disappear in the near future. I'd still expect many white collar workers to
be sitting at their desk, typing on a something resembling a keyboard, in 50
years time.

[0]
[http://beechcraft.txtav.com/en/baron-g58](http://beechcraft.txtav.com/en/baron-g58)

[1] [http://www.aopa.org/Community-and-
Events/152-Reimagined](http://www.aopa.org/Community-and-
Events/152-Reimagined)

[3] [http://www.altitudeaviation.com.au/air-charter-aircraft-
ligh...](http://www.altitudeaviation.com.au/air-charter-aircraft-light_twin-
piperPA31_350.html)

[4]
[http://www.mikejonesaircraft.com/default.htm](http://www.mikejonesaircraft.com/default.htm)

~~~
dexterdog
Agreed. I guess the point is that there are still improvements in mobile and
TV and other interfaces. I am still many times faster at almost any task with
my laptop, but it is not always with me like my phone or as comfortable as my
TV.

------
aidenn0
The clippers weren't the last (nor to a certain standard) best commercial
cargo sailing ships. That would be the steel-hulled windjammers, which were
first built in the most popular configuration in 1875, and the largest of
which wasn't built until 1902[1].

They weren't as fast as the clippers (though still quite fast for a sailing
vessel), but they could carry much more cargo. They remained cheaper than
steam for many years for non time sensitive bulk cargo. Even after they would
have disappeared from a completely free market, they remained in service due
to the artificial cheapness of labor for some countries that required serving
terms aboard a commercial sailing vessel for certain licenses.

1:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preu%C3%9Fen_%28ship%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preu%C3%9Fen_%28ship%29)

------
Fede_V
The part about rate of improvement following an S-shape is interesting and I'd
like to see it empirically researched, but the fact that the last exemplar of
a given technology is always the most advanced is quasi tautological. Why
would you build a new plane if it wasn't better (in some way) than what came
before it? Or a new computer/phone?

------
JamesBaxter
I can see the Cutty Sark out of my window at work (barely), I've never really
thought of it as technology really.

~~~
jerf
Technology is everywhere, and we are almost blind to it because it is so
pervasive. I don't mean that as a criticism, because we really have no
alternative. Step out into a downtown area, even of a little podunkville with
three shops and a gas station, look around you, and start considering the web
of dependencies you are enmeshed in, the road, the cars, the products in the
windows, the windows themselves, all the breeding that has gone into all the
plants you see, all the sounds you here beyond the noise of the wind and maybe
some bird calls, all the smells... it would give you continuous vertigo to try
to be aware like that all the time. Worth it to do once or twice though; it's
a nice counterweight to the constant doom & gloom of the news and constant
confident assurances that everything is going to hell and has gone to hell
over the past $ARBITRARY years.

------
kabouseng
Only the best of the paradigm / technology, also known as best of breed. The
difficulty is deciding when to make the jump from old paradigm to new
paradigm. The article mentioned the clippers vs steam ships and how much
better the steam ships were, but usually the decision is much harder.

Take smart phones for example. Just when the Iphone 2.5G came out, was it
better to get a new Iphone (with in some regards limited functionality, slow
connection and poor camera) or stick with the "Best of breed" feature phones?

------
adolgert
See the square windows on the Lockheed Constellation? The window corners
turned out to be the weak point during pressurization, leading to failure, so
windows were rounded after that.

------
bryanlarsen
Propeller aircraft design hasn't stagnated. I quite enjoy flights in the
Bombardier Q400's that Porter Airlines operates.

------
anexprogrammer
Not sure I'd put the Convair as the pinacle of piston power. Constellation
sure.

P51 Mustang, or Hawker Typhoon perhaps have more claim.

So it depends from where you look. Much like I don't think I'd say that
everything possible has been optimised in the laptop world.

~~~
arethuza
I'd go for the de Havilland Mosquito:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito)

------
cmiller1
Another example: the Sega Dreamcast was the last video game console designed
from the ground up with 2D graphics in mind and still retains a cult following
for this reason.

~~~
cableshaft
Pretty sure you mean Sega Saturn. Dreamcast was mostly 3D games. Saturn was
designed primarily for 2D and they got burned for it, because Playstation and
Nintendo 64 was showing the new 3D hotness (although those early 3D graphics
really haven't aged well, while Saturn's 2D games still look pretty good), and
were also cheaper.

------
gaur
Or in some cases, like with supersonic commercial jets, the technology is
retired _before_ it's mature.

