My ‘argument’ (not sure we’re really in disagreement, actually) is that the actual usage/use cases were so limited back then, and the economic impact because of it was so much smaller, that they’re really not equivalent even if they might technically be called the same thing.
CNN’s literally changed the game.
It’s like talking about cell phones, so we attempt to compare [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_DynaTAC] and a modern flagship Apple or Samsung smart phone. Technically they can both make mobile phone calls, yes.
And it isn’t really wrong to compare them.
Technically, if we limit the specific scope of what we’re comparing and squint a lot, and avoid the context, they’re equivalent.
But they aren’t really the same type of thing either, eh?
In fact, if we take a broader view, the Motorola DynaTAC was a portable radio connected to the phone system, not what we’d call a phone.
CNN’s literally changed the game.
It’s like talking about cell phones, so we attempt to compare [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_DynaTAC] and a modern flagship Apple or Samsung smart phone. Technically they can both make mobile phone calls, yes.
And it isn’t really wrong to compare them.
Technically, if we limit the specific scope of what we’re comparing and squint a lot, and avoid the context, they’re equivalent.
But they aren’t really the same type of thing either, eh?
In fact, if we take a broader view, the Motorola DynaTAC was a portable radio connected to the phone system, not what we’d call a phone.