Counterexamples - technologies that lasted a long time, then hit a hard dead end.
- NTSC / PAL video.
- Audio on magnetic tape
- Video on magnetic tape
- Manual transmissions in cars
- Daily newspapers
- Mimeograph machines
- Asbestos
* NTSC / PAL video, and audio / video tapes
Better isn't always better. This is a philosophical point, so I'll just give the gist: I believe that advancing something, doesn't necessarily make things for the user better. For example, Netflix is by technical measure "better" than going all the way to a video shop with your friend, finding out they don't have what you really wanted, spending ages deciding on what to watch, going all the way back home, and sitting through the film in one sitting. Which experience did you prefer though, and more importantly, which one was better for you as a person?
* Manual transmissions in cars
What? I know in the U.S.A. most people drive automatic cars, but at least in Europe this isn't so. It's not because they're not available, it's just that nobody wants to drive them. Personally I find them boring and toyish, but I can't speak for the reasoning of others.
* Daily newspapers
There was _a lot_ wrong with newspapers back in the day. One huge thing they had going for them though (which nobody realised was even in question at the time) was that they were written by professional journalists, and they had standards. Now my "news" is given to me by half literate emotional reactionists.
I live in Europe and still get most of my daily news from the morning paper - a paper with professional journalists and correspondents with standards. The articles are also available on their (paywalled) web site, but I prefer traditional paper.
Only in US, in EU about 80% of new cars have manual transmission.
Not aware of any eu stats
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/analysis-are-man...
An automatic transmission is a non-trivial amount of weight--especially on the small cars present in the EU--and affects gas mileage tremendously.
Driving a manual in heavy stop and go traffic, however, sucks rocks whether you are in LA or Palermo. You are continuously playing the "rolling game" in order to minimize stress on your clutch to avoid burning it up.
I presume these same forces will be the ones that cause the EU to switch to electric cars first.
This is a case of 'citation needed'. It's not like manual gearboxes are weightless. Then there the likes of CVT.
What do they add is to manufacturing costs. A simple manual transmission is, well, simple, and has looser tolerances (the driver compensates). Automatic transmissions require more exotic materials - in the past we had to use whale oil, which drove their costs to unsustainable prices in non-US markets.
> Surprisingly, the fuel prices in Europe are quite exorbitant. The automatic cars tend to be heavier and can even lead to a loss in the drivetrain, thus more of fuel consumption. On the other hand, the manual is much more economical and affordable to drive. The technological advancements are making the automatic more fuel efficient though.
modern automatic, the 7-10 gear kind with a high end smart enough controller, and even that is not a given. It's basically an epicyclic gear train + a torque converter sloshing in oil (basically using fluid as a clutch that never wears out), which has big loss overall (because fluid dynamics), and the added gears+smarts in control offsets that, but they're generally less efficient mechanically than a simple manual gear train.
That said, the "automatic" moniker these days covers a whole lot of varying technologies, including CVT, and automatic (single or dual, wet or dry) clutch+gear change, which are basically manual gearboxes except stick and clutch are not mechanically user operable but driven by servos. And there you get the benefit of the more efficient gearbox and the smart control (a.k.a shift to the higher gear possible ASAP when little torque is needed instead of having the engine stay at a higher RPM, which means more travel, which means more friction)
All things being equal, MPG ratings are usually (there are exceptions) a dead giveaway of the kind of gearbox.
(Oh, and I wouldn't be surprised the least if tomorrow I learned that gearbox control programs would be "tuned" to get good MPG tests with flying colours, the VW way.)
But all of this doesn't really matter, parallel hybrid (e.g Prius&al) basically requires a more complex drivetrain involving an epicyclic gearbox+torque converter (thus auto) (+ IIRC some kind of differential gear train) to mix the two mechanical power sources that can rotate at different speeds (including not rotating at all), and serial hybrid is basically an EV, except with a power generator on board, and EV means either no gearbox or low-count gear one that is entirely driven automatically.
So, manual is going to die anyway as we're being pushed towards low emission vehicles.
Also, a factor of stick being popular in EU is also that in most countries its product bracket and image used to be placed as luxury/high end, and thus used to be subject to higher taxes/insurance premiums for some reason, which pushed the market towards the cheaper option.
Of the set the two that come closest to being interfaces are 4 & 5, the daily newspaper and manual gearbox with its shift lever. In both cases, the actual interface component --- articles written by reporters and published by a specific organisation, and a rod through which a vehicle's drive mode is selected, are the parts least changed.
Even the mimeograph's function still remains, though in most cases it's either through a smartphone or tablet (which reproduces text ina mobile manner which can be shared with others) or a printer-copier of some sort, usually functioning on either a xerographic or wet-ink jet process. In the latter case, the output (print on paper) remains.
In the cases of video formats, audio and video storage media, and structural materials, the components of the end result (video streaming, on-demand audio and video playback, and various structural members and fabrics with specific properties) have changed, but their fundamental functions and perceived endpoints are ... largely ... what they were previously. Enough so that someone from an age in which the technologies you mention were in widespread use would recognise the current replacements.
Interfaces do tend to be exceedingly durable. In large part because they address not just mechanism, but human interactions. The former may change rapidly, the latter not so much.
As european I dissent.