The first car ad shows what changed, what hasn’t | Hacker News Reader

The first car ad shows what changed, what hasn’t

thedrive.com

26 pointspseudolus55 comments

> The first automotive ad appeared July 30, 1898, in “Scientific America” by Winton Motor Carriage Company, based in Cleveland.

10 years too late! The first car ad was placed in the Mannheimer Zeitung by the inventor of the automobile Carl Benz himself in 1888.[1]

[1] Here a reproduction: https://p6.focus.de/img/fotos/id_1066249/mobil-autoentwicklu...

What’s it say?

Here's what I got from Google Lens + Translate'

>New patent motor car powered by gas by Benzin Benz & Cie., Rheinische Gasmotorenfabrik Mannheim. Hödite Huszeichung (honorary diploma) Russtellung Glogan 1888, Exhibited at the Engine and Working Machines Exhibition in Munich from September 12, 1888, The Wünchener Blatter wrote about this day: Neacke Rodriften, 16. Exptember in power. m seitswaldinen Kuskettung finben felt geften meberte ture traveled with the zaten tirton Motormagen zer uma Bens & Co in Wambrim de fbatt. The car is a wide frofecially Raleide unit ninlegbare Regeba with red on 200 Jim, b at ben Tricodes grisert meter tam inter or Rnd Sipe in Wagrutesten a finely crafted Ben is motor attached, the rear wheels in Serblubeng Bee By a Drud on a under the electricity Dave fann on relatively fine lace lower and continued jo ben gebode values His rite a dit is the ones in Kirjan Teabe jatirentea ute Scarpe Nakristen, 18. Seitenber Det Benyfde Latent Motorwagen, tet in about nocderes burch concerns a simple Borritung, delih merah wab Kebritomaldinen Ehrling cartells it, let act an emitag fine rite Grebehet in a Nt Etot ad gour with voruglafrem Exels, The fel fame gabing made generally antant and the love and flatte it in diditon soatm. From wan ab finben saalid

Google Translate is having no luck with this. Can some native German speaker help?

Original german:

  Ausgestellt in der Kraft- und Arbeitsmaschinenausstellung in München
  Seit dem 12. September 1888
  Die Münchener Blätter schreiben über diesen Wagen:
  In der Kraft- und Arbeitsmaschinenausstellung finden seit gestern mehrere kurze Probefahrten mit dem patentierten Motorwagen der Firma Benz & Co. in Mannheim statt. Der Wagen ist eine viersitzige komfortable Kalsche mit umlegbarem Regendach und ruht auf drei Rädern, deren vorderes durch eine äußerst einfache Vorrichtugn, ähnlich wie bei den Tricycles gesteuert werden kann. Hinter dem Rücksitz im Wagenkasten ist ein kleiner zierlich gearbeiteter Benzinmontor angebracht, der mit den Hinterräden in Verbindung steht. Durch einen Druck auf einen unter der Steuervorrichtung angebrachten Hebel setzt sich der Wagen in Bewegung. Derselbe kann auf verhältnismäßig kleiner Fläche umkehren und sofort zum Stehen gebracht werden. Seine größte Fahrschnelligkeit ist die eines in scharfem Trabe fahrenden Fuhrwerkes.

Translated via DeepL (which is impressive, by the way):

  Exhibited in the power and work machinery exhibition in Munich
  Since September 12, 1888
  The Münchener Blätter (papers) write about this car:
  At the Motor and Working Machines Exhibition, several short test drives have been taking place since yesterday with the patented motor carriage of Benz & Co. in Mannheim. The carriage is a four-seater comfortable calash with foldable rain roof and rests on three wheels, the front one of which can be steered by an extremely simple device, similar to the tricycles. Behind the rear seat in the body of the car there is a small petrol motor, delicately made, which communicates with the rear wheels. The car is set in motion by pressing a lever located under the control device. It can turn around in a relatively small area and be brought to an immediate stop. Its greatest driving speed is that of a carriage driving at a sharp trot.

This does not sound like an ad. It's just a regular newspaper story. The ad mentioned here is a genuine ad, where they tell you you can buy this item for a certain price, and they pump you up on how cool the item is.

It could have been sponsored. Many publications write sponsored posts.

It is an ad that quotes a newspaper story.

One of the comments on that article refutes that claim: That is not the first car ad, although the claim has long been made. https://www.macsmotorcitygarage.com/americas-first-automobil...?

Adjacent to this topic, I was recently thinking about how little commercial air travel has changed in the past 50 years. You can no longer smoke on an airplane, which is great. Security is a nightmare, which is less great. Has anything else changed?

I believe it is far more convenient as there are now many more direct flights and they’re much cheaper after adjusting for inflation.

Not a ton has changed for the better - but a few things have:

  1. Ticket prices have come down in real terms (especially with the advent of low cost airlines)
  2. Fuel economy on newer jets has improved
  3. Increased number of routes and frequencies
  4. Lie flat seats in business and above on long haul
  5. WiFi on planes
  6. In-flight entertainment - both seatback units and video over WiFi

And you don't need to basically go into a travel agent and get a piece of paper that is incredibly hard to replace if lost.

In general, travel information is a lot more frictionless. Flight cancelled, bags lost? There's an app for that. And in general, clothing expectations mean I have to check bags a lot fewer times.

As you say, seating is better if you're willing to pay for it but I've never bought WiFi on a flight. It's one of the few opportunities I have to really read anyway.

Flight information online is huge. Just yesterday[1], we had to pick someone up at the airport when their flight was 10 hours late. We got to do our waiting not at the airport. That's a game changer.

[1] Well, we were supposed to pick them up yesterday. They actually arrived today. 10 hours late on an afternoon flight is like that.

Airplanes no long crash into the earth at an alarmingly frequent rate.

Like they used to sell life insurance at the airport because of both the perception of how unsafe things were and the reality of it - per Wikipedia, in 1969 there were 21 air crashes or incidents - the vast majority of which had fatalities, in 2019, there were 12, the vast majority of which had none - this on top of an order of magnitude more flights in 2019 vs 1969 - the disparity grows even further when you look back into the 50's.

About the first and third ones, see https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/AirlineDeregulation.html

The significant "cool" things I can think of is internet on planes, and being able to take a shower on certain first class flights.

https://youtu.be/84WIaK3bl_s?t=424

I don't find Internet on flights a particular convenience and, if you can take showers at airline clubs, that's not a big deal either. And I've never taken advantage of in either case.

> I don't find Internet on flights a particular convenience

YMMV. I love being able to stay in touch with my folks or scroll HN/Reddit while I'm in the air with nothing to do but read a book or try to nap.

> take showers at airline clubs

That video is about Emirates First Class, where one can take a shower during the flight. This kind of convenience costs somewhat obscene amount of money, most people here I guess aren't the target audience.

Well, nothing to do but read a book sounds delightful.

Reading beats doomscrolling any time, airplane or not.

Lie flat seats are probably more important.

Sleeping upright in a chair, even a very comfortable chair, sucks. Lie flat seats are a significant change in improvement, such that flying business today might actually be a better experience than first used to be.

Safety! That's the biggest change.

https://news.aviation-safety.net/2017/12/30/preliminary-asn-...

You hit the nail on the head there.

There is no mention of terrorism on that list, but I think that is a safety related improvement that largely goes unnoticed. Yes, the TSA is generally mismanaged security theater, but overall security is so much better than it was 50 years ago. I don't think people realise how common hijacking where in the late 60s and early 70s. There was literally a hijacking every week or two. Now they are incredibly rare. There hasn't been a major one in the us in the 20+ years since 9/11.

Seat width and leg room have decreased to pack in as many people as possible.

They don't offer peanuts because the increasing numbers of people developing peanut allergies have made it too deadly.

Passengers used to dress up for air travel, but now they dress for comfort.

Alcohol used to be served for free.

Passenger violence has increased.

They started making people pay for bringing luggage in the 2000s, first with checked bag fees and then carry on bag fees.

I remember flying during regulation and I wish we’d go back to those days. Flying back then was so much better.

It was also a lot more expensive back then. Today you can pay first class and get better service. Ultimately this is what happens when air travel gets democratized: people focus on low costs.

Alternately, they add or increase costs for features that were once free/affordable until most people are priced out of them.

Between those two forces (airlines cutting services in order to make flying available to more people, and airlines turning once standard features into high priced "premium" features to line their pockets at the expense of most travelers) the effect is pretty much the same: Most people who want to fly have no option, but to find the most affordable rates where they can expect to get substandard service while only a small number of very wealthy people get what used to be granted to everyone with a ticket.

Air travel was once a luxury experience at a luxury price, and things had to change to open it to more people, but things like standing seats (https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/standing-up-airplane-seat...) and fees for carry on bags are certainly not necessary and are just airlines abusing passengers for profit.

The problem is that for the economy passenger, low fares really seem to be the end-all in terms of purchasing decisions. Legacy carriers were forced to resort to the same tactics low cost carriers did for checked baggage, because their passengers were leaving in droves, never mind that after fees prices were pretty much the same.

The “decent medium” market segment is actually fairly small. Hence why there aren’t really 100% premium economy cabins, they wouldn’t fill.

Adding on to your well stated points. Today we have to pay for Pre Check in order to have an experience that is still worse than the status quo ante. We are paying for a less bad experience.

It was also enormously expensive.

Yes and it’d be good from an environmental point of view if it had remained so. Even discounting the environmental aspect I still wish for the days of regulation. The cheaper air fares with the accompanying horrible experience is not worth it in my opinion.

Easy enough to fly first class. You get the leg room, and perks, and pay the money.

I prefer coach during regulation to first class now.

Are you referring to the "first-class" cabin on the vast majority of domestic flights? OK, maybe.

Bin space used to be plentiful in the back, so I'll give you that. And maybe you're checking bags. But here are some things you're missing out on in coach in 1980 that you get up front today:

- You're first-on.

- Drinks before takeoff (it doesn't have to be the champagne that comes by on the tray, you can ask for anything).

- Followed by a real service: drinks, appetizers, entree, dessert.

- Pillows and blankets that are actually comfortable. More than you'll know what to do with.

- Amenity kit, robe, slippers.

- A smoke-free environment.

- The brass ring, a 100% lie-flat bed surrounded by a privacy partition.

- You're first-off.

This is all just my preference and opinion. Smoking likely would have been banned eventually under regulation. I think the smoking issue is orthogonal to the discussion. Your other points stand and I was thinking only about domestic flights when I made my comment.

In many ways, I agree. There were far fewer people in the terminal and on any given flight. The service was better, too. Up front on TWA they carved the Chateaubriand at your seat. But simply eliminating smoking tips the scales in favor of flying today, for me (back then, they included mini-packs of smokes with the meal trays- gross). Also the current lie-flat seats/pods are awesome, even if you share the cabin with twice as many passengers.

Passenger violence probably went down before it went back up. Hijacking used to be almost routine.

> Alcohol used to be served for free.

No international flight has charged me for alcohol. Now, I've had national flights even try to charge me for snacks.

Drinks used to be free on domestic flights, too. And in addition to snacks, there were hot meals (also included in the price of the ticket).

One cool thing about coach back in the day were the center seats that folded forward to use as a table for drinks or cards. Planes flew at such lower passenger loads that this made sense. Imagine the likelihood of anyone being able to take advantage of this weird feature today!

The low cost airlines do, even long-haul international. I know it was definitely for-fee on Condor when I flew them from Germany-West Coast USA a few weeks ago (~10h flight).

The last few times I’ve flown, they offered peanuts as snacks.

That's impressive (or disturbing). I wonder if they've come up with some kind of peanut that doesn't trigger peanut allergies. I miss the airline peanuts and I was always a little sad that so many cultural references and stand up routines were dated by their absence

When they are offered there's usually an alternative snack offered. Most common seems to be pretzels and or a cookie of some sort. I had a non deadly peanut allergy growing up that I outgrew so never really acquired a taste for peanuts, I'm always grateful for the alternatives.

I think that their temporary absence was a bit of overreaction to peanut allergies (which continues in a lot of environments like schools still). Individuals who would have a reaction simply by being in the same general space as peanuts are rare if not nonexistent. Probably, for K-8, it does make sense in that kids can’t be relied upon to not do dumb things like give their nut-based snack to an allergic kid, but an airplane is a controlled enough environment that it’s unlikely to be an issue. The one key thing would be avoiding hidden nuts, e.g., here have this slice of banana bread—surprise it has nuts mixed into the dough!

Wasn't air travel mostly restricted to the wealthy back then?

Whether that was the original (which I doubt) those old car ads remind me of old home computer ads from the late 70s and 80s.

“keep your recipes on this thing and chuck out the cookbooks”

The article claims that the ad is a lot more wordy than ads today, which they attribute to decreased attention spans. Which may have something to do with it, but I suspect the real reason in this case is that the ad looks like an article.

It looks more like an unattributed sponsored post than an ad.

The main thing it dismisses is the "faster horse" myth. People wanted to DISPENSE WITH A HORSE.

The point of the quote — “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” — is that until the motorcar existed most people would not have been able to imagine it. This ad does nothing to contradict that.

The 'ad' itself is sort-of a myth, too.

The 'faster horse' was just a quip that Ford made. Nothing anyone ever actually said they wanted.

The quote however shows that sometimes it takes an invention, or an inventor, to jump from an old context to a newer one without the market asking for it. A similar one regarding computers could have been like "Had I asked people what they wanted, they would have replied bigger abacuses", that is, it requires some genius (besides courage and deep pockets) to realize when it's time to rethink about the problem and jump to a better solution that is a lot more than the previous one on steroids.

Not sure. There was a pretty incremental path from earlier mechanical computing devices, like Pascal's Pascaline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_calculator towards more and more sophistication. Then you have electromechanic devices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_computer#Electro-me... then the first fully electronic devices, etc.

There were some groundbreaking innovations happening in reality, but merely sped up the process; without them incremental progress would have eventually gotten us there, too.

In general, in a high dimensional space incremental progress is incredibly powerful. That's how we train neural networks, and that's how evolution works.

Courage and genius still help speed things up, when you can get them. But they are seldom absolutely necessary.

Slightly related: https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2016/Boudreauxprosp... has a good point about pool noodles. Pool noodles were a minor invention at some point. Nobody really needs pool noodles to get through the day, but they do provide a bit of utility (otherwise people wouldn't buy them). Lots of small and incremental improvements in the economy look like pool noodles. But taken together they really add up.

Now, if they had called it a shitless horse, that would have been something people wanted...

You're not kidding! https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Great...

I remembering reading about the horse manure crisis that was solved by the automobile's invention. I'd forgotten that abandoned dead horses were part of the problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com