> Imagine where consumer electronics could be if they didn't have to be designed for the lowest common denominator.
I don't need to imagine, I can just look at the bajillion USB-C standards and versions that were not "designed for the lowest common denominator."
It got to the point where almost monthly we have posts on HN that discuss the clusterfuck that is USB-C naming standards, as well as giant guides on how to buy the correct USB-C cable without losing your mind. I bet you can easily find people ranting about it in the comment section of almost every thread that mentions USB-C on HN, even this one (and if not, just give this thread a bit more time).
At this point, I prefer to not try encouraging more of those fantasies of standards (like USB-C) "not designed for the lowest common denominator" becoming closer to reality.
When I read lowest common denominator, I think "backwards compatible".
Which has been hugely beneficial to technology. Imagine if WiFi standards weren't backwards compatible.
If technology wasn't built to the lowest common denominator, whilst you might accelera progress, you would do it at the cost of convenience and ease of functionality.
