The latter is key.

It would be both if the free market actually worked.

It's also too geeky! My dad has a hard enough time figuring out how to plug his camera into his laptop, let alone trying to find/buy/keep track of/plug in all number of "options." The general public wants one device that can do it all -- whether that's really the most practical option or not.

Tim

There's no such thing as future-proofing. And if it were remotely possible, it would be prohibitively expensive.

Yeah, and where would mass producers be without planned obsolescence?

Sorry, but there is. That's exactly why data bus technology, protocols and driver layers exist. And as a crazy tangent, it's the same reason why the human species exists, but back on point. Data bus technology, protocols and driver layers, for obvious 3rd-party reasons, evolve much slower than the peripherals that connect to them. Some good examples are USB and TCP/IP.

I still own a working version of a very early (if not the earliest) 3Com 802.11b hub that all my WiFi devices could still connect to. That was 1995ish.

Please stop drinking the telecommunication industries' kool aid. The buses inside these small devices can handle the speeds, and the batteries are sufficient. The modular idea is sound and would promote much needed competition, it's the FCC and their overlords that are the problem. Europe doesn't seem to care because they've settled on GSM, but some of us Americans care.

I wouldn't call that future proofing as much as "delaying the inevitable".

Your point about still-usable tech after the status quo has moved past it has merit, but still has to face the Law of Diminishing Returns.

As for the remark about humans being proof of future proofing, piffle. With punctuated equilibrium pretty much established as a major evolutionary driver, there's no guarantee we'll be the dominant intelligence in the future, near or far. All it'll take is a significant change to the environment and dolphins get their shot.

Modularity is never cheaper? It is when you have competing devices all using the same interface. For example, you never saw cheap microchannel cards (MCA slot) on PS/2 computers because it was proprietary. Same for VMS slots. PLENTY of cheap ISA and PCI cards in the same era, though.

I didn't say it in such an absolute. I said it would make it MORE future proof. I believe that devices with a standardized port or slot will have a LOT more usefulness for a LOT longer than something with an integrated peripheral.

@danramos: it seems that you're confusing modularity with shared standards and pricing pressure due to competition.

To an extent, though, the difference becomes moot... especially to users.