Originally Posted by Biker395

Can't say I agree with that. Sometimes, advancement is a matter of new materials allowing construction to be simplified, not made more complex. And not all technical "innovations" are about better functionality. Sometimes, they are all about consolidating product offerings, and are sold under the guise of an improvement using the Emperor's new clothes marketing strategies.

The real advantage of electronic shifting? That they'll be able to introduce more speeds with only a software change.
The real reason triples are being phased out? They don't like building and supporting two separate product offerings.
The real reason disc brakes are being pushed? Because they have definite advantages with MTBs, and e-bikes, and they don't want to be spending money to develop and support multiple system types.

VHS was actually inferior to Betamax. It prevailed because it had more companies behind it (as they didn't want to pay Sony's licensing fees). Rear entry boots were heralded as the latest improvement in ski boots to the point where it was hard to find anything else. They later completely disappeared. I know this stuff ... it's my business to know it.

I see the advantages of discs for people who ride a lot in the rain, weigh more than average, or ride tandems. There are also advantages for someone like myself that does not ride in the rain, weighs an average amount and doesn't ride tandems. but for me at least, they aren't enough to justify the more difficult maintenance and complexity (which I do myself). So for me, disc brakes are a "meh" at best. Neither a plus or a minus in terms of a purchase decision. It would be different if I rode in different circumstances.