> People ditched their digital cameras en masse when smartphones became popular. Not because the smartphone cameras were better, but because they were convenient.

The early 00's transition from CRT to LCD monitors was similar. The early desktop LCD panels were expensive, had worse refresh rates, worse contrast, and worse colour rendering. To this day, even very good modern displays struggle to match CRT motion rendering.

But LCDs are so much thinner and lighter, and that was enough to overcome the disadvantages.

▲

michaelt 2 hours ago | parent [-]

CRTs were also small at any reasonable price.

A 20" viewable area, 1920 x 1440 CRT in the late 1990s? $800 [1] and that was the king of monitors.

A 22", 1920 x 1080 flat screen today? $65 [2] and considered the most basic, mundane screen out there.

And inflation-adjusted? That $800 monitor was $1500 in today's money.

[1] https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/comparison,497.html [2] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CVM2GJCN

	▲	saltcured an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Ha, my mid 90s 21" Nanao CRT cost more than my used car was worth. I went on to get some high-end CRTs with Trinitron tubes after that at work. But, as soon as I could get an LCD with DVI-D input, I never wanted to go back to a CRT. I just got whatever high resolution Dell LCD monitors I could find. I was much happier with perfect pixel addressing and zero bleed for rendering my text terminals and source code. I didn't care about color rendition and hardly cared about ghosting from scrolling.