Adam Savage on multimeters

[bd139]

Agree with you last point.

Some products are just “done”. Unfortunately marketards keep pushing for ground breaking new ideas and things so they can up sell over the competition. At best a product line should be honed carefully, the 87 series being a fine example.

But realistically a lot of companies never get to “done” and barely I suspect actually end up putting a product in an end user’s hand. Working in isolation is risky.

Keysight are a fine example of that. The U1241C proudly states it has an auto hold feature, but it’s unusable. Did anyone ever actually put it in an engineer’s hand? When whining about this I am told that I need to go into a menu and set something and do this and do that. So the end user gets into defending poor defaults. Really it doesn’t work anything like it should even with that set up.

Brymen are another example with the 867.  Proudly stating backlight. But it’s horrible and turns off before you’ve got to take the reading you need. Doh. But that’s worse is the horrible sub mode memory which means every time you rotate the switch you have to decipher which annunciators are on to work out which sub mode you left it in last time. Then reason about how many times you have to press to button to get it back to where you want about it.

So that’s why people go Fluke first. Someone actually acknowledged something was done and thought about the end users.

The competition is too busy marketing features and new lines while repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

Edit: as for the aforementioned 8000A, that thing is a turd. But they learned from it and didn’t make the mistakes again.

[floobydust]

John Fluke Co. spent a lot of money on R&D. To make a top notch DMM, you must have many custom parts - the multimeter IC, the resistor divider array, the PTC/MOV's, the fuses - all are custom Fluke parts because what's out there wasn't feasible and he had no problem blazing the trail.

But the Fluke silicon is getting old and would have to be redone to modernize the feature set. Linear Tech's openness gobbled up by Analog Devices and when's the last time they made anything custom? North American semiconductor manufacturers have nothing for a DMM IC, beyond the antique Maxim MAX134. You'd have to go to Asia and Hycon or Crystek - and your IP would get ripped off or volumes too low for them to bat an eyelash.

Fortive/Danaher continues to milk the old cow and provide value to shareholders. The 87V Max shows they can only make little changes here and there for fear of wrecking the legend. Gone are the days of engineering as the emphasis, nowadays it's all short-term corporate profit as the goal. Fortive/Danaher is impotent with regards to innovation and new product development, they will never make new custom silicon for a new DMM. Agilent handhelds didn't try either.

[Fungus]

...change something that's been an industry standard for 35 years?

It already has changed over that time, IV times!

Some of those changes were quite big: They moved buttons around, the number of counts changed, they changed the current range default from DC to AC, they added temperature, they changed the way you switch into hi-res mode...

All those are changes that would break procedures, manuals, etc.

PS: What was wrong with the 87 IV? It seems to have been very short lived.

[Wytnucls]

Nothing wrong, except that it had nothing in common with the 87III. It was dropped along with the 89 IV, to introduce the 187 and 189.
To fill the gap between the 87III and the new meters, the 183 and 185 were coralled at night from Tektronix.
Strangely enough, the new 189 had less internal memory than the retiring 89 IV (100 versus 700). Otherwise they were identical.
The 187 gained a better voltage accuracy and an optional computer logging over the 87 IV.

[joeqsmith]

...change something that's been an industry standard for 35 years?

It already has changed over that time, IV times!

In much the same way UNI-T has changed their UT-61, Fluke seems to like the number "87".   I wonder why.   

Nice looking high contrast paper white background 187.   I've never seen one look near that nice in the wild. 

[Wytnucls]

This is as good as it gets.
The 89 IV seems to have the edge in this picture:

[rsjsouza]

I watched this video a couple of months ago and completely understand his reasoning to get a Fluke again - one without current measurement no less, for extra protection against user error. I would be a bit weary of actually vouching for the 101^*, but I fully understand his reasoning.

Regarding the Fluke vs. others debacle, from my POV there is no uncompromised solution. Fluke DMMs compromise the latest features and accuracy but rest on their laurels of track record, durability and resilience to abuse. I know of a few other brands that have reasonable track record as well (Sanwa and Hioki come to my mind, mostly because I know how several popular VOMs sold in Brasil in the 80s are still alive and well, but others would probably make that list).

Also, thinking about Fluke as DMMs only is a bit myopic. A quick glance at their test measurement product line (not counting biomedical, etc.) reveals a vast array of products.


As for longevity and track record, it clearly has an immense value in the marketplace - otherwise, why Simpson meters would still be sold new and at a very steep price?

^* I had quality problems in two units - one missing anunciators and both with corrosion/crude inside. Sure, they were bought from online stores therefore one can't necessarily guarantee proper storage conditions, but both were new and un-opened from what I could tell.

[Analog4]

According to the multimeter spreadsheet....

The Bryman BM869 & Greenlee DM-860A have a single 9V battery.

The Fluke 87V has a 9V battery

Fluke 289 & 287 use 6 AA batteries. Those meters need an update for battery power draw.

[wizard69]

I think that, as Dave writes above, Fluke has earned its reputation and following

I don't believe anybody's denying that. The problem is that Fluke has changed from a "make the best meter possible" company into a "Milk them for the most profit" company.
Let's take the infamous 87V for example. Is there a single person here who can't think of a way to improve it?

Who says they have to improve something that's been an industry standard for 35 years?
Also, big companies like this are slow and hesitant to make changes. Take my GSM video that exposed an issue with the 87V, it took then 12 months to come out with a fix for it. I asked then why it took so long and they said something along the lines of "We like to take our time and make sure it's done right, and changing an industry standard product is a big deal".
They are up to v5 so it's not like they haven't changed it. But it's like Keysight and their scopes, the Megazoom IV ASIC is now something like 11 years old and it's still selling.

But maybe the real reason why they haven't changed the 87-V since it's release in 2004 is because their big customers don't want them to change it.
Heck Fluke is the company that had to introduce the dumbed down 27-II that didn't have True RMS because their military customers demanded it because countless test procedures had already been produced around the previous model.

Fluke is a company that has a different focus to more consumer oriented companies.

If people haven't worked in a regulated industry they have no idea how much of a problem it can be to get something changed.   I got involved in a project to replace an illuminator on a centering machine.   In this case nothing more than a dirt simple illumination source and a fiber optic.   The paper work took far longer than the mechanical design.   Having a known instrument that remains stable in its design over the years, just makes managers feel comfortable.   The very thing that people here complain about in reference to Fluke is exactly why they have the following they do.

As a side note, if somebody 30 years ago would have tired to tell me that I would not be able to buy light bulbs for optical instruments, in 2020, I would have laughed.   Now I'm the one searching all over the planet for specialist bulbs because of the tremendous amount of work involved in buying something modern and getting the validation done.

[wizard69]

Who says they have to improve something that's been an industry standard for 35 years?

Obviously they don't have to do it.

Totally agree. It boggles my mind how some people struggle to understand that change for the sake of change isn’t actually a virtue.

What's the alternative? Never change, still be producing the exact same 87V 100 years from now?

That's the mentality that boggles my mind - that even a once-per decade feature refresh is unthinkable.

It is only a problem if your mind has been biased believing that frequent updates are a good thing.   Some designs are just classics and don't need constant updating.   Consider some things from the mechanical world, The BridgePort Mill, The Hardinge HLV or Monarch 10EE lathes.  These designs have remained basically the same for decades now.   The only changes being made to items technology passed by.   To be honest I don't expect Flukes mainstream meter to last for 5 or 6 decades but the followups will deliver the same class performance.

(Yeah, yeah, the "87V Max"...)

Imagine it's 2015 and Fluke releases the 87VI with 9999/99999 counts, 200MHz TRMS bandwidth and it autoranges twice as fast.

Which would immediately cause all sorts of grief in industries that have standardized on the 87.   By the way fluke has other meters that it can innovate on.

Small changes that won't affect any procedures or manuals unless they rely on getting "wrong" measurements (eg. when measuring a 20kHz signal).

Your really have to become familiar with regulated industries before making comments like that.   By definition changing the meter would require changing the SOP, manuals and any thing else related.   Also wrong is meaningless here if you get different results with a new meter, by definition the results you get with the old meter are what you would need to duplicate and are "right".   Otherwise you have to redo your procedures and go through a validation.   

Are you saying you wouldn't want one?

Me, personally I might want one.   Professionally it is an extremely complicated question to answer.

Beyond that you seem to be one of these people obsessed with digits.   Resolution has its value no doubt, but often it isn't needed.   

I'm calling bullshit on that.

Well that is nice.    The reality is far different and you don't seem to understand that the reason the model 87 still sells well is because customers what it the way it is.    It might not be the meter for you but in many respects it is an industry standard.

I'm betting that a lot of people around here would buy one just to get the faster autoranging.

I'd also bet a lot of money that Fluke could release a decent $200 meter and all those entrenched contracts, procedures and manuals would suddenly start being reevaluated.

Nope!   Fluke would be better off offering a new meter that is a completely different model.   I've been involved in more than a couple of engineering efforts to validate minor changes to a process or instrument and such an effort is often many times more involved than whatever minor change is being inflicted on the instrument.   It is such tedious work that people will do almost anything to avoid the challenge.

Bottom line: It's the Fluke name and yellow color that counts, not the exact technical specs of the meters.


PS: A lot of the richest companies in the world are built around "change for change's sake", eg. Apple, Microsoft, Google, Auto makers...

Yes they do and frankly I have an Apple M1 based Mac Book Air, so I know exactly what that change for change sake does.    However we are talking a different industry here, and Fluke with the 87 is doing what its users expects of it.   

You see here I'm more along your lines of thinking when it comes to buying stuff for personal use.   That is if the budget allows for it, and often it doesn't, thus used stuff.  However what is good for ones personal usage isn't so good for work.   This is the difference, one situation I don't have a care about what I'm using the other I need to follow procedures.

[bdunham7]

I'd also bet a lot of money that Fluke could release a decent $200 meter and all those entrenched contracts, procedures and manuals would suddenly start being reevaluated.

I don't think anyone is going to rewrite and recertify their procedures to save a few bucks on a DMM that has a lifetime warranty anyway.  And if they would, I suspect Fluke might worry that they might decide on a different product, given the vagaries of government and corporate contracting.  One of the key selling points of the unloved Fluke 8846A is that it emulates 30-year old worn out meters, saving various operators the need of revisiting code that was written by people that retired 20 years ago.

Some product areas thrive on change and innovation, whether contrived or genuine.  Others don't and some products have been perfected, or at least brought to the point where further improvements are just not what customers are asking for.  KitchenAid introduced the Model K mixer in 1937.  You can buy one new today, completely compatible with all the bowls and accessories of an 80+ year old design.  I think it is still the top selling stand mixer in the world.

[vk6zgo]

I think that, as Dave writes above, Fluke has earned its reputation and following

I don't believe anybody's denying that. The problem is that Fluke has changed from a "make the best meter possible" company into a "Milk them for the most profit" company.
Let's take the infamous 87V for example. Is there a single person here who can't think of a way to improve it?

Who says they have to improve something that's been an industry standard for 35 years?
Also, big companies like this are slow and hesitant to make changes. Take my GSM video that exposed an issue with the 87V, it took then 12 months to come out with a fix for it. I asked then why it took so long and they said something along the lines of "We like to take our time and make sure it's done right, and changing an industry standard product is a big deal".
They are up to v5 so it's not like they haven't changed it. But it's like Keysight and their scopes, the Megazoom IV ASIC is now something like 11 years old and it's still selling.

But maybe the real reason why they haven't changed the 87-V since it's release in 2004 is because their big customers don't want them to change it.
Heck Fluke is the company that had to introduce the dumbed down 27-II that didn't have True RMS because their military customers demanded it because countless test procedures had already been produced around the previous model.

Fluke is a company that has a different focus to more consumer oriented companies.

If people haven't worked in a regulated industry they have no idea how much of a problem it can be to get something changed.   I got involved in a project to replace an illuminator on a centering machine.   In this case nothing more than a dirt simple illumination source and a fiber optic.   The paper work took far longer than the mechanical design.   Having a known instrument that remains stable in its design over the years, just makes managers feel comfortable.   The very thing that people here complain about in reference to Fluke is exactly why they have the following they do.

As a side note, if somebody 30 years ago would have tired to tell me that I would not be able to buy light bulbs for optical instruments, in 2020, I would have laughed.   Now I'm the one searching all over the planet for specialist bulbs because of the tremendous amount of work involved in buying something modern and getting the validation done.

The funny thing is, Broadcasting was a "Regulated industry", but really, at least in Oz, the regulator didn't really give a stuff about how you achieved it, as long as the ultimate product transmitted to the viewers/listeners was within spec for the applicable Broadcast Standards.

TV & sound broadcasting equipment was often subject to major modification over the decades of life which were common in the past, to allow for the unavailability of earlier components.

Replacing all failed components "like for like" would have been incredibly costly, & pretty much untenable.

[tooki]

Who says they have to improve something that's been an industry standard for 35 years?

Obviously they don't have to do it.

Totally agree. It boggles my mind how some people struggle to understand that change for the sake of change isn’t actually a virtue.

What's the alternative? Never change, still be producing the exact same 87V 100 years from now?

That's the mentality that boggles my mind - that even a once-per decade feature refresh is unthinkable.

(Yeah, yeah, the "87V Max"...)

Imagine it's 2015 and Fluke releases the 87VI with 9999/99999 counts, 200MHz TRMS bandwidth and it autoranges twice as fast.

Small changes that won't affect any procedures or manuals unless they rely on getting "wrong" measurements (eg. when measuring a 20kHz signal).

Are you saying you wouldn't want one?

I'm calling bullshit on that.

I'm betting that a lot of people around here would buy one just to get the faster autoranging.

I'd also bet a lot of money that Fluke could release a decent $200 meter and all those entrenched contracts, procedures and manuals would suddenly start being reevaluated.

Bottom line: It's the Fluke name and yellow color that counts, not the exact technical specs of the meters.


PS: A lot of the richest companies in the world are built around "change for change's sake", eg. Apple, Microsoft, Google, Auto makers...

... and IMHO, a lot of their changes are ultimately for the worse. I used to work as a UX designer, and the current trend of “airy”, “flat” UI design is a usability nightmare.

Many good products do remain on the market unchanged (or as 100% drop-in replacements) for a long time. I was also going to give the example of KitchenAid stand mixers: their first model came out over 100 years ago, and to this day, all attachments sold for those work with a brand new one, and vice versa. They now sell additional models, but the base model is still a drop-in replacement.

There are tons of tools that remain unchanged for decades or longer, because someone long ago got it right.

Fluke got the 87V right. It’s an industry standard for a reason. There’s no one feature in it that is market leading. But the whole package is balanced just right for its target market, which isn’t you.

For customers who want more “innovation”, they sell other models.

I'd also bet a lot of money that Fluke could release a decent $200 meter and all those entrenched contracts, procedures and manuals would suddenly start being reevaluated.

I don't think anyone is going to rewrite and recertify their procedures to save a few bucks on a DMM that has a lifetime warranty anyway.  And if they would, I suspect Fluke might worry that they might decide on a different product, given the vagaries of government and corporate contracting.  One of the key selling points of the unloved Fluke 8846A is that it emulates 30-year old worn out meters, saving various operators the need of revisiting code that was written by people that retired 20 years ago.

Some product areas thrive on change and innovation, whether contrived or genuine.  Others don't and some products have been perfected, or at least brought to the point where further improvements are just not what customers are asking for.  KitchenAid introduced the Model K mixer in 1937.  You can buy one new today, completely compatible with all the bowls and accessories of an 80+ year old design.  I think it is still the top selling stand mixer in the world.

Funny that you also thought of KitchenAid! I had already started a reply yesterday but ran out of time on the train. But even the pre-model K attachments are compatible.

[Fungus]

Beyond that you seem to be one of these people obsessed with digits.   Resolution has its value no doubt, but often it isn't needed.   

Not really, I'm just sticking to changes that wouldn't need procedures/processes to be rewritten but would still improve then meter and get the world buzzing/talking about the new Fluke87 VI.

I get that moving buttons around is bad but having the same number of digits on screen when measuring 5V and 7V seems a natural progression that wouldn't confuse anybody but could sell a few more meters.

Similarly: The time for the result to appear on screen isn't going to be written in any manuals but "industry's fastest autoranging" would be a selling point.

Nope!   Fluke would be better off offering a new meter that is a completely different model.

Fluke isn't doing that though, or if they do it's always at a price point or feature combination that doesn't compete with the 87V.

(ie. It will either be more expensive or deliberately lacking an important feature - eg. TRMS/uA)

This ^^^ is what makes me suspect that the 87V isn't as cast-in-stone as everybody is saying. I'm not saying you could take it away without leaving a major problem but I don't believe it's 100% impossible to incrementally improve it. It would still be a Fluke 87, people could still ask for it by name and sign off on it without thinking.

[EEVblog]

There are tons of tools that remain unchanged for decades or longer, because someone long ago got it right.
Fluke got the 87V right. It’s an industry standard for a reason. There’s no one feature in it that is market leading. But the whole package is balanced just right for its target market, which isn’t you.
For customers who want more “innovation”, they sell other models.

^^^ This
It's actually kinda nice to have a long term standard like this.
Also, don't forget government and military contracts. It's not uncommon for governments and the military to get companies to comit to supply contracts for sometimes decades. That means they can't change it.
Well, they could release an 87VI, but they'd likely still have to comit to producing the 87V, and that could be confusing for the market.

[EEVblog]

Beyond that you seem to be one of these people obsessed with digits.   Resolution has its value no doubt, but often it isn't needed.   

Not really, I'm just sticking to changes that wouldn't need procedures/processes to be rewritten but would still improve then meter and get the world buzzing/talking about the new Fluke87 VI.

Try reading a few military manuals some time, you'd be surprised how little things you might not think matter, matter.
Just the act of changing the name from 87V to 87VI would require a change.

I get that moving buttons around is bad but having the same number of digits on screen when measuring 5V and 7V seems a natural progression that wouldn't confuse anybody but could sell a few more meters.

You need to work in a heavily regulated industry to understand.
Counts changes the resolution on autoranging too rendering info showing significant figures no longer matching.

Nope!   Fluke would be better off offering a new meter that is a completely different model.

Fluke isn't doing that though, or if they do it's always at a price point or feature combination that doesn't compete with the 87V.

Why would they want to compete with their own top selling product?
Standard business practice to be very careful about that.

You seem upset that Fluke aren't making the meter you want at the price you want. I'd try and get over that, because they probably never will.

[Fungus]

You seem upset that Fluke aren't making the meter you want at the price you want. I'd try and get over that, because they probably never will.

No, I'm trying to understand why we'll all still be using the Fluke 87V a thousand years from now.

Makes no sense to me. 

[rsjsouza]

According to the multimeter spreadsheet....

The Bryman BM869 & Greenlee DM-860A have a single 9V battery.

The Fluke 87V has a 9V battery

Fluke 289 & 287 use 6 AA batteries. Those meters need an update for battery power draw.

I personally prefer 9V batteries due to leakage issues with AA/AAA

However, the more modern Lithium non-rechargeable batteries are also pretty good with regards to leakage, thus the scales are tipping a bit (not all meters have good battery life with rechargeables, unfortunately).

[rsjsouza]

You seem upset that Fluke aren't making the meter you want at the price you want. I'd try and get over that, because they probably never will.

No, I'm trying to understand why we'll all still be using the Fluke 87V a thousand years from now.

Makes no sense to me. 

Fungus, we talked about this in another thread, where there are some untangible features that are really not able to be translated to a specifications sheet or manual.

The 87V seems to be a perfect storm of characteristics of a DMM - at least attested by its popularity. Objectively, the meter performs very well the fundamental functionality of a DMM (V/Ω/A) within an accuracy that covers probably 99.9% of the use cases, has incredible resilience to abuse built into the product and attested by decades of history and it may be a real cash cow for its maker due to the small changes to its internals and interface (probably driven by the availability of its core processor, currently an MSP430).

[Fungus]

You seem upset that Fluke aren't making the meter you want at the price you want. I'd try and get over that, because they probably never will.

No, I'm trying to understand why we'll all still be using the Fluke 87V a thousand years from now.

Makes no sense to me. 

Fungus, we talked about this...

I'm not saying it's no good, I'm saying it's still got a little bit of space for improvements.

But ... the people here say it's untouchable, that no change is ever possible or even desirable.

I have a hard time with that.

I find it much easier to believe that if Fluke announces the Fluke 87 VI tomorrow then everybody here would be on the Fluke website within 10 seconds to read the specs and find pricing/availability.

You included.

[mansaxel]

The funny thing is, Broadcasting was a "Regulated industry", but really, at least in Oz, the regulator didn't really give a stuff about how you achieved it, as long as the ultimate product transmitted to the viewers/listeners was within spec for the applicable Broadcast Standards.

TV & sound broadcasting equipment was often subject to major modification over the decades of life which were common in the past, to allow for the unavailability of earlier components.

Replacing all failed components "like for like" would have been incredibly costly, & pretty much untenable.

I work in the broadcast industry as well, and we are a regulated industry, still.

Our license to transmit requires us to do (and not do) a lot of things, and some of those are related to physics, like frequencies, output power, complicance to EBU standards (R 128 for programme loudness comes to mind) et c.

Fortunately, we (and our sub-contractor who is responsible for transmissions) only need to prove that we are right, and that shall be verified by the regulator. We don't have to have a process approval, only an end result approval.

The overwhelming part of "regulation" as a matter of fact controls what you publish, which can be checked with patience, a TV set, and a stopwatch.

In medical, aerospace, and similar industries, the result counts, but the process might cause harm while producing the result, so the process is regulated to much higher degrees.

[tooki]

You seem upset that Fluke aren't making the meter you want at the price you want. I'd try and get over that, because they probably never will.

No, I'm trying to understand why we'll all still be using the Fluke 87V a thousand years from now.

Makes no sense to me. 

The reasoning has been explained to you ad nauseam. I really think you don’t understand (and actively refuse to believe) just how important these other aspects are. Just because model stability isn’t important to you doesn’t mean it’s not of paramount importance to others!

I'm not saying it's no good, I'm saying it's still got a little bit of space for improvements.

But ... the people here say it's untouchable, that no change is ever possible or even desirable.

I have a hard time with that.

All change involves risk. It may be huge, it may be tiny, but it’s always non-zero. Some fields are extremely risk-averse, because the cost of failure is extremely high. Is it really worth it, to an airline or aircraft manufacturer, to risk passenger safety by updating test procedures to accommodate a new meter’s extra digit of resolution, when the old meter already offered more digits of resolution than they needed? What’s the cost to update the procedures and distribute them to all customers? Can you even ensure they all get it? And will they adhere to it? What if that extra digit of resolution gets misread by an experienced tech who is very accustomed to the old readings?

I find it much easier to believe that if Fluke announces the Fluke 87 VI tomorrow then everybody here would be on the Fluke website within 10 seconds to read the specs and find pricing/availability.

You included.

Of course we would go look. But that doesn’t mean we’d rush to actually replace our 87V’s, nor that we would rush to change all our test procedures at work.

[Cubdriver]

You seem upset that Fluke aren't making the meter you want at the price you want. I'd try and get over that, because they probably never will.

No, I'm trying to understand why we'll all still be using the Fluke 87V a thousand years from now.

Makes no sense to me. 

Because, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, there are applications where things are for all intents and purposes cast in stone.  Things like military and aerospace test and maintenance.  Procedures are written and certified using SPECIFIC MODELS of equipment.  Rewriting them to use a different instrument entails a complicated, time consuming and very expensive recertification process.  Companies are therefore understandably reluctant to switch from things that are working for their intended purpose to something new that has some bell or whistle that they do not need.  Fluke understands this, and is as a result not inclined to make changes to a meter that is basically an industry standard.

Hewlett-Packard introduced the 5245L electronic counter in 1963.  It became wildly popular in industry, and as a result wound up in many test procedures.  They introduced its intended replacement, the 5345A, in about 1975.  The 5245L was last seen in the 1981 catalog, six years after the introduction of its 'replacement'.  Its list price in 1981 was $1000 more than that of the 5345A.  Why do you suppose they kept it around?  Because companies that had it 'baked into' their test procedures would prefer to spend a few grand to buy a 'new' instrument with a nearly twenty year old design as opposed to buying something that was new and improved that would require expensive recertification.  If memory serves, the 5340A counter followed a similar path, remaining as a "We'll build you one if you really want it but it'll cost you..." item in the catalogs for a few more years after its production had officially ended, for the same reasons.

Sometimes new and improved isn't necessarily better.

-Pat

[Fungus]

Because, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, there are applications where things are for all intents and purposes cast in stone.  Things like military and aerospace test and maintenance.

And I've said repeatedly that I don't believe that those things are as cast in stone as you think they are. If they were we'd all still be using the Fluke 27FM.

If something suitable and yellow comes along then things will change. Not overnight, sure, but... change can happen.

[vk6zgo]

Because, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, there are applications where things are for all intents and purposes cast in stone.  Things like military and aerospace test and maintenance.

And I've said repeatedly that I don't believe that those things are as cast in stone as you think they are. If they were we'd all still be using the Fluke 27FM.

Or AVO Model 8?

If something suitable and yellow comes along then things will change. Not overnight, sure, but... change can happen.