The first introduction of microcomputers wasn’t really that enthusiastic. In fact IBM lost the market because they thought it wasn’t worth it.
Who on earth would spend huge amount of money to have an accounting system and a database in a home? Ridiculous!
The first introduction of the internet wasn’t really that enthusiastic either. People didn’t get it and they were mocking at those using emails.
Oh, BTW, the internet was for porn and warez.
Yes, the internet and the web are better examples, thanks @piluso 
@sfcoin It seems there are two sets of explanations. One for technical people which as you expressed hits the core bullet points with drop downs allowing them to delve deeper at their own pace. The other is for the average person and that is something like it being much harder to spy or steal and you get to decide what stuff is worth. So yes privacy and security and later they start to get the freedom environment where their attention isn’t coerced and they don’t absorb the risk of valuing things correctly and don’t face gateways, walled gardens and toll roads.
@sfcoin “cost of a frame” would be something like .00065 cents or 2.3 cents per minute which is the somewhat rational cost of attention on per second basis relative to adjusted gross global product, available seconds of attention and global population and its is close to what rental movies cost in standard def etc. but the problem is that it would have to compete with free. In this environment those people who use (end users) the attention get to decide what its worth to them after the fact and whether they pay at all. So in a sense there is winner take all effect but no middle men so the lions share not the crumbs goes to the creative people who actually supply the content of attention. Ads would have to compete with free too, I predict they never compete effectively and therefore cease to exist as there would be no way to coerce or canalize attention.
@neo that idea about a plug in for a browser was my though too, but then I’ve started to think SAFE won’t make the broken web safer and most browsers are junk the way most OSs are. We simply need the core apps on SAFE, the content will be RIPPED from the web stripped of those who profit from artificial scarcity, toll roads, and gateway/ walled garden games,We really need a SAFE OS, SAFE browser that puts total absolute control of the interface in the end users hands (its not a stake holder thing- vendors have no stake in how the browser works) its a freedom thing. DAO type permanently un-sponsored search like the search in pop corn time and possibly some formal distributed computing to come later. Other stuff like SAFE chips and SAFE Mesh phones needs to come as fast as possible.
@BIGbtc SAFE is a basic tech like the internet itself and BTC. SAFE like BTC are forkable. If they don’t spark the first time you just keep at until there is a fire. Widespread adoption of the net itself awaited the browser and tech that could support a good end user experience including the personal computer. Browsers on mini computers and mainframes would have been nice but no so accessible. But it would be nice to get it right the first time. I see Apple doing Apple by and trying to do embrace BTC but I think a lot of the point and intent behind SAFE is to scrape the power of big business and big government and return it to its rightful owner. I don’t think there is any scenario where the big brands are able to play well with this stuff. They and complacent states are used to cattle herding situation where the end user and citizen is the product.