Except I don't think the industry is joking (I had to go look up Nate Hills, I don't know who he is). After 20 years FS bikes are now pretty reliable, you can technically ride one for over 5-6+ seasons without breaking it, or it turning into a floppy wet noodle (ProFlex anyone?). They are a victim of their own success. So how do you drive repeat sales of a reliable product? Easy, you follow the Apple model, where you try and obsolete your own product within a year or 2, hence different but useless axle and shock standards every other year, swapping popularity of wheel sizes every other year, new geometry trends, and new categories. Oh, and charging over $6k for fucking bike that doesn't come with XT or top-tier suspension.
Relevant example: A few years ago having a light and efficient bike with 160mm of travel was the Holy Grail finally achieved, what many of us were wishing for since 2000. What was a downhill bike in 2008, but you could pedal all day while still ripping and abusing it. How do you improve that, really? Oh, I know, lets convince people that they still need that exact same bike, but with 140mm of travel instead of 160 because you know, efficiency, or some other invented reason. I'm so glad I don't read online MTB rags, but obviously the high-tech advertising (I believe that's what the industry calls it) works. I don't blame my LBS, they're stuck dealing with whatever the mfg'er is trying to push this year, whether they believe in it or not.
I meant those other old bikes. LOL
