OneGoodLeg wrote:
You must be new to Shimano's long-term marketing strategery ~ Continually buck having any enduring standard or backwards compatibility whenever you trot out a new model line-up, so everybody is forced to buy as much new shit as possible (and not from any 3rd-party/aftermarket vendors if they can help it, either).
This is a bunch of bullshit. Shimano is easily the finest, most sophisticated equipment and technology manufacturer in cycling, and it's not close. Their prerogative is to make exceptional products, and more than anyone else they succeed.
The vast majority of new Shimano products are backwards compatible, except when impossible or impractical (e.g. Di2 transition to e-tube platform, 10-speed to 11-speed, etc.). They chose not move to 12 speed with the new 9100, which would have thrust hundreds of millions of dollars worth of equipment into rapid obsolescence and been a boon to them financially. But they didn't because it wasn't time -- the product wasn't there yet, in technical terms (e.g. forging improvements) or in practical terms (i.e. compatibility with existing equipment infrastructure).
The new group is almost entirely cross compatible with the old, except for the front derailleur and the chain rings. But who in the fuck invests in a new groupset and keeps the old chain rings. There are of course some edge cases, but it's not a product decision that affects most customers.
Besides all that, why would they allow their goods and their good name to be ruined and sullied by scurrilous, incompetent third party and aftermarket vendors who wish to profiteer on their platform and product set? Put non Shimano rings on a Shimano crank and all of a sudden the crankset is a piece of shit and the group shifts like garbage, because nobody else can cold forge rings like Shimano. Again, it's not close.
There are so many crap, negligent companies in this space. Baffling to me why you choose to talk down about one of the few good ones.
Can you tell I like Shimano?