In general, if something has been around for a very long time and nobody apparently seems to have thought to improve it, then odds are the reason is it's pretty good and genuinely hard to improve on.
I think that might be a bit more positive than I would be. Broadly speaking, I think you could say that the downsides of the legacy technology in question aren’t larger than the collective switching costs.
But I’d definitely agree that when something has been around that long, it’s prob not all bad.
Well, if you think about it, a huge percentage of dinosaurs survived (birds), and for the rest, can you really fault them for going extinct when a humongous boulder hit the planet?
