From my limited perspective there are quite a few sub-themes or underlying driving forces in the later portion on this thread. Wanted to toss my hat in the ring on these issues despite the original post/theme of this thread.
Resistance to change
It is known phenomenon that humans in general resist change. I have been dealing with this my entire career in this field. There are quite simply 2 kinds of folks in my world-view; the Can-do's and the Can't-do's. Inevitably no matter what the proposed change, there will be a consistent muster of folks that will jump up and tell you why (chapter and verse) the proposed change will not, cannot work. Can-do's spend a quite of bit of their time moving around and jumping over obstacles strewn about by the Can't-do's. I have also note there seems to be a large percentage of insecure folks in the Can't-do camp. They are more comfortable there because they are surrounded by a much larger crowd. The Can't do's are generally louder than the Can-do's who seem to be pressing on more quietly. Human history has chronicled this dynamic for the beginning. Just my observation.
Imagine a world without color, hue, texture, variance, discovery potential, challenges, and new solutions to age-old problems.
If you step back and think about, humans really crave and need change. Put somebody in a sensory deprivation chamber and note what happens over a relatively short period of time. So we need change, but the funny thing is we resist change individually and corporately.
I will wholeheartedly agree that all changes are not necessarily good changes. Many are bad. History has also taught us this lesson. Therefore a healthy, analytical skepticism is also in order.
Sometimes leaving the relative comfort of the pack exposes you to a lot of crossfire; in this regard I can speak from experience. Sometimes in takes somebody willing to cross the field, risk much in order to establish new ground for the not so daring.
Leaving the flashlight world for second, if you tote a gun for a living you will note the incredible almost fanatical defense of this shooting technique/system or that system. After 20 something years of standing on the sidelines, I have noted that most of these people are myopically focused on the very small percentage of an actual armed encounter. As they have entrenched themselves in the defense of one thing or another, they have also imprisoned themselves mentally and physically in terms of what really can be done in the environment. Is it generally termed being "hard-headed".
K.I.S.S. Principle
This is generally invoked when addressing a more complex system. Yet it can be quite an obstacle to actual battlefield superiority. Let's take the principle to the Nth degree and see where it leads.
Imagine that you are faced with having to dispatch an enemy at twilight. It is a one-on-one engagement to take place on relatively open ground. Both opponents are to start out at a distance separating each other by 300 yards. You can initially see your advesary. Each participant has on their respective tables a few weapons to choose from.
One combatant is constrained entirely by the KISS Principle, the other is free to choose his weapons based on the environmental considerations and the training he has invested in.
On the table are 4 weapons, a rock, a knife, a 9mm Pistol (round in the chamber and 15 rounds in the magazine), & an 5.56mm M4 Carbine (red-dot reticule with a 100 yard-zero, one round in the chamber, 28 rounds in the magazine, visible aiming laser & a SF 500 B Model WeaponLight).
What would you choose? One set of tools requires an entire set of skill and knowledge to effectively employ and is exponentially more complicated, well the other is Simple….
Would you rather go onto the modern battlefield in Cessna 172 or an F/A 22 Strike Fighter?
Does anybody actually believe at this point in history that the United States of America is the dominant Super-Power because we followed the KISS Principle?
You see in my opinion the KISS principle is a strong consideration but should never be the dominant consideration in my opinion in the world of professional arms.
Skill at arms, means exactly that…Skill. Skill is the result of quality training. No getting around that part of the equation.
Just because one does not know how to leverage the extra capabilities of a more capable tool does not necessarily make that tool less useful to the more skilled wielder of that tool.
In terms of design, a challenge is to pack more in yet keep the user-interface useful in the environment it the tool was intended to be used in.
Least Common Denominator Argument
This is generally presented when a system requires more training than folks are willing to invest to use a better approach. Nothing I can do there. It is a fact of life in professional circles. It separates the ones who are collecting a pay check and the ones who understand that to be proficient in all the tasking does take continuous training. It is a lifestyle, not a part time endeavor.
Many, many have given up on pushing the cart uphill in this regard. They just give up and roll down hill with everybody else.
There is a fancy psychological principle called the "Rosenthal Effect" that basically captures the concept that if you set the standard low…All members of that group gravitate to that standard. If you set the standard high, all members of that group gravitate to that standard. It is a deeply ingrained human trait that we are not necessarily consciously aware of.
I for one, attempt to encourage people to hold their ground, get strong and then push back against the throng who hold the theory that we should accept the status quo because it is simply too difficult to enact change within the bureaucracy.
Different – Therefore "Over-hyped"
What has convinced me of the efficacy of Strobing light in terms of dealing with non-compliant individuals is the empirical data associated with the effects of Strobing light on the human perception system and the actual field feedback we are getting on a regular basis since the release of the Gladius.
Not to mention the years of force-on-force simulation that lead to the packaging of a strobe in this type of light.
All that being said, as I have said to many who have handled the Gladius in person who have decided they want a very simple light - ON/OFF that is it.
Who am I to tell you this is the light for you? Everybody who carries weapon for a living is responsible for being able to press their strategy on opponents. If the Gladius is too complicated for that individual, then it is too complicated for that individual.
Select a light that goes ON & OFF, as there are a myriad of them to choose from. In fact our line will have quite of few of them.
The Gladius brings unique capabilities in one package to those that understand its advantages and can leverage them under duress.
I will say this with a fair degree of confidence or arrogance depending on how you read what I am saying:
The Gladius and what it represents will change the direction of "tactical flashlights" from this point forward. It might not be today or the next few months, but I can already envision the day where the introduction of an easy to access strobe capability (whether in visible light, laser or in the IR spectrum) tool will be remembered as another step up the ladder.