How so? What capabilities is the 287/289 missing that causes it to "fail dismally" at being a "spectacular" meter?
It's not so much the capabilities as the overly complex user interface (going into a submenu to select "rel" mode instead of just pushing a button with a triangle on it)
There's a limited amount of real estate for buttons and things. Which button would you have replaced with "rel" mode?
, the sluggish/ghosty display,
Were faster displays that use the same amount of energy or less available at the time of the 289's design (introduced in 2008, so likely around 2006 or so)? Once Fluke introduces a model, it isn't likely to change it except to fix actual faults in it, precisely because of the procurement stability characteristic that makes Fluke meters desirable to a lot of buyers.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if these meters go through various certification programs in order to be salable to certain buyers (such as government contractors). If that's the case, then you
do not screw with anything in the design or BOM after that, because if you do then you have to go back through certification all over again.
You wanna know why private airplanes are so expensive? It's because of the certification requirements they have to pass, imposed by the FAA. For meters, those requirements would be imposed as a condition of purchase by government and some commercial entities, while the FAA imposes them as a condition of sale to the general public. But the principle is the same, and the effect on cost and change flexibility is also the same.
Why do you think Fluke introduced a new model variant of the 87, instead of simply changing up the existing variant, and why do you think it took Fluke so long in between each iteration to do it? Businesses don't make decisions like this just for the fun of it, you know. They're carefully considered, because screwing them up can cost you the company.
the startup time, the short battery life.
All a function of the technology used, which is 2006 or so technology.
Fluke could introduce a new meter with the characteristics you want, but it would need a compelling reason to do so. Which means it would need a large enough target market to make it worth it.
It seems to be designed as a bench meter which is left on all day, so maybe startup time isn't critical but the battery life is. The shape is also all wrong for bench use - it's way too tall and wobbly to use on the stand.
That's true today, but what about back in 2008?
Obviously the Unit-T died with the grill starter but it's a Uni-T.
Which is sorta the point. The Uni-T is a
400 dollar meter (the
current price, before shipping, from the Uni-T store on Amazon). The Fluke is certainly more expensive, but not
that much more expensive (the 287 is $580 MSRP, but Amazon currently sells it for
$480).
The Uni-T may be more featureful and more modern. What a surprise, seeing how it's, what, about 10 years newer? But the Fluke is a higher quality meter, likely by
a lot. The fact that Fluke has amortized the engineering cost of the 287 over such a long period of time is one of the reasons it's not even more expensive than it is. Honestly, I'm astonished that it's anywhere close to being price competitive with the Uni-T.
But yeah, it's no substitute for a bench meter. If it's a bench meter you want, then get a bench meter and be done with it.