[ghaff]

>I think most people who buy this product aren't interested in pressure cookers at all, instead they're specifically getting an Instant Pot. And while technically they may be the same, the customers don't necessarily perceive it that way.

I don't know how deliberate it was but de-emphasizing its pressure cookerness was a smart move. A lot of people still associate "pressure cooker" with "explosions" and, even if they know intellectually they're not really dangerous, they'll still move on to the next item.

As others have said, the price is also quite reasonable--in fact, a lot of stovetop pressure cookers cost more. $100-ish is around the point where a lot of people will take a flyer on something and won't be too put out if it starts gathering dust after a few months.

[akgerber]

I have read an interview with the owner where he said he deliberately added & marketed a bunch of redundant safety features because Americans are afraid of pressure cookers.

[Bromskloss]

I wonder how one properly make a safety valve that works even when smeared by food, or prevent the smearing from happening. Should the valve be really large in cross-sectional area, so that the force a food clot would have to withstand becomes large?

[derekp7]

Pressure sensor that cuts off the electricity if pressure gets too high. No more electricity, no more heating, pressure drops. Another one I've seen on my mom's pressure cooker that she's had for probably 40 years or more, is a physical plug that will shoot out if the pressure gets too high and the release valve gets stuck. Of course, not sure what the potential damage from this plug would be (I've only ever seen it shoot into the pot when it was removed from the stove, and cooled too quickly). But better than the whole thing popping.

[akgerber]

The Instant Pot claims to have some sort of mechanism that will lower the cooking pot and break the seal in an overpressure situation: http://instantpot.us/benefits/safety-features/