Steampunks name is a conscious extension of cyberpunk so I can't avoid seeing the genre that way. From that perspective, however, arguing the superiority of one is illogical, like arguing the letter "A" is "better" than the alphabet, or vice versa. Obviously I think the perspective itself is important to a full understanding of steampunk and cyberpunk, but a competition is pointless when their achievements are so tightly entwined.

Where steampunk diverges with well established scientific facts I usually lose interest because it is just fantasy with pretensions to science, but some steampunk doesn't do that; again I cite The Difference Engine. It's alternate history without alterations to science that it doesn't have to handwave or lampshade. Like (other) cyberpunk that's interesting because it's about the impact of technology in the abtract on humanity rather than a given eras technology. Stories like that retain the plausibility and relevance they've had since the Enligtenment inaugurated rapid scientific advancement. In that sense Frankenstein is better steampunk than The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen; I don't think it nearly as fun, but enjoying Big Trouble in Little China more than To Kill a Mockingbird doesn't mean I think it's better (if I had to pick, there's no question which one I'd want to inspire my children).

All that said, I did focus on why cyberpunk remains worthwhile to read, despite alluding at the start to its derivatives greater current popularity. Again, I honestly have no idea why it's regarded as obsolete when most of it still lies in the future; if it's because people think most of it lies in the present they weren't paying attention. I actually emailed my essay to a guy I've known since we both read cyberpunk in HS and he responded that "[1984] looked '20 minutes into the future' and posited tech that seemed fantastical then but archaic now. Same with the tech of Gibson's stories. Prior to the advent of LCD screens, jacking in seemed like the only option for a portable computer. " Reducing jacking in to a source of portable compueters misses the point as badly as reducing 1984 to a story about every home having television. Neural computer interfaces aren't archaic, nor are AIs, cybernetically augmented humans or biological software and hardware. I can't explain the sense of "been there, done that" when no one HAS been there. A lot of it is right around the corner, much of it is probably decades or centuries around the corner, and, as with all science fiction, a lot of it looks imminent but will ultimately prove impossible.

That's one potential explanation (though it feels a bit elitist), that a lot of people who should know better think most of what will be realized from cyberpunk has been, because they simply weren't paying attention. I don't think it's just me getting old, because various parts of cyberpunks fiction still regularly become fact, and most of that is yet to come. The least desirable explanation is the one I mentioned in my conclusion: That the challenges of the near future seem so insurmountable and the technology so dangerous that escapist fantasies of an Edwardian Neverland focused on prosthetic augmentation (while ignoring pollution and the dearth of human rights) is more attractive. My hope is that it's simply a failure of cyberpunk to become mainstream due to the fact that it's easier for present cinematography to convincingly depict a "sci fi" 1870 than 2070. Among literary enthusiasts though that's a very poor excuse.