Bowling was the family sport when I was growing up, and when all the pin setters were the free-standing type. So I have a deeper than average familiarity with how bowling is "supposed" to feel.
Earlier this year, I saw a string-based pin setter for the first time (Lucky Strike, San Francisco), and was appalled such a thing existed. Based on what I could see from my end, I initially thought the design's appeal was that it consumed less physical depth than free-standing pin setters -- a potentially desirable characteristic where square footage is at premium prices. It does make sense that it would consume less electricity, as there's no pin lifter that has to run continuously, but it never occurred to me that maintenance costs were lower (although I'd like to see numbers on this).
Yes, European bowling alleys have used string-based setters for a long time, but bear in mind that most European bowling is of the nine-pin variety, which uses much smaller balls and pins. Ten-pin alleys in Europe still use the free-standing pin setters.
And yes, the pin action is very different. The movement of the tethers against each other can pull down pins that otherwise would have been left standing. I witnessed this at least twice. And I can't imagine anyone picking up a 7-10 split with one of these things.
And maybe it's just me (and it probably is), but there seems a certain inauthenticity -- a certain chintziness -- to a string-based pin setter, like I'm playing with a cheap replica for kids rather than the real thing for grown-ups. ("Hey! Are you calling European nine-pins chintzy?" No, just... Unfamiliar. I'm sure there are whole schools of thought on how best to use the tethers to your advantage, and which tether materials are "better" than others. It clearly works for them.)
