GMDS:
A good example were the new tachymeters in the Auto industry. Citroën tried the digital display first in the early 80's, others followed and today almost all manufacturers went back to the original clock design. Why? They realised that the average Joe and Jane controlled speed better with the classic layout and less accidents were traced to misinterpretation.
The problem with this, and a lot of other analogies comparing the car industry with aircraft manufacturers is that you end up with an apples-to-oranges comparison. There is a world of difference between a type of display that is technically fancier but turns out in practice to be harder to read than the traditional mechanical dial, and the throttle quadrant of a commercial airliner.
For a start, you have to look at the reasons for the change - the A320 was conceived as a completely modern machine, looking at what was possible with state-of-the-art technology to make the pilot's job easier and the aircraft more economical to operate and maintain. You can bet any amount that you like that AI weren't going to sink the millions required for a project of this magnitude without a significant amount of R&D on the engineering, customer and pilot's view of how this thing would work.
As I said before, modern technology meant that engine control no longer required a physical connection between levers and engines for throttle control - in fact statistically it behaved more reliably than the old arrangement, simply because digital control is not subject to physical entropy through wear and tear in the same manner. To backdrive the levers would require an artificial force-feedback system that would not only incur a weight penalty, but also compromise the simplicity of the system, incurring a maintenance cost penalty as well. At the time, none of the pilots involved in the project objected to the non-moving design that I've learned. Unless proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that non-moving throttles are dangerous - and I'm talking about more than hearsay and conjecture from a small but vocal group of pilots, a majority of whom haven't even flown the aircraft they're criticising.
In this case, I'm not even sure that moving throttles would have made a difference, as the evidence points to a lever that was deliberately left out of position. Even if the levers were of the moving type, the pilot may still not have selected the incorrectly positioned lever to idle, the only difference is in how far he would have had to move it to put it there. Of course, I think that Rananim is talking about the secondary levers that control reverse with the physical interlock. A very clever system, but again, one that goes against the design brief to keep it simpler from a maintenance perspective.
I can't answer ChristiaanJ's question regarding Concorde's system, because I don't know the designers involved on both projects, nor can I find any material about what informed their decision to go one way in the '60s and another way in the '80s.
As an aside, one thing I have noted during my time on here is the number of A320 sceptics who come from the other side of the pond. Would their objections be so vehement if it was Boeing, Douglas or Lockheed that designed and built a similar aircraft to the A320?