The GFCI received a lot of scepticism, in part because folks were so tightly focused on fuses as your primary means of protection. The 'ad copy' probably didn't help, either.... there was never any statement made by the promotors as clear, and simple, as "Amps in must equal amps out, or there's something wrong!"
Likewise, GFCI's into the 80's could be a real challenge to wire correctly. Whiich wire went where? Finally, by 1985 most GFCI's were pretty 'goof proof' as far as installer errors were concerned. That's when we really saw them start gaining acceptance.
Two other factors played against easy acceptance of AFCi's.
The first was a lot of confusion regarding grounding, and what role it played in keeping you safe. I'm not too surprised; most faults are bad enough that you'll pop the breaker if you have a good ground path. Many felt that good grounding was all you needed; that's why there has been so much BS spewed over time regarding AC vs. MC vs. Romex; Whether to use fiber washers on devices; pigtails and other device installation details, etc.
The power tool industry had their focus on 'double insulated' tools. This issue faded more as the result of the switch to cordless tools than anything else. The almost universal adoption of plastic cases made nearly every tool 'double insulated,' anyway.
The other was a matter of timing. The GFCI appeared just a few years after "everyone agreed" that the key to electrical safety was voltage. There were alread major investments being made in 24v lighting and controls.
The inventor of the GFCI was quite passionate about his work. Yet, even he did not want to 'force' you to use it. There was never any attempt to require it for every receptacle in the house. Instead, he focused on particular situations - specifically, of a corded radio falling into the tub as someone was bathing.
That the AFCI advocates chose a far more tyrannical path is, IMO, a major reason that AFCI's are not so warmly accepted. Another is the lack of an AFCI device. The AFCI campaign has been one of continual mis-steps, one that has done more than any person to make one sceptical.
I can understand a GFCI. I do not understand AFCI's. I've looked at the 'wave forms' and have not been able to see them. Indeed, it has been pointed out that simple laws of physics mean the hazard they claim to address simply cannot exist at usehold voltages.
