It wasn’t dumb from corporate perspective, which is why they all gobbled it up like junky hoovering on piles of white dust.
You know how expensive it is to mold unique dedicated physical buttons for every function and then wire them all over the place? Or just slap single touch display and cram all the shit into that single display. You code it once and use it on all models. Corporates were already counting the money saved there. Until it backfired because everyone hated it, reviewers criticized it and now it’s finally also criticized by safety agencies.
They’d basically already be doing that for the touch screen, and may well be using similar controls under the hood, where the physical buttons send a command to the computer to do a thing, in lieu of a mechanical connection.
One more connector, one more cable in harness, more coding, more cad time, more manufacturing time and more testing.
If it comes out to 20 dollars per car and you multiply it by 50000 a year for a relatively popular model there is a nice bonus for the ceo. Oh, and the price to consumer increases at the same time.
As well as the pure cost saving there was also the notion that it was a futuristic look that would sell, and so boost profits that way, too.
And probably it did sell and market well - for a while.
I feel that consumers had become too trusting of carmakers - after all, cars have been getting better and better in terms of their usability for decades, so when carmakers went touchscreen everything, the first instinct of the average consumer would be to trust it and assume it represented an improvement.“They wouldn’t do it if it was worse, right?”
And so people buy the fancy futuristic car with no buttons, and only after driving it for a month does it sink in how much they truly hate it, and that they got sold a lie.
So there was always going to be that one generation of touchscreen-everything, before the people who got burnt by it are now the ones thinking “I won’t buy anything again that doesn’t have some buttons!”
Without actually knowing how much constructing the physical buttons cost, I would guess that the real savings are in process optimization - if all you have for the interface is a screen, then you don’t need to have the interface design done before constructing the car - you can parallelize these tasks.
Insufficient as far as justifications go, but understandably lucrative.
sure, but they could have programmed a stick with haptic feedback to help navigate the screen so you can navigate radio, gps, contacts or whatever else while driving. Slower than touching or the old buttons but as safe as old buttons.
This is probably not a universal experience, but buttons are often faster. Not a car example, but my Garmin Venu watch was a touchscreen and it sucked compared to my Garmin Fenix which is 100% button controlled. I also type way faster on a tactile thumb board than an on screen keyboard.
It wasn’t dumb from corporate perspective, which is why they all gobbled it up like junky hoovering on piles of white dust.
You know how expensive it is to mold unique dedicated physical buttons for every function and then wire them all over the place? Or just slap single touch display and cram all the shit into that single display. You code it once and use it on all models. Corporates were already counting the money saved there. Until it backfired because everyone hated it, reviewers criticized it and now it’s finally also criticized by safety agencies.
Cars cost way too much for me to care about this excuse.
Yeah, but what about the value that saving money created for the shareholders?
Not my problem.
Not expensive. You don’t have to “wire them all over the place”, you just put them on a PCB and connect them to the nearest CAN bus, or similar.
They’d basically already be doing that for the touch screen, and may well be using similar controls under the hood, where the physical buttons send a command to the computer to do a thing, in lieu of a mechanical connection.
One more connector, one more cable in harness, more coding, more cad time, more manufacturing time and more testing.
If it comes out to 20 dollars per car and you multiply it by 50000 a year for a relatively popular model there is a nice bonus for the ceo. Oh, and the price to consumer increases at the same time.
More coding?! Are you serious? Over a touch screen!
Also, extremely easy to test.
Or you could just raise the price of the car by $20 since you’ve just added thousands in value?
I mean shit, let’s take the seats out of the car! Bam! Just saved you billions, right? /s
As well as the pure cost saving there was also the notion that it was a futuristic look that would sell, and so boost profits that way, too.
And probably it did sell and market well - for a while.
I feel that consumers had become too trusting of carmakers - after all, cars have been getting better and better in terms of their usability for decades, so when carmakers went touchscreen everything, the first instinct of the average consumer would be to trust it and assume it represented an improvement.“They wouldn’t do it if it was worse, right?”
And so people buy the fancy futuristic car with no buttons, and only after driving it for a month does it sink in how much they truly hate it, and that they got sold a lie.
So there was always going to be that one generation of touchscreen-everything, before the people who got burnt by it are now the ones thinking “I won’t buy anything again that doesn’t have some buttons!”
You can even have that single display collect so much car user data and sell that too
Physical controls don’t change this.
Without actually knowing how much constructing the physical buttons cost, I would guess that the real savings are in process optimization - if all you have for the interface is a screen, then you don’t need to have the interface design done before constructing the car - you can parallelize these tasks.
Insufficient as far as justifications go, but understandably lucrative.
sure, but they could have programmed a stick with haptic feedback to help navigate the screen so you can navigate radio, gps, contacts or whatever else while driving. Slower than touching or the old buttons but as safe as old buttons.
This is probably not a universal experience, but buttons are often faster. Not a car example, but my Garmin Venu watch was a touchscreen and it sucked compared to my Garmin Fenix which is 100% button controlled. I also type way faster on a tactile thumb board than an on screen keyboard.