Hacker News Reader

> having a flexible interface makes a lot more sense

For business, not the user.

And honestly I expect the answer is simpler: this enables them to subcontract out the UI part and run it in parallel with the development of the rest of the car, because the UI can no longer affect anything else in the car design.

View on HN

Which allows them to have the UI for controlling the car be done by a team without strong communication links with the team designing the rest of the car's UX.

Is that a genuine benefit, or one that shows up more early in planning and who's downsides show up late?

It's a benefit to the business. There are way more variables of interest to consumers in a car than just UI; few if any will take a crappy touch UI as a dealbreaker (especially if everyone does crappy touch UIs). So it's a pure win for business - the downsides never reach them, they only materialize on the user end, large enough to frustrate people and maybe even cause accidents, but small enough to not cause a purchasing decision change the next time one is in a market for a car.

(I need a term for those cases. Psychological externality?)

Vested disinterest?

That sounds awfully like Boeing's 737-MAX MCAS debacle.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com