It used to be that vehicle radio units were entirely replaceable. There was a relatively healthy aftermarket, and quite a few shops that would actually do the installations for you. There used to be a lot more competition here, but I think with the general increase in quality of speaker systems combined with smart phones and the much higher level of system integration through the head unit effectively killed it.
Hence.. you get what you buy. In a sense, the manufacturer has a monopoly on your dash that they didn't traditionally have.
I won't engage with "what people actually want" except to point to sales figures, I guess. Everyone likes different stuff. But the point is that Tesla is winning in this space because they're handing people an outside-the-box solution. Asking for "lots of buttons and knobs" is just demanding the older solution. That doesn't say the older solution is wrong, but it does argue that maybe you're failing to understand the new paradigm.
Meh. I'm sure stuff doesn't work somewhere for someone. But... come on. Voice recognition is a long solved problem. Tesla's works as wells as Amazon's or Apple's or whoever's, which is to say sure, it makes an occasional mistake, but it basically isn't a problem except in arguments like this one on the internet. Mine works great. I love it and use it every day. I'm sorry yours doesn't, but at least you can sell your car for a profit and get one with buttons, so that's something.
If I have to pish a button to activate it, then it is strictly more work than pushing a button. If it filters out all but the driver using stereo location, then the passenger can't futz with it for the driver on long trips.
I did however fall in love with the simple interior of mine, as well as the instant power. I don't use the public charging network at all.
I'd say that a person's first purchase of a Tesla only signals what they think they want. If they buy another one after the first then I'd agree it is actually what they want, or at least they like the other benefits of the Tesla enough to outweigh anything they don't like.
I believe I fully understand the new paradigm. I had a 2018 Volvo XC90 and it's sort of a hybrid between the new and old paradigm. They have a fairly large screen (not as large as Tesla) and then a handful of buttons for functions that are fairly important if something is wrong with the screen (front window defrost, rear window defog, etc). I sold it after a year because I did not like it.
It also supported voice control for all of these features, as did my BMW before that, as does my current vehicle. Voice control sucks to varying degrees on all of these vehicles, and if someone in the car is talking or you're on a phone call, you can't adjust things with your voice. I'd rather just have buttons and knobs with tactile feedback that are always available.
But it's true, maybe other people don't want tactile controls. I mean, UX in general tends to disagree with this notion, but the iPhone beat the blackberry so it's possible that my in vehicle preferences are not what everyone wants.
Either way, the automakers win with lower costs.
Tesla is, I believe (and I'm too lazy[2] to try to look up where I read this) the most repurchased brand on the market today. The used market for these cars is literally priced above new vehicles[1]! Were you really not aware? Does that maybe change your opinion?
[1] Which is to say, on balance Tesla owners won't sell their cars even if they could make a profit doing so.
[2] Found this one, which is probably coverage of the same Experian survey: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimhenry/2021/12/31/tesla-no-1-...
This study just came out: https://www.vibilagare.se/nyheter/physical-buttons-outperfor...
The study adds another variable to the discussion -- even if users prefer touchscreens, touchscreens are less safe than real buttons.
FWIW: You don't need to go to Sweden to find that stuff anyway, Car & Driver and Motor Trend both hate Tesla too (and for the same reason: Tesla doesn't advertise).
If there are safety effects measurable with Teslas, we'd be measuring safety effects. There are millions of these cars on the road. They are safe. I know it, you know it, the time for hand-wavy hypotheticals is long past.
You need something more. Even Ralph Nader started with real accident statistics on the Corvair.
[1] Tesla
They're probably far more envious of the ability to put the air conditioner behind a monthly subscription vja remote software update, or render the entire vehicle useless with a 'security' update that makes 10yo cars too unresponsive to use
Costs.
Buttons are expensive, and additional points of failure. Cheaper to just cram everything into a touchscreen.
Tesla on the other hand has buttons for many things, horn, turn signals, activate the windshield wipers for a moment (I use auto that handles most needs), engage cruise control, set following distance when using cruise control, high beams, pause music, music volume, etc.
Sure seat heaters, interior temp, ac, defrosting etc require touch screen use (or leaving them on auto), but those are emergencies and not much different than having to hit one of 8 buttons/dials on a center console. Especially since most are single touch, not touch -> select menu -> hit button.
While I find the above not annoying I really love the 15" screen that devotes the majority of the screen to things around the car (lane markers, cars, motorcycles, traffic cones, trucks, pedestrians, etc) and the map (with traffic). If the car sees a problem it blinks that object red, which I find helpful. Sure if I want I can get an inch for the current song. But generally I feel more situationally aware with a nice big nav screen up. On more than one occasion I've seen motorcycles splitting lanes behind me because of motion on the screen before I notice the noise or see them in the mirrors. I also really miss the current speed limit on the screen when I switch cars.
I also really like being able to say "play pink floyd", or "navigate to ...".
Of course if you're going to have a massive screen and powerful computer anyways (because people want that), yes, you can save in not having buttons in addition to the massive screen.
But the massive screen is not cheaper than old school cars.
It might also be safer to be in a higher up car in the event of a collision.
Pretty much all the families I know with young kids and toddlers has a full size SUV. Every time I ask why they did not get a minivan such as Odyssey or Sienna, every response is they like SUVs and do not want to sit lower in the minivan. Even though the minivan has better fuel economy, seats more people with more legroom, and has more cargo space, the answer is still SUV is cooler than minivans.
I even see families who live with elderly parents prefer to drive two SUVs (or 1 SUV and 1 pickup truck) somewhere with 3 to 4 people in each, rather than have one minivan to be able to transport all 7 or 8 at the same time. And these same families growing up went everywhere in minivans because it was the most economic way, but now that they can afford SUVs, that is what they choose to use.
Car manufacturers are not shaping people’s desires, they are simply delivering them what they want.
A Corolla/civic continues to be available for purchase. Yet people want to sit higher up, so you see the vast increase in sales for RAV4/CRV.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/276506/change-in-us-car-...
That planning horizon differential alone is enough to explain why car manufacturers would be greater incentivized to iterate on SUVs faster than sedans and include more features. Iteration and feature differentials will contribute as much to sales choices as "sit higher up" will, acting as a reinforcement in the cycle/spiral towards larger vehicles.
Car manufacturers aren't incentivized enough to lengthen their own planning horizons or otherwise better accommodate "sensible" sedan drivers, and it becomes very easy to pretend they don't exist and chase the short-term profits of the faster cycle time (especially when pushed by quarterly-earnings focused shareholders).
Granted I'm not able to go grocery shopping at the same time..
On road trips, my wife and I would fold down the rear seats and sleep in the back. I'm 183cm (6ft) and there is plenty of space. You can fit 2.4m lengths of wood if you need trips to the hardware store. I guess full plywood sheets would need the hatch open, but there wouldn't be much overhang.
A year or so ago I tried a RAV4 and it felt much smaller inside. In the rear seats I felt much more squashed.
It started out as a joke back in 2010, partially inspired by "A Nice Morning Drive" (http://www.2112.net/powerwindows/transcripts/19731100roadand...) from the 1972s. It is no longer very funny -- Ford killing its sedans a couple years back was a sad wakeupcall.
Most of my driving is on country roads in a mountainous area, with some very tight turns.
I'm going to rent out an SUV soon and see what it's like taking sharp turns with a high vehicle. I suspect it sucks but who knows.
Here in NZ we have the Camary, Mazda 6, Lexus IS etc but none of them are available in AWD. Only crossovers, SUVs and Utes (small pick up trucks).
I've actually been toying with the idea of getting a Subaru WRX. I'm not a a boyracer or anything, but it's about the only japanese, AWD sedan available here. Feels like a weirdly practical choice (good cornering, better handling in ice/heavy rain/gravel).
EDIT: wow even modern Rav4s fail the moose test - a car which I'd call pretty mild for an SUV, even wagon like.
The Sienna is great for kids and I've managed to fit 4x8 sheets in it.
As with any blind spot, one just has to move their head...
- https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/new-study-suggests-todays-s...
Funnily enough, given the… mixed results Apple's UI team has been putting out recently, it remains to be seen how "ergonomic and reliable" the UI actually ends up being.