Hacker News Reader

Comment by ethagnawl | Hacker News Reader

I'd love to know what the justification for replacing them in the first place was. I can't think of any device, appliance, etc. I own whose UX is _better_ for not having physical, dedicated buttons or switches and instead having a touch interface or buttons which require a complex series of presses or chords. It's almost like there was _no_ UX research to back any of these "features" up and people just went ahead and made these changes because they could, it was fun and they look cool.

To give a very concrete and potentially hazardous example: I have an induction range which has no physical controls but has a touch interface which requires various combinations of tapping, holding and sliding fingers. To say nothing of the fact that this is useless for people who have significant visual impairments, how am I supposed to turn it off if there's an electrical fire because a pot boils over or something? Is the expectation that I reach into boiling water that potentially has current running through it and hope to tap my fingers in the right place? Am I supposed to try to yank the power? Or is the expectation that I just walk outside and call the fire department?

View on HN

Cost; touch interfaces are cheaper.

Though also I would wonder if bad market research was a problem. I bet if, 10 years ago, you showed someone a traditional VW interface, or a touchscreen thing, they'd go "oh, cool, touchscreens". They might feel differently if they actually _used_ the thing, but if you skip that bit of the research... It's fairly common that companies make changes based on what customers _say_ they want, because customers are not necessarily good at realising what they _actually_ want until they experience it.

No, 10 years ago everyone was complaining that their BlackBerry was faster to type on than an iPhone (or maybe that was 12 years ). I don't think touchscreens being a pain to use is a new revelation.

That’s nearly 20 years ago. Approximately no-one had a blackberry 10 years ago.

To align this more precisely - 2015 was the year of the Blackberry Priv (I used one for a couple of years) and, being an Android phone, felt like kind of a last gasp for Blackberry.

They've still got QNX.

The KEYone was 2017 (I had this up until 2023 or so) and the KEY2 was 2018.

It's not just that touch interfaces are cheaper. It's that you can decouple the interface design and feature set from the manufacturing schedule and shorten the overall development.

That's one of the ways in which it is cheaper, yes. The touchscreen choice was made rationally, we just disagree on our priors ;-)

While I get that I also think it's a bit odd because how much has actually changed about the basic required set of buttons needed to operate a vehicle in the last 20 years? Most of the differences I see are down to trim levels and companies already had the solution to that with panels that weren't on the main cluster of dash controls. My low trim Golf has a couple obvious panels near the shifter where different optional things would live; seat heaters etc.

I guess, that only new things are: 1) driving assist things 2) drive mode select (sport, comfy, etc) 3) and HUD change (trip a, trip b, etc) 4) voice command button 5) regen braking control (EV only)

1 may be one the same button as cruese control

2, 5 may be on shifter knob panel

3 and 4 are the only new buttons on steering wheel

1 is all over the place depending on what your car has; my wife's car has lane keeping and blind spot monitors and those live in a knockout panel down and left of the steering wheel.

2 I've usually found in the buttons near the shifter

3 I'm not sure what you're referring to? If it's the little screen generally between the speed and battery/rpm display those controls are usually on the steering wheel in my experience.

4 Steering wheel, in every car I've seen it in and that's often standard across the models

5 This one I've only had one experience with and that's my wife's Kia Niro EV and those are on what would be shifter paddles in a car with a gear box.

The number of buttons on steering wheels between my decade old gas Golf and my wife's few year old Niro EV are shockingly similar though presented and arranged differently. Both have 4 buttons and two directional pairs (audio control for skipping on one, volume on the other, cruise control speed on another and one dimension of the hud paging on the last) though the Niro has the pairs as rocker switches that can click for one extra button I suppose.

Also you can use the same touchscreen for different vehicles and the manufacturing of that is always the same or if there is variation it is over smaller numbers of parameters: maybe a bigger or a brighter touchscreen.

I think of an initiative GM had, I think circa 2000, to standardize branding across all their vehicles and notably use the same buttons from the bottom of the line compacts up to flagships like the HUMMER, Cadillac, and the GMC Suburban. Sensitized by media coverage whenever I looked at these buttons sitting in a GM car or looking through the windows I felt that it diluted the higher end brands.

You could integrate the buttons into the touch screen controller. They don't need to connect to physical relays in the device to activate functionality, they can be every bit as "soft" as the touch screen itself, but actually provide haptic feedback on use.

Couple of issues with that. One is that good haptic UI is difficult and auto OEMs are not "technically capable", to put it mildly. Also, some did. GM experimented with a haptic feedback touchscreen called "CUE" in the Cadillac brand about a decade ago. It was a disaster. The feel was terrible, customers hated using it, and the screens became extremely fragile. VW phased their own attempts out after some nasty unintended acceleration lawsuits.

Automotive hardware is extremely difficult to get right. Buttons are a solved problem. Touchscreens are getting there. Everything else is a gamble in an area where failures have huge risks. OEMs don't like those. We'll probably continue seeing haptic feedback on things like wheels and shifters, but haptic touchscreens seem to be on the way out these days.

All it takes is standardizing the connector between the dashboard controls and the actuator/sensor network to decouple the dashboard design from the car electronics. I don't see how a touchscreen would be essential to achieve that?

They might feel differently if they actually _used_ the thing

That has to be a big part of it... especially if the customers' reference point is modern touchscreen cell phones (high quality displays, fast, etc).

But, the touch screen in my Honda is NOTHING like my iPhone. It's slow. It's not a good display. The software package is lackluster. It has a "apps" page, but there's no app store for crying out loud!!!

At least the screen is only for radio stuff and a few car monitoring things. The HVAC is still manual buttons.

What customers say they want is a faster horse.

Everyone: I never wanted a screen

Also Everyone: I will never buy a car without CarPlay / Android Auto

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CarPlay (March 10, 2014)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_Auto (March 19, 2015)

They only want the screen for the stereo and backup camera, not anything else. It's easier to update a car from 2004 say to have Android Auto than to fix one made in 2024 that doesn't have it. $400 aftermarket stereo from crutchfield..

I would say that 2005 was peak car, except 2000 is slightly better because they had not yet gone nuts with serialized components.

(another reason is that direct inject fuel injection hadn't taken over yet, it's a disaster)

Screens are mandatory, because backup cameras are now mandatory.

Sure, but no one said the screen has to be size of an ipad glued to your dashboard. My 2022 Volkswagen e-Up has a reverse camera and it's shown on a display maybe 2 inches large. And it's perfectly usable, I actually really like how minimalistic that is. There's no "infotainment" of any kind either, it's just a simple radio/bluetooth selection screen when the camera isn't in use.

The size regulation is based on viewing angle. For a tiny car like e-Up you are seated very close to the screen, so it can be smaller. For larger cars, you are seated further away from the dash and the screens must be proportionally larger.

I want CarPlay for the PIM integrations (contacts, calendar, phone, etc). That’s about it.

If the music from my phone could controlled by big thunky buttons, that would be great. I get upset with CarPlay and its touch interface all the time.

There is also the issue that I simply don’t trust the car companies with my data. They have proven they can’t be trusted with it, and CarPlay is a way to get a lot of that data isolated (I hope).

I’m fine with a display for some things, a backup camera demands it, but I want to control it all with tactile controls, not touch.

The picture in your first link literally has buttons

Don't mistake my snarky "people contradict themselves" post for my opinion :)

I love and prefer buttons. (I also demand Android Auto, though my car didn't have it initially - it was later added through a major software update.)

We all love screens but in a car, I think that buttons are better for the interface for climate, wipers, signaling, drive modes, cruise control, headlights, 4WD selection, volume, radio stations... while Android Auto and Apple CarPlay are excellent for navigation and other entertainment.

I think that second issue is definitely a thing with kitchen appliances, where having a touch interface, or phone app, is initially seen as "oh hey this is the next generation cool thing" when consumers are buying.

Then they get it home and find the app is crapware full of ads and nags, or the touch screen is impossible to use unless your fingers are as dry as the sahara or such.

> I'd love to know what the justification for replacing them in the first place was.

It isn't hard to see, tbh. Think about the controls in a Tesla from a few years ago. They had physical controls for drive selection, turn signals, cruise control/TACC, cruise control distances, volume, next and previous track, seat controls, and manual overrides for the automatic wipers. The things that were used a little less were on the touch screen, with automation attempting to mitigate the downsides of this. This largely consisted of climate, manual overrides for the automatic headlights, and things like suspension settings.

So, what has VW made better here? Well, they have physical controls for turn signals, drive selection, volume, next and previous track, etc. They appear to use the touch screen for much of the climate control and entertainment settings, including appearing to retain the much maligned touch settings for seat heaters.

I'm not convinced that this is better. By contrast, my Nissan has driving settings like lane centering and seat heater controls on physical buttons... right next to my left knee where they are nearly inaccessible while driving.

TBH, the whole debate around this needs to be recentered around actual ergonomics and less around touch vs physical.

Yeah, I think Tesla from a few years ago was the sweet spot. A small number of multifunction physical buttons for all the things you need while driving. I've driven a number of cars over the years with a mess of physical buttons like VW is introducing, and the result is that I've never actually used them because it's too complicated to locate the right button while driving. So usually I either just don't use the features in those cars, or end up having to stop to figure how to adjust some basic ass thing.

> touch screen … climate

The climate controls should be physical buttons. Touchscreen climate controls tend to be giant messes requiring multiple interactions and often (hi, Tesla!) have controls in unpredictable locations. And fine-tuning the climate while driving is not exactly unusual.

Of course, physical buttons can be awful too. I’ve been in a Mercedes SUV where the A/C state is controlled by some bizarre split physical buttons and 100% of front passengers surveyed are entirely unable to confidently figure out what they do even after reading the test and contemplating for a while.

Changing temperature takes 0.5 seconds on Tesla. Yes you take eyes off the road. For 0.5 seconds.

You can buy buttons if you have disability that makes it difficult to use touchscreens.

For decades, people have been able to change the temperature in their vehicles in less time and without taking their eyes off the road. Why defend an obvious regression?

Tesla fans sung the praises of other stupid ideas like the Highland's indicator buttons and the Plaid's 'yoke', both of which were silently shelved after buyer dissatisfaction.

Yoke was a mistake for sure (and FWIW works perfectly in Cybertruck because of steer by wire), but most people liked indicator buttons. The reversal is purely because social media pressure by people who never tried it.

> Why defend an obvious regression?

Because it's not a regression. Whenever I use my older cars with manual controls I see no benefit. Most of the time I still have to look at it - it has a dial or little screen to know what exact temperature you are setting.

>> The climate controls should be physical buttons.

So, if I'm using physical buttons, how do I set the temperature to 24° (75° for US-folks) without looking away from the road?

Or set the radio to 106.9MHz? Or the cruise control to 88km/h (55mph)?

In all cases, I still need to look at an indicator.

> So, if I'm using physical buttons, how do I set the temperature to 24° (75° for US-folks) without looking away from the road?

You don’t. Instead you observe it’s a bit too warm and press the down button once or twice. Source: I used to do this regularly when I owned a car with excellent buttons.

> Or set the radio to 106.9MHz?

By pressing preset 6 by feel. Or by glancing for 1/4 second to find preset 6 (which is a clearly labeled button that never moves) and pressing it.

> Or the cruise control to 88km/h (55mph)?

By driving 55mph and pressing the stalk in the appropriate direction?

This stuff was all worked out very nicely in the late 1980s by UX experts who put very serious effort into making cars with an excellent user experience.

> By contrast, my Nissan has driving settings like lane centering and seat heater controls on physical buttons... right next to my left knee where they are nearly inaccessible while driving.

I can beat that.

2011 Prius. USB-A port is inside the center console at the bottom of the back vertical interior panel.

You have to lift the center console lid, move all of the crap you've stored inside the console away from the lower rear of the compartment to reach the port, then by feel (unless you want to turn your head 100 degrees to the right and look down while driving) attempt to slot the USB cable into the receptacle.

There's a strong argument that you should never be plugging in USB devices while driving but it's hard to argue that you shouldn't adjust the lane centering settings while in motion.

My old honda fit had one of those inside the glovebox. I believe you were meant to plug in a flash drive or ipod and leave it forever. It did not provide enough power to actually charge a battery.

Oh. That's interesting. I have a 2018 Fit and I've never been able to get the USB port in the center console to charge anything. I bought it used, so I just assumed it was broken and moved on to using an adapter in the cigarette lighter. I wonder if that's what's actually going on?

Tesla does something similar as their USB port for flash drives is in the glovebox. It is intended to make the dashcam drive harder to steal.

>> much maligned touch settings for seat heaters

I hate sitting around with a cold butt waiting on the infotainment system to boot...

to VW's credit there is a setting to automatically turn on the heated seat and steering wheel when it's cold out. In my car it is fully toasty by the time I finish scraping the ice off .

Chevy Bolt is supposed to have seat heaters that come on when remote started, but it doesn't seem to work on mine.

My Whirlpool cabinet-mounted oven has a touch screen dead center right above the door. Better not open that door for any reason, or steam will condense on it and turn it off / automatically change settings. It technically disables the touchscreen when the door opens (another huge PITA, how many times have I tried to turn it off or do other things with the door open) but that doesn't help when the screen is still steamed up after being closed.

The number of times I've got gone back to check something and it was ruined sitting 200deg lower than it should have been is more than I can count.

My oven has a knob on it for temperature. That's it. It's been working just fine for 30 years.

Oh, and a switch for the light.

Similar for cooktops - I’ve seen IR-reflectance-based touch controls go haywire due to dimmable overhead lights, and heard of frustration with capacitive controls going haywire from liquid splatters.

There are some very real benefits to touch interfaces in cooking (primarily ease of cleaning a solid flat surface, and manufacturers don’t need to worry about moisture ingress), but it’s pretty hard to make one that actually consistently works in a way that won’t accidentally burn your house down when your cat walks across the cooktop in the middle of the night. I’m personally going to stick to knobs and buttons in the meantime.

> it’s pretty hard to make one that actually consistently works in a way that won’t accidentally burn your house down when your cat walks across the cooktop in the middle of the night.

Regardless of how the controls work, you can make a cooktop that, functionally, will not set your cat on fire: use an induction stove. Unless your cat ends up in a pan or your cat is ferromagnetic, the stove won’t heat it :)

I think in context, Tesla was having quite the success story in the 2017-2022 time period, and their big screen and frequent software updates was getting a lot of attention. A lot of the stories around then were:

* Tesla infotainment is fast, responsive, good software

* Other OEMs struggle to compete in this space

* Other OEMs have software updates that require dealer visits

So the OEMs tried to emulate having a big screen UI and shoving more functionality into software, so they can update it.

Not to say Tesla gets all the credit, or that OEMs didn't start leaning on screens more and more before then. As screens got cheaper, customers demanded bigger screens, and OEMs felt like getting rid of buttons and shoving the functionality in the screen UI was the best way to appease their customers.

"CUSTOMERS demanded bigger screens" That's a bold statement...

Many of them do. My aunt bought a new car last year and was bragging about how big the screen was. She seemed confused that i thought a big screen was a downgrade.

Why would you not want a thing in your car that you’d want in your home? *slaps hood* This baby’s got four toilets!

In the states I've lived installing a big screen like that in your car is against the law. Unless the manufacturer specified it as original equipment. So yes, a bigger screen is a selling point

I know I'd be one of them.

A big and higher definition screen provides a ton more context from the navigation's map with wider sidebars that can contain more information, while also providing more contrast and better legibility.

Usual Android auto screen sizes and resolutions feel to me like the difference between looking at a 32" monitor and an early 4.5" LED mobile screen. Too small for context, low definition, and not enough space to display additional useful information (so you don't have to touch the display every 5 seconds).

> A big and higher definition screen provides a ton more context from the navigation's map with wider sidebars that can contain more information, while also providing more contrast and better legibility.

As someone with a 2003 Golf (with a tape deck) I find the screen on my iPhone sufficient to get me to where I want to go. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

People that wouldn't buy it, aren't customers :)

FWIW: induction ranges have sealed tops. There are no paths to get a high voltage from the AC input to the range top, no matter what boils over, and if you break things such that there is a short the relevant GFCI failsafes will shut it off long before you work up the courage to try to touch the controls.

Safety is in fact the big selling point of the device. The surface doesn't get above food temperature. If you boil a pot over, move the pot and just wipe it up with a rag, just like you would spilled tea or whatever.

That's not to say there aren't human interface issues with relying on capacitive sensors[1], but safety surely isn't one of them.

[1] Actually "boiling over" is in fact the shortcoming: what happens is that your sauce spills over the controls and causes the sensors to glitch, which the device detects as a failure and shuts down before you can wipe it. Then you have to reset all the temperatures.

GFCI for a 220V / 50 amp stove didn't enter the code until like 2020. My county hasn't even adopted that. It's unlikely any random person you encounter lives in a place with a GFCI controlled stove.

Also the breaker itself is like $130+, plus slightly higher chance to nuisance trip, so fat chance any builder is putting that in voluntarily.

Most people install induction stoves as part of a larger kitchen or home reno. If you're switching over from gas you probably didn't have a 50amp 220V circuit anywhere near the stove. But kitchen renos have to bring the kitchen up to code, so if you're bringing in an electrician anyway to redo all the wiring, might as well put in a circuit for the induction stove, and code requires that it be on a GFCI.

The folks who just want a drop-in replacement are probably not getting induction - they're the ones who complain about the necessary electrical upgrades being too expensive.

Yeah, my new induction range after a kitchen microwave fire is on, I think, a 40 amp circuit. But the whole kitchen electrical (and, indeed, much of the house) was being redone anyway.

That seems to be what Impulse is targeting - standard size drop in inductive with a lot of high tech features (for the price) and a ludicrous battery, so you don't need to upgrade the wiring (since you don't cook 24x7 after all.) No ideas if the numbers work out, but they're definitely aiming at a perceived gap...

Some induction ranges use magnetic dials for control to solve this problem.

I like these. Also some way to rotate the pot while holding modifier key would be pretty cool.

So you would replace an obvious and one handed control with an arcane two handed gesture? Why?

Cool is generally bad in UX design.

If that removes the knobs that are can be lost and cost significantly to implement - yes.

Maybe it can be implemented in a single hand gesture. But the point is pot or pan can be control interface itself.

I have an induction range with touch controls, and I'll tell you they are the most frustrating thing about it (other than half my old pots not working, but that was a one-time hit).

Why are they frustrating? Because every time I have to clean the stove top (which is after most uses) wiping the controls results in activating them. Sometimes things boil over or spit out hot fat while cooking and you need to clean it up right away (or it will get cooked on like welded steel) and you end up switching the simmer on the back element to high and drop the oven temperature by 100 degrees. A zillion beeps and cute jingle tones don't help, they just contribute to sensory overload.

It's a great cooktop but I would prefer physical controls that are not on the cook surface.

> I'd love to know what the justification for replacing them in the first place was.

There were two converging factors: number one is that there was a time where it was considered a sign of sophistication / progress. Definitely a case of form over function, but remember this was the era when everything Tesla did was cool and everyone was chasing them.

The second factor is cost. Physical buttons are expensive to design, certify and manufacture (most people don't have a notion of how high the durability bar is for everything that goes into a car interior). Once you have to have a touchscreen anyway you can (theoretically) remove almost all physical controls.

I must assume the justification was "it is cool". especially considering they also placed capacitive touch "buttons" on the steering wheel. Those are the worst of both worlds in every case imaginable.

Manufacturers sometimes change things that already work, just to separate the "old technology" and the new. When people want a completely new car, they expect things to be different and new, even if they are worse.

I believe Toyota did this frequently in their Prius models, where things were different from mainline Toyota just because, like the center-mounted speedometer and the joystick shifter.

Apple doesn't document how their iphone touch interface works. I have to use google to tell me how to do things. I don't want to have to use google while driving to figure out what the interface is.

Maybe not the answer you are looking for, but rumor has it that engineers at VW were well aware of points like those you raise. However the CEO at that time, Herbert Diess, outspoken admirer of Musk/Tesla, pushed for touch interfaces anyways.

>I can't think of any device, appliance, etc. I own whose UX is _better_ for not having physical, dedicated buttons or switches and instead having a touch interface or buttons which require a complex series of presses or chords.

Phone.

It may be better in an overall-compromise sort of way, but a touchscreen is not better for typing. I still miss the BlackBerry, and basically just stopped bothering to do any real text entry on a phone after keyboards went away.

People who buy things disagree, in aggregate.

You could make the same fallacious argument about cars when they all took buttons away and there was scant choice

Although cars have way more touch screens than before, they are not yet ubiquitous. With phones they have pretty much all converged on a single form factor with the only variant being size.

They have no meaningful choice. To the degree that this does represent consumer preference, however, what it tells us is simply that touchscreen phones are preferred overall: it does not follow that touchscreen keyboards, specifically, are preferred for text-entry tasks.

I feel like, over time, they have though. Blackberry was more than willing to keep the lights on well past the point of viability. Other competitors too. They kept trying to resurrect the physical keyboard popularity and it never happened.

You can still buy niche phones with a physical keyboard right now.

Doesn't look like the Clicks Communicator is actually available yet - the website says it's coming in February - but it's good to learn that there will soon be a physical keyboard option once again. (Or was there some other device you had in mind?)

I'd be first in line to buy a smartphone with a physical keyboard if a company was selling one which wasn't a Kickstarter or hobby project.

Sure, just like that famous small screen phone everyone wants but then no one actually buys.

I used flagship keyboard smartphones as long as they were offered. I literally voted with my wallet.

The idea that, because we aren't willing to pay $700 for a garbage tier "smartphone" with spotty support and basement level specs is somehow evidence that we don't actually want keyboards on our phones is bad faith.

Before smartphones I was buying feature phones with full keyboards too, including things like the Samsung Alias 2.

Meanwhile, folding phones, despite being a niche, are getting real attention by manufacturers, because it's a "new" gimmick and can drive sales.

It's cost savings. I'm a UX designer, a friend of mine works at an electric vehicle startup. I asked and it was unambiguous. The kinds of buttons that go into a vehicle aren't like the raw components we buy on amazon for hobby projects. They go through much more rigorous testing to be resilient to hours of use, extreme temperatures, etc, and are commensurately more expensive. Those mediocre touchscreens are cheaper than the BOM for all those fancy buttons and dials, which might each have their own control board or group bus, etc.

I'm not sure whether this is also true for your induction range. Certainly on generic table lamps and such, the touch-activated buttons are the hobby slop we'd buy from amazon.

Anyway, I've never really heard anyone offer performance, likeability, or usability as a reason for touchscreens in cars. Glad to see the industry get rid of them, at the decadeslong speed you'd expect from a dinosaur industry with a regulatory forcefield.

It’s also a lot easier on the production line if you don’t need a new set of control knobs and blanks for each vehicle that comes by based on how it’s been spec’d.

But that’s the issue. Grey suits in boardrooms with no passion for driving making decisions based on cost and homogenizing manufacturing amongst the car lines.

For example someone at VWAG thought it was a good idea to replace the 911 key with a button, and dials with a screen. Why? Cost and stupid tech fantasies fueled by EV manufacturers and Apples next-gen CarPlay nonsense.

> I'd love to know what the justification for replacing them in the first place was. I can't think of any device, appliance, etc. I own whose UX is _better_ for not having physical, dedicated buttons or switches and instead having a touch interface or buttons which require a complex series of presses or chords.

I can't speak for other manufacturers, but having lived with a Tesla I can say these are some justifications, beyond cost:

- Standardization. With some exceptions where hardware is different, once you've driven one Tesla you can drive any Tesla. I love physical buttons too, but I don't love finding the drive mode buttons in a different place every time I rent a car, or trying to figure out how this one does the windshield wipers, or headlights, or radio tuning, or parking brake, or whatever.

- Simplification. Along with the mandate to reduce physical controls, Tesla also pushed toward making everything automatic. I never have to think about my headlights (and they dim in a circle around any detected vehicle in front of me), and I don't have to think much about drive modes either. It does a good job of automatically picking the correct direction when you tap the brake, and has a good mechanism for auto-switching between forward and reverse as you manipulate the brake and wheel.

- OTA updates. When something isn't working out for people they can make adjustments. They can also add new features (AI assistant, more automation) without mounting new buttons.

There are some silly choices, like the glove box (which is tiny and not very useful anyway) requiring a voice command or the touchscreen. And some people don't like the touchscreen vents (I do, surprise surprise). But most of it makes good sense.

Like what the sibling comment said: money. It's cheaper to produce one type of screen module and deploying that one type across car models that different kinds of switches. Also it was some kind of USP; to public perception of touch screens equal luxury during iPhone boom. Even though the software implementations were left to be desired ie. nothing was buttery smooth

> I'd love to know what the justification for replacing them in the first place was.

Schadenfreude maybe after watching people interact with their UI. I regularly drive in an ID4 and it's hilarious how terrible the whole experience is from a user UX point of view.

First they put screens in for navigation because people were using dash mounted ones. Guess it felt logical to move the entertainment and info in there too (infotainment) and then came the EVs and the goofy tech era of cars. Late 2010s was peak automotive - most modern cars are like tacky appliances inside now.

The only customer that matters to them are new car buyers, who are easily swayed by salesman and shiny objects.

Touch controls are frustrating in general. But in this case, I don't think there is a safety issue from electric fire because of a spill. For generic turning it off (as in stop producing heat, not break the electrical circuit), isn't that just removing the pot on an induction stove?

The car has to be scrapped when the UI hardware fails.

You can live a LONG time without a working ... radio tuning knob, if the other 99.9% of the controls work. Or if the right passenger door lock button fails, really who cares. But when the central control of the entire car fails, its scrap.

Very profitable for the manufacturer.

Occurs to me that this is likely one of the reasons car manufacturer warranties have really gone into the crapper.

I specifically bought the model of induction stove I have (LG Studio) due to physical knobs for the burners.

This sounds great. Unfortunately, the options for 24" induction ranges were extremely limited when I was in the market 3-4 years ago and I had to settle for a Blomberg.

100% speculation, but:

to me it feels like a cost cutting measure needed for Tesla to survive. Elon and his reality distortion field made it look like a touch screen (and no controls) are superior - and all the car companies started mimicking it out of fear to miss out on something

Pretty much all (American?) cars have gotten rid of most physical buttons, it's not just VW. I assume it's cost.

I assume this as well. I hope we get a trend of customers/reviewers looking at a touchscreen-heavy cars and saying "you guys really cheaped out on the interior, eh?".

Dealerships love selling extended warranties. "If that screen breaks, you'll have to pay $1800 to replace it!"

Money

That's almost always the answer for big corporations run by MBAs.

Ultimately, yeah. But specifically I think it's a combination of saving money directly on the bill of materials and assembly, and saving money on design flexibility (heck, you can probably do the entire infotainment design process at the last minute and flash it onto the cars after the entire assembly).

Mobile phones.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com