Some new BMWs won't have touchscreens thanks to chip shortage(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Some new BMWs won't have touchscreens thanks to chip shortage
https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/5/22765709/bmw-chip-shortage-touchscreen-car-suv-manufacturing
188 comments
I hope something will be done with Chinese speculators who buy all stock of certain components as soon as it becomes available and then resell at 10x margin.
What is a chip manufacturer gaining when they sell components to them rather than to businesses that actually use them in their products?
Currently my friends company had to hire two more engineers to redevelop product to use a different chip manufacturer who so far has not been badly affected.
But this may become a kind of whack-a-mole game.
If this causes so much harm to businesses, why agencies don't treat this as a national security problem and actually put these Chinese companies on terrorist list?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but automobiles predate integrated circuits.
One could offer zero-chip models that would:
- continue production in times of chip scarcity, and
- roll on through EMP events with gusto.
Niftier than an NFT, these low-tech solutions.
One could offer zero-chip models that would:
- continue production in times of chip scarcity, and
- roll on through EMP events with gusto.
Niftier than an NFT, these low-tech solutions.
But they would fail emissions regulations without engine management and safety regulations without a reversing screen or airbags.
Make them electric (electric cars predate integrated circuits and arguably reliable ICE cars), put a mirror and a fresnel lens on the back, regulate that the driver has to be able to see the average 2 year old standing anywhere behind the car even with no mirror, and put in a 5pt harness with a quick release on one shoulder for reversing (which is better than all but the last couple of generations of airbag).
There is no need for SUVs or even anything as big as a 'subcompact' to exist for private travel in cities, microcars from the 70s are better in every way except for compensating for tiny penises and scaring mothers into making the roads more dangerous via a prisoner's dilemma.
There is no need for SUVs or even anything as big as a 'subcompact' to exist for private travel in cities, microcars from the 70s are better in every way except for compensating for tiny penises and scaring mothers into making the roads more dangerous via a prisoner's dilemma.
Perhaps those regulations bear revision.
They are actively being revised in the right direction (which involves more chips).
It would be idiotic to worry about EMPs over emissions and crash safety.
It would be idiotic to worry about EMPs over emissions and crash safety.
The arms race of complexity, size and regulatory lockin is the idiotic part when making them smaller, lighter and redesigning roads for 20mph solves this problem and many much worse ones.
Very arguably idiotic, until the EMP occurs.
Maybe better engineering captures the emissions and crash concerns in simpler, sturdier designs.
Maybe better engineering captures the emissions and crash concerns in simpler, sturdier designs.
>Maybe better engineering captures the emissions and crash concerns in simpler, sturdier designs.
This is very unlikely, given that everything points towards sturdier designs being less safe.
Emissions can not be reasonably solved without chips, there really isn't any feasible alternative.
This is very unlikely, given that everything points towards sturdier designs being less safe.
Emissions can not be reasonably solved without chips, there really isn't any feasible alternative.
I hope they prove to be extremely popular, and car makers realize what a stupid idea touchscreens in cars were in the first place, and give up the idea completely.
...and then there will be unicorns and flutterbugs and cotton candy, and everyone will be happy and nothing bad will ever happen again.
...and then there will be unicorns and flutterbugs and cotton candy, and everyone will be happy and nothing bad will ever happen again.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that feel strongly anti-screen in the car. I feel so strongly about it that I drive an old car. I want an electric car eventually, and I hope that the automakers start building all cars, including electrics, with fully tactile control surfaces (didn't Honda say they'd eliminate screens in their cars? What happened with that?). It looks less Star-Trek sexy, but it also works 50x better.
You know who gets this? Airplane pilots. They use screens but with a great deal of care.
You know who gets this? Airplane pilots. They use screens but with a great deal of care.
They aren’t removing the screens - they’re removing the touch functionality of the screen.
Screens are vital for safety - how do you back-up safely without a screen to show you what’s behind you?
Aeroplane pilots use an absolute ton of screens, front and centre.
Screens are vital for safety - how do you back-up safely without a screen to show you what’s behind you?
Aeroplane pilots use an absolute ton of screens, front and centre.
> how do you back-up safely without a screen to show you what’s behind you?
The older style of parking sensors based on ultrasonic sensors which use beeps and a diagram of the car to indicate what’s behind you and how far away is superior to a camera and doesn’t require a screen (could be done with a few LEDs if necessary)
If you have to look at a camera in front of you to back up, you can’t see everything else in the field of vision behind you that’s not covered by the camera. Furthermore screens have much worse resolution and dynamic range than your eyes.
The older style of parking sensors based on ultrasonic sensors which use beeps and a diagram of the car to indicate what’s behind you and how far away is superior to a camera and doesn’t require a screen (could be done with a few LEDs if necessary)
If you have to look at a camera in front of you to back up, you can’t see everything else in the field of vision behind you that’s not covered by the camera. Furthermore screens have much worse resolution and dynamic range than your eyes.
> how do you back-up safely without a screen
The way they’ve been doing it for the past 100 years?
The way they’ve been doing it for the past 100 years?
> how do you back-up safely without a screen to show you what’s behind you?
Turn your head and look behind you.
Turn your head and look behind you.
You have blind spots doing that - that’s how children get run over and why it’s illegal to sell a new car without a screen these days.
Not if you move properly. The idea is to know where a car’s blind spots are and to move your head to look around.
It’s tragic how kids get run over, but it’s a tiny amount out of a country of 300 million.
When I had toddlers, I would make sure I could see them in front of the car before I would back out. If I didn’t know where they were, I didn’t back up.
Not a perfect system, of course. But the idea that rear cameras are a necessity is silly.
It’s tragic how kids get run over, but it’s a tiny amount out of a country of 300 million.
When I had toddlers, I would make sure I could see them in front of the car before I would back out. If I didn’t know where they were, I didn’t back up.
Not a perfect system, of course. But the idea that rear cameras are a necessity is silly.
I often mow my yard nowhere near a child however my mower is unable to mow in reverse due to some regulations. I'm dissatisfied I'm held to a safety standard which does not apply to my use. Should I be wearing a seatbelt too, because some people fall off? Some burden should fall on parental supervision, rather than x million reverse cameras etc that people don't require.
Wow. I guess I’m really old and remember the days of using the rear view and side mirrors to back up.
No mirror lets you see right behind the back bumper. It’s dangerous.
I don't really remember it being an endemic issue of people getting run over by backing up cars that had that small blindspot. Could have been an issue of unattended children/pets or tall car/short people, but I think it was more a big convenience boost.
The stats are clear. Back-over accidents are directly correlated with a) large vehicles and b) the high belt-lines and "as close to a truss as we can get away with" body lines that make modern vehicles "safer".
> but I think it was more a big convenience boost
They don't make laws to force cars to add features for convenience.
They don't make laws to force cars to add features for convenience.
Laws in what country?
The backup camera? At least the EU and the US.
I guess Skoda was breaking the law when they made the citigo. That didn't even have radar reversing sensors as standard.
Did it come out before the end of 2021? I'm guessing yes. That's when the EU law comes into effect.
Oh, so this law isn't even in force yet? No wonder I'm not aware of it.
Most people are idiots/lazy, and I say that on both sides (walkers and drivers). I see it more as making a robust solution a law, but doesn't necessarily benefit me to the extent that I want a mandated backup in my car personally.
That's a false equivalence - just because it's not an 'endemic' issue doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed. I don't see why things getting run over by cars (think of immovable things as well) shouldn't be fixed?
And yet drivers managed to (mostly) not back into kids for over 100 years, without rear cameras. You walk around the car before you throw it into reverse. The screens fix the "mostly" problem, but they're not a substitute for driving skill.
Kids also used to stand in the back while being driven around. I certainly did. Not only were there no car seats, there weren't even seatbelts in the back. Putting kids and their toys in the back of a station wagon for a road trip used to be a thing. Everyone mostly made it out alive, and yet we still have laws against all of the above now, everywhere in the world.
> managed to (mostly) not back into kids for over 100 years, without rear cameras
They reckon the mandatory backup camera law saves 95 lives a year.
They reckon the mandatory backup camera law saves 95 lives a year.
Getting out of the car would save 95 lives, too
> Getting out of the car
Some cars do have remote-control drive features these days, so you can reverse it from outside the car, but that's a super high-end feature (designed for getting in to and out of extremely tight city parking spaces) and relies on the chips that are in shortage, so that's not a solution.
Some cars do have remote-control drive features these days, so you can reverse it from outside the car, but that's a super high-end feature (designed for getting in to and out of extremely tight city parking spaces) and relies on the chips that are in shortage, so that's not a solution.
We are but muggles, so I don't think we need to worry about teleporting children appearing in the time it takes you to get back in the car. You know your blind spot is clear and can see where your future blind spot is now.
This is like arguing against seat-belts because you think you can brace yourself sufficiently.
Seat-belts are have basically no downsides. Backup cameras trade back over accidents for accidents involving cross traffic.
It's now mandated by law that new cars have back-up screens. That's a helpful safety feature, but I fear it's also teaching new drivers that one cannot back up a vehicle without a screen. If such drivers find themselves pulling a trailer, driving a rental truck that has no screen, or driving an ordinary car with a bike rack on the back that obscures the camera's view, they'll suddenly find themselves unable to reverse the vehicle. Don't get dependent on the screens; learn to use the mirrors and swivel your head.
No amount of swivelling your head allows you to see the blind spot right behind you - not using a screen is really dangerous which is why they made them mandatory.
> No amount of swivelling your head allows you to see the blind spot right behind you - not using a screen is really dangerous which is why they made them mandatory.
I've worked in the auto Industry for a large part of my life in some form, and even when cameras are installed their are a lot of owners (mainly older) who don't use them.
I can use them or not since I've spent enough time staging cars, so while it's a useful tool to have them it's specious reasoning to think they are an absolute answer to all accidents that happen when you back up. It's just as odd as thinking as somehow cars with auto-dimming headlamps when the turn signals are on are what was necessary for others to see you want to turn--I have no problem seeing this even on motorcycles as I ride and tend to be rather vigilant to these lights just to not get hit. It's akin to thinking that all cars must have a self-parking feature.
Honestly, I place more blame on mobile phones for needless accidents than anything else on the road these days, second only to tired or careless drivers. Both of which I have been guilty of at some point, too.
I've worked in the auto Industry for a large part of my life in some form, and even when cameras are installed their are a lot of owners (mainly older) who don't use them.
I can use them or not since I've spent enough time staging cars, so while it's a useful tool to have them it's specious reasoning to think they are an absolute answer to all accidents that happen when you back up. It's just as odd as thinking as somehow cars with auto-dimming headlamps when the turn signals are on are what was necessary for others to see you want to turn--I have no problem seeing this even on motorcycles as I ride and tend to be rather vigilant to these lights just to not get hit. It's akin to thinking that all cars must have a self-parking feature.
Honestly, I place more blame on mobile phones for needless accidents than anything else on the road these days, second only to tired or careless drivers. Both of which I have been guilty of at some point, too.
And yet making them mandatory does not mean they will suddenly appear everywhere, so it's still a good idea to have a backup plan (npi).
It sounds to me like you think I'm against backup cameras, but I like them. My concern is that they are not always going to be present and working, so it's still a good idea to learn to safely reverse a vehicle without a camera. Speaking as someone who frequently drives fire trucks, ambulances, and large RVs, it's simply incorrect that it's somehow impossible to safely reverse a vehicle without a camera. Cameras are helpful tools but training and care should still be a driver's #1 safety priority.
It sounds to me like you think I'm against backup cameras, but I like them. My concern is that they are not always going to be present and working, so it's still a good idea to learn to safely reverse a vehicle without a camera. Speaking as someone who frequently drives fire trucks, ambulances, and large RVs, it's simply incorrect that it's somehow impossible to safely reverse a vehicle without a camera. Cameras are helpful tools but training and care should still be a driver's #1 safety priority.
> how do you back-up safely without a screen to show you what’s behind you?
Always-on silicon dioxide transparent amorphous solid with a sublayer of vacuumed deposited silver: a mirror.
Always-on silicon dioxide transparent amorphous solid with a sublayer of vacuumed deposited silver: a mirror.
You have deadly blind-spots when you rely on mirrors.
Then use your eyes and neck joint to check your blind spots? You'd fail a UK driving test if you relied entirely on your mirror (or camera, for that matter) when reversing.
Unless you have a three-metre articulated neck you are not going to be able to get your head out the car and round the back to see right behind your own car while driving it - I can't believe people aren't aware they have blind spots there? That's how small children get run over.
Why do you think they made backup cameras mandatory? Why do you think they believe they save lives?
Why do you think they made backup cameras mandatory? Why do you think they believe they save lives?
I hope you spend a very, very, long time wearing a next brace as the result of reversing into traffic. It would be fitting. Cameras have blind spots too. They're just different ones.
Who made them mandatory? When and where? You have other blind spots, too, and manufacturers know that relying on a camera makes drivers neglect their other blind spots - Skoda cars even pop up a toast notification saying "Look around, is it safe to move?" to try and discourage lazy drivers thinking the computer is a replacement for a brain.
But all this feels like a moot point, anyway. I understood the main argument to be advocating the use of physical controls, not the removal of safety sensors and cameras.
But all this feels like a moot point, anyway. I understood the main argument to be advocating the use of physical controls, not the removal of safety sensors and cameras.
I'll be another voice so that it's not just Chris :)
Backover accidents are real. Cameras help a lot. Arguments about "but they are not in all cars" forget that seatbelts, airbags, and ABS were also once in that category.
If you are worried about drivers not being hardcore enough and relying too much on cameras: do you know how to use a choke? What about a crank start? An unsynchronized gearbox?
Backover accidents are real. Cameras help a lot. Arguments about "but they are not in all cars" forget that seatbelts, airbags, and ABS were also once in that category.
If you are worried about drivers not being hardcore enough and relying too much on cameras: do you know how to use a choke? What about a crank start? An unsynchronized gearbox?
Your last line reminds me of Dom Toretto. "Granny shifting, not double clutching like you should..."
Yup. I have never driven a car where you have to double-clutch but I know they exist. Most people probably don't even know this and yet are still good drivers. They get out of driving what they want to get out of it. Not everyone has to drive a vintage car to be called a driver.
(And yes, I know, also trucks)
(And yes, I know, also trucks)
> Who made them mandatory?
US, Canada, EU (I think they allow an alternative 'detection system'), possibly others.
US, Canada, EU (I think they allow an alternative 'detection system'), possibly others.
How do you do that in a perfectly legal street car like a lamborghini aventador?
Take your exaggeration and shove it.
It's not hard to keep track of what is entering and exiting your blind spots so everything is accounted for. This is how every trucker does it.
It's not hard to keep track of what is entering and exiting your blind spots so everything is accounted for. This is how every trucker does it.
Yet still 210 fatalities and 15,000 injuries are caused every year by backover crashes. We can fix most of those with backup cameras and screens. But people here want to remove those screens.
Leaving aside the extremists, most people here seem to want to remove mostly touchscreens that replaced electro-mechanical under-the-wheel commands. I actually agree with those 'takes'. Completely removing any screen seems some kind of butlerian djihad. Leave the screen, doesn't have to be huge, or to be seen by anyone else than the driver, put it somewhere useful for safety. And make it not flashy, not attention grabbing when driving.
It's funny, but I wasn't reading authors very closely in this sub-thread, and my general impression was a lot of mirror hate and fear. But then I noticed that it's ALL coming from you, Chris.
TBH I have never heard anyone, not once, talk about mirrors being dangerous or about this even being an issue. Yet to hear you say it our children's blood is running in the street.
Who are you, and why are you pushing this so hard?
TBH I have never heard anyone, not once, talk about mirrors being dangerous or about this even being an issue. Yet to hear you say it our children's blood is running in the street.
Who are you, and why are you pushing this so hard?
The technical issue is that the center rear view mirror cannot see below the bottom of the rear windshield. And so small children, perhaps on bikes etc, aren't visible in the mirrors.
It it possible to mitigate this by visually checking that blindspot before you get in the car, and keeping aware to make sure nothing sneaks into it while you're getting in? Sure, just like it is also possible to backup with no mirrors whatsoever by getting out of the vehicle and surveying your surroundings.
But on the whole, enough people don't do this that backup accidents are indeed an issue.
What my neck really wants is an auxiliary backup camera that you can stick on a towed trailer.
(Also I'll just chime in here - "screw touchscreens". The damn things should be illegal for any function the driver might need to used while driving. Software defined display screens are fine, but should be fully navigable through straightforwardly-predictable states using directional buttons on the steering wheel)
It it possible to mitigate this by visually checking that blindspot before you get in the car, and keeping aware to make sure nothing sneaks into it while you're getting in? Sure, just like it is also possible to backup with no mirrors whatsoever by getting out of the vehicle and surveying your surroundings.
But on the whole, enough people don't do this that backup accidents are indeed an issue.
What my neck really wants is an auxiliary backup camera that you can stick on a towed trailer.
(Also I'll just chime in here - "screw touchscreens". The damn things should be illegal for any function the driver might need to used while driving. Software defined display screens are fine, but should be fully navigable through straightforwardly-predictable states using directional buttons on the steering wheel)
> TBH I have never heard anyone, not once, talk about mirrors being dangerous or about this even being an issue.
Then you're under-informed. They introduced laws about requiring backup cameras in multiple countries - I obviously didn't legislate them myself!
https://www.fatherly.com/health-science/car-backup-camera-la...
> 210 fatalities and 15,000 injuries are caused every year by backover crashes
No mirror is showing you where you need to see to avoid these fatal accidents.
People saying they want cars without screens are like people arguing for cars without seatbelts because they find them uncomfortable.
Then you're under-informed. They introduced laws about requiring backup cameras in multiple countries - I obviously didn't legislate them myself!
https://www.fatherly.com/health-science/car-backup-camera-la...
> 210 fatalities and 15,000 injuries are caused every year by backover crashes
No mirror is showing you where you need to see to avoid these fatal accidents.
People saying they want cars without screens are like people arguing for cars without seatbelts because they find them uncomfortable.
>Then you're under-informed.
Always an excellent (if mis-spelled) rejoinder, if the burden of proof is on you, and you are failing to meet it.
>They literally introduced laws
You've claimed this 5 or 6 times in this sub-thread, and yet I've not seen a single reference or link. Here, you link to "fatherly.com", which I will not visit. Link to something reputable, ideally the law itself, or major news coverage of the law.
>210 fatalities and 15,000 injuries
I know a case is weak when they start quoting absolute numbers at me on national issues. The order-of-magnitude of people in the US is 10^8. 200 dead is close to the noise floor on unlikely death. Literally 1-in-a-million. It's like the number of people that die from snake bites and shark attacks and lightning strikes.
>No mirror is showing you where you need to see to avoid these fatal accidents.
Here's where you get to the actual danger of what you are saying. Because screens do not come without considerable cost, not just in terms of hardware, but in terms of distraction. Do you think the number of fatalities caused directly or indirectly by screen-use-while-driving will exceed 200? (I would bet it's at 20k right now).
BTW I will carve out an exception - it's probably a good idea to have a dedicated backup screen, as with a 3rd party dashcam you can install yourself. However this is a very different beast than the center console infotainment center that, for that brief moment it becomes vital safety equipment, becomes a massive, constant, deadly liability to the safety of everyone within eyeshot.
Always an excellent (if mis-spelled) rejoinder, if the burden of proof is on you, and you are failing to meet it.
>They literally introduced laws
You've claimed this 5 or 6 times in this sub-thread, and yet I've not seen a single reference or link. Here, you link to "fatherly.com", which I will not visit. Link to something reputable, ideally the law itself, or major news coverage of the law.
>210 fatalities and 15,000 injuries
I know a case is weak when they start quoting absolute numbers at me on national issues. The order-of-magnitude of people in the US is 10^8. 200 dead is close to the noise floor on unlikely death. Literally 1-in-a-million. It's like the number of people that die from snake bites and shark attacks and lightning strikes.
>No mirror is showing you where you need to see to avoid these fatal accidents.
Here's where you get to the actual danger of what you are saying. Because screens do not come without considerable cost, not just in terms of hardware, but in terms of distraction. Do you think the number of fatalities caused directly or indirectly by screen-use-while-driving will exceed 200? (I would bet it's at 20k right now).
BTW I will carve out an exception - it's probably a good idea to have a dedicated backup screen, as with a 3rd party dashcam you can install yourself. However this is a very different beast than the center console infotainment center that, for that brief moment it becomes vital safety equipment, becomes a massive, constant, deadly liability to the safety of everyone within eyeshot.
> which I will not visit
This is a bizarre reason to refuse to understand something - you can find these laws yourself in seconds, either the original legislation, or references to it in the media, by Googling for them.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/02/backup-cameras-now-required-...
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-110publ189/pdf/PLAW...
> I know a case is weak
Well take it up with the US and EU governments! I didn't write the laws - I'm just telling you what it is and why they introduced it.
You have to follow the law - and have a backup camera and screen in a new car - for other people's safety whether you like it or not! Just like you have to wear your seatbelt.
This is a bizarre reason to refuse to understand something - you can find these laws yourself in seconds, either the original legislation, or references to it in the media, by Googling for them.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/02/backup-cameras-now-required-...
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-110publ189/pdf/PLAW...
> I know a case is weak
Well take it up with the US and EU governments! I didn't write the laws - I'm just telling you what it is and why they introduced it.
You have to follow the law - and have a backup camera and screen in a new car - for other people's safety whether you like it or not! Just like you have to wear your seatbelt.
> I didn't write the laws
Not sure what your angle here is, but you clearly aren't an unbiased commenter. You have gone on and on about how many lives this law has saved, and how dangerous it is to drive without a screen and so on. So yes, I do expect you to make a better case rather than walk around acting as if yours is the foregone conclusion, obvious and right (of course, because it's for the children!)
You still have not responded to my central claim that these screens claim far, far more lives than they save.
Not sure what your angle here is, but you clearly aren't an unbiased commenter. You have gone on and on about how many lives this law has saved, and how dangerous it is to drive without a screen and so on. So yes, I do expect you to make a better case rather than walk around acting as if yours is the foregone conclusion, obvious and right (of course, because it's for the children!)
You still have not responded to my central claim that these screens claim far, far more lives than they save.
My position is supported by the professionals in the US, Canada, and EU who spend their entire working lives studying safety issues and trade-offs and making recommendations for legislation.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/811024.pdf
> a statistically significant 28 percent reduction in crashes
You:
> You still have not responded to my central claim that these screens claim far, far more lives than they save.
Them:
> no evidence to support the hypothesis that driver’s backing behavior (i.e. speed and acceleration) was influenced by the presence of absence of an RV system
People said the kind of things that you're saying about seatbelts when they came out - they thought they'd get trapped and didn't want to wear them. At some point you have to listen to the studies not just gut instinct.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/811024.pdf
> a statistically significant 28 percent reduction in crashes
You:
> You still have not responded to my central claim that these screens claim far, far more lives than they save.
Them:
> no evidence to support the hypothesis that driver’s backing behavior (i.e. speed and acceleration) was influenced by the presence of absence of an RV system
People said the kind of things that you're saying about seatbelts when they came out - they thought they'd get trapped and didn't want to wear them. At some point you have to listen to the studies not just gut instinct.
You are ignoring my claim.
Let's assume that these screens eliminate 100% of all deaths and accidental injury from backing up.
My point is that does not outweigh the number of deaths that are caused when the screen distracts the driver and causes a crash. This happens frequently, at higher speeds, and with worse consequences. Worse, I bet these crashes are grossly under-reported because no-one is going to admit being distracted by a screen, and so accepting liability.
As for gut instinct, mine has nothing to do with it. I have been in enough close calls with other distracted drivers, and I have seen the PSAs about not driving distracted, to know that it's a 10 kdeath/yr issue, not a 100 death/yr issue.
I'm going to disengage because there's something about this whole interaction that doesn't sit right with me.
Let's assume that these screens eliminate 100% of all deaths and accidental injury from backing up.
My point is that does not outweigh the number of deaths that are caused when the screen distracts the driver and causes a crash. This happens frequently, at higher speeds, and with worse consequences. Worse, I bet these crashes are grossly under-reported because no-one is going to admit being distracted by a screen, and so accepting liability.
As for gut instinct, mine has nothing to do with it. I have been in enough close calls with other distracted drivers, and I have seen the PSAs about not driving distracted, to know that it's a 10 kdeath/yr issue, not a 100 death/yr issue.
I'm going to disengage because there's something about this whole interaction that doesn't sit right with me.
The difference is that cars are mass-produced while airplanes are effectively bespoke.* And everything-on-the-touchscreen is cheaper to manufacture than physical knobs, so saving 25 cents per car matters. Airplanes are much more expensive than cars because they're all basically made by hand, so they can afford to spend more money on a better human interface.
I'm not suggesting touchscreens in cars are "a good thing", but I get the economics.
*Boeing makes around 700 aircraft per year. GM makes that many cars every hour.
I'm not suggesting touchscreens in cars are "a good thing", but I get the economics.
*Boeing makes around 700 aircraft per year. GM makes that many cars every hour.
Oh I am aware that screens are generally a lot cheaper. Plus you can update them over the air! (OTA updates being another anti-feature I do not want on any vehicle that I own or operate).
Avionics are going touch too:
https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/166058
https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/166058
Not to mention the fact that literally every pilot has an iPad mounted in the cockpit for foreflight. Pilots fucking love touchscreens, avionics just change very slowly.
I don’t mind a touch screen for GPS/CarPlay. But control of the vehicles operation, environment and entertainment systems should have robust, tactile and intuitive physical input devices that don’t require eyeballs to use.
Not to get too far on a tangent but one of the best ways to increase intuition of a control is to provide haptic feedback. This guy has a few projects related to that, this video summarizes them pretty nicely. https://youtu.be/9Eh1p_rUQMA
Not to get too far on a tangent but one of the best ways to increase intuition of a control is to provide haptic feedback. This guy has a few projects related to that, this video summarizes them pretty nicely. https://youtu.be/9Eh1p_rUQMA
In the world of unicorns and ponies, sure.
In the real world, once you put a screen anywhere, that's where the entire UX will go.
The temptation to do so it's seemingly irresistible.
In the real world, once you put a screen anywhere, that's where the entire UX will go.
The temptation to do so it's seemingly irresistible.
You can look at literally any non-electric BMW to disprove this. Everything important has physical controls.
BMW doesn't exist in some world of unicorns, it's a very real carmaker.
BMW doesn't exist in some world of unicorns, it's a very real carmaker.
>Everything important has physical controls.
Right, and who decides what's important?
And how many physical controls still require you to look at the screen to use?
I looked at that dial/joystick thingie, and was non-plussed.
Right, and who decides what's important?
And how many physical controls still require you to look at the screen to use?
I looked at that dial/joystick thingie, and was non-plussed.
As far as I can tell everything that you would have operated with a button in a 90s car is still operated with a button without any need to look at the screens. They've simply added stuff on top of the existing controls.
AC, radio, massaging seats, windows and lights can all be operated without looking at screens. Sure, the navigation requires you to look at the screen (duh?). You don't have to use the navigation.
>I looked at that dial/joystick thingie, and was non-plussed.
You never need to touch this while driving. The UX does not encourage you to do so. Unless you use the built in navigation, you'll only be touching the dial to do things like pair phones and navigate settings menus.
AC, radio, massaging seats, windows and lights can all be operated without looking at screens. Sure, the navigation requires you to look at the screen (duh?). You don't have to use the navigation.
>I looked at that dial/joystick thingie, and was non-plussed.
You never need to touch this while driving. The UX does not encourage you to do so. Unless you use the built in navigation, you'll only be touching the dial to do things like pair phones and navigate settings menus.
I rented a car in Germany ones but unfortunately I dont remember if it was a BMW or Mercedes. It had a fancy but horrendous touch nob and I just couldn't figure out how to move the car. Car makers consider everything touch a premium feature. The more touch the better/expensive. But to be fair I'm also extremely turned off by how Tesla "reimagined" the door knob.
BMWs have a touch nob clickwheel thing, there is no part of the UX that requires or even strongly encourages you to use the touch functionality.
I think we might be talking about different things. It was a touch knob where the gear shift would be. Everything in that car was off in my opinion.
Porsche too: up until a few years ago they had a very strict policy of "one physical button / one function". Now lately they stuffed a bit too much gimmicks in their cars so they couldn't put everything behind buttons and they picked some kind of a happy middle ground: they've got a panel which physically moves and gives a great feedback (I think they're using quality microswitches underneathh the panel), but the icons showing on the panel can vary. They also have a touchscreen for the gimmicks, but everything important has physical controls.
Oh yeah I totally agree. You're going to need a brand manager with brass balls and knuckles to match to maintain that separation.
> I don’t mind a touch screen for GPS
Yup, it's basically the only time when I use the touchscreen in mine: I start the car, enter the GPS coordinates/address and then I control everything from my steering wheel, using buttons with real feedback and without needing to take neither my hands off the steering wheel nor my eyes off the road.
My car also happens to have a gimmick: "voice control / voice command" but it's only good when you're alone in the car. As long as there are people talking, it sucks. It also interrupts the music and I hate that. I do use it once in a while but I'm not a big fan.
Touchscreen sucks and those who don't even have haptic feedback: I don't even have words for that.
If I recall correctly there as least one major japanese car manufacturer who decided to get rid of touchscreens a few years ago. Good ridance, it's a poor system.
Yup, it's basically the only time when I use the touchscreen in mine: I start the car, enter the GPS coordinates/address and then I control everything from my steering wheel, using buttons with real feedback and without needing to take neither my hands off the steering wheel nor my eyes off the road.
My car also happens to have a gimmick: "voice control / voice command" but it's only good when you're alone in the car. As long as there are people talking, it sucks. It also interrupts the music and I hate that. I do use it once in a while but I'm not a big fan.
Touchscreen sucks and those who don't even have haptic feedback: I don't even have words for that.
If I recall correctly there as least one major japanese car manufacturer who decided to get rid of touchscreens a few years ago. Good ridance, it's a poor system.
The car ui’s to get to car play usually make me want to poke my eyes out.
Car maker supplied GPS is terrible too. Just give me car play and Siri or the android equivalent.
Car maker supplied GPS is terrible too. Just give me car play and Siri or the android equivalent.
I generally like car UIs (I'm a fan of glossy things rather than flat things) but no amount of polish will make the layout not suck. Its usually designed for left hand drive cars and clusters common actions near the wheel, but won't change when you're in a right hand drive, causing you to lean across the centre console to use it. Android auto (and I'm hoping Apple's equivalent) mostly handles this amazingly, putting common functions actually close to you.
Its not all good, though. The Skoda Karoq has this split personality thing going on where it comes with its own sat nav, and that tries to take over your experience when you start navigating in Google maps. Its only a (first world) problem when you have the overly fancy glass cockpit, but it likes to replace your speedometer with a full screen map from the internal sat nav, which has none of the information from Google such as your next turn or the blue line showing your route.
Its not all good, though. The Skoda Karoq has this split personality thing going on where it comes with its own sat nav, and that tries to take over your experience when you start navigating in Google maps. Its only a (first world) problem when you have the overly fancy glass cockpit, but it likes to replace your speedometer with a full screen map from the internal sat nav, which has none of the information from Google such as your next turn or the blue line showing your route.
At least in the UK there's no point in driving a RHD vehicle unless you frequent McDrive or some very strange parking garage. UK insurance is really terrible, getting European insurance for a RHD vehicle will be a pain in the ass. It's better to just not bother, it's not difficult or dangerous to drive a LHD car in a RHD country.
> But control of the vehicles operation, environment and entertainment systems should have robust, tactile and intuitive physical input devices that don’t require eyeballs to use.
Last time we looked at cars we avoided anything like this, it was depressingly common.
Worst, I think, was Peugeot - the volume and (I think) AC were completely controlled by the touch screen - but you couldn't just press and hold, when you pressed it, it only moved one "setting" and you needed to tap-tap-tap to change more than one notch. Also, the above-steering HUD screen had frame-rate issues! It's completely absurd that they both sell this and people buy it.
We did end up going for a brand which had touch for radio channels/Carplay, but physical buttons for controlling AC, volume, start/stop/skip controls etc.
I really, really hope this trend goes away.
Last time we looked at cars we avoided anything like this, it was depressingly common.
Worst, I think, was Peugeot - the volume and (I think) AC were completely controlled by the touch screen - but you couldn't just press and hold, when you pressed it, it only moved one "setting" and you needed to tap-tap-tap to change more than one notch. Also, the above-steering HUD screen had frame-rate issues! It's completely absurd that they both sell this and people buy it.
We did end up going for a brand which had touch for radio channels/Carplay, but physical buttons for controlling AC, volume, start/stop/skip controls etc.
I really, really hope this trend goes away.
Totally agree with you. However, some times I think most of the people take what they're given and the 'radicals' are just a small percentage of the total. Manufacturers simply decide to make what is cheaper for them (see for example 16:10 vs 16:9 for monitors).
Perhaps it’s not that most people take what they’re given but that the manufacturer does a good job discovering what people want.
No, I argue it's exactly what GP says. Consumers choose out of what's available on the market, not out of space of all possible products.
When purchasing complex goods like cars (or smartphones), there's way too many things to simultaneously optimize for, and enough confusion (mostly intentional) about relative performance, so most consumers focus on few major indicators like price, availability, cost of ownership, appearance, etc. Few people are going to trade on those major points to optimize something more specific, like lack of touchscreen (or having a headphone jack), so there's no meaningful market feedback on this, and vendors are free to dictate the choice to the market.
When purchasing complex goods like cars (or smartphones), there's way too many things to simultaneously optimize for, and enough confusion (mostly intentional) about relative performance, so most consumers focus on few major indicators like price, availability, cost of ownership, appearance, etc. Few people are going to trade on those major points to optimize something more specific, like lack of touchscreen (or having a headphone jack), so there's no meaningful market feedback on this, and vendors are free to dictate the choice to the market.
Unfortunately I think it's more driven by cost motivations. As noted in the Mk8 VW GTI review [1], the interfaces are often straight up awful, this being a particularly bad design. They're the biggest source of complaints/issues shortly after buying, and three years later.
Additionally, distractions are already abundant in a vehicle. A crappy user interface, which most are, is a safety concern. At minimum, lag between screens loading should be extremely minimal. Staring at a screen for an extra second or two while it registers that you pressed a button and updates the screen is incredibly dangerous and has surely lead to some number of deaths.
Two years ago Mazda announced they were moving away from touchscreens, which was very well received on HackerNews. [2]
And I can't find the thread right now, but 1-3 years ago there was a really good discussion on here about an eye tracking study in a variety of car models.
Touchscreen-only interfaces in cars are kind of like electronic-only voting machines. Technical people who know about computers breath funny thinking about it and see issues left and right while large swaths of people really want it.
[1] https://youtu.be/XGbPHp6QfkQ?t=6m45s
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20200335
Additionally, distractions are already abundant in a vehicle. A crappy user interface, which most are, is a safety concern. At minimum, lag between screens loading should be extremely minimal. Staring at a screen for an extra second or two while it registers that you pressed a button and updates the screen is incredibly dangerous and has surely lead to some number of deaths.
Two years ago Mazda announced they were moving away from touchscreens, which was very well received on HackerNews. [2]
And I can't find the thread right now, but 1-3 years ago there was a really good discussion on here about an eye tracking study in a variety of car models.
Touchscreen-only interfaces in cars are kind of like electronic-only voting machines. Technical people who know about computers breath funny thinking about it and see issues left and right while large swaths of people really want it.
[1] https://youtu.be/XGbPHp6QfkQ?t=6m45s
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20200335
>
Unfortunately I think it's more driven by cost motivations. As noted in the Mk8 VW GTI review [1], the interfaces are often straight up awful, this being a particularly bad design.
The car producer could save even more money if they released the non-security critical user-facing parts of the software as open source and let car enthusiasts fix the bad user interface.
The car producer could save even more money if they released the non-security critical user-facing parts of the software as open source and let car enthusiasts fix the bad user interface.
I'd be good with that. I casually started looking at adding openstreetmaps in place of my outdated maps on my 2009 CR-V. From what I can tell, it's a proprietary system with proprietary formats. It doesn't look like it'll work, but I'd love to achieve it.
As a recent Mazda buyer, absolutely love the Mazda approach. The physical interface makes sense to me. The buttons feel right and work with a near-perfect springiness.
It's that they optimize for 1) what people like when they see it in the showroom, 2) costs, 3) what people like when they actually drive. In that order.
When I got a coin everytime I watch people in newer SUVs being entirely confused why the damn thing doesn't start now completely stunned by the sheer number of stuff on the dashboard and middle screen. Or tell their passengers to go fiddle with the aircon system because the cognitive load is too high while driving. Old cars with knobs you learn it once and you can use it without eyes.
I have worked on touchscreen UIs for cars. I have a car with touchscreen UI. As a user, I hate them. They are unergonomic and irresponsible.
Here's a way to stop them: make it illegal to have car controls without tactile feedback. Changing volume or radio stations, changing AC, everything the driver might do in the car, should never be done only through a touchscreen, which is too distracting and unsafe.
It's illegal to use your smartphone while driving, but somehow if you integrate the same technology into the car it is perfectly fine.
Maybe they can start selling a hands-free add-on kit for the car's controls..
Don’t most of these systems support voice control?
In many EU countries it's definitely not illegal to use your smartphone while driving. Distracted driving is illegal, but using your smartphone doesn't automatically mean that you were distracted any more or less than using your car touchscreen would.
The real truth is that enforcement is non-existent and almost nobody gets in trouble for using a phone while driving even if it's specifically forbidden.
The real truth is that enforcement is non-existent and almost nobody gets in trouble for using a phone while driving even if it's specifically forbidden.
[deleted]
I had my heart set on a Toyota RAV-4 hybrid, until I actually sat down in the thing and saw the touch screen. Drove it around, other than the touchscreen it was nice, thought I might just have to suck it up and learn not to change settings while driving.
On a whim, I checked out the Mazda CX-5. I'd never considered buying a Mazda before, but I found out they had institutionally banned touchscreens in their cars. And the CX-5 was so much more of a joy to drive than the RAV-4 that it made for a pretty easy decision.
On a whim, I checked out the Mazda CX-5. I'd never considered buying a Mazda before, but I found out they had institutionally banned touchscreens in their cars. And the CX-5 was so much more of a joy to drive than the RAV-4 that it made for a pretty easy decision.
You might want to buy a Mazda next time.
[1] - https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1121372_why-mazda-is-pur...
[1] - https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1121372_why-mazda-is-pur...
BMW does it right though
Originally their interface could only be controlled by a knob, so the knob is a 1st class citizen in navigation.
The touchscreen is there, but you never need to use it to navigate.
My 124 Spider uses a Mazda infotainment system, and that takes it a step further by only enabling the touchscreen at a standstill. Once the car is in motion only the knob works
Originally their interface could only be controlled by a knob, so the knob is a 1st class citizen in navigation.
The touchscreen is there, but you never need to use it to navigate.
My 124 Spider uses a Mazda infotainment system, and that takes it a step further by only enabling the touchscreen at a standstill. Once the car is in motion only the knob works
Why are you posting this under an article about BMW? They've done the best job at this out of all the carmakers.
You can go buy a brand new 7er, all the important things have physical buttons. The screen is really only there for navigation and more complicated settings.
You can go buy a brand new 7er, all the important things have physical buttons. The screen is really only there for navigation and more complicated settings.
Unfortunately, in this case it sounds like the alternate input is a touchpad, which is no more tactile and clearly worse.
BMWs actually use a dial that you can rotate in the centre console of the vehicle. It's actually very intuitive and easy to use, and a _lot_ less distracting than a touchscreen is.
When do you need to use that dial while driving? It's exclusively useful for things that you should only do while stationary.
You know that this dial has a touch screen on top and you can draw with it? For example, it supposed to ocr letters for nav location. No idea who uses that...
Touch screen for CarPlay stuff - changing map to overview, selecting a different route when you’re stuck in traffic, pressing back 15 on Spotify etc, that’s great. Non essential stuff, alternate is a phone in a cradle with a worse touchscreen.
I’ve got a 2016 civic and the entire touch screen is taken over when you make a right turn or go into reverse. And it takes several seconds for the system to boot when you turn the car on which is especially irritating in very hot or very cold weather. That and the response is laggy and slow. And sometimes it just stops responding entirely and you have to reboot the touch screen. It’s very annoying “feature” of an otherwise lovely car.
I'm curious how touch screen glass cockpit pilots feel. Flying and messing with a touchscreen seems a lot more risky and dangerous on the surface, not to mention more difficult in turbulence thanks to bouncing around in three dimensions.
In an industry arguably more obsessed with safety (from regulators down to pilots), surely this would be a more heated debate in that space?
In an industry arguably more obsessed with safety (from regulators down to pilots), surely this would be a more heated debate in that space?
Agreed. Your not supposed to even touch your smartphone while driving, how is operating your car touchscreen-based head unit any safer?!
Dials and buttons provides a tactile feedback that allows you to keep focus on the road and can be operated even with gloves, which is great in Canada winter season.
Dials and buttons provides a tactile feedback that allows you to keep focus on the road and can be operated even with gloves, which is great in Canada winter season.
I hope all that goes the way of most digital speedometers and tachometers from the 90s where most are back to analogue dials and a testament to tackiness.
I actually enjoy digital speedometers, they are quicker to read than a "clock" dial
> and car makers realize what a stupid idea touchscreens in cars were in the first place, and give up the idea completely.
Why such a binary view of the world? Agreed, putting everything sans turn light and wiper control behind a touchscreen is a pretty reckless form-over-functionality idiocy, as you cannot operate vital functions of your car safely while driving.
But that does not mean a touchscreen does not have its uses: Navigation, for one - a proper keyboard to enter addresses and phone numbers instead of that awful rotary thing (or the embedded write-a-single-letter touch thing) that BMWs use is so much faster to operate. Speech recognition is outright unusable outside of the English-speaking world or if you have children or a loud party going on in your car. Not to mention that it is insanely practical on a phone to be able to quickly rotate and zoom a map view for complicated intersections, and having that as a proper part of the car would be perfection.
Media is the other major case - there absolutely need to be rotary dials for volume, station change and muting (e.g. if you get in a police stop and your music is blasting, or you hear sirens and need to know from where they come), but playlist selection and creation is so much better on a well-designed touch UI than (again) using knobs of any kind.
Why such a binary view of the world? Agreed, putting everything sans turn light and wiper control behind a touchscreen is a pretty reckless form-over-functionality idiocy, as you cannot operate vital functions of your car safely while driving.
But that does not mean a touchscreen does not have its uses: Navigation, for one - a proper keyboard to enter addresses and phone numbers instead of that awful rotary thing (or the embedded write-a-single-letter touch thing) that BMWs use is so much faster to operate. Speech recognition is outright unusable outside of the English-speaking world or if you have children or a loud party going on in your car. Not to mention that it is insanely practical on a phone to be able to quickly rotate and zoom a map view for complicated intersections, and having that as a proper part of the car would be perfection.
Media is the other major case - there absolutely need to be rotary dials for volume, station change and muting (e.g. if you get in a police stop and your music is blasting, or you hear sirens and need to know from where they come), but playlist selection and creation is so much better on a well-designed touch UI than (again) using knobs of any kind.
I'll expound further: Any user interface that requires removing attention from the road should not be in reach of the driver while the car is operating.
Let the passenger run the laptop that controls the media center and engine profiles and flamethrowers. Have a "next track" "off" and "volume" buttons for the driver.
Let the passenger run the laptop that controls the media center and engine profiles and flamethrowers. Have a "next track" "off" and "volume" buttons for the driver.
Also everyone clapped. Really this time.
I think I would much prefer a controller than a touch screen.
I think I would much prefer a controller than a touch screen.
I can't understand why no one mentioned voice control. Isn't that safer than both physical knobs or touch screen?
It's awful. I don't want to talk to my car to change stuff. I don't want to wave at it. Just give me a button.
Main reason why I didn't buy a Tesla was because of touch screens .
I really hope they will not be the norm in the future for other cars
I really hope they will not be the norm in the future for other cars
I rented a model X and was blown away by the drivability of the car. It’s truly one of the best driving experiences I’ve had in my life.
However i very quickly developed disdain for how much of a dependency there was on the screen. It made the car feel very vulnerable and was super annoying.
It was great for the gps though.
However i very quickly developed disdain for how much of a dependency there was on the screen. It made the car feel very vulnerable and was super annoying.
It was great for the gps though.
Same here. Made a test drive of the Model S, love almost everything about the car and would have bought it for sure if it wasn't for the unholy touchscreen that felt outright dangerous to use. I don't understand how it's legal to even put essential controls behind a touchscreen and I don't understand people who drive Teslas daily.
What essential controls are you using from the touchscreen while driving? The music player? Navigation?
In the newest models the drive selection is on the screen. There's a 'hidden' set of touch selectors down low on the console but they aren't intended for daily use.
https://youtu.be/dJdhzFCVkg8?t=49
https://youtu.be/dJdhzFCVkg8?t=49
Nevermind the touchscreen controls, that wheel is something else. I can't believe it's even legal.
Wow, that looks awful.
> You have to actually hold it down, you can't just tap it in neutral. That's actually a nice safety feature.
The car has no physical shifter, but a long press is a safety feature? My eyes rolled back into my head...
> You have to actually hold it down, you can't just tap it in neutral. That's actually a nice safety feature.
The car has no physical shifter, but a long press is a safety feature? My eyes rolled back into my head...
Windshield wipers.
At least on Model S 2020 the windshield wipers are controlled normally on a stick to the left of the wheel. Maybe it's an EU/US difference.
2021 has no stalks on the steering column.
I have the 2021 model 3, you have a physical button to fire them off once (and to do the cleaning cycle), but to manually set the speed you need to use the touchscreen. There is an auto mode, of course, but sometimes you do need to adjust it manually.
I agree… and to amplify the point, pressing the physical button, in addition to kicking off a needed wipe, also brings the adjustment right up unobtrusively on the screen in case it’s needed.
And then, not that anyone needs to touch the screen normally (because auto mode as you say) but if they aren’t all triggered by such a possibility and want to, those multiple layers of on-screen UI (that the haters are always imagining having to click through) simply are not there because it’s already been surfaced.
A driver can even learn to use it with muscle memory without looking, since it comes right up in the same closest corner of the screen with the same layout every time. Again not that anyone would ever need to because auto mode.
I don’t know why people have to have such strong opinions on things they know nothing about.
OK, got a little excited ranting there :-)
And then, not that anyone needs to touch the screen normally (because auto mode as you say) but if they aren’t all triggered by such a possibility and want to, those multiple layers of on-screen UI (that the haters are always imagining having to click through) simply are not there because it’s already been surfaced.
A driver can even learn to use it with muscle memory without looking, since it comes right up in the same closest corner of the screen with the same layout every time. Again not that anyone would ever need to because auto mode.
I don’t know why people have to have such strong opinions on things they know nothing about.
OK, got a little excited ranting there :-)
Oh you can just leave those on auto and just tap the handle on the left if you need it
Windshield wipers literally have a dedicated physical button and are usually in automatic mode anyway.
To be fair, I hate to be distracted by screens even while driving. Even if the car could drive itself with 100% safety while I was operating the device, being forced to look at a screen for a long while just to find the equivalent of a physical switch (or, in the future, to watch a movie?) leaves me a bad taste.
The dashboard of a Tesla is covered with unused surface, so it makes very little sense to put no physical commands on it, and then over-fill a tablet UI with those in the strangest places. The "big tablet" trend just sounds like an interface for digital addicts.
On the other hand, Mazda's infotainment systems (https://m.faz.net/media1/ppmedia/aktuell/technik-motor/27493...) fix at least part of this, which makes me guess what my next car will be.
The dashboard of a Tesla is covered with unused surface, so it makes very little sense to put no physical commands on it, and then over-fill a tablet UI with those in the strangest places. The "big tablet" trend just sounds like an interface for digital addicts.
On the other hand, Mazda's infotainment systems (https://m.faz.net/media1/ppmedia/aktuell/technik-motor/27493...) fix at least part of this, which makes me guess what my next car will be.
I LOVE the iDrive controller and it is a definite plus for choosing a BMW over another car with a touchscreen only. My current BMW also has a touch screen, but I rarely use it. The iDrive controller is perfect for the BMW-specific UI, but also works pretty OK even with Apple CarPlay. I would not miss the touch screen at all.
My pre-touchscreen cars (past and present) were, and are, much easier to use.
Of course there are good uses for touch screens, but like many technologies, we sometimes over-apply them for the wrong functions.
Of course there are good uses for touch screens, but like many technologies, we sometimes over-apply them for the wrong functions.
I think that’s the main problem with having them in cars. They just attract functionality because it’s so easy to add to the screen.
I got a relatively cheap Honda for daily commute and the car is perfect except that it has got touchscreen and it is needlessly difficult to use when driving. Never misses to piss me off daily
I paid more for my old Honda Fit maintenance than the car is worth, and will continue doing so until this touchscreen nonsense becomes passè.
Touchscreens in Cars are a prime example of copying someone else's solution to the wrong problem. Smartphones and Tablets have touchscreens because you are looking at the device when operating it - in contrast to cars, where you are supposed not to look at the control while using it but keep your eyes on the street.
Nah, it's just a good example of value engineering making things cheaper by sacrificing value. Touchscreens didn't get so widely adopted because they worked well for tablets - they were because they're cheaper. You no longer need to account for a changing set of physical controls in designing the interior of a car - all you need is to designate where the magic rectangle goes, and all the rest of the UI work can be done independently, without interfering with labor-intensive processes.
[deleted]
I don’t get why people can be so obsessed with cars and have no thought for the non driving parts in these discussions.
You’ll be setting up adresses, contacts, switching climate control patterns, connect playlists, pair and delete devices, setup accounts, manage diagnostics. Why wouldn’t you want a touchscreen for all of these tasks ?
Be mad at car makers for being dumb at UX, intrinsically touchscreens have nothing to do with that though.
You’ll be setting up adresses, contacts, switching climate control patterns, connect playlists, pair and delete devices, setup accounts, manage diagnostics. Why wouldn’t you want a touchscreen for all of these tasks ?
Be mad at car makers for being dumb at UX, intrinsically touchscreens have nothing to do with that though.
The problem is going from one extreme to another.
It should be a regulatory requirement to have volume mute, max defrost, wipers, headlights and other safety critical features as tactile non-touch screen input.
It should be a regulatory requirement to have volume mute, max defrost, wipers, headlights and other safety critical features as tactile non-touch screen input.
I'd say the problem with touch screens is that they encourage car manufacturers to be dumb at UX (see also: that German who crashed because Tesla thought window wiper controls needed to be in the iPad). When I'm cold on my night time commute home, I want to reach for a knob and turn up the heat, when my music is loud and I'm approaching a roundabout, I want to thumb a rotary encoder and turn it down, when a call is coming in I want to feel a button and push it to answer, same for pausing music or skipping that song I don't like but is still in my playlist for some reason.
All the common tasks that may have an impact on safety while driving need a physical control, and anything else can be relegated to the magic rectangle because I've no need to use them. As it stands I only use Android Auto to tap "Maps>Work" or "Maps>Home" just so I can have the best route through Milton Keynes with it's ever changing traffic.
All the common tasks that may have an impact on safety while driving need a physical control, and anything else can be relegated to the magic rectangle because I've no need to use them. As it stands I only use Android Auto to tap "Maps>Work" or "Maps>Home" just so I can have the best route through Milton Keynes with it's ever changing traffic.
I think the biggest thing about car touchscreens is that they have historically sucked. They have always been a place to do vendor locking or a geewhiz upgrade. I don't think the touch screen approach is inherently flawed but in a world where you build a working car without one and then add it as an extra trim feature the experience is always going to be bad.
I actually think the Tesla touchscreen approach works fairly well especially when coupled with the level of automation they tie into it. Turning your wipers on by touch screen inst great, but if you just automate turning on the wipers as needed it doesn't matter.
It also eliminates the where is x control game you end up playing in some cars. You either find it via the UI or open the manual in the same place.
I actually think the Tesla touchscreen approach works fairly well especially when coupled with the level of automation they tie into it. Turning your wipers on by touch screen inst great, but if you just automate turning on the wipers as needed it doesn't matter.
It also eliminates the where is x control game you end up playing in some cars. You either find it via the UI or open the manual in the same place.
I actually agree. And there’s a secondary benefit: by requiring the touchscreen for some controls like wipers, it means they have to, by law, fix the touchscreen and infotainment computer if it fails early. So if your infotainment computer runs out of write cycles, you can get it fixed for free.
Good.
Also thanks to common sense, I hope.
Also thanks to common sense, I hope.
Thanks God, I hate cars touchscreens, give me physical switchesp please.
Great. Now can we get rid of them on washing machines, dishwashers, fridges, radios, clocks, and doorbells?
My washing machine is so annoying. Instead of a nob I need to press a touch screen to set temperature. And the selector goes in a circle for each press so to go one step colder I need to press around the circle ... old dishwasher UX were so much better.
Read the article: They are replacing touch-screens with a non-touch screen and a touchpad controller thing. They are not doing the sensible thing and moving back to analog controls!
They're not replacing anything; they're simply not installing the required components to make touch screens work.
The idrive module has been in every bmw with an infotainment system since the 745i in 2003; a touchpad was slowly introduced to the center control wheel about a decade later.
The one in the video was also present in my 2014 model. It works well; they haven't had much of a reason to change it. The touchscreen was intended as an added input method.
The idrive module has been in every bmw with an infotainment system since the 745i in 2003; a touchpad was slowly introduced to the center control wheel about a decade later.
The one in the video was also present in my 2014 model. It works well; they haven't had much of a reason to change it. The touchscreen was intended as an added input method.
Thanks for the clarification.
The impression that I had from the headline, and what seems like a large percentage of others had, is that they are doing away with modern infotainment and going back to 90s style analog controls, which they are not. I think this is unfortunate.
It would be nice to have a new, modern retro performance sedan with totally analog controls. I think car controls were the best in the mid-late 90s, when there were levers and switches and dials for everything, and very few computers.
And I say this as a long-time Tesla (X) owner. The Tesla climate control never fails to piss me off. Its amazingly hard to get it to just blow outside air at me. In an older car, nothing would change the fan speed or enable/disable recirc if I had the audacity to park my car overnight.
The impression that I had from the headline, and what seems like a large percentage of others had, is that they are doing away with modern infotainment and going back to 90s style analog controls, which they are not. I think this is unfortunate.
It would be nice to have a new, modern retro performance sedan with totally analog controls. I think car controls were the best in the mid-late 90s, when there were levers and switches and dials for everything, and very few computers.
And I say this as a long-time Tesla (X) owner. The Tesla climate control never fails to piss me off. Its amazingly hard to get it to just blow outside air at me. In an older car, nothing would change the fan speed or enable/disable recirc if I had the audacity to park my car overnight.
BMW is quite good about this; they have physical controls for almost everything, and voice controls for the rest. Our 2018 3-series wagon has a touch screen, but you don’t have to use it ever for normal driving functions.
Sadly, there's no chip that's responsible for their dreadful font and color choices.
I commend Mazda for taking the initiative:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20200335
Maybe its just my age but I distinctly remember driver advice/instructions of having no bright lights in the car cabin because it would adversely affect one's vision at night.
Maybe its just my age but I distinctly remember driver advice/instructions of having no bright lights in the car cabin because it would adversely affect one's vision at night.
I drove a Mazda CX-30 for about 5 months this year, and while YouTube reviewers roast Mazda for not having a touch screens, I found that it was the best system out of any car that I've driven. I've driven cars with touch screens, but there is something so satisfying with being able to do nearly everything from the steering while and physical dials/knobs.
I don't have the CX-30 anymore, but I suspect that my next car will likely be a Mazda (not only for this reason, but it does play a factor).
I don't have the CX-30 anymore, but I suspect that my next car will likely be a Mazda (not only for this reason, but it does play a factor).
classic Saab night panel ftw
Also knobs
Saab ftw
rip Saab
Also knobs
Saab ftw
rip Saab
FWIW, I had problems with the buttons on my Saabs.
I get the touchscreen hate. But honestly, I prefer them.
I get the touchscreen hate. But honestly, I prefer them.
Wait, Saabs are still around? They made it to the touchscreen era?
Born from jets.
I have a 2015 Audi A3. I didn't want the brand at all, but loved (and still love) the dial control.
I've been dreading getting a new car specifically because I do not want the touch screen.
Fortunately, I still have a few years left of good life in this machine, otherwise I'd jump on one of those immediately!
I still wish something like this UI would have caught on.
https://youtu.be/XVbuk3jizGM
I've been dreading getting a new car specifically because I do not want the touch screen.
Fortunately, I still have a few years left of good life in this machine, otherwise I'd jump on one of those immediately!
I still wish something like this UI would have caught on.
https://youtu.be/XVbuk3jizGM
Just been chatting with a local dealer guy, and he said that just after the covid outbreak the car manufacturers made 2-3 year commitments into smaller orders for the electronic parts, so the chip producers shifted sales to other markets. So by his point of view there is no real shortage, just wrong decisions were made. Wonder how true is this.
Very true
At some point in our recent history, car factories were the most important and complex factories in our global economy. Now fabs have clearly taken that cultural crown from them.
How about cars just have built-in phone mounts? We’re all carrying a touch screen with us already.
The only cars I know with this are the Skoda citigo and the vw up. Like this https://www.obautodily.cz/userdata/products/99/1st051435b.jp...
Funny considering a spokesman from BMW boasted on Deutschlandfunk (German broadcast), that they selling a lot of cars because they aren't affected by supply chain issues because they, contrary to the other car makers were having fair agreements with their suppliers... Yeah. So much for that :-)
The control dial on BMWs is incredible. Having used both extensively, for both in-car entertainment systems and CarPlay, I far prefer to use the control dial. Even if it didn’t have the safety advantage, I would still use it — it’s just so easy.
This thread is a great example of the HN bubble.
All else being the same, the vast majority of people will opt for the car with the bigger touch screen.
All else being the same, the vast majority of people will opt for the car with the bigger touch screen.
That's great news! I don't want a fcking touchscreen in my car.
My BMW was delayed for a few months due to a screen shortage years ago, seems to happen fairly often.
Touch screens work on phones because phones have limited real estate. Even then some people doggedly held onto their physical keyboards for years (eg Blackberrys).
To me, touch screens are usually an excuse for terrible UI/UX. Why? Because it makes the maker lazy. "We'll fix/update it later" I'm sure is the mantra as they cut corners to get it out the door.
Physical buttons force you to do more work up front and think about how the UI works.
And of course that "later" rarely ever happens. It's onto the next model.
Physical buttons, knobs and switches allow you to use the interface without looking at the screen, something incredibly important for a driver of a vehicle. You shouldn't have to look away from the road to adjust the AC, for example.
This may be a blessing in disguise.
To me, touch screens are usually an excuse for terrible UI/UX. Why? Because it makes the maker lazy. "We'll fix/update it later" I'm sure is the mantra as they cut corners to get it out the door.
Physical buttons force you to do more work up front and think about how the UI works.
And of course that "later" rarely ever happens. It's onto the next model.
Physical buttons, knobs and switches allow you to use the interface without looking at the screen, something incredibly important for a driver of a vehicle. You shouldn't have to look away from the road to adjust the AC, for example.
This may be a blessing in disguise.
Physical buttons aren't practical for the amount of features a modern luxury car has. I was just trying to use a point and shoot camera yesterday without a touchscreen and the physical buttons were a UI disaster
This seems like the same case the parent raised about touch screens, in that a camera also has limited real estate
I own a 7 series that has both, touch controls and the iDrive knob with physical controls. I mostly use the physical controls because BMW's user interface works quite nice with it and the physical controls are positioned where the driver's arm is resting, making it kind of natural to use. Touchscreen requires more leaning towards the screen, making it impractical to use while driving (of course, always be cautious while interacting with your infotainment while driving).
I drove my brother’s Landrover recently and amount of cognitive overload and distraction in just getting to change the volume on the touchscreen is so much it almost made me hit the car in front on me on a 25 mph traffic.
On the other hand my Mazda CX-5 has a CarPlay touchscreen as well as knobs and real switched for volume, Nav and phone. It’s orders of magnitude easier to drive.
This whole touchscreen started when the MBAs at automakers started to barge into design rooms under the assumption that the “millennials are attracted to and at home with touchscreens”.
On the other hand my Mazda CX-5 has a CarPlay touchscreen as well as knobs and real switched for volume, Nav and phone. It’s orders of magnitude easier to drive.
This whole touchscreen started when the MBAs at automakers started to barge into design rooms under the assumption that the “millennials are attracted to and at home with touchscreens”.