• NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      22 days ago

      Is that true? I’m too scared to look up prices. Electronically, touchscreens are infinitely more complex, but I can believe economies of scale brought it down lower than buttons… I just don’t want to believe that.

      • Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        22 days ago

        I’ve seen comments from auto manufacturers outright stating this. I think they also overestimated how much consumers care about touchscreens.

        • Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          21 days ago

          Pretty much no button these days directly controls something, it’s routed through the BMS. Headlights may be one of the few that are switched without some type of computer in between, possibly power windows too?

          And they’re all on a PCB.

          • Ageroth@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            21 days ago

            Even so, each individual button needs to be connected to that PCB separately, and will only have the function of what it says on the button, or possibly a couple hidden functions through programming.
            Touch screens are essentially one connection for infinite buttons with different screens and menus.

    • jcr@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      Français
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      20 days ago

      Industrial grade switches (i.e.: buttons) are expensive because of very high quality control requirements, and add a lot more parts that can fail to a car. It is the same thing that happened with mobile phones. Going with touchscreen reduce a lot the number of parts to check and parts that can fail, even if usability is very bad for the end-user.