While I am firmly in the button camp, the core reason that Tesla and Rivian remove physical buttons is not necessarily about aesthetics but cost and differentiation. One of Musk's recurring design principles is "The best part is no part". It saves a huge amount of time on having to design, source, validate, and successfully integrate stuff (chiefly, buttons). Legacy OEMs have a lot of infrastructure dedicated to supporting this, so it's easy for them to use. Replicating all that for a new company is only a drag on their engineering resources that doesn't impress consumers the way a touchscreen does. The equilibrium for this dynamic may be that luxury cars have buttons, while the vehicles more like appliances go as digital as possible, likely with some sensors getting better at just automatically doing things (windshield wipers, turn signals, etc.).
This is important context, but I am not sure I agree that a desire to reduce cost and complexity is the "core reason". After all, Tesla already had stalks on the wheel for turn signals and other functions as recently as 2022, and they've since eliminated them. The expensive part of integrating those components was already incurred; taking them out only added MORE cost, to redesign the controls to work without stalks. A commitment to minimalism above all else seems more plausible to me.
I think you're right about minimalism in the sense that they want fewer parts, but it's a functional argument not an aesthetic one. I should probably mention that I worked with the chief engineers for the touchscreen in the Model S and X and one of the vehicle line managers at Rivian with a background in human-interface design, all of whom I have complained to about the safety issues of taking your eyes off the road. The answer is universally about simplifying the design, which benefits costs and organizational agility. It's not just about the BOM savings but the operational simplifications of not having to manage those parts any more. It also becomes a design aspect they can optimize, in its placement, size, automation (which is trickier with physical button designs), etc. Throw in the fact that consumers think it's neat, and it becomes impossible to argue for buttons (internally at those orgs). It's really not until regulators or consumer behavior changes that they'll do more buttons, though Hyundai, Ford to some extent, and premium brands like Porsche are realizing they can differentiate with buttons.
Thanks, Rob... I appreciate the I-was-there expertise!
It's disappointing that these companies are prioritizing what's easiest or cheapest for them to manage rather than what is best for the consumer. I'm glad that the wider world is beginning to notice; that may give internal critics the ammunition they need to fight back against this kind of short-sightedness.
While I am firmly in the button camp, the core reason that Tesla and Rivian remove physical buttons is not necessarily about aesthetics but cost and differentiation. One of Musk's recurring design principles is "The best part is no part". It saves a huge amount of time on having to design, source, validate, and successfully integrate stuff (chiefly, buttons). Legacy OEMs have a lot of infrastructure dedicated to supporting this, so it's easy for them to use. Replicating all that for a new company is only a drag on their engineering resources that doesn't impress consumers the way a touchscreen does. The equilibrium for this dynamic may be that luxury cars have buttons, while the vehicles more like appliances go as digital as possible, likely with some sensors getting better at just automatically doing things (windshield wipers, turn signals, etc.).
This is important context, but I am not sure I agree that a desire to reduce cost and complexity is the "core reason". After all, Tesla already had stalks on the wheel for turn signals and other functions as recently as 2022, and they've since eliminated them. The expensive part of integrating those components was already incurred; taking them out only added MORE cost, to redesign the controls to work without stalks. A commitment to minimalism above all else seems more plausible to me.
I think you're right about minimalism in the sense that they want fewer parts, but it's a functional argument not an aesthetic one. I should probably mention that I worked with the chief engineers for the touchscreen in the Model S and X and one of the vehicle line managers at Rivian with a background in human-interface design, all of whom I have complained to about the safety issues of taking your eyes off the road. The answer is universally about simplifying the design, which benefits costs and organizational agility. It's not just about the BOM savings but the operational simplifications of not having to manage those parts any more. It also becomes a design aspect they can optimize, in its placement, size, automation (which is trickier with physical button designs), etc. Throw in the fact that consumers think it's neat, and it becomes impossible to argue for buttons (internally at those orgs). It's really not until regulators or consumer behavior changes that they'll do more buttons, though Hyundai, Ford to some extent, and premium brands like Porsche are realizing they can differentiate with buttons.
Thanks, Rob... I appreciate the I-was-there expertise!
It's disappointing that these companies are prioritizing what's easiest or cheapest for them to manage rather than what is best for the consumer. I'm glad that the wider world is beginning to notice; that may give internal critics the ammunition they need to fight back against this kind of short-sightedness.
This is primarily why I won’t drive the Tesla - my ideal car would have both, for the reasons you mentioned.
Def Leppard Easter egg achievement unlocked 😆
🤘
100%. I do love my BMW touchscreen. And, I feel so much safer with critical systems either having button only or back-up button controls.
Hard agree. Thank you for saying this.