I hate 20 inch, floating, glued to the dash tablets with such a passion. It cannot be such a huge monetary difference to have physical switches for the AC compared to this attention grabbing accident causing contraption that was never meant to be put in a human commandeered vehicle.

▲

boloust 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It does have physical switches for the AC though

▲

sonofhans 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes, preach it! But … I think in fact it does make a huge difference economically. I don’t know what the bill of materials is, but imagine the difference between wiring into place (a) a touch screen, or (b) 40 physical controls.

I believe another motivation for manufacturers is that they can turn the car’s UI into a software problem, which from a human-centered design perspective means that they can throw it in the trash and never spend a dime on it.

▲

mtrovo 11 hours ago | parent [-]

We're talking about a 400k dollars car, maybe they could find a way to add this expense into the design.

	▲	sonofhans 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Ferrari clearly aren’t doing it to save costs. I don’t think they’re doing it for principled driver-centered reasons, either, but more because the market expects it. Cars are appliances, and appliances are generally built to be sold (i.e., to look good) rather than to be used. Microwaves, washers, cars — the same for all of them. The design exterior looks glued together from more interesting electric cars, so no surprise the interior does too. EDIT: I just learned that Jony Ive did the interior. Further proof that without Steve Jobs goading him, Ive is just a stylist.

▲

wlkr 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I also hate crappy car tablets. For context, though, according to the Ferrari CEO, they are 50% cheaper [0]. I'm not convinced that should matter on a premium badge car (or any car, given safety concerns), but that's for Ferrari's customers to decide.

[0]: https://www.thedrive.com/news/touch-controls-are-50-cheaper-...