> so I didn't understand why automakers kept shoving them in.

The article explained why. Since 2018 in the US, due to the proliferation of giant trucks being used as passenger vehicles (SUV's) backup cameras have been mandatory safety equipment. A backup camera requires a screen. So the automakers have to install a screen in the dashboard.

It is only a few dollars more to install a "touch screen" vs. a "basic display screen", and with the addition of those few dollars to the screen, that touch screen can now replace hundreds of dollars of physical buttons and their necessary wiring.

Net result, the BOM cost of the car drops by several hundred dollars, and the cost to assemble drops by some measurable amount as well.

So they why is: "because they save the automakers BOM and assembly costs".

▲

birdostrich 2 hours ago | parent [-]

They're aware. You're replying to the OP of the article, lol.

	▲	nkozyra an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Obviously they read it, but it's 2026 and entirely possible to publish an article without having read a word of it :) All that said, I think initially it was a mix of a few things coming together. Yes, auto mfgs always want to reduce parts for cost and supply chain control. But there was also this moment of New Wow where the impractical nature of touchscreens was overshadowed by the holy crap I've got a tablet in my car. It implied a break with the last generation of cars, where you might have gotten a 4-inch screen (touch or not), and it became desirable at a surface level to users. Although I greatly dislike touchscreens for the obvious usability issues in a motor vehicle, I still kind of widen my eyes when I'm in a car with some new, ridiculous multi-screen dashboard setup. Mazda was mentioned in this thread, and I think they do a great job of separating the concerns here; you've got a big buttons of various sizes that do different things that can be memorized without sight.