Volkswagen will restore physical buttons to the dashboard in its latest compact car, part of a wider move away from touchscreens.
In a particularly retro touch, the new ID Polo will even have a volume dial.
For a decade or so, automakers rushed to replace knobs and switches with screens, Autoblog noted in October, but users largely disliked them: Controlling the air conditioning, for example, required delving through submenus while driving, which was both difficult and dangerous. Research found that using touchscreens took longer and distracted drivers.
Hyundai, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, and VW have all announced plans to return to more tactile controls, and US and EU regulators announced last year that cars with touchscreen controls could get worse safety ratings.
Others will say that touch screens are replacing physical buttons to reduce cost. So which is it? Touch screens add big cost or touch screens reduce cost?
/Not aimed at you, since you didn’t assert conflicting info
cost != price.
The costs involved with that touchscreen are in the tens of dollars, and much lower than the myriad physical hardware it replaces. The costs of producing the car are considerably lower. The price manufacturers charge for that vehicle are considerably higher.
Try to replace a defective touchscreen: the charge for the proprietary replacement screen is more than a flagship phone, but provides fewer capabilities than a budget tablet.
I recently fixed a phantom/ghost problem in my GMC acadia by replacing the touch glass for about $100. It was easy peasy. Had I taken it to the dealership, I assume it would have been a $1000 repair as they would have replaced the whole head unit rather than just the warped glass.
I’m not going to speculate on the cost (or price) differential, but due to the requirement for backup cameras, screens have been required in cars for almost 10 years now (in the U.S. , no idea about other vehicle markets). However, these need not be touchscreens.