• Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s great for Tesla, for one reason - modularity.

    If your input/control has a physical button, that immediately needs independent wiring, assembly steps, A THOUGHT OUT PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, another BoM item to build the car/widget, and usually markings that limit its use for other functions (present and planned).

    Tesla can bury controls and change interfaces as much as they like on the main touchscreen, or even add new features. It’s still trash for driver usability except when parked for all the obvious reasons, but hey they get to ‘push’ new features over cellular networks as they’re developed. Y’know, instead of selling a complete product in the first place.

      • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wiring/PCB header or connector/common data hub yes - but my point was that has to be thought out ahead, and cannot be modified afterwards in the same way touch screens can

        BoM complexity and cross commonality is a challenge in manufacturing. It’s why we see all these ‘global platforms’ among automakers trying to build one unibody core subframe for all or most of their cars, adding different panels and roof assembly for an SUV or sedan respectively. Fewer parts to stock and build is a cost saving (for the manufacturer, don’t expect them to pass that saving along) - same with tactile controls.

      • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wiring/PCB header or connector/common data hub yes - but my point was that has to be thought out ahead, and cannot be modified afterwards in the same way touch screens can

        BoM complexity and cross commonality is a challenge in manufacturing. It’s why we see all these ‘global platforms’ among automakers trying to build one unibody core subframe for all or most of their cars, adding different panels and roof assembly for an SUV or sedan respectively. Fewer parts to stock and build is a cost saving (for the manufacturer, don’t expect them to pass that saving along) - same with tactile controls.

        • QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The (capacitive) turn signal buttons are on the steering wheel, not the touch screen. You’re thinking of the mirrors, wipers, etc., which is not what this article is about.

    • DreadPotato
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s great for Tesla, for one reason - modularity.

      Not really as far as the touch controls on the steering wheel goes. The icons are static and can’t be changed, so their functionality is kind of tied to the icon.

      As for configuring additional controls for them, it’s exactly the same as if they were physical buttons, it’s all a wiring harness going to the computer either way, what that computer does with the input signal is not any less configurable for a physical button. The limiting factor is the static icon, not whether it’s touch/tactile.

      In regards to selling incomplete products, this is unfortunately not even limited to Tesla. All car manufacturers release several updates and bugfixes for new cars, they just can’t send them OTA, they need to get them in the shop. My colleague’s VW ID4 has been in the shop for no less than 3 SW updates to fix various bugs and add basic features such as battery preheating for DC charging, it fucking shipped without that!