[alexvoda]

Apart from regulation mandating that safety features work, are reliable and are easy to use (physical buttons), I think we need some new economic theory.

Why is it that for products with complex spec sheets, the free market (the auto industry is arguably not a free market) does not work to provide the desired diversity? Automakers clearly have the incentive to make any control a capacitive touch surface for many many reasons. Many people hate touch controls for important features in cars. Yet most automakers are switching to touch controls. Free market theory says that other manufacturers should appear and satisfy that desire for consumers. This isn't happening.

I do not know of a economic theoretical model that accurately explains the behaviour of complex (many orthogonal characteristics) goods.

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

The economic models assume consumers have more power than they do. It's easier for industry to convince (or force) people that they want (or have to take) what they produce, rather than produce what people want. For example, everyone wants a simple and reliable inkjet printer for home that doesn't have drm or other bullshit. But we aren't getting it and probably never will.

I sincerely hope that capacitance buttons and touchscreens are just a fad like digital speed dials from the 80s. They seemed cool, but ultmately analog dials (even if controlled by digital signals) were just better. I think physical knobs and buttons will come back for the same reason as round steering wheels. It's just the best solution to the problem.

[alexvoda]

> The economic models assume consumers have more power than they do.

That is a fair assessment. But what is the cause of it? What I am saying is we need better models. Better theory.

> It's easier for industry to convince (or force) people that they want (or have to take) what they produce, rather than produce what people want.

And what is the cause of the bandwagoning? I generally do not think it is a case of industry wide collusion (though in some cases it might be). Why is a company going the opposite direction of a trend and marketing that difference a somewhat rare phenomenon? At least partially, I think the cause is marketing driven development. But that still doesn't explain why marketing departments are shy to market going against a trend. It's as if marketing departments of companies buy into the marketing of the trendy company.

How many smartphone companies actively advertise they still have phone jacks? How many car companies actively advertise they are still using physical buttons? They could but they don't. Samsung used to make fun of Apple in their ads but even they became apathetic. Apple used to make fun of the rest of the industry with their Mac vs PC ads. Sony could easily make an ad showing how a DJ takes their Sony phone and plugs it in literally everywhere using the jack to play music to a crowd.

[s] Damnit, I want my car to have hot-swappable, RGB-illuminated, Cherry MX mechanical switches with double-shot keycaps. [/s]

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

There is probably more than one cause, but consider the headphone jack one. Apple decided it wanted to get rid of it. Reasons were that they could make regular headphones less convenient (needs dongle) while simultaneously convincing people that air pods are the thing to have. They didn't have to market 'against' the headphone jack, only add friction to use it (via dongle) while heavily marketing 'for' air pods. Nokia wouldn't have gotten away with this, but Apple could because of clout, product status symbology, and massive cash spends available for ads. Most people don't really like the loss, but the idea of not having the latest phone was worse, so they bought them. Other phone manufacturers then follow suit because they see apple sales and think, they must be doing the right thing. Meanwhile, we hate it.

Telsa was the same for cars. They came out with a bunch of style choices that most people don't really care for, but the status of having a telsa (at least until recently) was a more powerful driver so they bought the car. Other auto manufacturers interpret this as that its what the consumer wants (or will accept) and change accordingly, especially if it also saves them money. Then boom, we get cars with crappy UI.

So I guess my theory is that if an industry has a clear leader whose product offers status along with function, they can make the customer accept pretty much whatever they want. After that, the competition just copies it hoping to keep what market share they have.

[alexvoda]

I agree with your analysis and it matches my thoughts.

But then, wouldn't a naive conclusion be that in order to maintain the freedom of the market, the appearance of status symbol brands/products must be prevented?

That's a tall order. Humans really like status symbols, not only as proof of status but as reminders of status.

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

> Humans really like status symbols

I think this is HUGE understatement. Humans are all about status (speaking in general terms, of course there will be individual exceptions). Status means access to scarce resources, status means choice of mates, status is everything. People will optimize for status ahead of nearly everything else and in a way this is rational because with status can come anything else they may want or need.

[alexvoda]

With the tiny nitpick that there is a distinction between signalling status and having status itself. And the relationship between the two is not always straight forward.

Status symbols are more related to the former.