[felixfurtak]

buttons are more expensive than touchscreens

[speed_spread]

Also, buttons don't allow for more "engagement" with the user than their function require, meaning less surveillance money.

[dpkirchner]

Also you can't add a McDonalds button on the fly, in an over the air update, unless you use a touchscreen. This is obviously bad for some stakeholder.

[interlaken24643]

Touchscreen systems are expensive than a bank of buttons.

[SkyPuncher]

That’s probably up for debate. Buttons break, buttons need backer boards, buttons need complex trim, buttons need lights, buttons need surfaces, buttons wear, etc, etc.

Federal regulations require a backup camera, so you already need the screen. Screens are reliable, static, and easy to install.

[nisa]

my comment was not meant to be absolutist - what I'm looking for is just a very reduced and usable simple car - I don't mind a non-offensive screen if it's required and where it's useful and well made a touch interface might also be useful - but I don't need 99% of the digital things that are packed in a car - I'm not familiar with the building or cost setup of modern EVs but I could imagine that reducting in sensors and cabling might have an effect. Then give me that backup camera, some minimal android auto interface or whatever there is - I can't imagine there isn't a market for that.

[CamperBob2]

The screen has to be there anyway for regulatory reasons.

The touch sensor itself is far cheaper than a bank of buttons.