[10000truths]

It all comes down to cost. At scale, testing hardware is appreciably more expensive than testing software. The former requires specialized machinery that costs the soul of your firstborn, and the logistics overhead for each do-over means long iteration times. The latter can be done with a CI pipeline for pennies worth of compute in a fraction of a working day.

[mook]

At scale, testing software is appreciably more expensive than using hardware. That's why at most people test a tiny slice of it, and ships out broken software in the hopes of fixing it later. Testing hardware is expensive because nobody thinks it can be fixed cheaply afterwards.

See also: the article linked to this thread.

[BeetleB]

Stuff like climate control and radio/Bluetooth were included in many/most cars in the last decade. Expensive as they were, the cars were a lot cheaper than today's cars. And they just worked, which means they were either so simple that sophisticated testing wasn't necessary, or they tested it thoroughly.

I don't think they're saving that much by ditching them and going to SW.

They also didn't need updates (well, the Bluetooth module may have, but nothing else).

It definitely was nice not to have to worry whether the climate control may stop working because the radio was modified. Or because of any update.

As a driver, dumping everything into one SW system has significantly degraded my experience. What I gain ("Ooh, I can now use Waze on a bigger screen!") is minimal.

> The latter can be done with a CI pipeline for pennies worth of compute in a fraction of a working day.

I'd appreciate the point if they were successful at it. As it is, they're not. It's rare to find a non-buggy car.

[strawhatguy]

bluetooth audio is probably all one needs for phone <-> car integration. but carplay/android auto are sadly really popular. So already, your phone can connect in two different ways, just over bluetooth, with cars today. And car companies have to support both. Plus the car must show something on the screen when a phone isn't there, and the rear-view camera isn't on, at the very least on test drives/ showroom displays.

I don't know. On balance, the reality is cars are better overall nowadays, but every aspect of our life has gotten more complicated, including cars.

If you had the option of no screen at all, no rear-view camera, and with physical switches, would you? If this Slate truck gets released, that's the closest, but it's still required to have a rear-view camera/screen sadly.

[BeetleB]

I want the screen for the rear view camera.

I'd be OK with the screen doing other things, as long as it's not inferior to my just using the phone. Currently, AA is inferior.

You don't need a huge screen for the rear view camera. There's plenty of space to have that screen and have all the usual buttons for climate control and radio/audio. Cars had been doing that for over a decade.