3 ms·
Probably because, like software, everyone has a different idea of what the "bare minimum" looks like. For instance, I don't think that a radio is necessary in m
by throw10920 5y ago
Probably because, like software, everyone has a different idea of what the "bare minimum" looks like. For instance, I don't think that a radio is necessary in my "bare minimum" car - but I do want a battery charge indicator, which you didn't mention.
So, an automaker can either include neither of those two features (and neither of us will want that car), both of them (which makes it more expensive, and if you adopt the policy of "take the union of all of the bare minimums" then you have a normal car), or just a subset. You lose every way.
- HeyLaughingBoy 5y agoReminds me of a friend who bought his Volvo 240(?) brand new. Manual transmission, but without a tachometer because that was like $200 extra. After buying the car, he headed over to the Parts department and bought a tach for $50 then went home and installed it himself.
- eternityforest 5y agoMinimalism it tech is pretty pointless. Every simple specialty thing seems to invariably cost way more than a common complicated thing, and usually doesn't have much better reliability. It's philosophy pretending to be engineering. Real engineer requires deep analysis, not just assuming that simple is more reliable.