4 ms·
I honestly don't really understand 95% of what you've written here, but could this mean an end of godawful touch screens in cars?
by drcongo 4y ago
I honestly don't really understand 95% of what you've written here, but could this mean an end of godawful touch screens in cars?
- smoldesu 4y agoNo, it means there will be even worse touchscreens because now automakers can't afford silicon that might actually power a tablet.
- drcongo 4y agoOh damn. Thanks.
- awestroke 4y agoHow can they not afford a 300 dollar tablet in a 40k dollar car?
- PeterisP 4y agoA 300 dollar tablet dies quickly in the automotive environment with outdoors-like variation in temperature and humidity. Tablet manufacturers literally write in their product sheets "do not leave the device in a car or it may get damaged"; if you leave an iPad in direct sun for a month and it dies, it's expensive for you, if the same happens to a car console, that's expensive for the manufacturer which has to repair it under warranty. The temperature range for iPad listed by Apple is 0 to +35 C for operation and -20 to +45 C for storage. The required temperature range for electronics on automotive dashboards (which may be exposed to direct sun) is -40 to 90 C, which effectively requires different materials, which means you can't even reuse most components.
- replygirl 4y agoassuming you're selling 5 million of a part where the previous generation is 5-10 years old, $1.5 billion is not a lot of money for development, validation, materials, manufacturing, logistics, dealer training, integration with future models, and a decade of OTA updates
- digikata 4y agoA $300 tablet drops support in 90days to a year. A $300 tablet equivalent in a car has a trailing maintenance requirement for service and parts for years (5-10?)
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- MichaelZuo 4y agoBecause it becomes a $3000 tablet, in today's chip-shortage environment, to meet certification for automotive use.
- googlryas 4y agoThat's scary - I have a < 1 yr old Tesla model Y and it is embarrassing how underpowered the tablet that controls basically every part of the car is.
- smoldesu 4y agoFWIW, Tesla is one of the few companies that actually put decent processors in their cars: in lieu of a cruddy, off-the-shelf ARM CPU, they use Intel (and more recently, Ryzen) x86-based machines. Their performance relative to the Cortex processors running in competitors is enormous, it must be slow due to the volume of processes Tesla is actually running onboard.
- formerkrogemp 4y agoI don't need my car to drive itself with technology that doesn't work and requires me, pedestrians, cyclists, and other drivers as test subjects. I don't need my car to be powerful enough to compute simulations of the Earth's atmosphere. I just want a basic fucking car with good enough safety features. This fetishization of shoving chips into every square centimeter is ridiculous. I want to use my computer and drive my car, not drive my computer with all of the attendant software issues that'll inevitably crop up.
- waste_monk 4y agoIsn't one of the big problems with Tesla vehicles that they use COTS hardware? I'm sure I saw something about how they used commercial-grade touch screen instead of automotive grade, so they feel far nicer / more responsive than other cars but fail much faster as they aren't designed to handle repeated heating/cooling cycles that cars experience.
- LegitShady 4y agoTesla's have pretty responsive displays. The last vehicle I bought, I turned down several vehicles because many of the internal environmental controls were through a touchscreen, and the touchscreen was so slow and bad I was honestly astonished that they were selling it. The salesman tried to downplay it but I still walked out of the ford dealership 100% because of their shitty controls/touchscreen. Ended up buying a car with old fashioned buttons and knobs, much happier.