3 ms·

The layers of separation between stakeholder interests (what does the customer want?) and operating behavior (what gets built?) is fascinating. In this case, I

The layers of separation between stakeholder interests (what does the customer want?) and operating behavior (what gets built?) is fascinating. In this case, I wonder what the story is. Ideas... - Feedback loops are very slow to close in auto design/manufacturing, widening the stakeholder-execution gap. - I have the impression that disconnected, unaccountable "futurists" lead auto design and obfuscate real human needs - Classically, there is a big gap between what people say they want and what they're actually willing to pay for What else might be contributing factors?

natch 4y ago
People with a bias, working for publications that take massive advertising dollars from the auto industry, design biased tests and publish them, is one contributing factor. But then consumers who imagined all sorts of problems with a system sit down and try the system in real life (not in a contrived test) and they find they surprisingly like it and it works very well.
dfxm12 4y ago
Cost - as others are pointing out, it costs a lot more (in time and money) to design a physical interface, and then you can't deliver updates if there is an error, so you gotta really take the time to test that everything works. The other is that, when it comes down to it, consumers probably care more about other things, like price, MPG/range, exterior styling, brand loyalty, etc. This means that even if the car has a sub-optimal UX, customers will still buy it (because the positives outweigh the negatives).
LittleAnaconda 4y ago
There might just not be enough demand overall to justify creating lower tech versions of cars. Similar to how car enthusiasts tend to like manual cars. The economies of scale for companies just often isn’t there to create manual versions across multiple models of cars. It should in be easier to create low tech versions of cars (no need to have an entirely different transmission) so perhaps this is a flimsy reason.

natch 4y ago

People with a bias, working for publications that take massive advertising dollars from the auto industry, design biased tests and publish them, is one contributing factor. But then consumers who imagined all sorts of problems with a system sit down and try the system in real life (not in a contrived test) and they find they surprisingly like it and it works very well.

dfxm12 4y ago

Cost - as others are pointing out, it costs a lot more (in time and money) to design a physical interface, and then you can't deliver updates if there is an error, so you gotta really take the time to test that everything works. The other is that, when it comes down to it, consumers probably care more about other things, like price, MPG/range, exterior styling, brand loyalty, etc. This means that even if the car has a sub-optimal UX, customers will still buy it (because the positives outweigh the negatives).

LittleAnaconda 4y ago

There might just not be enough demand overall to justify creating lower tech versions of cars. Similar to how car enthusiasts tend to like manual cars. The economies of scale for companies just often isn’t there to create manual versions across multiple models of cars. It should in be easier to create low tech versions of cars (no need to have an entirely different transmission) so perhaps this is a flimsy reason.