Mercedes-Benz commits to bringing back physical buttons

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Buttons vs touchscreens & safety

  • Strong support for returning to physical buttons, especially for climate, media, and driving-critical functions.
  • Main arguments: tactile operation without looking, works with gloves / cold / dry or aging hands, less eyes-off-road time, less night glare and visual clutter.
  • Touchscreens criticized for:
    • Missed taps, fat-fingering on bumps, and gesture vs tap ambiguity.
    • Modality and deep menus (function depends on prior state, multiple layers).
    • Changing layouts after software updates.
  • Some praise good mixed setups (e.g., physical knobs + screen for optional features) and cite specific older German and Japanese models as “near perfect”.

Regulation, China, and motives

  • Several suspect Mercedes is reacting less to “learning” and more to:
    • Reported upcoming Chinese rules mandating physical buttons for key functions.
    • Euro NCAP changes tying 5‑star ratings to physical controls for common operations.
  • Debate over China’s broader regulatory role: some see a positive “Beijing regulatory effect” similar to Brussels/California; others point to human rights and geopolitical issues.

Software, UX, and automakers

  • Many say German brands historically excelled in mechanical quality but have fallen behind in software/UX.
  • Critiques: laggy, buggy interfaces; over-complicated, committee-designed systems; CARIAD held up as a “trainwreck”.
  • Others defend recent VW/BMW systems (e.g., ID.3, iDrive 8.5) as now quite good, and note Apple CarPlay / Android Auto support.
  • Broader view: European industry strong in hardware, weak in pure software and consumer UX.

Tesla and screen‑only designs

  • Split views:
    • Fans: Tesla UI considered responsive and well-organized; voice commands and automation (auto gear select, climate) reduce need for physical controls.
    • Critics: still forces eyes off road; essential actions (gear, fog lights, wipers) can be multi-step; rental experiences especially bad; safety concerns over door handles, stalk removal, and ADAS quirks.

Cost-cutting and incentives

  • Widespread belief that screens are primarily a cost‑cutting and flexibility measure:
    • Fewer unique parts, easier parallel development, OTA feature updates, and cheaper BOM.
    • Even tiny per‑part savings scaled over millions of cars drive decisions.
  • Some point out low-cost brands still manage extensive physical controls, implying design choices, not inevitability.

Broader reflections

  • Many see touch-everything as part of broader “enshittification” and “phone-brain” product thinking invading safety‑critical machines.
  • Desire from some for simpler, minimally computerized cars with direct mechanical controls and little or no connectivity.