惯性聚合 高效追踪和阅读你感兴趣的博客、新闻、科技资讯
阅读原文 在惯性聚合中打开

推荐订阅源

酷 壳 – CoolShell
酷 壳 – CoolShell
雷峰网
雷峰网
H
Hackread – Cybersecurity News, Data Breaches, AI and More
Spread Privacy
Spread Privacy
H
Hacker News: Front Page
PCI Perspectives
PCI Perspectives
Webroot Blog
Webroot Blog
罗磊的独立博客
H
Heimdal Security Blog
TaoSecurity Blog
TaoSecurity Blog
Exploit-DB.com RSS Feed
Exploit-DB.com RSS Feed
大猫的无限游戏
大猫的无限游戏
月光博客
月光博客
cs.CV updates on arXiv.org
cs.CV updates on arXiv.org
Google Online Security Blog
Google Online Security Blog
Last Week in AI
Last Week in AI
美团技术团队
Help Net Security
Help Net Security
The Hacker News
The Hacker News
C
Cisco Blogs
T
The Blog of Author Tim Ferriss
J
Java Code Geeks
The Register - Security
The Register - Security
IT之家
IT之家
WordPress大学
WordPress大学
Jina AI
Jina AI
Recent Commits to openclaw:main
Recent Commits to openclaw:main
H
Help Net Security
cs.CL updates on arXiv.org
cs.CL updates on arXiv.org
T
Threat Research - Cisco Blogs
P
Proofpoint News Feed
NISL@THU
NISL@THU
爱范儿
爱范儿
The GitHub Blog
The GitHub Blog
Scott Helme
Scott Helme
V
Vulnerabilities – Threatpost
B
Blog
T
Tenable Blog
博客园 - 三生石上(FineUI控件)
T
The Exploit Database - CXSecurity.com
S
Security Affairs
小众软件
小众软件
Hacker News: Ask HN
Hacker News: Ask HN
Security Latest
Security Latest
Threat Intelligence Blog | Flashpoint
Threat Intelligence Blog | Flashpoint
W
WeLiveSecurity
A
Arctic Wolf
L
LINUX DO - 热门话题
Google DeepMind News
Google DeepMind News
M
MIT News - Artificial intelligence

Creative Good

Changing the address of this RSS feed Protecting elders and kids from predatory tech The garbage on our screens How it’s going in tech – without ethics AI isn’t meant for us Starlink bestows, or forces, the digital age on an Amazonian tribe Microsoft Recall should make you consider Linux Google goes bananums for AI Creative Good: Apple made a terrible mistake: it told the truth To resist the robots, get a typewriter Big Tech’s corruption was 25 years in the making Creative Good: China and TikTok Surviving the customer experience winter The gaping void in San Francisco, New York, and Cambridge Vision Pro, unscrambled, is “I Poison VR” Resisting Silicon Valley’s cult of “more” The airplane blowout came from our rotten Big Tech economy Creative Good: Instagram’s unmentionable problem Marc Andreessen is right – love doesn’t scale Facial recognition and the end of privacy – with Kashmir Hill The Luddites warned us about Google Celebrating 25 years of this newsletter – and an announcement Creative Good: Surveillance spreading Disaster alerts reveal a better way to design tech Don’t throw technology at it Creative Good: AI is spackle Hacks of the ultra-rich, as revealed by Bruce Schneier and Josh O'Kane A walk around world raises questions about tech Three things you should listen to An addiction machine for our age Rejecting the Apple Vision Pro What you missed about Google and Amazon Why customers don’t want chat bots The giant brain suck of 2023 My 26-hour delay on Delta Air Lines Is AI a demon or what Creative Good: AI plus whatever ChatGPT’s dangers are starting to show Creative Good: A Simple Desultory Techtonic A picture of the future Where are the customers' chats? Sassy AIs are not the problem AI is creating the Play-Doh internet Who’s responsible for fixing tech? How Google profits from criminal activity ChatGPT’s drawbacks, and how to respond A new year to make tech better A few more inspiring people Why we can’t trust Apple Bonfire of the vanity project As cities embrace surveillance, we can resist A future for people doing good work A Halloween update on Big Tech Creative Good: Moralists, unite Creative Good: A song about surveillance AI is already turning against you. We can fix it. Waking up to the genetic surveillance state another reason to join Creative Good Creative Good: A “what now?” moment Creative Good: A most welcome decline An “internet for the people” or a plastic beach Our last chance in tech Jennifer Egan and a Forum update Creative Good: Citizenship and smartphones Celebrating one year of the Creative Good community Creative Good Forum Walking away from tech Where to go after Twitter An alternative to Amazon, and avoiding data brokers God, death, and tech with Sasha Stiles The web as monopolized surveillance space Human rights and digital spycraft Designing for deceit in Silicon Valley Bandcamp risks becoming an Epic failure The restart of history Why to resist Amazon by cancelling your Prime account Concentration of power is the problem We said ‘never again.’ Now look at Xinjiang Facebook patents and the comet in Don’t Look Up I founded Creative Good 25 years ago today – and learned a few things Are Facebook and Google criminal enterprises? My predictions for Apple’s smart glasses Creative Good Forum The banality of tech Big questions, answered by Big Tech Smiling in the metaverse Big Tech’s latest misbehavior calls for action Facebook’s laughable response to the whistleblower Get your community organization off of Facebook. Now. Voice surveillance must die The fall of Facebook Why we might transform computers into ‘tiles’ Explaining the last 20 years What to do when the storm arrives Public libraries are better than Google WeWork and waste How to prove vaccine status – with privacy We can’t trust tech, from A(pple) to Z(oom) On resisting emperors and their delusions Cameras and con games: Silicon Valley’s demented fun house
Why car companies (still) ignore customers
2023-07-28 · via Creative Good

Why car companies (still) ignore customers

A story has been making the rounds from The Verge about a recent JD Power survey of automotive customers. According to the story, people are getting fed up with all the useless tech in their cars. Survey results show that customers strongly dislike digital touchscreens in cars: they’re distracting, hard to use, and take up space that could be used for physical buttons.

Longtime readers will remember the story of MyFord Touch, the first dashboard touchscreen in consumer vehicles. My case study in Customers Included describes how Ford’s disastrous design process ended up creating a dashboard that hid important buttons – for controlling A/C, for example – behind a vertical panel with no raised edges. Consumer Reports gave the design low marks, pointing out that consumers weren’t safe driving in a car with MyFord Touch, since drivers would have to take their eyes off the road to find the buttons. Angry car owners took their Fords back to dealers in droves, costing the company a fortune, not to mention the intangible costs to brand equity and PR.

The MyFord Touch debacle was over 10 years ago, so it might be reasonable to expect carmakers to learn the lesson. Yet here we are in 2023 hearing again that consumers prefer safer, easier physical controls over the buggy, impossible-to-use digital interfaces that keep popping up in new cars.

Thus the central question of Customers Included still applies today: Why do companies ignore customers?

It would seem to make more financial sense to build products that customers actually want. Whether we’re talking about car dashboards or any other sort of product, a customer-pleasing design both cuts down on customer service calls and increases sales, as customers give positive word-of-mouth to friends. Brand loyalty, usage metrics, sales numbers, social media sentiment: all of these vaunted goals of big companies seem to be aligned with creating products that don’t completely suck.

And yet here we are. As The Verge story puts it:

more people are choosing not to use their car’s native infotainment controls. Only 56 percent of owners prefer to use their vehicle’s built-in system to play audio, down from 70 percent in 2020, JD Power found. Less than half of owners said they like using their car’s native controls for navigation, voice recognition, or to make phone calls.

More evidence of consumers’ dislike of digital touchscreens came from a study last fall by Swedish automotive magazine Vi Bilägare (also covered in Car and Driver). Researchers timed how long it took for a driver, while driving, to complete simple tasks. From the research:

Most [car] manufacturers are switching to touchscreens – which perform far worse in a test carried out by Vi Bilägare. The driver in the worst-performing car needs four times longer to perform simple tasks than in the best-performing car.

Out of all the cars included in the study, the top performer had no touchscreen at all. It was the 2005 Volvo V70, shown below:

(2005 Volvo V70 dashboard with physical buttons and dials)

Notice the physical buttons and dials, all easy to reach without taking one’s eyes off the road. No touchscreen in sight.

To review:

• MyFord Touch in 2010 showed that physical buttons are superior to touchscreens.

• Vi Bilägare in 2022 showed that physical buttons are superior to touchscreens.

• JD Power in 2023 showed that physical buttons are superior to touchscreens.

I could also discuss Consumer Reports’ 2020 review of the Tesla Model Y (“Drivers have to spend too much time with their eyes off the road to make simple adjustments on the screen”), the 2021 recall of Teslas with faulty touchscreens, and the 2019 Jalopnik story called Touchscreens in Cars Have Been a Failure. But you get the idea. Year after year, we learn that physical buttons are superior to touchscreens. Yet manufacturers persist in shipping an inferior product that consumers don’t want. Why?

One possible explanation is that customers prefer touchscreens when buying the car, and only come to regret the decision after the purchase. Maybe that was the case 10 years ago, in the early days of touchscreens like MyFord Touch. But these days? As The Verge article puts it, “If you’ve ever let out a string of curses while fumbling to control your car’s air conditioning because it’s buried under several menus in a dang touchscreen, you’re not alone.” Consumers today are less likely to be fooled by a touchscreen.

So again: why do companies persist in shipping what customers don’t want? Cory Doctorow (a recent Techtonic guest) took up the question in a provocative essay this week:

[Car] drivers hate all the digital BS, from the janky touchscreens to the wildly insecure apps. Digital systems are drivers’ most significant point of dissatisfaction with the automakers’ products. . . .

But even amid all the complaining . . . there’s still not much discussion of why the car-makers are making their products less attractive, less reliable, less safe, and less resilient by stuffing them full of microchips.

The reason why, he argues, is that car companies – and many other companies, too – are no longer interested in creating a good customer experience. Industry after industry has abandoned any pretense of making things better for customers. Instead they’ve embraced “digital feudalism,” a business model dedicated to controlling all aspects of the product, preventing customers from modifying or fixing anything, while charging customers monthly payments – a kind of rent – in order to continue to use the product. Doctorow points out Mercedes’ plan to charge rent on the gas pedal, unlocking extra acceleration for an annual subscription fee of $1,200.

A touchscreen, then, operates as a digital platform where features can be locked or unlocked by the company at will, depending on customers’ rent payments. Physical buttons, on the other hand, can’t be turned into rent. They only serve the customer, so they’re less attractive. In the upside-down world of digital feudalism, anything that serves the customers’ needs without providing the company with rent, or surveillance, or control is likely to be removed.

Once a company has a business model of charging rent to captive customers, there’s no more need to improve the customer experience. The only “improvements” are refinements to the exploitative model. As Doctorow writes,

Digital feudalism hasn’t stopped innovating – it’s just stopped innovating good things.

Digital feudalism isn’t a new idea. Back in 2020 I interviewed Joel Kotkin on Techtonic about his book The Coming of Neo-Feudalism, which made a similar point about changing economic conditions. Big Tech executives, he said, were taking the role of the aristocracy, while the programmers and lawyers and product managers serving Big Tech played the role of “clerisy,” being paid to preserve the rule of the aristocracy. Everyone else – that is, anyone not working in tech or a tech-adjacent role – would inevitably take the role of peasant.

Once you start looking, you’ll notice the signs of enfeudalization everywhere. Just yesterday Reuters broke a story about Tesla lying about the range of their cars, then suppressing customer complaints. (See also the Ars Technica story.) The cars’ digital readout of “remaining driving range” was subjected to algorithmic manipulations, showing drivers an impossibly long range as they got started on a full charge, then falling quickly to come in line with a more realistic estimate. The customer experience was digitally manipulated by a company to serve its own interests.

One way I’ve decided to resist creeping feudalization is to host a members-only Forum where we can discuss what’s happening in tech – without surveillance, without algorithmic nudging, and without shady monetization schemes that are so common in Big Tech. I hope you’ll join us and place your vote for at least one corner of the internet that’s not taken over by the feudal lords.

Join the Creative Good Forum.

Until next time,

-mark

Mark Hurst, founder, Creative Good – see official announcement and join as a member
Email: mark@creativegood.com
Listen to my podcast/radio show: techtonic.fm
Subscribe to my email newsletter
Sign up for my to-do list with privacy built in, Good Todo
On Mastodon: @markhurst@mastodon.social

- – -

LET’S MAKE TECH BETTER: JOIN US.

Mission

Creative Good creates good experiences — for our consulting clients, our Good Todo users, our newsletter readers, and all of our fans.

Contact

Creative Good, 2808 Broadway #17, New York, NY 10025 USA
Phone: +1.646.543.3530
Email: emailus@creativegood.com