You can reasonably expect a new car to last 150,000 miles. If you live close to work, we can say you drive about 10,000 miles a year, and the car life is 15 years. During that time, you will have to replace wear items such as tires, filters, brake pads, and spark plugs/cables. You might be unlucky and have to replace a transmission once. Still, that seems like a pretty average car.
But what about the new electronics in the car? Is the integrated touch screen that acts as a navigation aid and entertainment control panel expected to last 15 years? Or should it be considered a wear item as well?
I recently had to replace an industrial touch screen for a customer. This new one was the third screen in five years. They seem to be lasting consistently two and a half years. The customer is not too happy about that life, and I agree. The manufacturer said (quietly) that the expected life is four years. This blog is not a rail against any particular manufacturer. Instead, I'd like to explore the lifecycles of regular "capital" equipment versus the electronics that support and run them.
Fifteen years for a car. Thirty-five years for an "old style" clothes washer and dryer. (See any of numerous "Made By Monkeys" entries at this Website.) Can modern electronics meet that level of life expectancy? Not really. I know of industrial equipment with electronics lasting that long, but that brings up other problems, such as software life expectancy. (I'll cover that in a different article.) The average consumer electronic device doesn't last nearly that long. So is a touch screen considered a wear item? Will you be expected to replace that navigation/entertainment display two or three times during the life of the car? That's an unsavory feature for me.
Charles Murray's article, Automotive Electronics: Do We Really Need All This Stuff?, prompted my line of thinking. His article asked whether we really needed all this stuff. The market will show how we decide, but I think we all know the trend will be "Yes, we want this stuff". Fine, we do. But that "stuff" will not last as long as the car. Computer manufacturers want you to upgrade computers every three years, but a more realistic consumer cycle is six to seven years. The computer may last longer, but it will be left behind by technology advances. So not only is it likely that the device will fail and require replacing several times, but we also might want to replace it with a newer version during the life of the car.
Charles Murray's article described Cadillac's rollout of a new head unit that will permit user interaction similar to personal electronic devices. Cadillac's reasons for doing this are obvious. It wishes to differentiate itself from other car manufacturers. My question is not why, but why bother? Cadillac is not a consumer electronics manufacturer. Auto manufacturers make cars, not user interfaces. The likes of Samsung and Apple are so far ahead in the realm of user interface that I have to wonder why Cadillac is making the attempt.
To me, it would make more sense for carmakers not to go for the "totally integrated" dashboard of the past. Instead, I'd like to see them provide a 5VDC USB bus and ports, and possibly a sort of universal support, so that any personal device can be used for navigation and entertainment. This approach accepts and adapts to the reality that electronics simply do not have the same lifecycle that the automobile does. It also gives the consumer the ability to change the entertainment system at will. I wrote about too much choice in my soda fountain article. Car companies offer too little choice or make the choice for us. Providing the USB bus would give us the freedom to make our own selection, change it at will, upgrade when it makes sense, and replace electronics that fail or wear out.
Good points, TJ. You're right about the Made for Monkeys postings. Nearly all of the complaints with new white-box appliances are with the electronics. It's the control boards that are always getting fried, usually within the first two or three years. This does not bode well for cars as automakers keep packing in more and more electronics.
I like the idea of having universal support to swap out your own electronics. With all of the new electronics being integrated into cars you would think a plan would have been in place to replace the worn out touch screen/entertainment components.
I absolutely believe the story about the touch screen maker who quietly admitted that their screens are made to last just four years. I believe, but can't prove, that there is a matter of planned obsolescence involed in this. I am typing this comment into a 2005 model Compaq Presario computer. When I recently took it in for repairs, the tech asked me, "Why are you bothering? You could get a new machine for just a little bit more." Therein lies the problem. Why should electronics manufacturers build devices that can last 20 years when people are tossing their computers after five years to buy the latest and greatest? I could give many reasons for keeping computers for ten years or more (the main one being I don't like to reinstall software and copy data onto a new machine), but I don't think most consumers of electronic products would agree with me.
Way back in the very early 1990's, Buick had the Reata. That was a "sporty" largish car with an electronic touch screen display (7 or 8 inch as I recall). My boss at that time had one; it seemed it was in the shop quite often for various malfunctions, and one time he had to replace it (out of warranty) for >$1500! When it went out, hardly ANYTHING in the car worked (except you could start the engine and drive to the dealer). No HVAC, none of the "high-end "features," no entertainment stuff (basically radio/cassete), etc. High "coolness" factor, but ZERO usability! He soon dumped it at a huge loss despite having bought it used (but only a few months old!) at a substantial discount.
I think you're right about the market strategy being around planned obsolescence when it comes to the electronics in our vehicles, but there is a need to keep up with modern software advances and look at how furiously fast they come at us. Five or so years ago, most people didn't have GPS and only the buyers of high-end luxury cars were talking about syncing up devices (that's because most people didn't have smart phones or tablets).
My point is the pace of this kind of technology is so rapid fire, that these systems will seem antiquated unless they are updated to keep up with the times. I think TJ's suggestion about a platform that lets you plug in your own electronics makes far more sense than having to replace something that's such an integrated part of your vehicle every few years when you're likely not upgrading or replacing your car.
as they say change is the only permanent thing in the world and electronics really depict this aspect more than any other domain. moore's law and portrays this aspect and this is the market driver for electronic products. This is not the case with mechanical products and hence mechanicals outlast electronics.
Change and Moore's law are reasons for upgrading the electronics, but does not explain why the life expectancy of the electronics is so much less. They're flat-out less durable than mechanical equipment.
it is not alwyas true that life expectancy of electronics is always less compared to mechanical systems. there are electronic timers and switches which are more reliable and durable than mechanical systems. Many a times there are no equivalent systems to compare life expectancy. i agree with your comment that in general mechanical systems are more durable, but then we have to consider many other aspects
Charles, I too hate reinstalling SW. It takes me 2 weeks of 8 hours a day to get a new computer and install all of the SW I have. That's with using the same OS. If I upgraded to Vista from XP I would have also had to buy a new printer and scanner. It's ridiculous. I've been driving cars for about 37 years, and have liked the fact that the accelerator brake and clutch (when present) are always in the same place. What is it with computer SW designers that they want to change everything on the UI every other day.
There is no such thing as planned obsolescence. Companies that supposedly plan for an item to go obsolete are really just designing for a target market using cost verses benefit to the consumer. I’m surea touch screen can be made to last longer than 4 years, but, would it be price competitive.Any company purposely designing with the thought of planned obsolescence would go broke in this world very quickly.Of course, there is GM.
An analysis of what’s needed to implement Design for Disassembly and Design for Recycling results in eight strategies engineers can use to design an intentional end-of-life stage into their products.
Government regulations, coupled with growing consumer sensitivity about data and identity theft, require that data storage organizations demonstrate proper protection and due diligence in protecting sensitive information stored inside datacenter enclosures.
When a crane doesn't have a monitoring system, crane owners schedule service every six months and simply scrap the parts they replace, even if a part has had little use and doesn't need replacing. This can cost thousands.
From Dell / Intel® New Paradigms in Design Work Scott Hamilton, vertical market strategist for Dell Precision workstations, 5/2/2013 3
Early in my career, I worked as a draftsman and remember the days of drawing on vellum with numbered pencils and Mylar with plastic lead. This was a fun experience in the sense that I ...
I've been using workstations for more than 10 years and love finding ways to get more performance from my system. With demanding professional applications that require more power each ...
A lasting memory from my first job as an engineer in an auto assembly plant is standing on hard concrete at six in the morning, vending-machine coffee clutched in hand, listening to ...
A quick look into the merger of two powerhouse 3D printing OEMs and the new leader in rapid prototyping solutions, Stratasys. The industrial revolution is now led by 3D printing and engineers are given the opportunity to fully maximize their design capabilities, reduce their time-to-market and functionally test prototypes cheaper, faster and easier. Bruce Bradshaw, Director of Marketing in North America, will explore the large product offering and variety of materials that will help CAD designers articulate their product design with actual, physical prototypes. This broadcast will dive deep into technical information including application specific stories from real world customers and their experiences with 3D printing. 3D Printing is
To save this item to your list of favorite Design News content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This
5 
