zlacker

Swapping out for a used display is still possible with a screen. Backlights can also be repaired on a lot of screens. Neither of those repairs would have been impossible with a screen. I've replaced a number of light assemblies for screens in the past. Both of your examples could still happen with screens, it's not inherent to them having little sticks turning around.

Any argument about swapping the parts not being possible due to DRM or gluing the assembly together can also be applied to something with physical dials. And from the sound of it the dealerships are already unhelpful at figuring out the problem aside from complete replacement, so moving to it being screens isn't a change there at all.

>>vel0ci+(OP)
>Swapping out for a used display is still possible with a screen. Backlights can also be repaired on a lot of screens. Neither of those repairs would have been impossible with a screen.

This is true. I agree with this part but would note that the supply chain for replacement screens would be constrained by original production volume and would force most owners to find used screens of questionable quality to avoid paying dealership rates for new screens. Like most vehicle models in a manufacturer's product line, these screens would likely only fit in a single model. I think it unlikely that manufacturers will standardize these units across their product lines so that an owner could simply find a used screen or a new screen from a different model produced by that same manufacturer.

There are probably supply issues here that end up rendering a perfectly good, well-maintained vehicle undriveable when specific components fail.

Then, as you mention, the lock-down of the devices creates another problem when the owner isn't able to access or modify parameters stored in a used screen to update those parameters to fit the vehicle that they own.

It's all a complex set of issues.

I am old. I have been doing all or part of my vehicle maintenance since I bought my first truck in 1976. A lot has changed. Most of those changes are improvements. It is so much easier to identify failed or failing components or sensors today than it ever has been. Vehicles today, like those produced 100 years ago, are durable products with tremendous opportunities to upgrade functionality, capabilities. If we allow manufacturers to turn vehicles into products that fail, with no manufacturer accountability, after only 10 years, requiring replacement of most parts critical to safely operating the vehicle then we have only created another waste stream.

>>doodle+Tw
If you're worried you eventually won't be able to find a replacement screen, that same idea still applies to not being able to find the right "analog" instrument cluster 10+ years after the car ended production. Some cars are going to get some really bespoke instrument clusters that only exist for certain years of certain models, while others get the same off the shelf display that automaker has used on a dozen different models of a similar-ish generation. Once again this makes little difference to the instrument cluster being "analog" or a screen. Its not like they're forced to always use the same "analog" cluster currently or that going to screens will force them to make each model bespoke. I do agree, I want automakers to continue to have or keep moving towards repairable/easily sourced parts and dislike when I see movement in the other direction, but arguing they shouldn't use screens is a pretty unrelated issue from what I can tell.

Buying a car with analog needles isn't going to make that part more available if it becomes one of the last models with analog needles. Screens can be pretty standardized.