farmerjones

Well we don't get to choose if we want Bluetooth, or ABS, or Airbags, or stability control, or power windows, or remote entry..... VC is going to be the standard in the industry (if it's not now) and everything will be this way, bringing down the price of production. I've read estimates that the cost to build analogue gauges is MORE than the raw cost of a digital display, so no need to have a huge price increase for this standard feature. If anything Audi has been price gouging for VC up till now.

Anyone that says they would set the VC is classic view and never change it ever agin.....in my opinion again is someone that has actually never lived with it or full understands the nuances of what views show what information and when. Add to the fact the new-gen VC in the A8/A7/A6 have about 10x more customization that currently, I'm pretty sure people will switch around views. Again, if you haven't lived with it is somewhat hard to understand the real benefits in daily life to use the VC.

As far as "looking dated" the VC is upgradable, and Audi can issue software at any time that renders the look more "modern" if they so choose. This is well documented as a designed feature Audi said they intended to leverage in the future to keep the cars modern. As far as the center display in the analogue gauges versus the VC resolution....not even close to the same. In fact, the VC has a higher resolution than and iPhone screed does. The analogue display is high quality...but it's not the same as VC in image quality.

I agree...the human/software interface with the VC is amazing, and is only improving moving forward. I can't fathom owning a car with analogue gauges. The fluid interaction between audio, navigation, phone calls and car info with never taking your hands off the wheel is industry-leading and something that can only be appreciated over time. There are always personal preferences, but I think research has shown VC is highly sought after and disliked by only the smaller of "old school" customers, something Audi is content to loose with the adoption of more high-tech features that draw in many times more new owners.

Very interesting conversation.

markcincinnati

Even if I could legitimately disagree with you farmerjones, it is immaterial. As you said, more and more content -- that we cannot omit -- is both here (your examples) and coming. There will be a flood of tech and it will probably VERY rapidly transition from optional to standard. The VC is, like a new iPhone, something that folks are clamoring for.

I've seen a bunch of S (and an RS5) cars with the VC -- every one of them is set to display the center round "gauge" with the digital speedometer in the center. The RS adds a couple more "graphics" and also imbues the tach with a green, yellow, and red color scheme that tracks with the tachometer "needle" as it rises toward the engine's redline. Instant tang!

Why someone would display the "classic" view is (as someone said long ago) "horse and buggy (and buggy whip)" thinking.

We can have our "arguments" until hell freezes over, but in the final analysis, Audi will soon discontinue the analog dash and will continue to improve the functionality of the VC. Top-view will become standard, too, on Audis before it is finally mandated (just like ESC and backup camera have been), probably years before. As I recall, Audi (in the US) offered electronic stability program (dubbed, then, ESP) TWELVE years before its widespread adoption and ultimate requirement. I can't remember when I had my first Audi with ABS but it too was available on Audis for at least a decade before the rest of the (non-European) mfgrs caught up.

Audi LEADS -- the VC, love it or not is what "we all want" (speaking of the overall market, not the 16% of individual laggard customers who will go kicking and screaming and then when they have nowhere to turn, finally adopt).

Somebody has the data, I'm sure, that would -- I think -- support the notion that Audi customers are generally the "leading edge" of customers, leading me to believe the following represents Audi's target customers:

Innovators (2.5%) – Innovators are the first individuals to adopt an innovation. Innovators are willing to take risks, youngest in age, have the highest social class, have great financial lucidity, very social and have closest contact to scientific sources and interaction with other innovators. Risk tolerance has them adopting technologies which may ultimately fail. Financial resources help absorb these failures. (Rogers 1962 5th ed, p. 282)


Early Adopters (13.5%) – This is the second fastest category of individuals who adopt an innovation. These individuals have the highest degree of opinion leadership among the other adopter categories.Early adopters are typically younger in age, have a higher social status, have more financial lucidity, advanced education, and are more socially forward than late adopters. More discrete in adoption choices than innovators. Realize judicious choice of adoption will help them maintain central communication position (Rogers 1962 5th ed, p. 283).


Early Majority (34%) – Individuals in this category adopt an innovation after a varying degree of time. This time of adoption is significantly longer than the innovators and early adopters. Early Majority tend to be slower in the adoption process, have above average social status, contact with early adopters, and seldom hold positions of opinion leadership in a system (Rogers 1962 5th ed, p. 283)

Audi customers, I believe identify with the above categories much more than they do with the remaining categories:

Late Majority (34%) – Individuals in this category will adopt an innovation after the average member of the society. These individuals approach an innovation with a high degree of skepticism and after the majority of society has adopted the innovation. Late Majority are typically skeptical about an innovation, have below average social status, very little financial lucidity, in contact with others in late majority and early majority, very little opinion leadership.


Laggards (16%) – Individuals in this category are the last to adopt an innovation. Unlike some of the previous categories, individuals in this category show little to no opinion leadership. These individuals typically have an aversion to change-agents and tend to be advanced in age. Laggards typically tend to be focused on “traditions”, likely to have lowest social status, lowest financial fluidity, be oldest of all other adopters, in contact with only family and close friends, very little to no opinion leadership.

Our arguments here, no matter how articulate and civil really are irrelevant (mostly) Audi will innovate and likely accelerate the pace of innovation. From time to time, I'll admit, I might slip below the early majority, but most of the time I assume most of us here on AW fall into the early adopter category (and probably even the innovator category).

One of my friends has a new Acura TLX with the "advance" or tech package -- it looks like the Acura folks bought up several A4s and S4s and did their damndest to clone a lot of (but not all of) the features and functions I have on my 13-month-old 2018 S4 Prestige with the DAP package. What's coming on the A6, A7, and A8 will -- temporarily -- leave them all in the dust. Then Audi will make all this stuff standard from the A3 on up.

You can bank on it.

JD15

I'm sure that DAP will be mandatory by the time the B10 is released, but I am discrete when adopting technology and do not pay for options that bring me little to no practical benefit. I have been involved in two accidents in 19 years of driving, both which were occurred when my car was rear-ended while stationary. Unless DAP can prevent such an accident, I do not believe it is worth $1800 for me. Additionally, I have rented cars with the various features comprising DAP and I haven't found any to be particularly valuable.

Eli McCraig

JD15

^
I was thinking about the Model 3 when reading this thread. If I were concerned about cementing my status as an "Early Adopter," I could buy a Model 3, but then I would have to tolerate a hi-tech, but unintuitive, interface and an interior that is econo-car quality.

markcincinnati

JD, if you wouldn't mind elaborating, please share what about Audi's DAP (which is in several respects very similar to other's level-2 autonomous tech) have you found that -- for you -- isn't valuable (or beneficial or in someway helpful).

If your primary concern or doubt stems from an "it's over priced" perspective, that's certainly one aspect that can be discussed to exhaustion. My interpretation, however, is that you find the technology itself of little benefit (please correct this interpretation if wrong). Until my 2018 S4, I had never had:
`

• Adaptive cruise control with Traffic Jam assist
• Audi active lane assist
• High beam assistant
• Traffic sign recognition

I have had some experience with Nissan's version, but my experience is now 15,000 miles and 13-months deep. The technology -- in conjunction with all of the "pre-senses, etc." juxtaposed with the top-view camera, rear cross-traffic and so on -- is remarkable. But, beyond it being, at this stage, a "modern marvel," I am quickly coming to a point that I would really rather NOT want to drive a car without it.

I am not doubting that you, indeed, have found little (or no) value in the "assistance" features/functions, yet, as one who has found the benefits sometimes hint at miraculous, I am virtually stunned that someone would find this technology without merit. Hence, my request for a further elaboration (or any elaboration) about what makes this tech (apparently regardless of price) of so little value to you.

Thank you for your perspective.

Mark

rocko76

Comments in no particular order...

- Despite the VC coming with a pretty high premium price tag, I'm willing to bet that it would be significantly cheaper for Audi (or really any MFG) to go 100% digital displays. 1) HW costs for displays are cheap these days, they are using relatively low res, low pixel density compared to modern smartphones. 2) They can use the same HW across multiple models, all the differences can be in SW. At least visually, it seems like the 3, TT, and 4/5 use the same VC panel. Analog cluster on the 3 is of course different, but even the 4/5 have some differences despite largely sharing the dash. It's more expensive to develop and manufacture unique analog displays, plus carry inventory, than share the same digital panel. They can easily even use the same panel on VW, etc.

- I'm in the camp that believes Nav on a smartphone is significantly better than what most vehicle mfg's can offer, including Audi. It certainly ages better. Adding to that, functionality of Audi's system drops off SIGNIFICANTLY if you don't pony up what I believe is a pretty crazy price (from a cost/value perspective) for Audi Connect. While not convenient to need to plug in my phone, my experience with Android Auto was much better than trying to use the built-in nav, even during my Connect trial. If nothing else, voice recognition was clearly superior which significantly increases usability.

- While the exclusivity of being "less than affordable" is certainly one of the draws of a premium brand, I believe it's still pretty important to their marketing to have a low(ish) starting price for advertising purposes - even if most buyers won't option the vehicle that low and spend significantly more. However, I believe this is becoming problematic for them as tech becomes an increasing selling point and many mid-tier brands are including features on base models (without significant price impact) that are still costly options on premium brands. It will be interesting to see how they balance still having low (at least theoretically, if not practically) starting price point for marketing purposes while adding tech features as standard.

- I don't equate this change to moving location of USB ports, changing the cosmetic dust covers on brakes, etc. Changing an accepted order to require a costly, unasked for option is a pretty crappy thing to do from my perspective, especially given I really do believe it'd be worst case a wash for them from a cost perspective going to all digital. Sure, the delivery can be refused but by this point, the customer has a time and emotional investment that far into the order/waiting process and gives the impression they are trying to pad their numbers knowing most would elect to keep.

markcincinnati

Rocko,

I agree that changing the requirements to force nav on all customers gives the impression they're trying to pad their numbers, however, I don't believe that was the intention. What I can't understand -- if my mfgr calendar is correct -- is why Audi didn't announce "as of the start of production of the new MY (which I believe is in July), nav will no longer be an option, it will be standard on all designations (Premium, Premium Plus, and Prestige), be guided accordingly." What they did, this time seems to me to have no rhyme or reason.

Also, I agree if the entire lineup went completely over to the TFT (or whatever is current) screens instead of analog gauges, etc., their costs would go down. Moreover, I would think, too, that if your remark about the quality of a smartphone's nav is superior (I've not found this to be true, but to each his own, there) at least from a graphical look and feel perspective, that a full TFT dash (plus making the screens "touchable") could be upgraded regularly to keep their look concurrent with "current trends." Additionally, upgrading to at least some new features could be accomplished without new hardware, too.

The dilemma is what I'm seeing as "Premium-ness Creep." The Arteon may not be a great example, but Arteon is certainly looking like it wants to -- at a minimum -- be considered as an ELLPS class entrant, if not working hard to ultimately be a full-fledged LPS (or if you'll accept that the "S" in LPS doesn't have to mean literally, sedan -- quasi-coupe).

Even those who can AFFORD a $60 to $80,000 car will, eventually, have a "The Emperor has no clothes" moment -- meaning ONLY the badge conscious customer will eschew the (for example) Arteon, choosing the Audi A5 (or S5) SB instead.

Those who have $60K+ to spend on a car didn't get that ability by making too many "wasteful" purchases.

Audi has to figure out how to maintain Premium-ness whilst figuring out how to be perceived as at least a contender for the emerging Super-Premium cars that are (or soon will be) ushered in once the new A6, A7, and A8 hits our market. It's tough when so much of this really cool tech is also really inexpensive to innovate.

I would assume, too, that Audi has to show some deference to Porsche even though they both are independent companies, albeit with the same parent. I read, some time ago, that Porsche may want to produce a less expensive "sedan" (less than the Panamera), which could be somewhat of a dilemma (marketing wise) as Audi is right now (at least in the US) adding a new line, "Audi Sport," where both the current and pipeline RS models will live. Our dealerships here in Cincinnati are undergoing remodeling -- specifically to put in place an RS-specific showroom and sales facilities (separate from the "lesser" A's and S's).

Likewise won't VW -- but to a lesser extent -- have to show deference to Audi? It just wouldn't do if the Arteon Type-R with VW's own narrow-angle high-output V6 appeared somehow to be a strong competitor to the 5 SB. Blurred lines (in some respects) -- but the blurring is much more pronounced between Audi and Porsche. There is (or was) a nearly $150K (special performance and appearance version) RS7 at my dealership; one would think this is somewhat deep into Porsche territory. Likewise, wouldn't an RSQ5 be able to rival the Macan (substantially more than the SQ5 currently nips at the heels of the "entry level" Macan)?

It is becoming increasingly difficult to find many Audis (on the showroom floor) with MSRP's below the low $50K bar. The Q7's, too are often priced above $70K. And the beat goes on (and up).

I can't find, right now, the "pipeline" Arteons, but if you'll trust that I'm not making this stuff up, it would appear very possible for VW to bring a very S5 Sb-ish Arteon to market for 5 figures less than its Audi cousin.

This will give you an idea of the upward trajectory I'm talking about:

http://arteon.volkswagen.com/int/en/index.html#/top

markcincinnati

JD15, if you're still with this thread, my question above pertaining to:
`

• Adaptive cruise control with Traffic Jam assist
• Audi active lane assist
• High beam assistant
• Traffic sign recognition

still stands.

I am both curious and sincere in wanting to know why (or what it is about) DAP is something you reject and seem to me to suggest is without merit.

As I said, above:

"I am not doubting that you, indeed, have found little (or no) value in the "assistance" features/functions, yet, as one who has found the benefits sometimes hint at miraculous, I am virtually stunned that someone would find this technology without merit. Hence, my request for a further elaboration (or any elaboration) about what makes this tech (apparently regardless of price) of so little value to you.

Thank you for your perspective."

For those "on the fence" it seems you would be doing a service if you would provide the reason(s) you eschew DAP. Those of us who favor the tech could then also share our perspective on DAP's benefits.

Mark