The iDrive: actually a Benz idea after all?
- Thread starter coolraoul
- Start date
PanterroR
Lap Time Luminary
I don't mind your thread title, raul and i perfectly know what you're saying. In my 1st reply to your thread i've asked a simple question is it really important?
Then you and Luw said how Beemer fans bitch about MB copied BMW... Plus, i really, really hate when someone calls me a fanboy for no reason and that was the case here! Me asking is it really important and then being called fanboy is what irritates me, nothing else. That could create a war...But it didn't, 'cause i didn't want/ask for it.
I couldn't care less and i don't give a rat's ass who invented it or who's idea is it. For me it's important that it's easy to use and that i love it and that it works perfectly!
Period.
Then you and Luw said how Beemer fans bitch about MB copied BMW... Plus, i really, really hate when someone calls me a fanboy for no reason and that was the case here! Me asking is it really important and then being called fanboy is what irritates me, nothing else. That could create a war...But it didn't, 'cause i didn't want/ask for it.
I couldn't care less and i don't give a rat's ass who invented it or who's idea is it. For me it's important that it's easy to use and that i love it and that it works perfectly!
Period.
EnI
Piston Pioneer
Yes, they did. And they had absolutely no clue what they were talking about. You find a lot of such people eg. on AutoSpies.
i am going to add a bit of oil on the fire 
having an idea and presenting it as a concept is relatively easy because concepts most of the time are not subject to the full enforcement of the laws of economics, ergonomics and sensible marketing driven design
being able to translate a groundbreaking conceptual idea into an economically feasible, ergonomic and mass produced "item" is even harder than the "concept" phase
one could argue that the roots of the "bangle butt" lie not in the Z9 concept, nor in the MB maybach concpet, but rather the BMW 2002 which also had a clamshell boot, or other older cars
similar things can be said of I-drive
MB has been offering knob control of their commands since its early days but the knob was always placed next to the monitor, and as a secondary control next to the buttons, it is the concept of taking this knob and giving it the preponderance and primary status it has, in placing it around the armrest that makes this a groundbreaking concept
and even more, it is the ability to take the siemens/mb/whatever concept and making it into a viable product for daily use in such a critical "tool" as a car, tht makes the idea really pionneering
the "idea" in todays capitalist engineering modalities is no longer of much importance, given enough money and resources one could arguably produce any idea, the real importance lies in being able to mass produce it in an economiclaly feasible matter
having an idea and presenting it as a concept is relatively easy because concepts most of the time are not subject to the full enforcement of the laws of economics, ergonomics and sensible marketing driven design
being able to translate a groundbreaking conceptual idea into an economically feasible, ergonomic and mass produced "item" is even harder than the "concept" phase
one could argue that the roots of the "bangle butt" lie not in the Z9 concept, nor in the MB maybach concpet, but rather the BMW 2002 which also had a clamshell boot, or other older cars
similar things can be said of I-drive
MB has been offering knob control of their commands since its early days but the knob was always placed next to the monitor, and as a secondary control next to the buttons, it is the concept of taking this knob and giving it the preponderance and primary status it has, in placing it around the armrest that makes this a groundbreaking concept
and even more, it is the ability to take the siemens/mb/whatever concept and making it into a viable product for daily use in such a critical "tool" as a car, tht makes the idea really pionneering
the "idea" in todays capitalist engineering modalities is no longer of much importance, given enough money and resources one could arguably produce any idea, the real importance lies in being able to mass produce it in an economiclaly feasible matter
EnI
Piston Pioneer
Exactly.
I find it so funny when seeing boys fighting over "Oh, BMW engine produces 10hp more than Audi's engine" etc
And now the explanation about iDrive & BMW.
In the mid 90s BMW decided to refresh the brand's image. To go more luxury, and to go more avant-garde ... yet staying sporty & performance oriented. Going avant-garde was not only the issue of design, but also a technological matter. Therefore especially ex-development chief Reitzle insisted new tech should be implemented ASAP - to deny MB's "Engineered as no other car" & Audi's "Vorsprung durch Technik". Unfortunately the Rover debacle affected E65 R&D and therefore not enough testings were done, and also QC process during the production was too week. E65 was launched not fully prepared for production - yet every further delay would hurt even more. And the aftermath was quirky electronics ... And design not perfectly transfered from clay model to the production car.
Why the brand refreshment was needed? BMW's success derived from the early 80s - when BMW got an image of a "yuppie" brand (especially in US market). The brand was luxury enough yet communicating power, courage & rapid success: perfect car for yuppies. But yuppie times couldn't last forever. BMW wanted to retain the customer base, so they followed their desire to go more luxury ... yet retaining the sporty image. BMW didn't want to be Lexus or MB copy (comfort oriented more conservative luxury). They want to differentiate more. And for 21th century avant-garde approach & technological pioneering was a perfect choice.
New controversial design & revolution in electronics (iDrive) got BMW a more-than-expected publicity, and BMW got an image of one of the most progressive & pioneering brand / company in the automotive world.
The plan was risky, but it worked in the end. And will continue to work in the following years ... even more.
Yet now BMW - in the second generation of avant-garde cars - are correcting the mistakes made with the first generation cars: making the tech more reliable, using better materials, making design less clumsy (better design transformation from clay model to the production cars). And addressing the issue of BMW cars becoming too porky (engineering not design issue!!!).
EnI
Piston Pioneer
Shouldn't the "Bangle butt" actually be called "van Hooydonk butt"?
Actually "someone-else's-butt" ...
Since I'm pretty sure the first sketches of elements like headlight "eyebrows" , grille "mustaches", clamshell boot lid, duck tail, shark antenna, LED angel eyes, rearlight LED strips, flame surfacing etc was done in BMW Advanced Design Studio - where mostly younger designers produce crazy design ideas without almost any engineering limitations. Mind that product designers are very limited by marketing & engineering requirements.
Beemer B773ER
Tire Trailblazer
Interesting topic this...
My question is a serious one not aimed at inciting another serious of hard-edged responses.
If MB was the first automotive company to apply the vision of a central-knob into an actual physical concept car, then why did it take them 10 years from showcasing the central-knob idea in that 1995 Vario concept to debuting in the W221 at Frankfurt '05?
Now if we assume that BMW was indeed inspired by the MB Vario concept of 1995, then it is to BMW's credit that they were able to move the central-knob idea from the point of it being a vision/concept to actual in-production technology on the 2001 E65 7 series in nearly half the time it has taken MB.
My question is a serious one not aimed at inciting another serious of hard-edged responses.
If MB was the first automotive company to apply the vision of a central-knob into an actual physical concept car, then why did it take them 10 years from showcasing the central-knob idea in that 1995 Vario concept to debuting in the W221 at Frankfurt '05?
Now if we assume that BMW was indeed inspired by the MB Vario concept of 1995, then it is to BMW's credit that they were able to move the central-knob idea from the point of it being a vision/concept to actual in-production technology on the 2001 E65 7 series in nearly half the time it has taken MB.
coolraoul
Torque Titan
^^this indeed is something that surprise me.
I think Benz did a big work on researching about men/machine relationship.
From what i know, they were among the first with a system like Comand I, reuniting all the audio/video/GPS/electronics in one unit.
They used a knob, like Vabboud said, but placed near the screen and not really a major component like the iDrive.
They worked on the iDrive, but I think the level of technology then did not allow them to have a system user-friendly enough, clear and perfectionned like nowadays. For instance i think the force feedback did not exist, the computer needed would have been to slow, or too big, or not reliable enough... Someone already pointed the lack of such a technology in 1995.
And they maybe thought people were not ready for such a system.
And for me, the iDrive of the pre-FL 7er clearly was not ready. It was a Beta-version... MB could not have done it, not with all the troubles with the E-Class and ML I!!
I think the right technology only came in the 1998/1999, and testing began on the same time for BMW and Benz, with similar ideas (maybe because the same supplier). However, BMW decided to put it on the 7er, whereas MB did not.
-> Such a tech should begin with an S-Class; never have a sub-model with more tech than an S-Class at MB!!
->So either 1998 W220 (way too early), either FL W220 (too costly, and too early also because testings not ended), or W221 (no risk here to further deteriorate the reputation of MB because the system is extensively tested and production-ready)
-> like I said, MB could not put on its S-Class a system that could fail, make troubles; they want to regain the reputation of the most reliable cars on earth! better have a tech a bit later than have another SBC. Whereas BMW 1) never pretended to be super-reliable, so less problematic, and 2) did not have such a difficult situation, so they took the risk.
This is, for me, what explains that. 1) tech not ready, 2) need to put it on an S-Class, 3) need to make it perfectly reliable and user-friendly.
I think Benz did a big work on researching about men/machine relationship.
From what i know, they were among the first with a system like Comand I, reuniting all the audio/video/GPS/electronics in one unit.
They used a knob, like Vabboud said, but placed near the screen and not really a major component like the iDrive.
They worked on the iDrive, but I think the level of technology then did not allow them to have a system user-friendly enough, clear and perfectionned like nowadays. For instance i think the force feedback did not exist, the computer needed would have been to slow, or too big, or not reliable enough... Someone already pointed the lack of such a technology in 1995.
And they maybe thought people were not ready for such a system.
And for me, the iDrive of the pre-FL 7er clearly was not ready. It was a Beta-version...
MB could not have done it, not with all the troubles with the E-Class and ML I!!I think the right technology only came in the 1998/1999, and testing began on the same time for BMW and Benz, with similar ideas (maybe because the same supplier). However, BMW decided to put it on the 7er, whereas MB did not.
-> Such a tech should begin with an S-Class; never have a sub-model with more tech than an S-Class at MB!!
->So either 1998 W220 (way too early), either FL W220 (too costly, and too early also because testings not ended), or W221 (no risk here to further deteriorate the reputation of MB because the system is extensively tested and production-ready)
-> like I said, MB could not put on its S-Class a system that could fail, make troubles; they want to regain the reputation of the most reliable cars on earth! better have a tech a bit later than have another SBC. Whereas BMW 1) never pretended to be super-reliable, so less problematic, and 2) did not have such a difficult situation, so they took the risk.
This is, for me, what explains that. 1) tech not ready, 2) need to put it on an S-Class, 3) need to make it perfectly reliable and user-friendly.
PanterroR
Lap Time Luminary
Tyc, I'm sorry for the fanboy thing. Didn't meant it seriously at all.
It's all good.
bmer
Tire Trailblazer
Don't know about that. Audi's MMI seems to be favored by more or less all the car mags (at least the ones I've read) who have compared the iDrive, COMAND and MMI.
Centurion
Apex Apex Predator
Don't know about that. Audi's MMI seems to be favored by more or less all the car mags (at least the ones I've read) who have compared the iDrive, COMAND and MMI.
MMI have received very positive reviews, but I have yet to hear anything negative about COMAND.
bmer
Tire Trailblazer
I think both iDrive and COMAND have been criticized too heavily. I've had no trouble with either one of them. I don't know if they are that complicated even for older people. Makes you wonder if these journalists wrote their reviews with a typewriter.
Car & Driver said:
The Detroit News said:
EnI
Piston Pioneer
The issues with iDrive are not really of such proportions as the press is trying to show it.
Researches show most BMW owners are satisfied with iDrive. They are only bothered by sporadic glitches (firmware / software problems).
The "problem" iDrive is acused to have is an outdated graphics (GUI) and some not-so-much intuitive user interface (since in different menus / levels / controls you have to perform different moves - eg. sometimes move the knob, sometimes rotate it, etc.). And this is being addressed in the new iDrive: better graphics, better menus, simplified / unified controller operations. And more shortcuts - yet was already addressed in some latest models.
Yes, eg. MMI or Command III have much better GUI, or more intuitive UI, or more buttons, or etc. But that doesn't make iDrive bad - just Command & MMI are better executed in GUI departments.
Also regarding MMI & iDrive: iDrive controls much more operations than MMI (case: A8 vs 7er) and therefore iDrive is more complicated & has longer learning curve. And that's the problem with journalists & test drives: they just have the car for too short period. Most BMW drivers master the system in a few days.
Yet ... the system is far from being perfect. Many things can be improved ... and are being addressed in the new iDrive (coming in F01 7er).
Final point: iDrive is definitely not perfect, but absolutely not as bad as press is saying it is.
It's like saying SE UI is stupid, bad & counterintuitive when you are a Nokia UI fan. While some just hate Nokia UI, and love SE solutions.
PS: regarding older people: they just love the central screen & less buttons - since there were usually way too many buttons to remember what they are for, and the icons / descriptions were written in way to small fonts - and thus to difficult to read by the older people. Central screen with big-enough fonts, bright illumination, and central controller with standard functions. Also more suitable than leaning forward every time to press tiny buttons, or click touch-screen icons. Older people like central knob since with moving / rotating it you illuminate the selected function before confirming it - and it can be clearly seen. Which is eg. not the case with touch screen.
Researches show most BMW owners are satisfied with iDrive. They are only bothered by sporadic glitches (firmware / software problems).
The "problem" iDrive is acused to have is an outdated graphics (GUI) and some not-so-much intuitive user interface (since in different menus / levels / controls you have to perform different moves - eg. sometimes move the knob, sometimes rotate it, etc.). And this is being addressed in the new iDrive: better graphics, better menus, simplified / unified controller operations. And more shortcuts - yet was already addressed in some latest models.
Yes, eg. MMI or Command III have much better GUI, or more intuitive UI, or more buttons, or etc. But that doesn't make iDrive bad - just Command & MMI are better executed in GUI departments.
Also regarding MMI & iDrive: iDrive controls much more operations than MMI (case: A8 vs 7er) and therefore iDrive is more complicated & has longer learning curve. And that's the problem with journalists & test drives: they just have the car for too short period. Most BMW drivers master the system in a few days.
Yet ... the system is far from being perfect. Many things can be improved ... and are being addressed in the new iDrive (coming in F01 7er).
Final point: iDrive is definitely not perfect, but absolutely not as bad as press is saying it is.
It's like saying SE UI is stupid, bad & counterintuitive when you are a Nokia UI fan. While some just hate Nokia UI, and love SE solutions.
PS: regarding older people: they just love the central screen & less buttons - since there were usually way too many buttons to remember what they are for, and the icons / descriptions were written in way to small fonts - and thus to difficult to read by the older people. Central screen with big-enough fonts, bright illumination, and central controller with standard functions. Also more suitable than leaning forward every time to press tiny buttons, or click touch-screen icons. Older people like central knob since with moving / rotating it you illuminate the selected function before confirming it - and it can be clearly seen. Which is eg. not the case with touch screen.
coolraoul
Torque Titan
I would say that they both developped it quite in the same time, but that MB took more time to make it as perfect as possible, whereas BMW released it a bit too soon to allow the e65 to have it.
Concerning the MMI and Comand, I heard some preferring the Comand and others prefering the MMI. They seem to be quite similar, and as just as good. The iDrive however, especially before the Escape button, was heavily criticized.
That said, I testdrove a pre-FL e65 and found the iDrive not that bad, I quite liked it actually, even if sometimes tricky.
The force feedback technology had already been around. Particularly in flight and driving simulators. This technology was brought to the consumer level mass market (game controllers and joysticks) as early as '97.
But the problem with iDrive was not necessarily the hardware detail of the mouse-like controller (although that could have been improved), but rather the software and intuitiveness of the menus. From what I know, MB did not have trouble in this area the way BMW had, so what was left was to connect the hardware interface with appropriate software revisions. It didn't have to be as complicated as iDrive in order to be successful. MB clearly have the technical know-how to implement this in less than 5 years, so why it took 10 leads me to believe they were waiting to see the market reaction to iDrive. That the 7er still sold despite this, and then Audi employing MMI, made their decision easier, IMO.
I too have seen MMI rated higher than both. Car & Driver and Automobile Magazine have noted that MMI is easier to use and/or less intrusive.
edmunds said of COMAND in the new S-Class:
"Learning to navigate all the systems is a little like getting lost in a house of mirrors. You find what looks like a way out and keep running into yourself coming the other way."
Better than iDrive, yes, but not yet perfect. Again, this is the point of view of a road tester. An owner will be able to use all of these systems intuitively after some time.
Similar threads
Trending content
-
Thread 'Easy, Lazy, "Creativity Stifling" AI Prompt Generated Automotive Design'
- Design FIRST
Replies: 142 -
-
-
-
