[Beemer B773ER]

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.

[coolraoul]

^^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.

[Centurion]

BMW developed iDrive and MB perfected it.

[Tycoon]

Originally Posted by coolraoul

Tyc, I'm sorry for the fanboy thing. Didn't meant it seriously at all.

It's all good.

[bmer]

Originally Posted by Luwalira

BMW developed iDrive and MB perfected it.

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]

Originally Posted by bmer

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]

Originally Posted by Luwalira

MMI have received very positive reviews, but I have yet to hear anything negative about COMAND.

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.

Originally Posted by Car & Driver

We’re not gonna launch into a red-faced rant about the complicated COMAND system. For one thing, we don’t have enough pages. But it does strike us as risky to force the average S-class owner—he is, after all, 61 years old—to corral the cognitive courage necessary to wend his way, via an aluminum mouse, through approximately as many computer programs as are required to launch an ICBM from the USS Alaska.

Originally Posted by The Detroit News

The CL's so-called infotainment hardware includes TeleAid, an emergency communications system similar to OnStar, and COMAND (shorthand for "cockpit management and data"), which is Mercedes' answer to BMW's iDrive. Unfortunately, COMAND is just about as complicated, confusing and user-unfriendly as iDrive. As premium cars get even more laden with high-tech gadgetry, automakers and their suppliers are going to have to do a better job of helping customers navigate through all that complexity.

[EnI]

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.

[coolraoul]

Originally Posted by Luwalira

BMW developed iDrive and MB perfected it.

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.

[Guibo]

Originally Posted by coolraoul

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.

->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)

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.