I think morphing screens are impractical. But that doesn't mean we have to give up on tactile affordances altogether. I think there's a real missed opportunity for Tesla, with their floating touchscreen. The natural way to adjust the temperature and other controls in the bottom bar is to put your fingers behind the screen to hold your hand steady and use your thumb to press the buttons. The back of the screen is currently a featureless flat surface, but it could easily have tactile features for your fingers to find. If you could feel where your fingers are relative to the screen then you could hit the bottom bar controls without looking. And it wouldn't ruin the minimalist aesthetic because it's all hidden from view behind the screen.

There were other groups that were looking at how piezoelectrics in a surface could create vibrational patterns that the finger interprets as texture. Apple even through some money at this avenue at one point but I haven't heard anything in ages.

Part of the problem of textured screens is that you have to be able to touch the interface without activating anything. That's newer enough tech that the prices are probably just now coming down.

Apple had that 3d touch screen that got depreciated. Perhaps people never got used to it.

Well, I'm glad it costs less now - how much would I spend to pick up a used model?

When you shoot for clever, sometimes you end up hitting confusing. :)

Why is it overkill for phones? I spend way more time looking at my phone than I ever look at my car's AC controls. Ofc, my car's AC controls are physical buttons and I've had the car a while, so I don't need to look at them, but I think my point remains.

Wouldn't it be more sensible to use on the device that you look at less, as a percentage of usage time?

Knowning little about the specs required for automotive grade it could be that the tech couldn't handle the vibration, temp extremes/changes and other hardships that car parts encounter. Just a theory.