Yes, there is something special about cars. Design mistakes result in death. It's not a race to get the most features out, it's a race to get the most features into proven, quality-assured, heavily-tested products. The software development mindset of "we'll fix it later", or "get the MVP out ASAP" has NO place.
As has been pointed out by others, putting stuff like climate controls or volume controls that commonly need to be accessed while driving on a touch display is dangerous, since you need to look at a touch display to find the thing you're pressing. Anything that the driver might need interact with while moving is essentially a driving feature and deserves a stable interface, and IMO a tactile one. Frequency of updates and rigor of validation are [negatively] correlated in software and elsewhere, though they don't necessarily need to be, if you're willing to spend on a giant QA pipeline.
I'm fine with the idea that navigation data or some nonessential entertainment stuff that mainly exists for passengers can be updated on a rolling basis, it can be OTA, whatever.
Anything else, I stand by what I said. It's silly to put it on a touch display for the sake of potential improvements via software update. A bigger improvement is just not having those things on a touch display, forgoing that ability.
Volume controls on my car are physical and I don't need to look at the touch screen to control temperature - I know exactly where those virtual buttons are.
However, my car has gotten better through over the air updates since I bought it.
I mean, look, I absolutely don't deny you your preference, and as I also said previously I would like to have a few more physical buttons. But it's not the end of the world for me (like some commenters in this thread pretend).
Do you feel that way about other devices as well, or is there something special about cars?