> a portion of that group would be the rear camera, which I believe is now mandated by law, but... the rest of it could be left dumb and I think most people (I know) would be as happy, if not happier.
I rented a uhaul last year and it was mostly analog, with not a screen anywhere on the dash. The backup camera was ingeniously placed under the glass of the rear-view mirror. Most of the gauges were "digital-lite" (lots of lcd/led segmented displays). I'd say if there was a car version with the same interior I would have been quite happy to drive it.
I'd say people who object to high-tech-ifying the car aren't against high-tech as much as against bad tech and poor implementation.
For example a screen in the car doesn't have to be bad tech. But if the screen is where all the controls of the car are located then it probably is. Internet connectivity doesn't have to be bad tech. But if it allows access to the most critical parts of the car it probably is.
Then there are things that aren't bad until you realize they're probably abused by the manufacturer. Your internet connectivity meant to allow you to locate your car in the parking lot is great and might be harmless until the manufacturer starts selling that data to pad the profits.
Sometimes all the high tech in the car might be super useful, super secure, super private, and still be bad because in a few years it makes the car prohibitively expensive or outright impossible to maintain and repair.
I rented a uhaul last year and it was mostly analog, with not a screen anywhere on the dash. The backup camera was ingeniously placed under the glass of the rear-view mirror. Most of the gauges were "digital-lite" (lots of lcd/led segmented displays). I'd say if there was a car version with the same interior I would have been quite happy to drive it.