Touchscreen systems are expensive than a bank of buttons.

That’s probably up for debate. Buttons break, buttons need backer boards, buttons need complex trim, buttons need lights, buttons need surfaces, buttons wear, etc, etc.

Federal regulations require a backup camera, so you already need the screen. Screens are reliable, static, and easy to install.

my comment was not meant to be absolutist - what I'm looking for is just a very reduced and usable simple car - I don't mind a non-offensive screen if it's required and where it's useful and well made a touch interface might also be useful - but I don't need 99% of the digital things that are packed in a car - I'm not familiar with the building or cost setup of modern EVs but I could imagine that reducting in sensors and cabling might have an effect. Then give me that backup camera, some minimal android auto interface or whatever there is - I can't imagine there isn't a market for that.

The screen has to be there anyway for regulatory reasons.

The touch sensor itself is far cheaper than a bank of buttons.

Also, buttons don't allow for more "engagement" with the user than their function require, meaning less surveillance money.

Also you can't add a McDonalds button on the fly, in an over the air update, unless you use a touchscreen. This is obviously bad for some stakeholder.