Porsche too: up until a few years ago they had a very strict policy of "one physical button / one function". Now lately they stuffed a bit too much gimmicks in their cars so they couldn't put everything behind buttons and they picked some kind of a happy middle ground: they've got a panel which physically moves and gives a great feedback (I think they're using quality microswitches underneathh the panel), but the icons showing on the panel can vary. They also have a touchscreen for the gimmicks, but everything important has physical controls.
I rented a car in Germany ones but unfortunately I dont remember if it was a BMW or Mercedes. It had a fancy but horrendous touch nob and I just couldn't figure out how to move the car. Car makers consider everything touch a premium feature. The more touch the better/expensive. But to be fair I'm also extremely turned off by how Tesla "reimagined" the door knob.
As far as I can tell everything that you would have operated with a button in a 90s car is still operated with a button without any need to look at the screens. They've simply added stuff on top of the existing controls.
AC, radio, massaging seats, windows and lights can all be operated without looking at screens. Sure, the navigation requires you to look at the screen (duh?). You don't have to use the navigation.
>I looked at that dial/joystick thingie, and was non-plussed.
You never need to touch this while driving. The UX does not encourage you to do so. Unless you use the built in navigation, you'll only be touching the dial to do things like pair phones and navigate settings menus.
In the real world, once you put a screen anywhere, that's where the entire UX will go.
The temptation to do so it's seemingly irresistible.