Tesla fans have taken issue with the word “recall” in the past when the company has proven adept at fixing its problems through over-the-air software updates. But they likely will have to admit that, in this case, the terminology applies.
Even if Tesla sucks super hard, I agree with these complaints. I immediately checked to see if this was a “real” recall or a software one. Since they all need some physical work on them it definitely applies, but I really wish they used a different term for software update “recalls”. It’s confusing word choice.
Software updates should absolutely be recalls. Ship a complete vehicle or don’t. I absolutely do not want cars to turn in what games are today. I do not want hotfixes on my car because they didn’t test. Fuck an OTA update too, I don’t want that either, if they need an update it’s a recall and the cars have to go back to the shop. I want it to hurt and appropriately damage the company’s reputation.
I dont disagree with anything you said, I just think there should be a different, but equally severe term for clarity. It’s not hurting Tesla so much as devaluing the word “recall”. Make it hurt, Tesla is reckless with the way they ship unfinished products, but as I said before, I wasn’t even sure what “recall” meant in this sense.
I’m saying upgrade what it’s considered to recall. No OTA hot fix, car goes back to the shop. A proper recall just like any other recall. A software issue is just as dangerous as a hardware issue for something like an accelerator pedal. To be clear, this isn’t Tesla hate, this is modern “sell unfinished products” hate. I’d say the same thing for any other manufacturer.
If the blinker pattern needs to be updated, that’s fine for OTA in my opinion, and shouldn’t be a recall. Problems with the accelerator, brakes, steering, anything safety critical - nah. Recall for that, proper recall.
Recalls still require the customer to take action. They’re much less likely to go into the shop to have it fixed than press a button on their phone and have the car fix itself overnight.
Your suggestion for not allowing safety software fixes OTA is dangerous.
Other way around. Unsupervised OTA updates are dangerous.
First: A car is a piece of safety-critical equipment. It has a skilled operator who has familiarized themselves with its operation. Any change to its operation, without the operator being aware that a change was made, puts the operator and other people at risk. If the operator takes the car into the shop for a documented recall, they know that something is being changed. An unsupervised OTA update can (and will) alter the behavior of safety-critical equipment without the operator’s knowledge.
Second: Any facility for OTA updates is an attack vector. If a car can receive OTA updates from the manufacturer, then it can receive harmful OTA updates from an attacker who has compromised the car’s update mechanism or the manufacturer. Because the car is safety-critical equipment — unlike your phone, it can kill people — it is unreasonable to expose it to these attacks.
Driving is literally the most deadly thing that most people do every day. It is unreasonable to make driving even more dangerous by allowing car manufacturers — or attackers — to change the behavior of cars without the operator being fully aware that a change is being made.
This is not a matter of “it’s my property, you need my consent” that can be whitewashed with a contract provision. This is a matter of life safety.
Wow man, I never thought about your 2nd point before. Every car like this is a kinetic weapon waiting to be activated. And I was worried about the “self driving” mode…
You do realize your entire first point is invalidated by the comment you’re replying to? I just said the customer has to press a button on their phone to initiate the update. On that same phone they can view release notes that clearly outline the recall. Additional on first use, the car will display those same release notes on the screen.
Sure, safety vs convenience is a huge factor in software development. The biggest factor to safety is unpatched software. You know, the kind that requires significant effort to update, such as needing to bring your car into the shop to apply.
Overall your doom and gloom argument against OTA safety updates is pretty weak.
As someone who might be plowed into by one of these things, I care about the difference. Is it something where 80% of them will be automatically fixed within 72 hours by an auto-update, or is it something I’ll need to worry about for weeks/months. There’s no way to know which recalls have been fixed when encountering a vehicle in the wild, so if it’s a software-only recall fix that applies automatically, I feel less concerned about it once the fix is available.
None of this should be taken as support of recklessly shipping unfinished software into a car.
or is it something I’ll need to worry about for weeks/months
Try years. For example the 2020 Takata airbag recall… wouldn’t be surprised if there’s still a hundred million cars around the world that haven’t been recalled. If you don’t live in a first world country, it wasn’t even possible to get parts for the fix until recently.
Even if the fix was smaller, there aren’t enough mechanics in the world to check/update/test a significant percentage of cars quickly, and manufacturers share components so that can easily happen.
And the biggest time sink for a recall is often not the repair, it’s all the time spent with humans scheduling/testing/documenting the recall. Only way to speed that up is with automation/OTA updates.
Yeah no - you’re dead wrong about that. My oldish car has an annoying glitch where it occasionally goes into limp home mode. The workaround makes it pretty clear this could be fixed with a software change (or even just a non-vague error code would be nice…) - but my car can’t do OTA updates and also it’s old enough it doesn’t really have software so a recall would be hideously expensive.
It’s not a safety problem, so wouldn’t rigger a recall. When it’s under warranty, they fix it… but sometimes it takes several attempts with multiple thousand dollar parts replaced on suspicion before finally finding the one that caused it, when it fails out of warranty… either live with the issue or sell the car for spare parts.
if an OTA update was possible they would absolutely do that. The ones that fail under warranty must be costing them a fortune.
But the real issue is recalls are expensive, and ultimately the car buyer pays for them. Car manufacturers are not charities, they will either raise prices to cover the cost of a recall or they will go bankrupt to avoid doing a recall. There is no other option on the table.
Our cars are computers and we are beta testers. They spy on you, need updates and features are behind paywalls. Heated seats anyone? that’ll be $9.99 a month… That’s under 10 bucks!
What’s confusing about it? A recall in the automotive world has a very specific definition, and it covers not only software related issues but hardware related ones as well.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is a part of the US Department of Transportation, and they publish a 20 page pamphlet that describes what a recall is. Here are the relevant parts from that brochure:
The United States Code for Motor Vehicle Safety (Title 49, Chapter 301) defines motor vehicle safety as “the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in a way that protects the public against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle, and against unreasonable risk of death or injury in an accident, and includes nonoperational safety of a motor vehicle.” A defect includes “any defect in performance, construction, a component, or material of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment.”
Generally, a safety defect is defined as a problem that exists in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that:
poses a risk to motor vehicle safety, and
may exist in a group of vehicles of the same design or manufacture, or items of equipment of the same type and manufacture.
Furthermore:
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act gives NHTSA the authority to issue vehicle safety standards and to require manufacturers to recall vehicles that have safety-related defects or do not meet Federal safety standards.
In other words, federal law gives NHTSA the authority to issue recalls for any defect that is considered a safety defect. There is no qualifier for it having to be mechanical in nature.
I’ve had software-related recalls issued for both a Toyota and a Honda that I used to own. The Toyota one resulted in them sending me a USB stick in the mail and telling me how to install it in the car (basically plug it into the entertainment system and wait). The Honda one required a trip to a dealer to update the software in the ECU to prevent the cars battery from dying due to the alternator being disabled improperly. Just because these were software related in no way means they weren’t recalls. They were both mandated by NHSTA, both resulted in official recall notices, etc.
Edit: Just for fun you might want to go to https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls and do a search there. If you enter “Tesla” in the field for “VIN or Year Make Model” you can browse all their recalls. The very first one on this page is titled “Incorrect Font Size on Warning Lights”. That’s most definitely a software recall. It’s assigned NHSTA recall #24V051000, and they list the affected components as “ELECTRICAL SYSTEM”. If you read further it also shows the remedy was an over-the-air software update.
Just because the government defined it that way 60 years ago when software updates weren’t even a thing doesn’t mean it makes sense to call a user-applicable fix a recall. It’s literally in the name. Is it being re-called back to the manufacturer or not
It’s seems like you’re saying “we should change the legal term of art ‘payment intangible’ because it’s something that is general intangible under which the account debtor’s principal obligation is a monetary obligation.”
But that’s already what “payment intangible” means.
By your logic, the software bug in my Honda’s ECU would be called a recall because it required me going to a dealership and having them perform the software update. An owner can’t simply download and install ECU updates themselves in the vast majority of cases.
But then by your same logic the software update that Toyota mailed to me on a USB stick for my Prius shouldn’t be called a recall because I was able to plug the USB stick into the car myself. The only reason Toyota mailed that USB stick to me and thousands of other Prius owners is because they were legally required to fix a software bug identified by NHTSA in a recall notice. Toyota decided the USB approach was better than having all of us drive to dealers to have them apply it.
And the various over-the-air software updates that Tesla, Rivian, and others shouldn’t be called recalls either by your same logic.
Why cause confusion over calling software updates different things based solely on who installs it and/or how it’s installed? In all these cases NHTSA received reports about a safety issue, opened a formal investigation, and ultimately issued a legally binding directive to the manufacturer that required them, by law, to address it. That legally binding directive is a recall notice, and it can apply to software that you have to visit a dealer to install, or to software the owner can install, or to software the manufacturer can install automatically.
That entire process is what makes something a recall. Not how it’s addressed in the end.
Why cause confusion over calling software updates different things based solely on who installs it and/or how it’s installed?
Because they’re different things? For the user it doesn’t matter if they’re both same legally, in one case they need to bring their car somewhere, in the other one they don’t. If anything it’s confusing to call them both a recall.
The only thing that is different in this entire process is how the remedy is applied.
And that’s the thing that matters to the person who owns the car. Currently when a user sees that word they don’t know what they need to do to fix it. You can have some other name encompassing both (like ‘critical fix’), but if you keep recall for when that fix isn’t user applicable, (and furthermore have specific names for the fixes themselves if they’re user applicable) people would immediately understand
Lots of people here are disagreeing with me but I’m yet to see an argument about why that shouldn’t be the case other than that it currently isn’t. But even that’s an argument for why changing the term would be difficult, not for why calling every fix ‘recall’ makes sense.
“user-applicable fix” is hardly correct, they are installing a fix provided by the company that has the recall. The company just so happens to provide an over the air download to patch the issue instead of having owners go to a dealer.
Where is the car being recalled to? I get that that’s the word that stuck for ‘critical fix’ or whatever but if you don’t need to bring it back that’s not a recall. Call it something else.
they are installing a fix provided by the company
So the user is applying the fix? What else do you expect that to mean?
It could easily be written in a longer statement such as “recalled for service” which is still 💯 accurate but the service is being done remotely instead of at a shop.
There are just so many other things to give a shit about in even the realm of “words meaning what they mean” that it seems like a very random, stupid thing to get hot and bothered about.
You’re probably one of those guys who has Twitter threads where you’re quoting Webster as an argument aren’t you?
If it’s being done remotely it is not recalled, that’s my entire point.
Most of my bother comes from how people are reacting with kneejerk appeals to the status quo instead of actually responding to what I (and others) wrote, think of me what you will
This is a bad take. Software updates that fix life threatening defects are as serious as any recall.
It’s motivated reasoning. Either the people making this argument are Tesla owners, simps, or shareholders and are trying to protect the phantasmagorical value of the company.
Saying “my car’s drive-by-wire software gets more firmware updates than my printer” is not a flex.
Yeah, it’s an extremely popular sentiment on the internet to scoff at software update related recalls as if they “don’t count.” 9 times out of 10 the person making the claim is a Muskrat, because this is a very common thing with Teslas and daddy Elon must be defended at all costs but every now and then they’re just a run of the mill moron unwittingly parroting Muskrat talking points.
A recall is a recall whether the issue can be patched OTA or whether you have to drive to a dealership so they can spend 30mins swapping a random seemingly inconsequential part. The specific mechanics of the solution do not change the fact that a problem required a recall to be issued to consumers. Perpetuating the notion that these recalls should be considered “less important than a real recall” is dangerous to the point of stupidity.
Just had to do a Chrysler recalls that is a software update and it is a safety issue. The Traction, ABS and stability control would disable itself randomly on the Pacifica. Another one from Chrysler is the defog would not work on the Grand cherokee Hybrids. All of those are software, but also safety issues. Tesla had one where the self driving would kill people.
All of those are software, but also safety issues. Tesla had one where the self driving would kill people.
Did you have to take time off and schedule a visit to your Chrysler to a dealership to have the Chrysler software recall or is it like Tesla software recall where its mostly automatic and you set it to happen in your garage when you’re asleep?
Even if Tesla sucks super hard, I agree with these complaints. I immediately checked to see if this was a “real” recall or a software one. Since they all need some physical work on them it definitely applies, but I really wish they used a different term for software update “recalls”. It’s confusing word choice.
Software updates should absolutely be recalls. Ship a complete vehicle or don’t. I absolutely do not want cars to turn in what games are today. I do not want hotfixes on my car because they didn’t test. Fuck an OTA update too, I don’t want that either, if they need an update it’s a recall and the cars have to go back to the shop. I want it to hurt and appropriately damage the company’s reputation.
I dont disagree with anything you said, I just think there should be a different, but equally severe term for clarity. It’s not hurting Tesla so much as devaluing the word “recall”. Make it hurt, Tesla is reckless with the way they ship unfinished products, but as I said before, I wasn’t even sure what “recall” meant in this sense.
I’m saying upgrade what it’s considered to recall. No OTA hot fix, car goes back to the shop. A proper recall just like any other recall. A software issue is just as dangerous as a hardware issue for something like an accelerator pedal. To be clear, this isn’t Tesla hate, this is modern “sell unfinished products” hate. I’d say the same thing for any other manufacturer.
If the blinker pattern needs to be updated, that’s fine for OTA in my opinion, and shouldn’t be a recall. Problems with the accelerator, brakes, steering, anything safety critical - nah. Recall for that, proper recall.
Recalls still require the customer to take action. They’re much less likely to go into the shop to have it fixed than press a button on their phone and have the car fix itself overnight.
Your suggestion for not allowing safety software fixes OTA is dangerous.
Other way around. Unsupervised OTA updates are dangerous.
First: A car is a piece of safety-critical equipment. It has a skilled operator who has familiarized themselves with its operation. Any change to its operation, without the operator being aware that a change was made, puts the operator and other people at risk. If the operator takes the car into the shop for a documented recall, they know that something is being changed. An unsupervised OTA update can (and will) alter the behavior of safety-critical equipment without the operator’s knowledge.
Second: Any facility for OTA updates is an attack vector. If a car can receive OTA updates from the manufacturer, then it can receive harmful OTA updates from an attacker who has compromised the car’s update mechanism or the manufacturer. Because the car is safety-critical equipment — unlike your phone, it can kill people — it is unreasonable to expose it to these attacks.
Driving is literally the most deadly thing that most people do every day. It is unreasonable to make driving even more dangerous by allowing car manufacturers — or attackers — to change the behavior of cars without the operator being fully aware that a change is being made.
This is not a matter of “it’s my property, you need my consent” that can be whitewashed with a contract provision. This is a matter of life safety.
Um, what city do you live in? Can I live there please? Not many skilled drivers around here.
Wow man, I never thought about your 2nd point before. Every car like this is a kinetic weapon waiting to be activated. And I was worried about the “self driving” mode…
You do realize your entire first point is invalidated by the comment you’re replying to? I just said the customer has to press a button on their phone to initiate the update. On that same phone they can view release notes that clearly outline the recall. Additional on first use, the car will display those same release notes on the screen.
Sure, safety vs convenience is a huge factor in software development. The biggest factor to safety is unpatched software. You know, the kind that requires significant effort to update, such as needing to bring your car into the shop to apply.
Overall your doom and gloom argument against OTA safety updates is pretty weak.
Oh good, hackers can’t bypass button presses. I was worried for a bit, appreciate you helping us out.
Mr hackerman couldn’t get to the car because it crashed first due to a software bug the customer did not have time to take his car to the shop to fix.
The real world is quite different than the idealistic one.
Fair enough.
What should the term be?
As someone who might be plowed into by one of these things, I care about the difference. Is it something where 80% of them will be automatically fixed within 72 hours by an auto-update, or is it something I’ll need to worry about for weeks/months. There’s no way to know which recalls have been fixed when encountering a vehicle in the wild, so if it’s a software-only recall fix that applies automatically, I feel less concerned about it once the fix is available.
None of this should be taken as support of recklessly shipping unfinished software into a car.
Try years. For example the 2020 Takata airbag recall… wouldn’t be surprised if there’s still a hundred million cars around the world that haven’t been recalled. If you don’t live in a first world country, it wasn’t even possible to get parts for the fix until recently.
Even if the fix was smaller, there aren’t enough mechanics in the world to check/update/test a significant percentage of cars quickly, and manufacturers share components so that can easily happen.
And the biggest time sink for a recall is often not the repair, it’s all the time spent with humans scheduling/testing/documenting the recall. Only way to speed that up is with automation/OTA updates.
Yeah no - you’re dead wrong about that. My oldish car has an annoying glitch where it occasionally goes into limp home mode. The workaround makes it pretty clear this could be fixed with a software change (or even just a non-vague error code would be nice…) - but my car can’t do OTA updates and also it’s old enough it doesn’t really have software so a recall would be hideously expensive.
It’s not a safety problem, so wouldn’t rigger a recall. When it’s under warranty, they fix it… but sometimes it takes several attempts with multiple thousand dollar parts replaced on suspicion before finally finding the one that caused it, when it fails out of warranty… either live with the issue or sell the car for spare parts.
if an OTA update was possible they would absolutely do that. The ones that fail under warranty must be costing them a fortune.
But the real issue is recalls are expensive, and ultimately the car buyer pays for them. Car manufacturers are not charities, they will either raise prices to cover the cost of a recall or they will go bankrupt to avoid doing a recall. There is no other option on the table.
You can’t get an update at a dealership if it’s something that critical?
Our cars are computers and we are beta testers. They spy on you, need updates and features are behind paywalls. Heated seats anyone? that’ll be $9.99 a month… That’s under 10 bucks!
What’s confusing about it? A recall in the automotive world has a very specific definition, and it covers not only software related issues but hardware related ones as well.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is a part of the US Department of Transportation, and they publish a 20 page pamphlet that describes what a recall is. Here are the relevant parts from that brochure:
Furthermore:
In other words, federal law gives NHTSA the authority to issue recalls for any defect that is considered a safety defect. There is no qualifier for it having to be mechanical in nature.
I’ve had software-related recalls issued for both a Toyota and a Honda that I used to own. The Toyota one resulted in them sending me a USB stick in the mail and telling me how to install it in the car (basically plug it into the entertainment system and wait). The Honda one required a trip to a dealer to update the software in the ECU to prevent the cars battery from dying due to the alternator being disabled improperly. Just because these were software related in no way means they weren’t recalls. They were both mandated by NHSTA, both resulted in official recall notices, etc.
Edit: Just for fun you might want to go to https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls and do a search there. If you enter “Tesla” in the field for “VIN or Year Make Model” you can browse all their recalls. The very first one on this page is titled “Incorrect Font Size on Warning Lights”. That’s most definitely a software recall. It’s assigned NHSTA recall #24V051000, and they list the affected components as “ELECTRICAL SYSTEM”. If you read further it also shows the remedy was an over-the-air software update.
Just because the government defined it that way 60 years ago when software updates weren’t even a thing doesn’t mean it makes sense to call a user-applicable fix a recall. It’s literally in the name. Is it being re-called back to the manufacturer or not
It’s a legal term of art. Even over the air updates are literally recalls. It doesn’t need a new term.
Yes, and as I said it is inaccurate. Legalese can be updated to better match the meaning of the word. Why is that such an unacceptable concept?
Edit: I’m really worked up about this. Seriously, why is changing the term that unimaginable to you people?
It’s seems like you’re saying “we should change the legal term of art ‘payment intangible’ because it’s something that is general intangible under which the account debtor’s principal obligation is a monetary obligation.”
But that’s already what “payment intangible” means.
Wtf are talking about?
I’m talking about this specific word that means bringing the thing back from where it went in every context but cars.
By your logic, the software bug in my Honda’s ECU would be called a recall because it required me going to a dealership and having them perform the software update. An owner can’t simply download and install ECU updates themselves in the vast majority of cases.
But then by your same logic the software update that Toyota mailed to me on a USB stick for my Prius shouldn’t be called a recall because I was able to plug the USB stick into the car myself. The only reason Toyota mailed that USB stick to me and thousands of other Prius owners is because they were legally required to fix a software bug identified by NHTSA in a recall notice. Toyota decided the USB approach was better than having all of us drive to dealers to have them apply it.
And the various over-the-air software updates that Tesla, Rivian, and others shouldn’t be called recalls either by your same logic.
Why cause confusion over calling software updates different things based solely on who installs it and/or how it’s installed? In all these cases NHTSA received reports about a safety issue, opened a formal investigation, and ultimately issued a legally binding directive to the manufacturer that required them, by law, to address it. That legally binding directive is a recall notice, and it can apply to software that you have to visit a dealer to install, or to software the owner can install, or to software the manufacturer can install automatically.
That entire process is what makes something a recall. Not how it’s addressed in the end.
Because they’re different things? For the user it doesn’t matter if they’re both same legally, in one case they need to bring their car somewhere, in the other one they don’t. If anything it’s confusing to call them both a recall.
But they are NOT different things. In every one of these examples:
The only thing that is different in this entire process is how the remedy is applied. Every single step other than that is identical.
And that’s the thing that matters to the person who owns the car. Currently when a user sees that word they don’t know what they need to do to fix it. You can have some other name encompassing both (like ‘critical fix’), but if you keep recall for when that fix isn’t user applicable, (and furthermore have specific names for the fixes themselves if they’re user applicable) people would immediately understand
Lots of people here are disagreeing with me but I’m yet to see an argument about why that shouldn’t be the case other than that it currently isn’t. But even that’s an argument for why changing the term would be difficult, not for why calling every fix ‘recall’ makes sense.
“user-applicable fix” is hardly correct, they are installing a fix provided by the company that has the recall. The company just so happens to provide an over the air download to patch the issue instead of having owners go to a dealer.
Where is the car being recalled to? I get that that’s the word that stuck for ‘critical fix’ or whatever but if you don’t need to bring it back that’s not a recall. Call it something else.
So the user is applying the fix? What else do you expect that to mean?
Why do you give such a shit about this word?
I’m sorry for wanting things to mean what they mean
It could easily be written in a longer statement such as “recalled for service” which is still 💯 accurate but the service is being done remotely instead of at a shop.
There are just so many other things to give a shit about in even the realm of “words meaning what they mean” that it seems like a very random, stupid thing to get hot and bothered about.
You’re probably one of those guys who has Twitter threads where you’re quoting Webster as an argument aren’t you?
If it’s being done remotely it is not recalled, that’s my entire point.
Most of my bother comes from how people are reacting with kneejerk appeals to the status quo instead of actually responding to what I (and others) wrote, think of me what you will
This is a bad take. Software updates that fix life threatening defects are as serious as any recall.
It’s motivated reasoning. Either the people making this argument are Tesla owners, simps, or shareholders and are trying to protect the phantasmagorical value of the company.
Saying “my car’s drive-by-wire software gets more firmware updates than my printer” is not a flex.
Yeah, it’s an extremely popular sentiment on the internet to scoff at software update related recalls as if they “don’t count.” 9 times out of 10 the person making the claim is a Muskrat, because this is a very common thing with Teslas and daddy Elon must be defended at all costs but every now and then they’re just a run of the mill moron unwittingly parroting Muskrat talking points.
A recall is a recall whether the issue can be patched OTA or whether you have to drive to a dealership so they can spend 30mins swapping a random seemingly inconsequential part. The specific mechanics of the solution do not change the fact that a problem required a recall to be issued to consumers. Perpetuating the notion that these recalls should be considered “less important than a real recall” is dangerous to the point of stupidity.
Right, because the recall for the icons on the screen needing to be a tad bigger is as serious as uncontrolled acceleration of a giant hunk of metal.
They need a new name for software update recalls and physical recalls. They both need to be serious, but a distinction is needed.
Just had to do a Chrysler recalls that is a software update and it is a safety issue. The Traction, ABS and stability control would disable itself randomly on the Pacifica. Another one from Chrysler is the defog would not work on the Grand cherokee Hybrids. All of those are software, but also safety issues. Tesla had one where the self driving would kill people.
Tesla had one where the self driving would kill people *if the driver wasn’t paying attention
They nerfed the car because people were abusing the system. Fuck Tesla, but that whole ordeal was stupid as hell.
Did you have to take time off and schedule a visit to your Chrysler to a dealership to have the Chrysler software recall or is it like Tesla software recall where its mostly automatic and you set it to happen in your garage when you’re asleep?