[indigodaddy]

I think that it’s more about using the most appropriate known terminology in order to try to get the most people to do the needful. “recall” sounds more urgent/dire than “software update”, and will likely encourage many more people to take action vs using “software update” or some less familiar terminology. The word “recall” in terms of autos has built up a lot of history/prior art in people’s minds as something to really pay attention to. I have no idea, but perhaps that is why they are going with this known terminology.

[slg]

The whole point of over-the-air updates is that the owner doesn't need to do anything. For example, both Tesla and Toyota have had bugs in their ABS software that required recalls. The owners of the Toyotas had to physically bring their cars in to get the software update which slows down the adoption drastically. The Teslas received the update automatically and asked for the best time to install the update the next time the owner got in the car.

There are really two issues here. The FSD and the OTA updates. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater and blame OTA updates just because Tesla's FSD software is bad. The OTA updates do provide an avenue to make cars much safer by reducing the friction for these type of safety fixes.

[adamjcook]

> The OTA updates do provide an avenue to make cars much safer by reducing the friction for these type of safety fixes.

True, but let us also acknowledge the immense systems safety downsides of OTA updates given the lack of effective automotive regulation in the US (and to varying degrees globally).

OTA updates can also be utilized to hide safety-critical system defects that did exist on a fleet for a time.

Also, the availability of OTA update machinery might cause internal validation processes to be watered down (for cost and time-to-market reasons) because there is an understanding that defects can always be fixed relatively seamlessly after the vehicle has been delivered.

These are serious issues and are entirely flying under the radar.

And this is why US automotive regulators need to start robustly scrutinizing internal processes at automakers, instead of arbitrary endpoints.

The US automotive regulatory system largely revolves around an "Honor Code" with automakers - and that is clearly problematic when dealing with opaque, "software-defined" vehicles that leave no physical evidence of a prior defect that may have caused death or injury in some impacted vehicles before an OTA update was pushed to the fleet.

EDIT: Fixed some minor spelling/word selection errors.

[slg]

This is a totally fair response since I didn't say that directly in my comment, but I 100% agree. OTA updates are a valuable safety tool. They also have a chance to be abused. We can rein them in through regulation without getting rid of them entirely because they do have the potential to save a lot of lives.

[adamjcook]

I agree.

[caf]

It'd probably be just as effective to require that every version of the car software that is made available to the fleet must also be provided to the NHTSA. There's no sweeping shoddy versions under the carpet then.

[buffington]

> The word “recall” in terms of autos has built up a lot of history/prior art in people’s minds as something to really pay attention to

Tesla didn't choose the word "recall." The legal process known as "recall" chose the word. It's not like people at Tesla debated over whether or not to call it a "recall" instead of a "software update."

If Tesla had it their way, they'd have quietly slipped it into any other regular software update alongside updates to the stupid farting app, if they cared to fix it at all.

When a company issues a recall, it's because there's pressure from regulators, or investors, or both, and/or a risk of class action lawsuits and fines. Using the word "recall" isn't a preference or even a synonym. It's a legal move meant to protect them.

If Tesla gets sued over a flaw, "we issued a software update" isn't legally defensible. "We cooperated with official government bodies to conduct a recall," does because a recall describes an official process that requires manufacturers do very specific things in specific ways as prescribed by law. In exchange, manufacturers are legally protected (usually) from lawsuits related to that flaw.