[zaroth]

You can argue semantics, but it’s not an implementation detail that doesn’t matter, it’s fundamentally misrepresenting the truth.

A “recall” that does actually involve bringing the car in for service, a.k.a. recalling the car, is not accurately described as a “recall”. Words mean something.

The NHTSA is being idiotic (unsurprisingly) in not distinguishing between a software update and a recall, because legacy auto doesn’t have the software chops to successfully replicate Tesla’s approach.

News agencies that lean into that idiocy in a slanted attempt to denigrate Tesla are only denigrating themselves. It is not good coverage, and it is willfully misleading their own readers.

Call it a mandatory update if you want. But nothing was recalled, so insisting on calling it a recall is like insisting on calling cars “horseless carriages”.

[danpalmer]

I'm not arguing semantics, I'm arguing that the law is (as far as my understanding goes), that a recall is not about where the car goes to get fixed, it's about the process of issuing it, defining the set of cars affected, etc. Because it's a legal or regulated term in that way it's not misrepresenting the truth, the point of regulation is to be very precise about things like this. I'm also not defending this definition, I'm only explaining what I understand it to be – I think the fact it doesn't match what consumers understand is silly.

The NHTSA define a recall as something that manufacturers are required to issue when the NHTSA determines the minimum safety requirements aren't being met, but they only define that the manufacturer must fix it (or replace or something), not that the fix must be a physical change performed at a garage.

Are the press wrong for using the term "recall" when the car wasn't taken into a garage? I don't think so because it's the industry term for this, although I accept that they could perhaps be clearer by saying that the recall was addressed with a software fix.

[jjav]

> Words mean something.

Funny you'd say that while arguing the opposite.

The word "recall" with respect to cars has a legal meaning with specific before and after procedures. It's not any random update.

[Marsymars]

Aren't most recalls software updates now?

e.g. "Toyota is recalling over 42,000 Corolla Cross Hybrid SUVs from the 2023 and 2024 model years to fix a software error that may cause drivers to lose power braking assistance if they brake while turning a corner."

I don't know that it makes sense for the distinction between "recall" and "not a recall" to be whether the software update can happen OTA or not.

[jjulius]

Nah, the whole thing with Musk fanboys getting all up in arms about, "iT's NoT aCkShuAlLy a 'ReCaLl'" thing is dumb and glosses over the overall point.

If a vehicle has a safety issue that needs to be fixed, regardless of hardware or software, it doesn't matter if you call it a recall or not. At the end of the day, it's still a fuckup on the part of the manufacturer that put their customers/drivers at risk, and the manufacturer needed to fix it.

Call it a "recall", call it a "patch", call it "The Sunshine and Rainbows Happy Time Update #12" - at the end of the day, Tesla made an oopsie that they need to resolve, and depending on what it is, could risk the lives of customers. The term you choose to describe it won't change the fact that they're fixing their mistake.