A recall is a formal process for addressing a safety issue. It doesn't matter whether the safety issue is caused by hardware, software, or literally even a single line of text in an owners manual.
Unlike Tesla, all other manufacturers ask car owners to bring their cars to local dealerships to update firmware or even do any mechanical changes. That's what "recall" is in the auto industry: schedule an appointment; take a day off; drop off a car; come back home (either uber/lyft or dealer provided cab); wait for a call from the dealership; then, pick up your car after everything is fixed according to recall.
Compare the above with Tesla's "over-the-air" software updates for recall. So much better, even if one doesn't like Tesla vehicles or Musk.
That is not true. Other automakers also have OTA updates, even e.g. Chevy trucks [0]. And some safety fixes can be mailed to customers to DIY. I did one on my Honda -- there was a typo in the owners manual on a safety critical statement. Honda mailed me a sticker and told me where to place it.
Every time there is yet another "recall" that turns out to be an automatic software update, I shudder at the idea of putting my life directly in the hands of "move fast and break everything" web culture.
Continuously updating software is a terrible dynamic, especially for things that you want to be tools that just work. It discourages companies from doing QA/reliability engineering in lieu of a culture where could-have-been-foreseen bugs can just be discovered and fixed later. It makes it so that "owners" cannot trust their machines/systems to just keep working predictably, and have to accept whatever third party whims may dictate at a moment's notice. And generally such schemes result in hostile software that works against users - eg surveillance that serves the interests of the manufacturer.
For most software-related recalls, the most hassle I ever had was a service tech telling me that they updated my firmware during an oil change. So, in practice, it really was never that much of a hassle.
That's admittedly not much of an option for Teslas...
You're ignoring the difference in the Tesla update being pushed out to cars immediately, while the other manufacturer's update waited until you happened to bring your car in for servicing. How many miles did you continue to drive a car after it was deemed in some way unsafe enough for a recall?
From what I remember, I don't recall a software update recall being deemed unsafe enough to stop my from using a car. I don't recall any physical recalls being deemed unsafe enough to stop me from using a car. Taking care of small recalls during a quarterly or semi-annual check up was perfectly fine. I think I only ever had one recall that required an immediate appointment to get fixed, and I think that had something to do with wiring.
The media tends to make more of an issue with Tesla recalls than other car companies -- especially for these relatively minor updates. I think the original article here is one of those articles.
Tesla doesn't even push out recall updates immediately to all cars. There's a controlled and orderly distribution. The fact that it's OTA is nice, but it's honestly not that different from a practical point of view. (Again, for software updates).
What I can't stand are Tesla OTA updates that break functionality. A year or so ago, they pushed an update for the auto windshield wipers that made mine operate worse. That was a safety hazard, but they have gotten better (but still not "good"). But every time my Model 3 updates, I'm scared of what's going to get changed. Sometimes the updates are good (I'm happy to have SiriusXM streaming), sometimes frivolous.
The specific example that other user gave clearly did not have OTA updates.
But like EVs in general, the industry wide move to more OTA updates was in large part due to the competition that Tesla presented forcing the rest of the industry to keep up.
It is funny how Tesla fans' and critics' philosophy on which definitions to use depends entirely on the topic being discussed.
For the Tesla fan, the colloquial definition of "recall" is what we should go by because the car doesn't actually have to return anywhere. Meanwhile, when it comes to "autopilot", they want us to use the technical definition of a system that is not entirely autonomous to the point that a pilot isn't needed.
Tesla critics on the other hand will reverse those two, claiming it is the technical definition of "recall" and the colloquial definition of "autopilot" that matter the most.
Except recall has a specific regulatory definition in the US. Whether or not a physical recall is required is completely irrelevant to something being labelled a recall. A recall is simply a defect that has a safety impact and the manufacture is required to notify owners and provide a fix. Problems that can be resolved via OTA updates can still qualify as recalls.
Autopilot has no such formal definition (at least not in the context of cars). Musk/Tesla have continually over-sold what their various iterations of autopilot (Autopilot, FSD, etc) can do AND also fall back to "it's an autopilot just like a boat or plane" which completely ignores that boats or planes aren't typically operated on busy highways by untrained pilots.
Yes, this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
A Tesla fan could also give you an equally logical explanation about how the "regulatory definition" of "recall" is outdated because it is from an era in which all recalls were physical or that the general public's misconceptions about autopilots for boats and planes are not Tesla's fault.
My point was not that either side of these debates is right or wrong. It is that people are transparently starting with a conclusion and working backwards to justify it rather than having any consistent principle underlying their belief on this issue. It is pointless to debate whether definitions are or are not important when the actual issue being debated here is whether Tesla is good or bad.
It is funny that I ended my last comment with the following: "It is pointless to debate whether definitions are or are not important when the actual issue being debated here is whether Tesla is good or bad." and you're seemingly still trying to engage me in a debate on the definitions of these words. Just say you don't like Tesla and move on.
Some, but perhaps not all, car companies tend to be less than friendly with recalls. My Porsche has never had fewer than three recalls and they really turn the screws on owners. My Taycan has faulty brake lines that have been ordered but magically not found when I bring my car in for the recall repair. This has happened three times. The working theory from owners is the brake lines are ending up in Certified Preowned Cars since they can’t sell them without the parts.
Usually by the time the NHTSA has them send a second notice the parts magically appear in stock. The same has been true for the NEMA 14-50 plug recall (Running 40A over 10AWG wire - setting walls on fire, melting outlets, melting plugs) and a few others.
Porsche has been reasonably good about software fixes, presumably since they don’t cost as much money. They are not great at applying them and not much is done OTA.
Until they do a nicer job here we hopefully will see the NHTSA continue to broadcast these recalls and embarrass these companies into action. When you have issues getting things fixed you can complain to the NHTSA and they do follow up.
> the historical context of what a car recall was.
Maybe if you're only familiar with high profile recalls that have been covered in the news. Automakers have issued fixes that are DIY or fixed in the field for basically the entire history of automotive recalls. For example: misprinted owners manuals shipped to vehicle owners.
> This is only because they still haven't bothered to update
I'd argue the opposite. As cars are largely and increasingly controlled by software, these issues have as much if not more effect than a lot of mechanical recalls.
It's honestly a bit forward-thinking that given this software fixes are also classified as recalls.
They update by interpreting new situations with logical extensions of the existing rules.
NHTSA can order a "recall" for a safety defect, would people prefer they say that car makers can't satisfy a "recall" order except by returning the car to the location it was built?
It lends credence to how severe the language needs to be. A car recall is very serious and implies people need to take action. A software update is meh, I’ll look at that later. Seemingly a Tesla software update is more aligned aligned with “recall - update your stuff” rather than “update - do this whenever”
I've had several cars subject to recall and every one of them was "go ahead and bring it into the dealer whenever, show them this notice and they'll fix it". I imagine there could be some "drop everything and get this fixed right now" issues but I think the idea that every recall is a drop everything issue is more in alignment with your intuition than the reality on the ground.
A car with an active recall is in violation of FMVSS and can't legally be sold by dealerships (or the manufacturer) until the recall is fixed. It's very much a "drop everything" issue for regulated parties in the automotive space. It's only as a consumer that you get to take your time and deal with it whenever, which I think is a very reasonable tradeoff.