4 ms·

> Why have you put "recalls" in quotes? Maybe because an over-the-air update is hard to seriously consider a "recall"?

by justinclift 2y ago

noapologies 2y ago
Why? Are safety issues not "serious"?
- wobfan 2y ago
  If you think about the financial implications then probably yes. Software issues, safety related or not, can probably easily be fixed OTA and thus don’t even cause a fraction of the costs a (let’s call it "real") recall costs. Also, in the head of most people, I think, a recall is something where the car needs to be returned physically. But still, obviously, the issues can be as serious as physical issues. It’s just that we’re used to physical recalls.
- damon_c 2y ago
  The word recall sort of implies that the vehicle is recalled to the manufacturer. Calling a software update that happens in your garage at night and takes 20 minutes a “recall” definitely is worthy of quotes.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - taberiand 2y ago
    Unless of course that patch can't be delivered because the truck was totalled in an accident that the patch was too late to prevent
    - liontwist 2y ago
      Did this happen? Or?
  - judofyr 2y ago
    The word bug sort of implies that the device was struck by a terrestrial arthropod animal. Calling a software defect that happens due to a programming error a "bug" definitely is worthy of quotes. (The etymology of a word can be quite different from its current meaning today.)
  - alxlaz 2y ago
    > The word recall sort of implies that the vehicle is recalled to the manufacturer. It does not, no more than gaslighting implies lighting a gas lamp or the phrase crossing the Rubicon implies actually crossing a river in Italy, in any case. It hasn't meant anything of that sort since the mid-sixties. Recall is what legislation requires you to call it if something is unsafe for public use and it has to be withdrawn for the market until it's remedied. It doesn't matter how that's done. The NHTSA guidelines don't include physically getting the product to a manufacturer or a distributor as a requirement to issue, or as a criteria for fulfillment, of a recall. (I don't think recall guidelines in any industry do, it's just the NHTSA's that apply in this case). Yes, this also applies for firmware upgrades. No, it doesn't matter where they're performed. The FDA has issued firmware-related recalls for devices with programmable logic since programmable logic in medical devices was a thing so like... fourty years. If anyone in some company's safety staff just learned about that's let's all please give them a warm welcome to the 20th century. The main reason why recalls typically involve returning the product to the manufacturer (or, more often, as the vast majority of recalls are for food, medicine or cosmetics, to the distributor) is traceability. Manufacturers need to maintain documentation that shows they took reasonable action to notify all customers, that depending on how they chose to handle it they made repairs for free, replaced them for free, or that the refund they issued made reasonable allowances for depreciation, and so on. Some foodstuffs or medicine also have disposal safety rules that require you to maintain adequate documentation as well. It's just the easiest way to deal with it, both in terms of remedying the actual issue, and in terms of legal risk. But it's got nothing to do with returning something to the factory, it hasn't meant anything of that sort in like half a century.
    - GJim 2y ago
      Once again, an intelligent post such as yours has been lazily downvoted simply because somebody doesn't agree with it, and they can't be arsed composing a coherent rebuttable. This leads to unpopular ideas being buried, groupthink and a lack of intelligent discourse..... ....And yes, this IS leading to this place becoming more and more Reddit like (no, that isn't a tired cliché, no matter what the FAQs claim). Downvoting needs to be reserved for comments that detract from the conversation. At this rate, we will need some form of meta moderation to ensure this happens.
  - mkipper 2y ago
    Focusing on the dictionary definition of the word "recall" seems pedantic. Not all recalls are for big mechanical problems. I've received several recall notices for issues that just required the dealership to flash the ECU or some other controller with new firmware. Whether that update is flashed OTA or with a special dongle at the dealership doesn't really make a difference if you're looking at it from the perspective of vehicle safety/reliability/stability. The point is that a recall is a significant enough issue that the manufacturer _must_ notify their customers about it. I agree that if you count _every_ OTA update as a recall, you can't really do an apples-to-apples comparison. The cost of pushing an OTA update is much lower than the cost of a recall, so Tesla probably pushes a bunch of minor OTA updates that other manufacturers wouldn't bother with. But it's a fair comparison if only some subset of OTA updates are counted as recalls (i.e. updates addressing a safety issue).
- lmm 2y ago
  Getting an OTA software update to your vehicle is far less disruptive to your life than having to take it in to the dealer. Obviously safety issues shouldn't happen, but how easy they are to fix also matters.
- justinclift 2y ago
  "Recall" is wording that means (to me) the vehicle needs to be physically returned to a dealer workshop for something to be done. That it's used for OTA updates just (to me) means they should use some more suitable wording for it. And yeah, as other people have pointed out it's the word used for the legislation. I still think they should use some kind of different wording though.
matsemann 2y ago
A recall is about the issue, not how it's resolved. A recall means there are some serious security flaws that needs fixing. Even if they can be fixed OTA, they're still a flaw, and Tesla has had many of those.
- iamkoch 2y ago
  Couldn't agree more. Recall means "sufficiently dangerous to need to recall the vehicle to the manufacturer" - yes, in the modern world it can be fixed OTA, but it's still dangerous enough to require a mass fix to a fast-moving death machine.
devjab 2y ago
They are called recalls because that’s what the term for legalisation mandates. They are issued when a vehicle is unsafe to drive and they are mandated because a manufacturer is required to take a lot of steps to remedy their failure. If they fail to repair the issue they are forced to issue full refunds as an example. So no, the word recall is used because is the official terminology used for these issues regardless of the solution required to fix them. The word does have its origin in a world where solutions were rarely software updates. That they are software issues make them no less serious though. I suspect that in some cases the software issues might indeed be far more dangerous than errors which mandate physical recalls.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  Isn't this just restating part of the previous point? "We use a silly word for OTA software updates: 'recalls'" "Recalls is the word we use" "Yes..."
  - TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
    The important part is the legal obligation to produce a safe product. If that doesn't happen there are legal consequences. The fact that software is involved changes exactly nothing. And honestly - the entire industry needs to get over the bizarre belief that software has a magical right to be less performant, less competent, less reliable, less robust, and more consumer hostile than hardware, just because it can be updated.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      None of this seems relevant to the single point that "recall is a misleading term to use for an OTA software update".
rickdeckard 2y ago
At the very least, it puts the quality control of Tesla in question, as those are failures which should have been caught PRIOR to a commercial launch. Tesla is treating its product-launches like it's just some browser-game in the cloud, instead of treating it as what it is: The handover of a 6000 pound bullet into the hand of a customer who will fire it into a crowd in expectation to not hit anyone...
rob74 2y ago
Maybe, to eliminate ambiguity (and make it sound cooler), they should call it a "roadworthiness directive", similar to "airworthiness directive" for aircraft. Of course airworthiness directives are issued by the authorities (the FAA in the US), while "recalls" are from the manufacturers, but still...
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  Maybe Tesla doesn't deserve to have the world redefined around them to make their products look less shit? This conversation happens every single time Tesla produces a product that is legally unsafe. We keep having this conversation because Tesla keeps making an unsafe product.

> Why have you put "recalls" in quotes? Maybe because an over-the-air update is hard to seriously consider a "recall"?

noapologies 2y ago

Why? Are safety issues not "serious"?

wobfan 2y ago
If you think about the financial implications then probably yes. Software issues, safety related or not, can probably easily be fixed OTA and thus don’t even cause a fraction of the costs a (let’s call it "real") recall costs. Also, in the head of most people, I think, a recall is something where the car needs to be returned physically. But still, obviously, the issues can be as serious as physical issues. It’s just that we’re used to physical recalls.
damon_c 2y ago
The word recall sort of implies that the vehicle is recalled to the manufacturer. Calling a software update that happens in your garage at night and takes 20 minutes a “recall” definitely is worthy of quotes.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- taberiand 2y ago
  Unless of course that patch can't be delivered because the truck was totalled in an accident that the patch was too late to prevent
  - liontwist 2y ago
    Did this happen? Or?
- judofyr 2y ago
  The word bug sort of implies that the device was struck by a terrestrial arthropod animal. Calling a software defect that happens due to a programming error a "bug" definitely is worthy of quotes. (The etymology of a word can be quite different from its current meaning today.)
- alxlaz 2y ago
  > The word recall sort of implies that the vehicle is recalled to the manufacturer. It does not, no more than gaslighting implies lighting a gas lamp or the phrase crossing the Rubicon implies actually crossing a river in Italy, in any case. It hasn't meant anything of that sort since the mid-sixties. Recall is what legislation requires you to call it if something is unsafe for public use and it has to be withdrawn for the market until it's remedied. It doesn't matter how that's done. The NHTSA guidelines don't include physically getting the product to a manufacturer or a distributor as a requirement to issue, or as a criteria for fulfillment, of a recall. (I don't think recall guidelines in any industry do, it's just the NHTSA's that apply in this case). Yes, this also applies for firmware upgrades. No, it doesn't matter where they're performed. The FDA has issued firmware-related recalls for devices with programmable logic since programmable logic in medical devices was a thing so like... fourty years. If anyone in some company's safety staff just learned about that's let's all please give them a warm welcome to the 20th century. The main reason why recalls typically involve returning the product to the manufacturer (or, more often, as the vast majority of recalls are for food, medicine or cosmetics, to the distributor) is traceability. Manufacturers need to maintain documentation that shows they took reasonable action to notify all customers, that depending on how they chose to handle it they made repairs for free, replaced them for free, or that the refund they issued made reasonable allowances for depreciation, and so on. Some foodstuffs or medicine also have disposal safety rules that require you to maintain adequate documentation as well. It's just the easiest way to deal with it, both in terms of remedying the actual issue, and in terms of legal risk. But it's got nothing to do with returning something to the factory, it hasn't meant anything of that sort in like half a century.
  - GJim 2y ago
    Once again, an intelligent post such as yours has been lazily downvoted simply because somebody doesn't agree with it, and they can't be arsed composing a coherent rebuttable. This leads to unpopular ideas being buried, groupthink and a lack of intelligent discourse..... ....And yes, this IS leading to this place becoming more and more Reddit like (no, that isn't a tired cliché, no matter what the FAQs claim). Downvoting needs to be reserved for comments that detract from the conversation. At this rate, we will need some form of meta moderation to ensure this happens.
- mkipper 2y ago
  Focusing on the dictionary definition of the word "recall" seems pedantic. Not all recalls are for big mechanical problems. I've received several recall notices for issues that just required the dealership to flash the ECU or some other controller with new firmware. Whether that update is flashed OTA or with a special dongle at the dealership doesn't really make a difference if you're looking at it from the perspective of vehicle safety/reliability/stability. The point is that a recall is a significant enough issue that the manufacturer _must_ notify their customers about it. I agree that if you count _every_ OTA update as a recall, you can't really do an apples-to-apples comparison. The cost of pushing an OTA update is much lower than the cost of a recall, so Tesla probably pushes a bunch of minor OTA updates that other manufacturers wouldn't bother with. But it's a fair comparison if only some subset of OTA updates are counted as recalls (i.e. updates addressing a safety issue).
lmm 2y ago
Getting an OTA software update to your vehicle is far less disruptive to your life than having to take it in to the dealer. Obviously safety issues shouldn't happen, but how easy they are to fix also matters.
justinclift 2y ago
"Recall" is wording that means (to me) the vehicle needs to be physically returned to a dealer workshop for something to be done. That it's used for OTA updates just (to me) means they should use some more suitable wording for it. And yeah, as other people have pointed out it's the word used for the legislation. I still think they should use some kind of different wording though.

matsemann 2y ago

A recall is about the issue, not how it's resolved. A recall means there are some serious security flaws that needs fixing. Even if they can be fixed OTA, they're still a flaw, and Tesla has had many of those.

iamkoch 2y ago
Couldn't agree more. Recall means "sufficiently dangerous to need to recall the vehicle to the manufacturer" - yes, in the modern world it can be fixed OTA, but it's still dangerous enough to require a mass fix to a fast-moving death machine.

devjab 2y ago

They are called recalls because that’s what the term for legalisation mandates. They are issued when a vehicle is unsafe to drive and they are mandated because a manufacturer is required to take a lot of steps to remedy their failure. If they fail to repair the issue they are forced to issue full refunds as an example. So no, the word recall is used because is the official terminology used for these issues regardless of the solution required to fix them. The word does have its origin in a world where solutions were rarely software updates. That they are software issues make them no less serious though. I suspect that in some cases the software issues might indeed be far more dangerous than errors which mandate physical recalls.

robertlagrant 2y ago
Isn't this just restating part of the previous point? "We use a silly word for OTA software updates: 'recalls'" "Recalls is the word we use" "Yes..."
- TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
  The important part is the legal obligation to produce a safe product. If that doesn't happen there are legal consequences. The fact that software is involved changes exactly nothing. And honestly - the entire industry needs to get over the bizarre belief that software has a magical right to be less performant, less competent, less reliable, less robust, and more consumer hostile than hardware, just because it can be updated.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    None of this seems relevant to the single point that "recall is a misleading term to use for an OTA software update".

rickdeckard 2y ago

At the very least, it puts the quality control of Tesla in question, as those are failures which should have been caught PRIOR to a commercial launch. Tesla is treating its product-launches like it's just some browser-game in the cloud, instead of treating it as what it is: The handover of a 6000 pound bullet into the hand of a customer who will fire it into a crowd in expectation to not hit anyone...

rob74 2y ago

Maybe, to eliminate ambiguity (and make it sound cooler), they should call it a "roadworthiness directive", similar to "airworthiness directive" for aircraft. Of course airworthiness directives are issued by the authorities (the FAA in the US), while "recalls" are from the manufacturers, but still...

mrguyorama 2y ago
Maybe Tesla doesn't deserve to have the world redefined around them to make their products look less shit? This conversation happens every single time Tesla produces a product that is legally unsafe. We keep having this conversation because Tesla keeps making an unsafe product.