Anytime they have a software update for a "recall", I imagine what the headlines would look like if Apple had to "recall 2 billions iPhones for a security fix"
…just like those pagers.
In contrast, no iPhone teardown has shown any explosives, and Apple still has a reputation for saving weight wherever possible.
If you have an iPhone that mysteriously has only a fraction of the battery capacity of a normal iPhone it might be time to worry if you have the Mossad version with inbuilt explosives. But otherwise I wouldn't worry too much. A battery explosion would be inconvenient but much less effective
There was negligible weight increase, as the battery was significantly shrunk to allow hiding the explosive inside [1].
> At some point, Hezbollah noticed the battery was draining faster than expected, the Lebanese source said. However, the issue did not appear to raise major security concerns - the group was still handing its members the pagers hours before the attack.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/graphics/ISRAEL-PALESTINIANS/HEZBOLL...
Obviously this is different, now, because of some cards and models for the car ECU.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Autopilot doesn't mean what we promised; only what wikipedia says. GOTCHA!"
"Recall should only apply to physical fixes THIS IS SOFTWARE. GOTCHA!"
You mentioned "both side" in your first post and I really don't see it.
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's admittedly not much of an option for Teslas...
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.
CarPlay has been around long enough, does get OTA updates, and I personally prefer that model because it is strictly scoped to the infotainment, and won't change the way my windshield wipers work.
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.
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.
0: https://www.gm-trucks.com/gm-recall-brake-warning-light-fail...
How do you know if you haven't tried?
We could imagine a following scenario: a clever virus spreads via zero day exploit to every iphone. The virus uses accelerometer to detect velocity over 70mph and initiates a bedlam protocol a minute after that. Your phone starts blaring maximally offensive content at max volume, controls are locked. Particularly effective when connected to car speakers.
The scenario is highly improbable, but there is a vector for a phone security flaw to be extremely impactful.
The issue here is with the word recall, which is slightly alarmist This is a bit of a non-event for owners and they'll get a completely routine over the air firmware upgrade soonish with some mandated changes. No dealers are involved. Just a simple update.
Somehow a lot of these recalls are limited to the US only. Which raises a few questions of course about the rest of the world and what Tesla is doing there. I think it's just the language and the processes of the NHTSA that result in this clickbaity reporting. Also a lot of cars ship without over the air update capabilities. What happens with recalls for those?
For example, when the wheels may come off in a Toyota (NHTSA 23V432000), it's somehow less news worthy than when it is about a Tesla. That one got a "do not drive" advice along with the recall BTW, as you'd hope. It only affected a few hundred cars fortunately. But I bet more care owners and mechanics did work to double check they weren't affected. That happened 2 years ago. Not all recalls are similarly scary, of course. Most are quite boring actually. Especially Tesla ones.
There's a helpful tool (https://datahub.transportation.gov/stories/s/NHTSA-Recalls-b...) that allows you to slice and dice recall data by manufacturer. There are a lot of recalls. The vast majority are real recalls involving component replacements from car manufacturers that are mostly not Tesla. Tesla seems to be able to address their issues via software mostly. By the numbers, maybe be careful with Ford, GM, or Toyota. Lots of recalls for those. Parts falling of causing crashes. Electrical failures resulting in drive train failure mid drive. You know, minor issues like that. Totally not worth reporting on hacker news because it doesn't involve Tesla or Elon Musk.
This also raises a few interesting questions about the software quality of other manufacturers. Apparently they ship bug free software (try explaining that to VW owners) or their software is just not getting a lot of scrutiny. Is Ford really that good at software or updating it? Or maybe the NHTSA is a bit selective with their scrutiny here? On a positive note, really nice of them to do free QA for Tesla.
There's no NHTSA conspiracy against Tesla. If anything, they're overly lenient on Tesla compared to other manufacturers.
[0] https://ec.europa.eu/safety-gate-alerts/screen/webReport/ale...
[1] https://www.tesla.com/support/recall-brake-fluid-level-senso...
For example as this article clearly says: "some 2023 Model 3 sedans and Model Y crossovers running older software could face an overvoltage breakdown, potentially overstressing motor drive components on the printed circuit board." If you look it up there are "many such cases" lol.
Personally I'm on the second computer for my Tesla, and I'm sure it won't be the last time some terrible software bug burns out the computer or circuit board.
From experience, to me the problem with Tesla cars is that the computer isn't that great in the first place, and build quality and ergonomics of the actual car are clearly an afterthought.
I'd much rather have a mid-tier computer in a Toyota-level car than the most expensive Acer laptop in a Kia.
Ah, so it's a TV company!
(SmartTV software tends to be _terrible_, both from a doing-what-it's-supposed-to point of view, and a security point of view. But the TVs are essentially built around it, nonetheless.)
In contrast, I've had recalls from other manufacturers take so long (several years), that my vehicle died before I was able to get them applied. I've had a recall where the OEM is refusing to make it available to me, because it only occurs in "cold" weather.
Tesla's recalls are better than the rest of the entire industry.
My Ford, with a cell connection, receives OTA updates for stuff like the entertainment system, but I've had to bring it in a couple of times for updates to safety systems.
Personally I'm completely fine with that, anything with the ECU/lower level safety control-by-wire systems should not be accessible to the OTA system.
It's only a matter of time until hackers remotely shut down cars and cause chaos though.
It is, in fact, a matter of ten years ago that hackers were able to remotely shut down a moving vehicle
“Initiated safety recalls require a manufacturer's action to announce and remedy the defects.
A recall is issued when a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a vehicle, equipment, car seat, or tire creates an unreasonable safety risk or fails to meet minimum safety standards. Most decisions to conduct a recall and remedy a safety defect are made voluntarily by manufacturers prior to any involvement by NHTSA.”[1]
Note how it only talks about the presence of a critical problem, not how it is solved. A “recall” is stating that the defective version of the product in the field must be “removed” and replaced/updated with a non-defective version at the manufacturer’s expense.
The only reason this is confusing is because Tesla has been actively and intentionally misusing the term and sowing confusion to downplay the number of critical safety defects in their cars.
But I agree, at this point Tesla has sufficiently poisoned the term that they and everybody else can convince customers that they do not have critical safety defects because they can fix them remotely.
As such, the term should be replaced with “public critical safety defect notice” which is clear, precise, accurate, and can not be misused.
Note that buffer overflow attacks have been known since the 1980s. If there is a problem with internet connected windows 3.1 courts should ignore it since microsoft didn't intend for that to be connected to the internet. But windows 95 was intended to connect to the internet and Microsoft probably should recall and patch all buffer overflow vulnerabilities in it. (but they can continue to not support modern AES encryption because that was not know in 1995)
I know the dangers are not as immediately obvious as the automobile industry, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t there.
We live in a world where consumer technology interacts with medical equipment, heavy machinery, security systems, etc.
Still a recall.
Wouldn't be one of these threads without people complaining Tesla should be treated differently.
Every Tesla story on here sees the same "just a software update" thing, but this is a software update to fix a serious issue that hit thousands of vehicles.
"due to a failure of the power steering assist feature that could make the vehicles harder to steer, particularly at low speeds, raising the risk of a crash."
“Apple recalls 2 billion iPhones for security fix!”
Not every Tesla update is a recall, for example.
It's a good separation when an update addresses a bug - which can lead to drivability/safety issues - is classified differently than one that doesn't. And a recall makes sense, though the issue seems to be that some people associate that with deadly mechanical issues alone.
Of course, mechanical recalls happen all of the time, too, but are very often minor and/or ignorable.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2025/02/12/ios-...
- But mom, it is not a recall, it is not fair
others explain that recall has a meaning and if you read the article you will understand it is an software update for a significant issue
So it's nice that we have these people called "journalists" who help us navigate this kind of jargon maze by explaining for the lay reader what the actual meaning of the complicated regulatory communication is.
Except that this particular journalist decided to bury that fact ("The company has released an over-the-air software update to fix the issue, it said.") in the seventh paragraph, just a dozen words from the end of the article. That's just straight up malpractice. Reuters is actively trying to harm their readers understanding of the issue.
Someone in my family is the type who features quite frequently in the news. I don't mean tabloid-style stuff, or anything related to criminal activity. It was always about fairly serious topics however.
As a result, I got to compare first hand information to what ends up in the news. And boy, there are no words.
The worst part is that there is no hope. The root cause is that the incentives -- engagement, like you said -- are rotten. Gell-man amnesia etc complicates things further.
I'm honestly of a mind that while the internet's attitude of making everything available for free was fun and exciting, it's time for us to start paying for things again or not using them. More often the latter than the former. It's baked into our ideological framework that there always has to be an exchange of value. No one will give up something worth something unless they also get something worth something. For a while investors who recognized potential subsidized losses in companies like Facebook and Amazon, but that was with the (evidently correct) expectation that they'd get all of that money back and then some. But that's correcting itself. Everyone either sells you something or sells you to someone, just like it was before the internet. So if someone is letting you use their app for free, they're likely selling you to someone else behind the scenes. If you pay for what you use, you at least have a potential deal that fulfills the rule of exchange without making you the product and you can shop that deal around to see if there are any takers.