This has nothing to do with his point, which is that its a software update, not a typical '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'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...
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.
Obviously this is different, now, because of some cards and models for the car ECU.