Software updates should absolutely be recalls. Ship a complete vehicle or don’t. I absolutely do not want cars to turn in what games are today. I do not want hotfixes on my car because they didn’t test. Fuck an OTA update too, I don’t want that either, if they need an update it’s a recall and the cars have to go back to the shop. I want it to hurt and appropriately damage the company’s reputation.
In my opinion it points to a more dangerous thing, “continuous delivery” software mindset seeping into safety critical systems.
It’s fine, good even, that web developers can push updates to “prod” in minutes. But imagine if some dork could push largely untested control system updates to your car’s ECU… it’s one thing for a website site to get a couple errors, but it’s a very bad thing if it makes your steering wheel stop working.
Unfinished products make more money, and it’s high time a consumer protection law clamped down on this.
I agree I mean how many times in the past couple of years have large sites or services gone down because an update was pushed through.
Most recently I can think of teams going down earlier this year.
Should be protocols put into place for cars that need to be followed for a software update.
Should be protocols put into place for cars that need to be followed for a software update.
Protocols are in place. We can argue over wether or not those are good enough, but the car industry is incredibly heavily regulated.
Those protocols include certain systems being designated as “critical” and significantly more testing is required to change them. Some changes can only be made after an entire year of testing by a third party auditor including crash tests, emissions tests, etc.
Updating the map to inform the driver that a police officer is standing around the next corner with a radar gun? That can be done OTA with zero testing (and yes, my car does that). That’s not a critical system, it’s an important safety feature. If the car ahead of me is going to slam on the brakes the moment they see the officer… I want to know it’s likely to happen ahead of time - might even slow down myself. ;-)
This operates under the assumption that cars produced before the era of OTA updates could not have been improved by OTA updates. I’ve used a few of them, and that doesn’t seem to be the case.
But imagine if some dork could push largely untested control system updates to your car’s ECU…
While I can’t deny that this isn’t categorically impossible, it seems incredibly unlikely. At the very least, I don’t think we’ve seen this happen yet, and OTA updates have been around for a while now.
Our cars are computers and we are beta testers. They spy on you, need updates and features are behind paywalls. Heated seats anyone? that’ll be $9.99 a month… That’s under 10 bucks!
Put your hate for Tesla aside for a moment. If a car company can fix an issue with a simple OTA software update, it’s way more convenient for both the customer and the manufacturer. Quality control of an update is a separate issue but I don’t imagine there’s a difference whether your car updates itself or gets taken in for the update- the same patch gets applied in either case.
It’s not Tesla that I hate. It’s shipping products too quickly.
The inconvenience is the point. I want people to be inconvenienced, myself included. That means people complain to one another. I’ll know which models suck simply by talking to people around me. I do not want quiet stealthy patches for things like an accelerator pedal. Either do it right or pay the price. We used to make cars without hot fixes, we don’t need to start. It will allow auto manufacturers to further cut corners and push for faster releases with less testing, and we pay the price with our lives.
We used to make cars without hot fixes, we don’t need to start. It will allow auto manufacturers to further cut corners and push for faster releases with less testing, and we pay the price with our lives.
Is that borne out in the data though? It seems modern vehicles are way safer and more reliable compared to older vehicles.
Motor vehicle fatalities had their nadir in 2014, which coincides with the time when we had all major safety innovations sorted out: Advanced air bags, stability and traction control, ABS, RADAR/LIDAR/etc. collision avoidance on fancier models, reverse cameras, mandatory TMPS, etc.
Cars today are basically exactly the same mechanically and insofar as physical safety features existed in 2014. But the line goes back up into the 2020’s as idiots started packing cars with touchscreens, everything-by-wire control systems, hiding critical controls into the infotainment screen, removing physical tactile controls, and loading everything with mountains of electronic distractions. Many of these whizz-bang electronic features nobody actually wants are also released in a sorry state. New cars are objectively worse than cars from 10-15 years ago, with the possible exception of EV range.
Think of the inverse though- it used to be that in every case when your car had an issue you needed to either take it in yourself or have the technical knowhow to fix it yourself.
I do agree that it’s a slippery slope for automakers to get lazy and cut corners, but I think stricter regulation is the better solution than forcing an unnecessary inconvenience onto the customers.
it used to be that in every case when your car had an issue you needed to either take it in yourself or have the technical knowhow to fix it yourself.
That knowledge is mostly trivial. 7/10 repairs a regular Joe could do. Or worse comes to worse you can take it to a mechanic of your choosing.
I’ll take that level of service.
With the Tesla model, you very like end up with a 100k brick that no one can work on except very expensive very specialized very limited service centers.
A Tesla battery is expensive…now look at install costs. And if you’re not using an authorized installer, you’re locked out of the supercharger network.
Or worse comes to worse you can take it to a mechanic of your choosing.
That’s also what I meant when I said “taking it in.” In either case you’re taking your car somewhere to get it repaired for X hours instead of applying an update at your home.
A Tesla battery is expensive…now look at install costs. And if you’re not using an authorized installer, you’re locked out of the supercharger network.
We aren’t talking about batteries.
I just think there’s more nuance to the situation and saying that cars should be as inconvenient as possible to fix isn’t a good solution to lazy auto software that requires future patching. Rigorous safety testing and regulation around car software sounds like a better plan to me- automakers will be held to really high standards and the consumers will still benefit from simple OTA patches to fix their vehicles when necessary.
I dont disagree with anything you said, I just think there should be a different, but equally severe term for clarity. It’s not hurting Tesla so much as devaluing the word “recall”. Make it hurt, Tesla is reckless with the way they ship unfinished products, but as I said before, I wasn’t even sure what “recall” meant in this sense.
I’m saying upgrade what it’s considered to recall. No OTA hot fix, car goes back to the shop. A proper recall just like any other recall. A software issue is just as dangerous as a hardware issue for something like an accelerator pedal. To be clear, this isn’t Tesla hate, this is modern “sell unfinished products” hate. I’d say the same thing for any other manufacturer.
If the blinker pattern needs to be updated, that’s fine for OTA in my opinion, and shouldn’t be a recall. Problems with the accelerator, brakes, steering, anything safety critical - nah. Recall for that, proper recall.
Recalls still require the customer to take action. They’re much less likely to go into the shop to have it fixed than press a button on their phone and have the car fix itself overnight.
Your suggestion for not allowing safety software fixes OTA is dangerous.
Other way around. Unsupervised OTA updates are dangerous.
First: A car is a piece of safety-critical equipment. It has a skilled operator who has familiarized themselves with its operation. Any change to its operation, without the operator being aware that a change was made, puts the operator and other people at risk. If the operator takes the car into the shop for a documented recall, they know that something is being changed. An unsupervised OTA update can (and will) alter the behavior of safety-critical equipment without the operator’s knowledge.
Second: Any facility for OTA updates is an attack vector. If a car can receive OTA updates from the manufacturer, then it can receive harmful OTA updates from an attacker who has compromised the car’s update mechanism or the manufacturer. Because the car is safety-critical equipment — unlike your phone, it can kill people — it is unreasonable to expose it to these attacks.
Driving is literally the most deadly thing that most people do every day. It is unreasonable to make driving even more dangerous by allowing car manufacturers — or attackers — to change the behavior of cars without the operator being fully aware that a change is being made.
This is not a matter of “it’s my property, you need my consent” that can be whitewashed with a contract provision. This is a matter of life safety.
If a car can receive OTA updates from the manufacturer, then it can receive harmful OTA updates from an attacker who has compromised the car’s update mechanism or the manufacturer.
There’s potential for a very dystopian future where we see people assassinated, not via car bomb but via the their cars being hacked to remove braking functionality (or something similar). And then a constant game of security whack-a-mole like we see with anti-virus software. And then some brilliant entrepreneur will start selling firewalls for cars. And then it’ll be passed into law that it’s illegal to use a vehicle that doesn’t have an active firewall/anti-virus subscription.
It almost feels like the obvious path things will go down. Yay, capitalism…
I’m not totally opposed to software being used in cars (as long as it’s tested and can be trusted to the degree mechanical components are) but yeah, OTA updates just seem like a terrible idea just for a little convenience. I’d rather see updates delivered via plugging the car in (and not via the charging port - it would need to be a specific data transfer port for security reasons). Alert people when there’s an update, and even allow the car to “refuse to boot” if it detects it’s not on the latest version. But updates should absolutely be done manually and securely.
Cutting someone’s brake lines has been a means of assassination for a while. What’s new here is that it could potentially be done remotely, e.g. an attacker in Bucharest targeting a victim in Seattle on behalf of a payer in Moscow.
So yeah you could assassinate someone like that, or you could break every cars brakes at once and have thousands of simultaneous car accidents timed during some other infrastructure attack
Cutting someone’s brake lines is all or nothing and can’t be done while the vehicle is already in motion. Anyone who is not an idiot will hopefully notice as soon as they start driving that there’s something wrong with the brakes. But you could brick somebody’s car remotely and without warning while they’re taking a curve on the interstate at 80 MPH, and that’d be a lot more problematic.
In reality, few to no people outside of novels and Hollywood have actually been killed by some malefactor “cutting their brake lines.”
You do realize your entire first point is invalidated by the comment you’re replying to? I just said the customer has to press a button on their phone to initiate the update. On that same phone they can view release notes that clearly outline the recall. Additional on first use, the car will display those same release notes on the screen.
Sure, safety vs convenience is a huge factor in software development. The biggest factor to safety is unpatched software. You know, the kind that requires significant effort to update, such as needing to bring your car into the shop to apply.
Overall your doom and gloom argument against OTA safety updates is pretty weak.
Software updates should absolutely be recalls. Ship a complete vehicle or don’t. I absolutely do not want cars to turn in what games are today. I do not want hotfixes on my car because they didn’t test. Fuck an OTA update too, I don’t want that either, if they need an update it’s a recall and the cars have to go back to the shop. I want it to hurt and appropriately damage the company’s reputation.
In my opinion it points to a more dangerous thing, “continuous delivery” software mindset seeping into safety critical systems.
It’s fine, good even, that web developers can push updates to “prod” in minutes. But imagine if some dork could push largely untested control system updates to your car’s ECU… it’s one thing for a website site to get a couple errors, but it’s a very bad thing if it makes your steering wheel stop working.
Unfinished products make more money, and it’s high time a consumer protection law clamped down on this.
I agree I mean how many times in the past couple of years have large sites or services gone down because an update was pushed through. Most recently I can think of teams going down earlier this year.
Should be protocols put into place for cars that need to be followed for a software update.
Protocols are in place. We can argue over wether or not those are good enough, but the car industry is incredibly heavily regulated.
Those protocols include certain systems being designated as “critical” and significantly more testing is required to change them. Some changes can only be made after an entire year of testing by a third party auditor including crash tests, emissions tests, etc.
Updating the map to inform the driver that a police officer is standing around the next corner with a radar gun? That can be done OTA with zero testing (and yes, my car does that). That’s not a critical system, it’s an important safety feature. If the car ahead of me is going to slam on the brakes the moment they see the officer… I want to know it’s likely to happen ahead of time - might even slow down myself. ;-)
Oh yeah don’t stop.
This operates under the assumption that cars produced before the era of OTA updates could not have been improved by OTA updates. I’ve used a few of them, and that doesn’t seem to be the case.
While I can’t deny that this isn’t categorically impossible, it seems incredibly unlikely. At the very least, I don’t think we’ve seen this happen yet, and OTA updates have been around for a while now.
Our cars are computers and we are beta testers. They spy on you, need updates and features are behind paywalls. Heated seats anyone? that’ll be $9.99 a month… That’s under 10 bucks!
Put your hate for Tesla aside for a moment. If a car company can fix an issue with a simple OTA software update, it’s way more convenient for both the customer and the manufacturer. Quality control of an update is a separate issue but I don’t imagine there’s a difference whether your car updates itself or gets taken in for the update- the same patch gets applied in either case.
It’s not Tesla that I hate. It’s shipping products too quickly.
The inconvenience is the point. I want people to be inconvenienced, myself included. That means people complain to one another. I’ll know which models suck simply by talking to people around me. I do not want quiet stealthy patches for things like an accelerator pedal. Either do it right or pay the price. We used to make cars without hot fixes, we don’t need to start. It will allow auto manufacturers to further cut corners and push for faster releases with less testing, and we pay the price with our lives.
Is that borne out in the data though? It seems modern vehicles are way safer and more reliable compared to older vehicles.
Yes, actually, it is.
Source.
Motor vehicle fatalities had their nadir in 2014, which coincides with the time when we had all major safety innovations sorted out: Advanced air bags, stability and traction control, ABS, RADAR/LIDAR/etc. collision avoidance on fancier models, reverse cameras, mandatory TMPS, etc.
Cars today are basically exactly the same mechanically and insofar as physical safety features existed in 2014. But the line goes back up into the 2020’s as idiots started packing cars with touchscreens, everything-by-wire control systems, hiding critical controls into the infotainment screen, removing physical tactile controls, and loading everything with mountains of electronic distractions. Many of these whizz-bang electronic features nobody actually wants are also released in a sorry state. New cars are objectively worse than cars from 10-15 years ago, with the possible exception of EV range.
Think of the inverse though- it used to be that in every case when your car had an issue you needed to either take it in yourself or have the technical knowhow to fix it yourself.
I do agree that it’s a slippery slope for automakers to get lazy and cut corners, but I think stricter regulation is the better solution than forcing an unnecessary inconvenience onto the customers.
That knowledge is mostly trivial. 7/10 repairs a regular Joe could do. Or worse comes to worse you can take it to a mechanic of your choosing.
I’ll take that level of service.
With the Tesla model, you very like end up with a 100k brick that no one can work on except very expensive very specialized very limited service centers.
A Tesla battery is expensive…now look at install costs. And if you’re not using an authorized installer, you’re locked out of the supercharger network.
That’s also what I meant when I said “taking it in.” In either case you’re taking your car somewhere to get it repaired for X hours instead of applying an update at your home.
We aren’t talking about batteries.
I just think there’s more nuance to the situation and saying that cars should be as inconvenient as possible to fix isn’t a good solution to lazy auto software that requires future patching. Rigorous safety testing and regulation around car software sounds like a better plan to me- automakers will be held to really high standards and the consumers will still benefit from simple OTA patches to fix their vehicles when necessary.
Calling it a recall or an update won’t change that. Enshittification is happening everywhere all the time anyway.
I dont disagree with anything you said, I just think there should be a different, but equally severe term for clarity. It’s not hurting Tesla so much as devaluing the word “recall”. Make it hurt, Tesla is reckless with the way they ship unfinished products, but as I said before, I wasn’t even sure what “recall” meant in this sense.
I’m saying upgrade what it’s considered to recall. No OTA hot fix, car goes back to the shop. A proper recall just like any other recall. A software issue is just as dangerous as a hardware issue for something like an accelerator pedal. To be clear, this isn’t Tesla hate, this is modern “sell unfinished products” hate. I’d say the same thing for any other manufacturer.
If the blinker pattern needs to be updated, that’s fine for OTA in my opinion, and shouldn’t be a recall. Problems with the accelerator, brakes, steering, anything safety critical - nah. Recall for that, proper recall.
Recalls still require the customer to take action. They’re much less likely to go into the shop to have it fixed than press a button on their phone and have the car fix itself overnight.
Your suggestion for not allowing safety software fixes OTA is dangerous.
Other way around. Unsupervised OTA updates are dangerous.
First: A car is a piece of safety-critical equipment. It has a skilled operator who has familiarized themselves with its operation. Any change to its operation, without the operator being aware that a change was made, puts the operator and other people at risk. If the operator takes the car into the shop for a documented recall, they know that something is being changed. An unsupervised OTA update can (and will) alter the behavior of safety-critical equipment without the operator’s knowledge.
Second: Any facility for OTA updates is an attack vector. If a car can receive OTA updates from the manufacturer, then it can receive harmful OTA updates from an attacker who has compromised the car’s update mechanism or the manufacturer. Because the car is safety-critical equipment — unlike your phone, it can kill people — it is unreasonable to expose it to these attacks.
Driving is literally the most deadly thing that most people do every day. It is unreasonable to make driving even more dangerous by allowing car manufacturers — or attackers — to change the behavior of cars without the operator being fully aware that a change is being made.
This is not a matter of “it’s my property, you need my consent” that can be whitewashed with a contract provision. This is a matter of life safety.
There’s potential for a very dystopian future where we see people assassinated, not via car bomb but via the their cars being hacked to remove braking functionality (or something similar). And then a constant game of security whack-a-mole like we see with anti-virus software. And then some brilliant entrepreneur will start selling firewalls for cars. And then it’ll be passed into law that it’s illegal to use a vehicle that doesn’t have an active firewall/anti-virus subscription.
It almost feels like the obvious path things will go down. Yay, capitalism…
I’m not totally opposed to software being used in cars (as long as it’s tested and can be trusted to the degree mechanical components are) but yeah, OTA updates just seem like a terrible idea just for a little convenience. I’d rather see updates delivered via plugging the car in (and not via the charging port - it would need to be a specific data transfer port for security reasons). Alert people when there’s an update, and even allow the car to “refuse to boot” if it detects it’s not on the latest version. But updates should absolutely be done manually and securely.
Cutting someone’s brake lines has been a means of assassination for a while. What’s new here is that it could potentially be done remotely, e.g. an attacker in Bucharest targeting a victim in Seattle on behalf of a payer in Moscow.
Remotely at scale.
So yeah you could assassinate someone like that, or you could break every cars brakes at once and have thousands of simultaneous car accidents timed during some other infrastructure attack
This reminds me of the movie “Leave the world behind” from last year.
And at any time.
Cutting someone’s brake lines is all or nothing and can’t be done while the vehicle is already in motion. Anyone who is not an idiot will hopefully notice as soon as they start driving that there’s something wrong with the brakes. But you could brick somebody’s car remotely and without warning while they’re taking a curve on the interstate at 80 MPH, and that’d be a lot more problematic.
In reality, few to no people outside of novels and Hollywood have actually been killed by some malefactor “cutting their brake lines.”
Um, what city do you live in? Can I live there please? Not many skilled drivers around here.
You do realize your entire first point is invalidated by the comment you’re replying to? I just said the customer has to press a button on their phone to initiate the update. On that same phone they can view release notes that clearly outline the recall. Additional on first use, the car will display those same release notes on the screen.
Sure, safety vs convenience is a huge factor in software development. The biggest factor to safety is unpatched software. You know, the kind that requires significant effort to update, such as needing to bring your car into the shop to apply.
Overall your doom and gloom argument against OTA safety updates is pretty weak.
Oh good, hackers can’t bypass button presses. I was worried for a bit, appreciate you helping us out.
Mr hackerman couldn’t get to the car because it crashed first due to a software bug the customer did not have time to take his car to the shop to fix.
The real world is quite different than the idealistic one.
Fair enough.
What should the term be?