but at the other end of the spectrum, Tesla have had issues with cars running into walls while the driver was enjoying self driving OTA content, or cars catching fire after new fast charging OTA content, in neither of the cases they issued recalls as legally defined.
So I’m not so sure whether manufacturers should be allowed direct OTA updates without recalls or heavy regulatory oversights.
Boeing could have designed MCAS on 737 MAX so that the company can rewrite its behaviors covertly and remotely, except that that isn’t how airplanes work. Why should it be how cars work?
> I’m not so sure whether manufacturers should be allowed direct OTA updates without recalls or heavy regulatory oversights.
I think there probably should be some oversight, but not all ECU updates are serious enough to warrant an official recall. Sometimes they're just cosmetic changes or improvements to the head unit's user interface. Sometimes they're bug fixes for convenience features that are not a risk to the operation of the vehicle. Sometimes they're compliance related (ex. Volvo updated my headunit so that the 360 surround camera view couldn't be the default view when shifting into reverse (a US law requires that the backup camera is seen when shifting into reverse).
but at the other end of the spectrum, Tesla have had issues with cars running into walls while the driver was enjoying self driving OTA content, or cars catching fire after new fast charging OTA content, in neither of the cases they issued recalls as legally defined.
So I’m not so sure whether manufacturers should be allowed direct OTA updates without recalls or heavy regulatory oversights.
Boeing could have designed MCAS on 737 MAX so that the company can rewrite its behaviors covertly and remotely, except that that isn’t how airplanes work. Why should it be how cars work?