Tesla's Lead in Car Software Updates Remains Unchallenged (wired.com)
- Reference: 0179642656
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/10/03/151237/teslas-lead-in-car-software-updates-remains-unchallenged
- Source link: https://www.wired.com/story/why-are-car-software-updates-still-so-bad/
General Motors actually introduced OTA functionality first in 2010, two years before Tesla, but limited it to the OnStar telematics system. Traditional automakers treat software as one bolt-on component among many. Tesla and other digital-native brands like Rivian, Lucid and Chinese companies including BYD and Xpeng treat it as central. There are now 69 million OTA-capable vehicles in the United States, S&P Global estimates. More than 13 million vehicles were recalled in 2024 due to software-related issues, a 35 percent increase over the prior year. OTA updates cost automakers $66.50 per vehicle for each gigabyte of data, Harman Automotive estimates.
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/why-are-car-software-updates-still-so-bad/
Of course (Score:1)
When you beta test on your customers you roll out lots of fixes and updates. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there's code to delete the self driving logs if the vehicle detects a crash. You can't be at fault if it's unproven!
unsurprising (Score:4, Informative)
No automaker has matched Tesla's production of terrible quality vehicles either. Tesla ships prototypes, then exploits their ability to push updates as an excuse for their terrible engineering.
It should also be appreciated that Tesla's OTA mechanisms are built on top of open source software that has been exploited. If you enjoy the possibility of your car being hijacked, then Tesla is the car for you.
Um... Weird flex bro (Score:5, Insightful)
Most cars don't need 42 software updates... Hell most Windows computers don't need 42 software updates. A computer usually lasts me about 5 years before I'm upgrading it (technically the motherboard and CPU but you get the idea) and I'll get about 25 updates during that time give or take account for a little more than four per year.
This is like how Tesla brags they have the best selling model car because they only have three models. Sort of like how the commodore 64 is to this day the best selling computer model. Because everybody else constantly changes their model names and has lots of them in their lines.
Here's my speculation (Score:1)
Tech companies can learn to make cars. It's not easy, but it's possible.
Car companies have trouble with tech. There is something about their management or culture that's hostile to tech workers
Maybe they hire the wrong people
Maybe they treat the people badly
Maybe something else
Car companies are an evolution or really old management practices
Tech companies are free to try new ideas
Should cars be getting frequent software updates? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this something we want to strive for? My hot take is that if my car is getting frequent (and automatic/forced) software updates then something is fundamentally wrong with that car and the company making it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not all updates are to fix problems. Some updates are introducing new problems .... oops, I meant features.
$66? (Score:3)
> OTA updates cost automakers $66.50 per vehicle for each gigabyte of data, Harman Automotive estimates.
What nonsense. When Tesla sends an update. it comes in over the internet, to my house and onto the car via wifi. I'm guessing Tesla isn't paying $66 per gigabyte for their ISP service and neither am I.
More Patches Does Not Mean Reliable (Score:2)
Just by testing software more thoroughly would prevent unnecessary updates. As a former auto fabricator, I ascribe to the "Keep It Simple Stupid" school of thought. The cars from 1990s-2010s have less to go wrong. Older tractors are sought after. There's an old-fashioned Speed Queen washer that is the most reliable washer made.
Well (Score:1)
This is an engineering miracle. But it has also a public safety nightmare because pedestrians and cyclists cannot tell if a Tesla is under human or machine control. Unlike Waymo, where it is given away by the fancy sensors and LiDAR etc.
Software company making smartphones with wheels (Score:2)
Leading in over-the-air software updates in context of automakers should be pejorative, as the last thing anyone wants is a buggy and constantly changing automobile.
More like Tesla's Lead in Car Software Bugs (Score:2)
More like "Tesla's Lead in Car Software Bugs Remains Unchallenged," am I right?
As if "leading" in frequent bugs to fix was good.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The article makes it sound as if it was "good" for a car to require frequent bug fixes. I for one would rate those cars the best that need no bug fixes - and therefore also no "over the air update" mechanism. Having the latter even gives the manufacturer an incentive to release buggy software.
Re: (Score:1)
I can't relate to what you're saying. Out of all cars I've ever driven, Tesla has the best tech.
Re: (Score:2)
That's how I read this: they had 42 bugs that were so severe that they felt the need to run 42 updates in 6 months.
Re: (Score:2)
The trick is for us, the consumer, to be able to tell the difference between "doesn't need updates because there's no bugs" and "doesn't get updates because we don't know how."