> This is a good thing, as long as processes are improved to avoid situations like this one.

How do you figure. I can’t think of a single thing in my vehicle that could be improved by software. When I buy a car I’d prefer it was done.

It's supposedly a good thing because more features can be added over time, but if they were features worth adding in the first place, the car should have shipped with them already.

That is the big difference between hardware and software engineering: Once hardware is shipped, there is nothing you can do besides repaurs and retrofits requiring a workshop. Software can updated and changed today anytime.

My biggest issue with modern cars, and it seems this is spreading to other embedded systems than cars, is treating those as software: connect them to the web and run OTA updates everytime you need to fix a bug. That requires some form of inzernet cinnection, which requires regular security updates, which require OTA update capability. All that because, bluntly, software devs cannot be bothered with just finishing software running on non-connected hardware that just works, not can they be bothered following hardware development in case hardware is the main component, as in cars. And no, no car manufacturer is a software company, nor phone maker like Apple.

The proper way of fixing software bigs in automotive used to be, again thank you Tesla for breaking something that just worked, to recall the affected cars to a workshop to conduct the software update. Honestly, the only thing on a car that should be updated by the owner is maps for the GPS unit.

Things work like that just fine: buy an old car and call it a day.

The less software in my car the better.