It still doesn't sound right to me. Sure we can get adapted to the new meaning of the term as time goes on, but to me the term has strong implications to physically bring it back, and it is weird that people are claiming that it doesn't.
Surely this causes a lot of confusion at the very least people thinking those vehicles actually have to be brought back.
And the word "Email" has strong implications to actually putting a piece of paper in an envelope with stamp, and physically delivering it to their mailbox. But the world adapted and survived the change in the strong implications of the word "mail", somehow, and continues to turn on its axis.
Recall is the act of officially summoning someone or something back to its place of origin. A product recall is defined as a request to return, exchange, or replace a product after a manufacturer or consumer watch group discovers defects that could hinder performance, harm consumers, or produce legal issues for the producers.
and
A product recall is a request from a manufacturer to return a product after the discovery of safety issues or product defects that might endanger the consumer or put the maker or seller at risk of legal action. Product recalls are one of a number of corrective actions that can be taken for products that are deemed to be unsafe.
It specifically says "request to return."
It's very important because the word "recall" to me is rather about the cost to the business and consumer rather than severity of an issue or it being specifically safety issue.
Recall could be something that is done as a response to a safety issue, but recall could be done for some other reasons as well. E.g. the product could not just be performing as well, but not be a safety issue. There's a defect that means product lifetime will be limited, etc.
I did, just to be safe, once again look up the legal definition of recall (both in regard to cars and other products) and continue to find that it was never written in a way that would make OTA not fit the term. It isn't limited to vehicles, but extends even to perishables for which a physical return directly to the manufacturer is not expected even using a more liberal interpretation of the word.
Here, this is what recall, in this context means:
> A recall is issued when a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a vehicle, equipment, car seat, or tire creates an unreasonable safety risk or fails to meet minimum safety standards. Most decisions to conduct a recall and remedy a safety defect are made voluntarily by manufacturers prior to any involvement by NHTSA.
> Manufacturers are required to fix the problem by repairing it, replacing it, offering a refund, or in rare cases repurchasing the vehicle.
OTA falls under that. Can you perhaps find some source saying the contrary somewhere on the internet (just like one can find numerous sources proclaiming the earth to be flat)? Yes.
Does that change the legal definition as it has been in place for decades? No.
And if you want to fully ho by whatever some random person may believe recall to mean, then does that mean that product recalls for produce, milk, etc. do not exist according to you, because the item isn’t necessarily interfacing with the manufacturer again, but may just get disposed?
That was my point. If people feel this definition should be changed, more power to them, but arguing that OTA have as of yet not been covered by the definition is just dishonest.
I'd be partial to calling these recalls something akin to "Mitigating unreasonable safety issue", but I feel that for some reason, some people may feel compeled to argue that this wouldn't be fair to Tesla either, no matter how dangerous or forseeable a fault might be.
It’s not dishonest to not want to call something that is not a recall a recall.
You might note that while the definition presented doesn’t explicitly exclude over the air updates, it also didn’t explicitly include them. Very likely because it was written before they were a thing.
In my opinion this definition of the recall uses the original definition, and people are now saying that since an OTA update is not specifically precluded from being a recall under this definition, surely that must be part of the original meaning of the word (which the parent comments have already established is incorrect).
Yeah, the argument is about the legal definition being misleading and confusing and what should be changed, because of the bias and meaning of the word "recall". The fact that most google results will imply physical return of the product is evidence of popular definition and legal definition diverging. In addition the word inherently implies bring it back because of the "re". It doesn't imply "there's a safety issue that needs to be addressed".
> some people may feel compeled to argue that this wouldn't be fair to Tesla either, no matter how dangerous or forseeable a fault might be.
Also the point isn't about whether it's fair to Tesla or not. I don't care about Tesla here. It could be any manufacturer, point is that it makes it seem like it's a financial and logistical nightmare to come, but clicking on headline, it's just a software update.
Of course by now, I've personally seen this in headlines many times and grown indifferent, but it occurs to me still every time.
In my native language the term "recall" has even stronger implications of physical return, it means "call to bring it back". It sounds even more bizarre than in English for a software update.
> [...] point is that it makes it seem like it's a financial and logistical nightmare to come, but clicking on headline, it's just a software update.
If we go by what "it seem[s] like" (to a layperson), we could reasonably argue that the word (scientific) "theory" should be changed because a significant part of the populus confuses that with the definition of hypothesis.
This also, again, ignores that, long before OTA was a thing for cars, the logistics behind recalls for items ranging from meat, over mattresses, to medical equipment, etc. differed widely in execution and financial impact, yet again, have all been covered under the same term.
This started because you stated that by considering severe safety issues as recalls we'd have to adapt to a "new meaning", simply because you felt it is weird that OTA addressable safety issues are covered by that, when this has historically been the accepted, commonly used and well worn definition. If you want to change it, than more power to you, but don't claim that yours is the original definition, when it isn't. Especially since terms like these are regulated to ensure companies cannot weasel around them.
> In my native language the term "recall" has even stronger implications of physical return, it means "call to bring it back".
German? If we go purely by the literal definition of words, then I'd question why no one ever saw fit to complain that a recall/Rückruf rarely contains an actual call (or shout in the case of German) to the customers affected.
Add to that, is it really reasonable to just point at the most literal definition a, both well established and for good reasons regulated, word has? One that, again, has been in use for decades across many product types where the remedy was not having to bring the item to a garage for a fix to get wrenched on?
Idiomatic expressions exist, I hope deadlines aren't taken literally at any modern workplace.
Nilpferd also sounds bizarre considering they are closer to whales than horses, evolutinary speaking, yet we somehow manage, so I feel Rückruf isn't even close to the worst offender in that regard.
Not German. Okay, from other side of the view. Why not change it? It's clearly confusing a lot of people, and with such an important topic, where people would have to pay attention.
> but don't claim that yours is the original definition, when it isn't. Especially since terms like these are regulated to ensure companies cannot weasel around them.
I'm not claiming it's an original definition. It's just a very confusing and misleading term, that gets used in odd ways.
Someone in here suggested "Public Dangerous Defect Notice". Doesn't have to be this, but what about something similar?
In general, I think trying to replace a word gets increasingly hard the longer the replacement is than the original (in terms of letters for writing and syllables for speaking). I have a hard time imagining people being bothered enough by the current term to be willing to say something four times as long (or using five times as many characters-worth of space on the page in an era where online news is already struggling to keep people's attention).
Surely this causes a lot of confusion at the very least people thinking those vehicles actually have to be brought back.