Exactly this. If they would mail me a USB stick with the update so I could do it myself I'd happily do that, but driving 20-30 minutes to the dealer, waiting for the update, and then driving back home is an enormous waste of time.

Dodge/Chrysler/Ram did that a few years ago when some researchers showed how they could take over a Jeep Grand Cherokee via the 4G connection in the entertainment center, and apply brakes and gas. I got a USB stick in the mail, with instructions on how to use it.

Though how sure were you that it was Chrysler that sent you that USB stick? Not that I don’t think it was legit but is that really more secure than an encrypted OTA update?

> Though how sure were you that it was Chrysler that sent you that USB stick?

For the same reason you never get malware USB sticks in the mail to stick into your computer. It costs money.

How much of this is due to the nature of software being changed so often? We do this very thing with hardware recalls on our vehicles, but my hunch is we tolerate it because it happens so rarely and people more easily and intuitively understand how hardware can cause a bad day.

I'd be curious on the HN perspective. Are we less willing to accept this from software because it's taken as a given that when "it's just software" changes are easy? Does it imply that the software process (particularly requirements and testing) are not as robust as with hardware processes, leading to more frequent updates? Does it imply we are overly reliant on software to mitigate hardware issues because "it's easier"? (I'm thinking, in part, of the 737-Max issue for the last one).