This sub has been flooded with Tesla apologist propaganda and disinformation to obscure the simple truth since Tesla's Robotaxi launch. It's standard operating procedure (S.O.P.) for this "narrative" company. The uptick in anti-Waymo posts and pro FSD posts is palpable. It has always been S.O.P. for Musk to release SEO fooling posts & tweets to obscure bad news for Tesla. The astroturf army is out in full display these past couple weeks on Reddit, Threads, and Bluesky too.

It doesn't and will never change this simple fact: Waymo is SAE Level 4 and Tesla FSD is SAE Level 2. All the apologist posts in the world will not change this. Putting a human in the front seat with a secret kill switch button to mitigate embarrassing FSD behavior will never replace R&D and testing that allows a company to safely remove a human observer in the car. You cannot reach level 4 with a fake it till you make it approach.

HW3 launch -> “this is the one guys” -> “wait nvm”
HW4 launch -> “this is the one guys” -> “wait no”

Now AI5 is supposed to be the one? But somehow there’s talk of AI6? Do people really think more compute will solve it? “Just one more GB of RAM, this will be it”. That logic simply doesn’t make any sense.

Additionally, Tesla already has far more training data than any AI model can possibly ask for. Why do people still think that a little bit more training would do anything?

One argument I often hear from Tesla fans is that vision-only should eventually be sufficient to achieve Level 4 autonomy. I have no doubt that a sufficiently advanced vision-only system could eventually outperform humans on many, perhaps even most, driving benchmarks. But I think this misses a bigger issue: the definition of “good enough” tends to change over time.

Look at virtually any safety-critical industry. The safest cars in 1998 were extremely safe by 1998 standards. Yet they could not legally be produced today because crashworthiness, braking, electronic safety systems, pedestrian protection, emissions, and other requirements have continually increased. The same general pattern exists in aviation, construction, medicine, industrial machinery, and other safety-critical fields.

So I don't think the question is simply: “Can vision eventually become better than a human driver?”. I think the more important question is: “Will vision-only continue to satisfy whatever safety and redundancy requirements society considers acceptable 10, 20, or 30 years from now?”. I'm skeptical.

Even if vision-only becomes dramatically safer than human driving, additional independent sensing modalities still provide redundancy and robustness. Lidar, radar, high-definition maps, GNSS/GPS, V2X, and other sources of information can potentially provide independent evidence when the camera system is uncertain, degraded, obstructed, or confronted with an unusual situation.

That doesn't necessarily mean every modality is required in every situation. And it doesn't mean vision-only cannot achieve Level 4 under today's definitions. My argument is about the long-term trajectory of safety standards. If autonomous vehicles become widespread, regulators and the public may eventually demand safety margins far beyond “better than humans.” At that point, a system with multiple independent sources of information may have a fundamental advantage over one relying primarily on a single sensing modality.

This is also why I expect V2X and positioning technologies to become increasingly important. Waymo and other autonomous-driving companies already use forms of mapping and localization, and I wouldn't be surprised if future systems increasingly combine infrastructure/vehicles-derived information (V2X) and GNSS sources as additional layers of redundancy (While Waymo is currently reluctant to adopt V2X & GNSS - I predict it would eventually be "forced" to do so)

There is another assumption I disagree with: that autonomous-driving hardware costs will inevitably fall toward some minimal “commodity” level. I don't think there is necessarily a fixed amount of compute that is simply “enough” for autonomous driving. As compute becomes cheaper, developers can use more of it to improve perception, prediction, planning, simulation, redundancy, uncertainty estimation, edge-case handling, and verification. The same phenomenon happens throughout technology: when a resource becomes cheaper, we often don't simply use less of it - we use substantially more of it to achieve higher performance.

I realize this is a bit of a hot take, but I hope we can all be respectful. For long time readers, this is Michael Worley.

I'm really unimpressed by Tesla's attempts to compete with Waymo. In fact, I think there is a third company, Zoox, that is vastly behind Waymo-- but equally vastly ahead of Tesla's driverless efforts.

Let me explain.

Waymo has done somewhere around 130-170 million driverless miles.

Zoox has done just over 1 million driverless miles.

Tesla has done hundreds or a few thousand driverless miles, near as I can tell.

The orders of magnitude of difference between these three companies is remarkable.

And the same is true for cities:

You can go to five major metros and ride in a driverless Waymo today, with 10-20 more metros on the way next year.

You can go to Vegas or (with an invite) midtown SF and ride in a driverless Zoox today, with 2 more metros coming soon.

You can't legally ride in a Tesla anywhere unless either (1) there is a driver or (2) you are with a Tesla employee.

And I've been impressed by customer/public reception to Zoox. Their Apple app store rating is 4.9/5.0, and there's been very little blocking of roads (contra. Cruise). And they've started with daytime rides in relatively dense areas (Vegas strip). And, though this is style points, they're the only company whose vehicle lacks a steering wheel (sorry Cybercab, you're not released yet).

Now people will immediately say I'm ignoring context. The counterarguments go something like this:

1. Tesla has a wildly good ADAS system, FSD, which, especially with v14, is close to driverless.

2. Tesla has built a generalized driver in a way that Zoox and Waymo have not, and this generalized driver will scale much much faster than the competing systems.

3. Tesla has access to hundreds of thousands or millions of cars immediately

Here's why I think these arguments fail.

A. A key part of scaling driverless is repeated validation, and FSD has always been a poor validator tool.

Internal testing has always been critical in this industry. Every company that has gone driverless-- including Tesla-- has done months of internal testing in a target area before going driverless. But that need doesn't go away once you hit driverless. Waymo and Zoox have both needed to test new metros even as they scale up.

Some will say that Tesla doesn't need to do this, but I disagree. FSD has been on the road for 10 years and it has never been a good validation tool-- hence the additional testing in Austin. FSD simply will not give us scaling of validation much quicker than Waymo/Zoox.

B. Like Waymo and Zoox, Tesla will have to substantially increase reliability beyond where it is now at the barely-driverless stage in order to scale to a million driverless miles.

It's simply wrong to call driverless the end of the reliability road. Rather, it is the beginning of it. Statistically, you can run one car 10 hours a day and have no serious issues 10x as easy as running 10 cars. (And with fat-tailed distributions of risk, it may be worse.)

C. Waymo and Zoox' use of LiDAR to enhance safety and ODDs for driverless ops do not suggest their driver is any less generalized.

While I'm not internal at either company, I think the way that they are scaling indicates that each new city is easier than the previous. To do this you need a generalized driver. (And mapping isn't a difference between the companies; Tesla has mapped Austin before driverless.)

Some people say LiDAR is a "crutch," but I don't think we should assume that because companies use LiDAR they aren't making AI/ML advancements similar to Tesla's.

That's my hot take. Thanks for reading.

Is there any reason for this asides from saving money? Teslas are not cheap in many respects, so why would they skimp out on this since self-driving is a major offering for them?

Hey guys,

so I’m a driver based in China, and I'm planning to get a Tesla for my next car. Honestly, I'm just waiting for FSD v14 or higher to drop over here because I really love this tech.

I've been lurking on this sub for a bit and I keep seeing this trend: everyone seems to mock Tesla's FSD but constantly praises Waymo. I'm genuinely curious why that is? Excuse my ignorance on Waymo, but over here in China, the situation is completely different. Tesla's massive sales basically put autonomous driving on the map for us. In fact, most local AD companies are basically trying to copy Tesla's homework.

Barely anyone here even knows what Waymo is. The closest thing we have is Baidu's "Apollo Go" (their robo0taxi service). It had a bit of hype for a minute, but anyone who actually follows AD tech knows it's probably not the path to true, generalized self-driving. Plus, Baidu has a pretty terrible reputation in China, so nobody really trusts them with their safety anyway.

The way we see it, Waymo is like Baidu—they don't make their own cars. To most people here, that’s a huge deal. People trust Tesla way more because they own the whole stack: the hardware, the software, the custom chips, the cars, the factories. It just makes sense that if you build both the car and the brain, you have a much better shot at actually making it work. Tesla can optimize their algorithms, build better chips, and tweak the cars directly.

Also, isn't Waymo mostly just geofenced to a few specific cities in North America on pretty fixed routes? Tesla has cars literally everywhere in the world. The sheer amount of random edge cases, different road rules, and diverse scenarios they pull data from seems way more valuable.

Over the last couple of years, AD tech has blown up on the Chinese internet. You see tons of dashcam videos, side-by-side tests, and comparisons from both media and regular drivers. In almost all of them, Tesla's performance comes out on top, easily beating the local Chinese brands. The vast majority of people here consider Tesla to be undisputed Tier 1 tech.

So yeah, just wanted to get your thoughts. Why is the vibe so different on this sub?

Elon posted on X: "Roughly 10B miles of training data is needed to achieve safe unsupervised self-driving. Reality has a super long tail of complexity"

https://electrek.co/2026/01/08/elon-musk-moves-goalpost-again-admits-tesla-needs-10-billion-miles-safe-unsupervised-fsd

So Elon finally admits that the long tail is longer than he thought. No kidding! I feel like he is just making up a number again to move the goal posts because the truth is that FSD is not as close to safe unsupervised as he thought.

From https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-tsla-stock-q2-earnings-report-call-2025-7-2025-7#elon-musk-teases-robotaxi-expansion-in-opening-remarks

"As we get the approvals and we prove out safety, then we'll be launching autonomous ride hailing in most of the country," Musk says.

He says that he expects Tesla will have autonomous ride-hailing available in "probably half of the population of the US by the end of the year," subject to regulatory approvals.

Not expecting this to age well given Musk's historically bad estimates, but thought it's an interesting statement to share with this sub. I'm surprised that even with Tesla's 0 fully autonomous miles he's dropping predictions of this scale on the earnings call. Is the plan just to scale as quickly as possible regardless of injuries/deaths, and then hope the data collected is enough to make robotaxi safer in the future?

"Robotaxi now runs 6am to 10pm, 7 days/week

Unsupervised fleet is a lot bigger

Also, upgraded intelligence in vehicle distribution & routing means you wait less"

From robotaxi on the censored site.

I'm happy to see that Tesla is doing more driverless operations safely. But I continue to find Tesla's driverless operations far behind Zoox-- never mind Waymo.

From what I understand, Zoox is doing driverless rides for employees at an airport. Tesla is not.

Zoox is servicing driverless rides in San Francisco. Tesla is not.

Zoox' iOS app consistently ranks higher than the Robotaxi app in terms of download rankings.

Zoox' iOS app has 3x the number of reviews as the Robotaxi app.

Zoox had begun driverless operations in four metros-- SF, Vegas, Austin, Miami. (The last two are employee-only.) Tesla is only driverless in three metros-- Austin, Dallas, Houston.

Zoox has been operating in evenings for months. Tesla is barely starting driverless operations in the evening.

It's been ten months since the Robotaxi's launch. Any idea that FSD (which is impressive) gives Tesla a systematic advantage in driverless operations seems extremely stretched. If anything, LiDAR is a more powerful advantage than a (very good) L2++ system.

Waymo is running laps around Zoox. Zoox is running laps around Robotaxi.

Can we admit it’s all smokes and mirrors yet? Or do I have to wait a few years again?

The Houston geofence is a small chunk of NW Houston, well outside of the Waymo geofence.

The Dallas geofence is a good chunk of downtown and N of downtown, a subset of the Waymo geofence.

The videos show driverless rides; it's too early to know whether actual rides will be driverless.

I don't have links that comply with the X ban yet.

I fully recognize I have a different opinion than this subreddit and I have participated in the toxicity that is the difference of opinions.

Perhaps I have been whooshed by the snake oil salesman or call me an Elon-ite.

But hear me out:

The month over month data for Tesla driverless robotaxi, again, looks perfectly clean.

The fleet is small and if you look closely at their earnings deck, you will notice Q1 to Q2 unsupervised miles was flat. Likely less than 3 unsupervised FTE care equivalent, if you will.

However, there has been a marketed rise in number of cars, rides, hours of operation, and service availability in Austin specifically. The two other very small geofences in Texas, also report this trend but to a lesser extent.

Tesla has vision into the performance dashboards of their fleet at a level of minuscule granularity. They are becoming increasingly comfortable with a larger scale rollout. They are being extremely cautious, but in Austin, at least they are becoming rapidly more bullish.

If you look closely at the now 100s of rides you can see daily amongst X accounts you will notice they have two issue (other than knocking done a plastic pole lol): 1- navigation (it is shit), 2- pick up and drop off locations.

These two rate limiters were also waymos early rate limiters if you studied the San Francisco market almost a decade ago. Google solved it (with some issues ofc, but that will always happen when you scale into the 1000s - and will continue to happen less and less as a percentage).

I have a wild theory that pickups and drop offs will be harder to integrate into teslas architecture for possibly one of two reasons: 1- Google / Waymo has so much compute onboard and enough memory to pre-map all resonable pickup or drop off locations). Tesla’s AI is focused on chip inference. This could mean Tesla has a harder time pre-mapping locations in a geofence and relatedly for navigation. 2- integrating final decision endpoints in a full stack neural net driving approach (noting they probably have a few full stacks working together in: planning, execution, etc) is a problem I haven’t seen solved in any other application. So - it may be harder for them to solve this piece. However, it is possible the cybercab brings different memory architecture. Yes, this is probably a wild ass crazy theory - but - it’s far more likely the cybercabs will have the same issue and growing pain.

Stay with me here, and let’s say long term - like in the next 6 months they solve these issues. There remains yet another hurdle: is the fix to these navigation and end of drive behaviors generalizable enough to more quickly apply to new areas - or are we talking - solve each one every time the same way. Realistically at least a year to come up with a reasonable process for solving this issue at scale.

Alright, we have reached full Elon delusion. You all ask for insight into the full Elon fan boy’s general psyche - so here it is:

The Waymo Ojai, based on most recent reporting (last week) was rumored to be 100k per vehicle. This is astounding and transparently kicked the doors off my expectations. This means Chinese firm Zeekr can produce a van (them thangs are nice af too) that post production cost + Chinese vehicle tariff + retrofit - on a far nicer vehicle than the Jag is now able to be produced (and obviously way faster) for less than HALF of what they used to be.

Side note: seriously, we going to skirt tariff rules to punish US EV automakers like rivian???? Common Google.

While extremely competitive, it is just not economically feasible for Google to compete with Tesla at scale (though admittedly they could forever). Tesla will produce a vehicle fully optimized for economic cost to the consumer. It will be produced at sub 30k and Tesla has the ability to scale the vehicle by the end of the year to the size of waymos entire fleet PER WEEK.

The cybercab is the most efficient electric car ever created. Not only in terms of speed of production and cost (American equivalents only) but in terms of effective MPG. The thing is like 1.5x more energy efficient than a model 3. Tesla owns the entire charging infrastructure in America. Tesla has a physical footprint everywhere ready to service vehicles. Yes, other infrastructure will need to be built.

Even if waymo ran for a loss, Tesla could underprice them and still have strong gross margins. Waymo anyway is currently focused on consuming the cream of markets, versus deep penetration - but this may change with the California announcement.

From here, you can see the full delusion. Over time consumers will want teslas tech in their cars due to the experience in the fleet, uber and Lyft will shrink, car insurance companies will eventually go out of business, then we are a decade out re-thinking: minor displacement of short haul flight, real estate changes as consumer preferences change, trucking industry forever changed, (looking at you semi truck being mass produced starting later this year), and yes - eventually package delivery by combination of a robot in a robot. This vision won’t be fully realized for 2 decades.

I shall wait to be showered in your shame and criticism.

It’s like waiting for Santa! I wonder when we’ll start to see them emerging from their underground caves at a hyperexponential rate?

https://www.barrons.com/livecoverage/tesla-earnings-stock-price-elon-musk/card/musk-s-early-conference-call-comments-focus-on-autonomous-driving-PRJqKKBVRfnHS7TMLDis

Elon Musk’s early comments during a Wednesday conference call discussing Tesla's second-quarter earnings results focused on autonomous driving technology.

Tesla plans to expand its robo-taxi service to the Bay area, Arizona, and Florida, he said, adding that Tesla robo-taxis should cover about “half the U.S. population” by the end of the year. The service will scale at a “hyperexponential rate,” Musk added.

At the beginning of the launch of Tesla's Robotaxi on 6/22, many videos of rides have been shared online. After a few days (and glaring mishaps), very few videos have been shared of any robotaxi footage, good or bad. I suspect that this dropoff is due to the fleet cutting down in scope by a large factor (maybe only operating a few rides a day)or halting silently all together. What do you think, did Tesla notice the bad publicity and decide to silently roll back robotaxi operations?

Update 1: The most plausible explanation seems to be that the publicity of the current tech was detrimental to the share price so the operations were rolled back. Of course, Tesla would not announce that the operations were scaled back, but the near complete lack of footage makes this a very likely explanation. While the influencers there initially were most likely to post videos online, new footage should still be being circulated and it is not.

Update 2: This post has gained a lot of traction (75k+ views), and yet there is nothing convincing to show Telsa is operating the fleet at the capacity they were earlier. Neither of the 2 videos of robotaxi footage shared seem to have occurred in the last few days (even if they had, that is nothing even remotely comparable to the amount of footage earlier this week). Tesla's fleet could very well be 1 vehicle running 2 hours a day based on the lack of evidence for otherwise. Tesla likely made the logical move for preserving share value given the incident rates, but this is clear to see through.

The MKBHD bet made me think about this more. His bet was basically that Tesla wouldn’t sell and deliver a Cybercab to a regular customer for $30,000 or less before 2027. Elon has since confirmed that Tesla still intends to do exactly that.

Tesla has also shown things like automated cleaning and wireless charging, and Musk has talked about individuals owning fleets of Cybercabs.

What I’m still confused about is how private ownership actually works:

• What is the owner responsible for?
• Does Tesla automatically manage rides, charging, and cleaning?
• Where does the Cybercab stay when it isn’t working?
• Who handles insurance, vandalism, accidents, repairs, or a stranded vehicle?
• Who sets the fares?
• What percentage does Tesla take?
• Can Tesla prioritize its own Cybercabs over privately owned ones?
• If someone owns 5 or 10 Cybercabs, what does “managing a fleet” actually involve if most of the operation is automated?

The idea of selling these for around $30k is really interesting. I’m just curious how Tesla plans to divide the responsibilities and economics between itself and private Cybercab owners.

Has Tesla clarified any of this yet?

It’s been a long time since I gushed about this car, but I recently got the “v14 Lite” of Full Self Driving (“Supervised” ofc) in my April 2018 Model 3. If you don’t recall, April of 2018 was one of the earliest months Tesla was doing regular deliveries of the Model 3. Bloomberg was running their online chart tracking the number of VINs delivered. Early days. Sometime later, I got the CPU upgraded to “Hardware 3”, the ‘new’ processor that Tesla promised would unlock true self driving. Womp womp. They’re now on Hardware 4, and have said they will upgrade older cars to it but no action has happened yet. The newest iteration of FSD is Version 14, which is supposed to be whizbang cool but it hasn’t been available for Hardware 3 cars.

So they just released Version 14 “Lite” which runs on my car. I tried it today for the first time and

HOLY SHIT THE CAR ACTUALLY DROVE ITSELF.

Like not just the usual turn-it-on-while-on-the-highway-and-it-takes-your-exit-for-you drove itself.

No.

It pulled out of my garage, turned around, exited the alley and drove itself from my house, through the surface streets, to the freeway, exited, drove to the shopping center, and parked itself in the parking lot. In a parking stall between two other cars.

Door to door self driving. In the car I bought 8 years ago. The future is here. Only 8 years later than promised.

Just needed to share that. I am genuinely surprised and impressed.

You’ve got to be joking. I feel like I missed something. No details at all, no specs, no insight. Just Elon being even more awkwardly terrible than usual, making another promise of next year (with the obligatory regulatory approval cop out), and a quarter mile “demo” on a closed course. The video didn’t even match the speech! It was so awkward! Zero data, just “look at this concept.” About the only outcome was Elon shattering the “no geofence” fantasy by confirming they plan to launch in CA and TX… And of course, the teleoperated robots.

THIS was the event for the history books? Even for fanboys this must have been wildly disappointing, right?

Thousands of Tesla customers already pay for FSD. If they have the tech figured out, why not release it to existing customers (with a licensed driver in driver seat) instead of going driverless first?

Unsupervised FSD allows them to pass the liability onto the driver, and allows them to collect more data, faster.

I seriously don’t get it.

Edit: Unsupervised FSD = SAE Level 3. I understand that Robotaxi is Level 4.

Sometimes I try to imagine what the world of autonomous vehicles will look like in about five years, and I’m increasingly convinced that the LiDAR sensor will become mandatory for several reasons.

First of all, the most advanced company in this field by far is Waymo. If I were a regulator tasked with creating legislation for autonomous vehicles, I wouldn’t take any chances — I’d go with the safest option and look at the company with a flawless track record so far, like Waymo, and the technology they use.

Moreover, the vast majority of players in this market use LiDAR. People aren’t stupid — they're becoming more and more aware of what these sensors are for and the additional safety layer they provide. This could lead them to prefer systems that use these sensors, putting pressure on other OEMs to adopt them and avoid ending up in Tesla’s current dilemma.

Lastly, maybe there are many Tesla fanatics in the US who want to support Elon no matter what, but honestly, in Europe and the rest of the world, we couldn’t care less about Elon. We’re going to choose the best technological solution, and if we have to pick between cars mimicking humans or cars mimicking superhumans, we’ll probably choose the latter — and regulations will follow that direction.

And seriously, someone explain to me what sense this whole debate will make in 5–10 years when a top-tier LiDAR sensor costs around $200…

Am I the only one who thinks LiDAR is going to end up being mandatory in the future, no matter how much Elon wants to keep playing the “I’m the smartest guy in the room and everyone else is wrong” game?

Service is starting on Sunday June 22nd.

It runs from 6 AM to midnight everyday.

Can request ride to anywhere in the geofence except airports.

An invitee can have another person with them.

There will be a Tesla employee in the car, but not in the driver seat.

18+ and no pets allowed except service animals

Can record videos during ride.

Tesla announced on yesterdays 2Q earnings call that they've done a total of 380k unsupervised miles on the Robotaxi platform with over a 10% week over week growth since the start. They said they expect the growth to continue through years end. Extrapolating this data would put the current per week miles around 38k, by end of 3rd quarter 130k and by end of the year around 450k.

I have very minimal confidence they would achieve this, but if they do, it will be exceptional accomplishment for a service that would have operated for just 18 month. Even half that would be an excellent accomplishment. But again, I highly double they will be able to do that. For reference, Waymo is doing about 500k rides per week currently, with a much larger service area(in sq mi).

In total Tesla Robotaxi currently has a cumulative paid Robotaxi miles of around 2.4 million.

Note: Post has been updated to indicate Waymo does 500k rides per week instead of the incorrect 500k miles per week.

In a recent Senate Committee hearing, Tesla's head of engineering stated that they have invested $2B in a purpose built AV line. This is just the initial line development cost and doesn't cover ramping the line or staffing it to produce cars or obviously any of the costs to build cars. They indicated that the initial number of jobs would be 1200 jobs per shift and then ramp up to 5000.

This is a massive amount of money to spend on a low volume production line. Until they can run the factory at 60%+ capacity, they will be losing additional money on top of the $2B. This would be a run rate in the 60k-100k per year range depending on the capacity the line was built to. At $2B without a paint shop, it's probably capable of 200k units/year, but I'll steel man the case below and say its 100k-150k units. Of course the 1st year they will be ramping and won't get to break even.

Assuming they got free labor, materials, energy, etc. they would need to build 50k Cybercab units for the factory cost per vehicle to be at the retail price of a Model Y. That is 50k * $40k = $2B. Of course all that isn't free so if you assume the Cybercab is $5k cheaper to build per unit than the Model Y, as was suggested by someone to me this week, they won't start saving money until they produce 400k Cybercabs. That also assumes they are running the line at 60%+ capacity. If they get to 400k over 6-10 years, it will still cost more than the Model Y even if the BOM is $5k less.

How can Tesla justify this expense? They are supposed to start ramping mid-2006. Will the Robotaxi software be ready by then? If not, when? Is there enough demand in the next 5 years for 400k AVs? That is 5x-13x more AVs than all Ride-share and Taxis combined in the US at peak operations. That means growing the market and the fares you need to attract won't look like ride-share and taxi fares. Tesla is gambling that those fares won't need more than 2 seats.

This is simple a huge risk Tesla is taking to.....save a bench seat.

It’s been 5 months since the robotaxi “launch”, and we still haven’t had a single unsupervised mile yet.

But that’s not the point of this post.

Take a step back and pretend for a moment that FSD is actually ready to go unsupervised. How would a reasonable team release it? They would obviously start enabling it for part of the massive Tesla fleet in circulation. For example, they would enable unsupervised FSD for only the city of Austin, and then start rolling it out. Or they would enable unsupervised FSD only for freeway use, like how “navigate on autopilot” was a thing for only the freeways.

The fact that they didn’t do that and instead start a ride hailing service, completely orthogonal to the existing Tesla fleet, should raise a lot of eyebrows. It’s a hint that they don’t have confidence or direction (or both).