Did you know that Tesla is the first automaker to announce both purchase and subscription options for a product that doesn't exist?— E.W. Niedermeyer (@Tweetermeyer) March 2, 2021
What is your preferred method of paying for things that aren't even actual things yet? #content
Part 2: These are clips from a 28-minute drive.— Taylor Ogan (@TaylorOgan) March 16, 2021
There’s a difference between, “The software will get better when the NN has way more data,” vs. hardware ceiled Level 2 ADAS, as even Tesla now admits.
Tesla robotaxi dreamers will have to wait for cars with the proper HW. pic.twitter.com/4RBXCAcNcD
Regardless of where it's reported, this is big news (and potentially grounds for one hell of a class action lawsuit). Still, it's worth noting that highly skeptical coverage of Tesla and Musk is no longer limited to a few voices in the wilderness like Lopez of Business Insider and Hiltzik and Mitchell of the LA Times.
Tesla recently told California regulators that the "Full Self-Driving" beta software it's testing with select customers doesn't make them autonomous — nor will it any time soon.
Why it matters: The company is charging $10,000 extra for the not-really-self-driving, might-arrive-someday addition to its standard Autopilot adaptive cruise-control and lane-keeping feature.
- Meanwhile, CEO Elon Musk is selling investors on the notion that its full self-driving tech will enable Teslas to become money-generating robotaxis.
Our thought bubble: Tesla has one message for customers and investors, and another one for legal authorities.
Catch up quick: Legal transparency website PlainSite this week released a year's worth of correspondence between Tesla lawyers and the California Department of Motor Vehicles, which regulates autonomous vehicles.
- The agency had been pressing Tesla for details about the technology's evolving capability since late 2019 while reminding the company that it does not have a permit to deploy autonomous vehicles in California.
Post a Comment