What people are trying to get you to recognize is that even though Musk is an accomplished industrialist, he doesn’t have 100% perfection. Therefore, there is a non-zero chance that his robotaxi and/or Optimus projects might fail. Because not everything he does succeeds. Which means that pointing to his overall success as an industrialist is not a conclusive argument that these two specific projects are necessarily going to succeed.
If you don’t understand what people are actually saying, then GoogleAI is just going to reflect your misunderstanding back to you.
They are also not great at generalizing, especially without precise instructions like “use linear trend of existing data x, y, z” (and if the user provides this kind of prompt, then the user is doing the generalizing).
They can predict the next word based on their training set, which is great for coding where strict syntax applies, or regurgitating words consumed from the web.
I asked Goog to describe scenarios in which Tesla could generate $1 billion in revenue in 2027 (only 1% of current Tesla annual revenue) from either Robotaxi or Optimus.
Per Goog, this would take at least 10k Robotaxis in L4 commercial service or at least 10k in Optimus sales (and probably more than 10k of either).
Goog said this would be very feasible.
It’s not very feasible.
There is no reality (assuming arms length transactions - disclaimer to exclude self-dealing) in which Tesla achieves 10k of either in 2027.
Waymo has about 4k vehicles in service. So even for Waymo they would have to grow their fleet by over 100% to get to 10k.
Imagine what will happen when the tech overlords realize that their vaunted, super hyped, astonishing thinking machine synthetic and extreme intelligence is really mostly a play toy, that it isn’t going to change everything nor lead to the wonderful new world they’ve been promising?
It could be a replay of the Pets.com sock puppet, with all the attendant collateral damage.
Which is why no one does. You fundamentally misunderstand the argument being made here.
We agree that Musk is imperfect. That’s the point. Because he is imperfect, any venture he undertakes might still fail, even though he’s overall an accomplished industrialist. Therefore, there is a non-zero possibility that Tesla’s cybercab and robot ventures might still fail.
Which explains the difference in opinion you seemed confused about in this thread. Skeptics assign a higher probability that the robotaxi and Optimus business lines won’t pan out, while supporters assign a lower one. Only people who think that Musk does have 100% perfection would assume that because he is an accomplished industrialist means that robotaxi or Optimus are assuredly going to be successful.
Its also possible that the cybercab works (eventually) and rolls out to lots of cities, but the total market is small(ish) and the cost to run the fleet is just too high to make it a big money maker.
Since you were responding to me then you may be implying I do, then that is flat out wrong. Some of us like me have been long time investors - I suspect we know much better than you when Elon “has been good and when he has been bad”: I think you have told us that you are a comparatively recent shareholder. That may be a source of naivete when it comes to understanding Tesla compared to many others here who have been very long time investors in both Tesla and SpaceX.
True. I should have said that there is a chance that these ventures might still fail to yield a significant return, one that’s material in size relative to Tesla’s already existing operations.
As for “eventually,” I think it’s important to keep in mind that Tesla has a lot of runway here. They’re planning on doing a ton of capex in the intermediate-term, but they equally have a ton of capital to do it. They have more than $40 billion in liquid capital, existing credit lines of $30 billion, and probably have the capacity to get more. That’s probably more than enough to let them pursue robotaxi and Optimus well into 2029 without difficulty even if neither of those business venture start producing any real cash flow during that time.
They also probably have a fair amount of time on the competition front. Yes, Waymo’s scaling up in the U.S. - and they plan to dip their toe into Europe soon. But the real “cliff” probably doesn’t come until Waymo’s fleet is big enough and/or expanding fast enough that it makes sense for them to move an actual robotaxi car into OEM production. The OEM probably will need Waymo to commit to taking 20K-25K cars per year, which is the bare minimum flow that typically you need for the capex of a production line to pencil out.
Waymo is probably at least two years out from that. Zoox, too. So if Tesla can “solve” their AI driver for it to be fit for purpose any time between now and end of 2028, they’re probably right in the mix. Might not make any money - heck, none of them might make any money to speak of - but they won’t really be facing a large-volume competitor, and lose the one major advantage they have left, until then.
Could you link to one? A post that you think constitutes a Fool insisting on 100% perfection from Musk, rather than merely pointing out that Elon Musk is not 100% perfect?
Not literally. It’s the overall meaning of the posts, pointing out every little nit as the death of Tesla while refusing to acknowledge the big picture which is what maters. I have no problem with honest criticism but this is more political than economic.
One example, Waymo’s car at an estimated production cost of between $150,000 and $200,000 is supposed to beat a mass production $30,000 Cybercab.
Right - so they’re not saying what you claim they’re saying, they just disagree with you on what’s relevant to Tesla’s long-term prospects. And no one is claiming that “little nits” are going to be the death of Tesla.
Let’s take that example, because it’s an illustration of how you aren’t paying attention to the actual argument being levied. Because no one thinks that a $150-200K car will beat a $30K. Rather, the argument is that those aren’t the relevant costs.
So, first minor quibble - you’re wrong about the Waymo cost. That’s from years ago. The current low-volume production cost of a Waymo is around $80K or so. The base Ioniq platform is cheaper, the Lidar sensor suite has collapsed in cost, and Waymo’s now buying enough cars that Hyundai delivers them ready for the post-production changes.
More importantly, the low-production cost levels aren’t why people are claiming that Waymo’s a strong competitor. At low levels of production, both the Waymo 6th gen car and the Cybercab are very expensive - because neither is being produced at mass production levels. The Waymo car costs around $80 today because it’s a low-volume car that involves expensive labor-intensive after-factory changes. But the Cybercab costs vastly more than $30K today, because it’s also a low-volume car - which means the cost per unit is closer to $45K.
But - that’s not the relevant comparison. If you want to compare a mass production $30K Cybercab, you have to compare it to a mass production Waymo. As Tesla scales, the Cybercab unit price will fall down to that $30K - but as Waymo scales, it will stop making low-volume hand-crafted vehicles, and instead Hyundai/Geely will roll them off the line already to go. The estimated cost of production volume Waymo’s is around $50K.
And the difference between a $50K vehicle and a $30K vehicle isn’t enough to matter. Over 300K miles useful life for a taxi, that’s about $0.06 per mile. Not enough to matter. Even if all of that dropped to customers, it’s not big enough to notice - and it’s small enough that it will probably get buried in differences between the two company’s operating costs.
TL;DR - you mistakenly think that people are criticizing Tesla based on politics rather than honest criticism, but it’s because you haven’t taken the time or paid enough attention to understand the actual arguments.
