And one more fun fact. Uber wanted to buy lots of robocars from Tesla in the past. Tesla declined. So in a way they forced this certainly market-unfriendly process of making every car manufacturer to have their own ‘network’. And then GM invested in Lyft, just in case, so they can also have robotaxis on their own or friendly network.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
That's what I said- they're in his mind- but not any actual contract.
That's completely untrue.
I own the car, I can do anything I wish with it.
See again folks using Teslas for Uber/Lyft RIGHT NOW.
Not quite sure what "properly" entails.
But there's no reason I couldn't drive for Uber once FSD it turned on for owners, I'd just need to manually input destinations instead of the uber app doing it automatically.
Tesla is only against Uber robotaxis. They are Ok if you sit in a car and drive for Uber (or just sit and use FSD), as this is not a competitive threat for them.
Integrating properly means to make car work as a part of non-Tesla ridesharing network automatically. You can’t do that without proper support from Tesla.
Integrating properly means to make car work as a part of non-Tesla ridesharing network automatically. You can’t do that without proper support from Tesla.
Yes but they have to drive the Teslas and that will make them uncompetitive with the driverless Tesla Network..
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
If Uber wants robotaxis they're welcome to build their own of course.
In fact they're spending billions trying to do exactly that.
You also can't integrate into the Uber ridesharing network without support from Uber. If they don't wish to include you, they're not required to. Not really seeing the difference.
What I’m saying is that Tesla is limiting possible competition by declining to sell or even license their technology, forcing other to build their own.
Uber will happily provide support Tesla in their ride sharing, it is only Tesla who is against it.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Really? Where can I buy or license Ubers self-driving technology for use in non uber vehicles?
I ask because Uber has been working on the same goal of self driving taxis since at least 2015 when they began spending 20 million dollars a month on it to have their own, exclusive, uber-only, fleet..."forcing" others to build their own... the exact thing you appear to be getting upset about regarding Tesla.
Sandollars
I bleed Cardinal
I’m not saying Uber is better than Tesla. What I am saying is that Tesla is the same in that particular regard as any other car manufacturer or ride sharing company, trying to monopolize the market. And to achieve that, Tesla is not ashamed to add a few words in their contracts in attempt to reduce everyone else’s ability to use something they’ve paid for (Tesla car with FSD in that case) for specific way to earn money, by using it within non-Tesla robotaxi fleets.
I can only predict that Tesla will stop doing that, when realized this is not a great business (I mean robotaxis). So at that stage they will remove the limitation.
Last edited:
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
I don't think monopolize means what you think it means.
Tesla developing robotaxis doesn't prevent anybody else who wishes to invest the time/money/effort into developing robotaxis from doing so.
Indeed, Uber, Waymo, and others are spending huge sums to do exactly that....and Tesla isn't preventing them from doing so.
Heck Tesla won't even be first to market- Waymo is ALREADY OPERATING commercial robotaxis for hire.... (granted they're only doing it in a single 100 mile area in Arizona right now, at Level 4 automation....)
I’m not saying Tesla will succeed. I’m saying this is their intent to attempt to monopolize (ideally) or at least reduce the competition. With current state of things, you require billions to compete with Tesla. If everyone will be allowed to operate robofleets without developing your own robocars, competition will increase exponentially (as you can develop your own app, say, for less than 10 million USD). I don’t see other reason to have this clause in their contract.
I love how many wannabe Martians we have amongst us (minus 1 S owner) 
This is good news for SpaceX, the Model 3 train to Mars will definitely help. I also ask that our Starman suits match the color of our 3s.
This is good news for SpaceX, the Model 3 train to Mars will definitely help. I also ask that our Starman suits match the color of our 3s.
Runebane
Member
Remember, we were talking about Tesla having a monopoly. I'm not saying people won't use the Tesla taxi, but I am saying, even if Musk's predictions from the investor's meeting is true (1 mil taxis by end of 2020, or 2021 whichever), there's no way they would have a monopoly. By the time Tesla's Taxis are out in force, been approved and all that, other companies would have caught up or would be very close. Uber and Lyft would most likely hang around for years even after Tesla Taxi becomes popular.
In any case, Tesla tries to create barriers to enter the ride share market, by limiting who can commercially use Tesla FSD in robotaxi mode (without human driver in the car at all). Yes, it will be most likely multiple large players, i.e. oligopoly. Like I have written before, if ANY company can use ANY manufacturer's technology to start a ride-sharing business, it would only require 10$ mil + a year in time or so to enter the market. If car manufacturers restrict access to their robotaxi technology, then you require 1$ bln+ to compete and multiple years to even attempt doing that. There is nothing good in this from consumer prospective.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Of course there is.
If nobody got any "extra" benefit for creating the product by spending billions to develop robotaxis then we'd never get robotaxis at all. It'd never be worth developing in the first place just to give everyone else who spent $0.00 in advance full and free use of YOUR developments and work.
It is not free. Tesla gets money for cars and technologies they build. They just should not limit usage of these technologies for other purposes (i.e. ridesharing business). But without enough competition, there is no market pressure to decrease costs of mobility services, and this is bad for consumers.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Except, they don't, if they freely give it away to others for their use as you suggest they should.
You pay for a car (or Uber pay for a car), and it becomes your property. Tesla received their money. Now they want to limit you how you use your property.
Elon mentioned during the event as well as previously revealed (I found article about it back in 2016) that a clause was placed in Tesla purchase agreement forbidding owner use their car with Uber or Lyft.
No Ridesharing: Tesla Bans Drivers From Using Tesla Cars For Uber Or Lyft
Similar threads
- Poll
