Tesla to license Autopilot / FSD

[Buckminster]

Thread to discuss:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1665756914611806208

 

[Buckminster]

license autopilot/FSD

Agree. No market analysts are pricing in FSD as a Robotaxi service yet, not surprisingly. They can't see that far forward. None are pricing in licensing of FSD tech either--but that could happen *any day*. That alone is a reason to sit in TSLA regardless of the daily ups and downs.

Tesla doesn't have to have a level 4/5 driving system to license it to other OEMs. FSD as it is now still has more work to do--but it is already significantly better than any of the competition--by an (autonomous) mile. If other OEMS see the benefits as worthwhile enough that FSD will help them move their own vehicles, I think we could see automakers partner with Tesla for FSD tech just like Ford did with Superchargers.

After all, since Mobileye is not itself an automaker, its valuation is based purely on its ability to sell its hardware/tech to other OEMs. There's no reason why Tesla can't get a huge piece of that pie *any day now*.

 

[Buckminster]

Elon can say he is willing to license FSD, but in practice (IMHO) it will never happen. While the value of the car will go to zero and all the value will be in FSD, you still need the tight hardware/sensor integration. So, what will we have, Tesla making parts and molecules and shipping them to Ford and others to assemble and rebrand? That would only make them more expensive than Teslas for the same (at best) self-driving experience. The only case where this might work is specialty/niche vehicles that Tesla has no interest in building. But, they would be expensive and still need to be integrated by the Tesla team for FSD to work.

Agreed - many hurdles. Rivian and Lucid will find it easier.

 

[Buckminster]

When you start licensing then you open the money crate of infinite possibilities. Just look at Microsoft and how they license out windows. There are 9 different versions depending on how you want to spend that money.

FSD has a plethora of on and off settings you can pick depending on how much you want to pay. At the very basic there's the world most reliable Tesla active safety system. Then you go up from there, AP, EAP, City....update length, fee for continuous updates...$, $$, $$$, $$$$, $$$$$.

 

[Buckminster]

Other automakers will license FSD and all the webcams and other parts that need to go along with it.

Tesla will make a profit from that hardware+software sale.

The other automakers will simply have to find ways to make their cars profitable... either with cheaper seats/materials/plasticky interiors or other ways to make the car cheaper e.g. small size. They are currently unable to make profitable BEVs [first problem] even now... and that's without fancy autonomy features [second problem]. Complaining about profitability due to licensing Tesla tech is ignoring their first problem.

 

[Buckminster]

Farley said they had 150 different modules with different software. That they didn't even own the IP on those. That the next gen Ford would resolve those issues (IIRC). That Ford isn't good at software. Aaaaand, he's publicly laying out how big a problem they have. Setting the stage for a deal? What other solution is there than licensing Tesla tech? Do they want to waste tens of Billions failing (like VW) to develop their own software/hardware first or get on with it and work out a deal with Elon? (Also, I think Tesla would reserve RT/commercial trucking for themselves.)

A deal like this could make Tesla the "standard" in software and controllers for much of the industry. A deal like this would probably get leaked ahead of time. Maybe we could see several 10% days in a row. Just sayin'.

 

[Olle]

Once FSD is more finished, I can definitely see Tesla licensing it as long as it supports Tesla's mission, ie would only be licensed to EVs.

Side note, in the meantime Tesla can probably make a decent business out of selling its automotive software suite to OEMs who would like to replace their myriads of "black box" software. As Jim Farley said in the interview, a Ford runs outsourced software in some 150 modules from different suppliers and doesn't know how it works. Volvo parked their EX90 launch for a year due to software delays Volvo delays start of production for its ultra-safe EX90 SUV.

 

[mjwojtukiewicz]

I think alot of car companies have many more safety features that Tesla does not

It does not automatically brake. If I get too close it beeps, turns the car red in front of me, but does not brake
If I back out of a parking space and someone or a car crosses my path it does not warn me
I saw a recent car commercial where it prevented a kid from exiting a car because a car was approaching from the side

I could go on

 

[Buckminster]

 

[mjwojtukiewicz]

Can't imagine how they do this. Will need alot of code revision to acommodate hardware suite

 

[heltok]

If it takes GM until 2025 to add NACS how long would it take for them to add FSD? It's not a small redesign with cameras, HW4, cables, network security, OTA, NHTSA etc.

By the time anyone has adopted Tesla FSD in any meaningful volume, Tesla will have so big market share and so many robotaxis that it will not move the needle...

 

[mjwojtukiewicz]

If it takes GM until 2025 to add NACS how long would it take for them to add FSD? It's not a small redesign with cameras, HW4, cables, network security, OTA, NHTSA etc.

By the time anyone has adopted Tesla FSD in any meaningful volume, Tesla will have so big market share and so many robotaxis that it will not move the needle...

Don't know if you have FSD in Sweden but I wouldn't bet the ranch on robotaxis in the near future. I have 11.4.2 and it still makes the dumbest mistakes.

 

[Buckminster]

Just wanted to share my 0.02 on the recent news of GM joining.

TBH, the financial implication to TSLA remains to be seen (I'd touch on this later), but as a Tesla driver, I think this is a huge plus.

The idea is simple... before Ford and GM joined, Tesla could only build SC sites taking into account the usage of Tesla drivers and its fleet of cars. With Ford and GM... and what I expect ALL EV carmakers joining on board, Tesla is able to justify the investment of many more supercharger sites as the TAM just got so much bigger.

This is especially true for markets where it's currently underserved and the reason is that there is just not enough demand. Think markets such as AK or less populous states/provinces. They simply did not have the demand yet to justify building a site that everything accounted for, might be a million dollar investment. So expansion would be slow and only concentrated in major routes/cities.

And I believe that with the added potential demand, Tesla... with its megapack and solar products, can come up with some pretty clever design for smaller or more difficult routes to bring so much power in. Think a SC site in the middle of nowhere with nothing but a megapack, Starlink and a solar array to power 2-4 superchargers spots. And this goes far beyond just Tesla's own investment. They could put up such a package and allow 3rd parties to invest in such an infrastructure.

Now, it's not all pessimistic on the financial side either. I've mentioned it before... I believe around the time when Apple Car was rumored. It is in Tesla's best interest (both its mission and finances) to provide everyone with its own hardware. This goes for NACS, FSD, drivetrain, BMS... so on.

It's all about economy of scale. If Tesla were to design and invest in something new, but could only rely on its own fleet to spread the cost, it would have to model its projections of financial feasibility on a smaller scale. However, if it could sell all those parts/software/services to all the other players in the world, it would have a scale like no other. Even as Elon had mentioned... TSLA is providing this hardware at cost... it would still benefit TSLA greatly as their fixed cost can be spread onto a much larger scale. This is truly where I believe Elon's comment on Tesla being "worth more than Apple and Aramco combined" one day going to come from.

If TSLA is the frontrunner in EV world, and the future of transportation is EV, and Tesla gets to provide most of the major components in EV, this is something hard to grasp now just how big TSLA would become one day.

 

[Buckminster]

Another rumour with big consequencies:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1672309106093457410

 

[mjwojtukiewicz]

They can't even keep the releases consistent. The non-FSD have nicer fixes than us FSD people. And to make matters worse they have a nonFSD bunch of fixes bundled with and older version (11.3.6) yet I have 11.4.4. So the question is why can't the FSD people incorporate these nice fixes that the nonFSD people get and how many coding teams are there working on all this stuff?

 

[Buckminster]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1679864102619840517

 

[Buckminster]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1681783534514569216

 

[Buckminster]

If another major OEM goes for licensing FSD, we'll see the same domino effect that we saw with NACS. Other OEMs won't want to be left out. That is a seriously high margin revenue stream, folks...

In fact, now that other OEMs know that a major OEM is already in discussions, the others might be scrambling to call Tesla right now...

 

[Knightshade]

LOL as the kids say.

Tesla is 'actively talking to other automakers' about opening up its Supercharger network, says CTO JB Straubel

Tesla officials have been talking about the possibility of opening up their Supercharger network to other automakers for years, but...

electrek.co

That's Tesla 6 years ago announcing discussion with other car makers on opening access to the supercharger network- something that only very recently happened this year.

And unlike FSD, the supercharger network is actually fully functional!

 

[Buckminster]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1681969638836523008