And yes, there is an implicit problem there where you can't definitively know this is all of the equipment you need until the capability is released, but I suspect Tesla would have provided any additional upgrades for free if and when they release "auto-drive."
I thought of it kind of like "cable ready" TVs (not that most people reading this would have heard of those :-)) that were TVs that could, in theory, use cable. However, the cable standard wasn't finalized and there was a chance that what came out in the standard would not be compatible with these TVs.
Right, and he's also made explicit statements that you could FSD "by the end of 2016", "by the end of 2018", "by the end of 2020", coast to coast.
The problem with that is that Tesla has declared to the SEC that @elonmusk on Twitter is an "official company communication channel". That's why he's gotten in trouble for past tweets.
That isn't out or character for Musk. He's always set and communicate unrealistic timeline. That doesn't make him a fraud. Take Falcon Heavy:
> By 2008, SpaceX had been aiming for the first launch of Falcon 9 in 2009, while "Falcon 9 Heavy would be in a couple of years". Speaking at the 2008 Mars Society Conference, Musk also indicated that he expected a hydrogen-fueled upper stage would follow 2–3 years later (which would have been around 2013) - [0]
Of course Falcon Heavy didn't fly until Feb 2018, and hydrogen-fueled upper stage never materialized. Still, nobody care about that today. FH is a resounding success and are qualified to be used for NASA's Lunar Gateway and Space Force's National Security Space Launch program, which are as good as stamps of approval can get.
But you can't hand wave away his statements on Twitter as "Oh, that's just Elon, all Tesla's corporate statements have very explicitly (in at times very fine print) said it's contingent on 'capability' and 'regulation'" when Tesla have literally said "Elon's Twitter _is_ a Tesla corporate statement".
Yes and no. His settlement with SEC only requires vetting for tweets that have material impact to investors. Anything else is just his opinion, although I agree that's a very fine line - [0]
Take his tweet sent out today about Battery Day event tomorrow:
> Important note about Tesla Battery Day unveil tomorrow. This affects long-term production, especially Semi, Cybertruck & Roadster, but what we announce will not reach serious high-volume production until 2022 - [1]
Clearly a vetted communication. A less serious one in contrast:
> Bitte arbeiten Sie bei Tesla Giga Berlin! Es wird super Spaß machen!! - [2]
[0] - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/apr/26/tesla-elo...
[1] - https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1308148212876812289
[2] - https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1304175179606695937
Why not?
What is the point of deadlines then?
Being a fraud doesn't mean you fail to deliver.
fraud: 'wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.'
He promises deadlines to soothe shareholders. I don't see the difference in his behavior and fraudulent behavior, other than that he has a large fan-base to validate the behavior.
He profits from promises that aren't delivered.
I don't pretend to know his motivation, perhaps his misplaced optimism? or to motivate and set the guideline for his troop? or to indicate Tesla's priority and direction?
Do you think JFK knew for sure that American would reach the moon before the end of 1960s? Or for that matter, I suppose you'd consider NASA to be fraudulent if Artemis program fails to send a crewed mission to the Moon in 2024.
> Being a fraud doesn't mean you fail to deliver.
Fraud usually means all talk and no substance. Can you give a counter example?
> He profits from promises that aren't delivered.
You need to show the evidence of this
Tesla does have a real team working on self driving hardware and software and they're shipping it inside cars.
It's not clear that Nikola has much more than powerpoint. They got a lot of impressive-sounding partnerships going but so did Theranos.
Then you can literally say anything and claim "just not yet!".
Amazing people say things like this with a straight face.
>It's not clear that Nikola has much more than powerpoint.
Nikola has real teams working on real things, too. They are just nowhere near where they claim to be.
To play a little devil's advocate, then...
Wouldn't that put most startups and Silicon Valley into the "fraud" camp?
Net positive revenue is always coming and funds are continuously raised on that promise...
> Nikola has real teams working on real things, too.
Their technology claims are all over the place and includes a large lineup of electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles that would be impressive even for GM and Ford.
I don't think their leadership plans to deliver all of any of those vehicles. Insiders (including Trevor Milton) have cashed out already and it looks more like a pump-and-dump scheme than a real business.
> Amazing people say things like this with a straight face.
Then literally everyone who claims breakthrough in fusion, new energy, medicine, AI, robotics, supersonic travel, would qualify as fraud. Fusion has always been X years away after all.
You've just also described many space projects, notably JWST and SLS. Granted, I'll give you SLS.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System
> Nikola has real teams working on real things, too. They are just nowhere near where they claim to be.
The trouble is Trevor didn't just say "just not yet!". He insisted that the Nikola One on stage at their Dec 2016 presentation is real, with this vivid description: "I don’t want someone to end up doing something and driving this truck off the stage…so we’re going to try to keep people from driving off. But this thing fully functions and works, which is really incredible."
Edit: https://www.thedrive.com/news/5273/alex-roy-shatters-electri...