Tesla FUD Drama from Fake Reuters News $TSLA

by

Reuters had an article that claimed that Tesla was cancelling the low cost $25k Model 2 car and going all in robotaxi. Elon tweeted out that Reuters in lying (again).

The Reuter BS FUD lie about cancelling the Model 2 made no sense. There would no time saved from a robotaxi-only strategy at this point. There would be no financial benefit.

Tesla needs to get stronger financially with licensing deals for FSD with other car companies. Which means a lot of work to get camera-HW4 kits into other cars and to build 4-10 times as many FSD camera and computer kits and the processes to tune them into other car models. A max FSD strategy is needed for the next 3-5 years especially with a true Level 4 FSD capability.

Robotaxi network needs to get launched with the existing Tesla fleet.

Ridesharing customers need to get used to vehicles without drivers. The permissions from many jurisdictions would be needed.

20 thoughts on “Tesla FUD Drama from Fake Reuters News $TSLA”

  1. It’s interesting to me that Tesla has not categorically denied the report. Looks to me Reuters got it basically right.

  2. can someone that owns tesla stock sue reuters for intentionally lying and hurting the stock price?

  3. This is why we all need to get our “news” from multiple sources. Hey, I understand we all have a tendency to get “news” that appeal to our ideology. I do. But if we don’t get information from multiple sources, all were doing is getting our ego messaged. I draw a line between “news” (reporting actual events, and their consequences) and commentary. I like the BBC for it’s unbiased reporting of “news” When they have an opinion they make it clear that’s what it is.

    We all need to judge news by it’s accuracy, and recognize some ones POV for just what that is.

  4. This is why we trust the mainstream media. Accurate reporting without bias.
    It is also why everyone says X is bad.

    ROFTL!!!

  5. Rotors doesn’t li. We know who is the Chronicle liar here. He doesn’t care about a clean car but about his bottom line. There is very little money in building cheap cars.

    • Good to know you are a mind reader and know what Musk is thinking.

      It is clear that your bias is painfully obvious and just so you know, news sources do fabricate news based on the agenda of the reporters. A Rasmussen poll in 2012 noted that 92% of those in the news business identified as democrats – that’s HUGE. Musk used to be popular in the press, when he was a democrat, but now that he has left the flock and is a heretic he is hated. You are clearly a member of the church of the left and are following the mob.

      Musk, for those who watch, know that he gets ahead of himself. Plans get delayed or changed but he is not a liar. If he was not an honest individual he would continue to pretend to be a lefty so as to not anger the leftist cultural mob.

      • You do understand Reuters is based in the United Kingdom, right? Are you telling me those warm beer drinking Brits are all democrats?

  6. Is FSD dependent upon a certain hardware version? For example, does FSD work the same on a Hardware 4 Tesla as a Hardware 3 Tesla?

    • https://www.notebookcheck.net/Tesla-emulates-FSD-12-on-Hardware-4-0-vehicles-as-Elon-Musk-says-HW3-cars-a-priority.820609.0.html

      When it comes to its latest and greatest Full Self-Driving Beta V12 software, Tesla is indeed prioritizing cars with the older Hardware 3.0, it seems.

      Running FSD 12 on HW4 vehicles is a no-go for now, confirmed Elon Musk. Back in August, Elon said that “HW4 software will lag HW3 by at least another six months, as our focus needs to be on getting FSD on HW3 working super well and provided internationally.”

      Fast-forward to the public Full Self-Driving Beta V12 release, and that notion has become reality. It turns out that Tesla has indeed optimized FSD for HW3 vehicles.

      The Model Y and Model 3 Highland with HW4 Samsung Vision cameras and the new computer aren’t getting the full FSD 12 experience that their car’s hardware is capable of. In fact, Tesla only emulates FSD created for the Hardware 3.0 kit in its HW4 vehicles.

      “Hardware 4 will ultimately be better, but all training is for Hardware 3, with HW4 running in emulation mode,” quipped Musk.

  7. Brian, your too deep into tesla man, other brands are not going to adopt the tesla fsd system just as you think, its still the competition, also fsd is not so important as you think. People will still drive for themselves for a long time to come. What do the other people think here about fsd?

    • I agree.
      Other brands won’t have been designed with Tesla camera setups in mind and in today’s tightly packed car spaces, it won’t be easy to make room for all those unexpected wires and cameras. Plus, more importantly, all the major ICE manufacturers and either scaling back on EVs or losing money on them. They’re going to be loathe to spend millions now and forever licensing FSD from their arch-competitor. Adapting to Tesla’s charger network is different. There’s only one plug to adapt, and most likely even then with a clunky external adapter that customers still find worth it to access Tesla’s superior charging network. Range anxiety and a relative dearth of charging stations is still a major problem for EVs, especially if charge times are so long that monopolization of scarce and unbroken chargers is a big problem.
      And yes, the extra cost and uncertainty around fsd is going to slow rollout for some time, and there will still be accidents, some of which will make news and cause lawsuits. Lawyers must be looking forward to big fees. The liability questions haven’t even been addressed yet, let alone answered. It’s not going to be good enough to blame everything on the driver when fsd is pitched as autonomous. And if it’s the car, then it’s Tesla’s fault, for now. The first time Tesla has to pay, or even has to fight a lawsuit to make them pay, the stock will drop at least 10%. If Tesla is licensing fsd and it’s ANOTHER manufacturer, that confuses things even more. Then it’s manufacturer against manufacturer against customer/driver (assuming he/she is still alive).
      Fsd that nags drivers to touch the wheel is too nerve-wracking to be useful for more than short videos. How do you hover above the steering wheel? That’s actually hard on the arms. And split second takeovers are worse than just driving to begin with. No thanks. I won’t be trusting my life to a mercurial unpredictable so-called fsd anytime soon. Driver assist is helpful, but I’m still in control then.

  8. https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1776278140333281332

    This Musk post a bit later in response to Sawyer Merritt post makes things a little more complicated.

    It suggests that Musk did in fact make some internal changes favoring the Robotaxi version vs the Owner/Driver version of the $25k car.

    It was silly and deceptive to present that at as dropping the $25k car – which after all is in hardware terms almost exactly the same thing as the Robotaxi but it seems to be an admission there was in fact something behind the rumors.

    Isaacson describes Musk as adamantly favoring making the $25k next gen vehicle pure FSD with no driver controls but eventually giving in to unified opposition to not also making an owner-driver version on the same platform.

  9. It is way harder to do 25000 $ car now, because Covid and Russians caused inflation, so that numbers are not realistic any more. They costed us a lot. If we wouldn’t fight Russians, they wouldn’t stop and it would be even more expensive. War would reduce USA- Eu trade and progress. Very fast progress has happened because less wars and NATO, who keeps countries together. People who want to tear NATO apart or withdraw from it are just damaging. (divide and rule) Old strategy is fostering divisions, conflicts against nations and different groups to rule over them.

    Tesla’s deliveries and production numbers are not so good.. They can’t expect numbers to go up for such old cars with only tiny refreshments and no next gen model S, model 3,….
    A lot of people, who are progressive, tech oriented already have Tesla and don’t need new one. Competition is catching.

    It is up to Tesla, if they nail self driving, improve battery production and make useful robots to be used in factories and elsewhere.

    With better battery tech – ramped up and less expenses doe robotic work they could do more in electric vehicles market and elsewhere.

    • Additionally and quite simply, really cheap Chinese cars currently being blocked in a trade war present an unholy level of competition not only to Tesla, but anyone else with plans to build sub-$25K cars. As much as these cars would aid the EV transition to the masses, I am still on the fence on the issue.

    • Agreed, in no way did NATO / U.S. provoke at multiple times and in multiple ways the Ukraine war and lets ignore the treaty for NATO to not expand in ways that it was and did. Also, let’s ignore that a pipleline went boom with only one Nation declaring that such would happen if Russia responded they way they said they would if NATO continued their expansion.

      Tesla’s defined mission was to accelerate sustainable transportation which includes competition. Quite a few people that are not progressive tech people are getting Tesla’s and given the lack of previous communication to those people it seems to be going pretty well. But keep going with the narrative that the Tesla customer base is filled so they won’t sell anymore… it sounds great to those told Tesla is bad and believe it. And it would be nice if the competition would come a bit faster instead of some that are slowing down.

      It sorta looks like “MM” stands for Mainstream Media as your narrative sounds like the same old recycled stuff that gets put at the end of the curb.

      • Countries have the right to join NATO and not Russia if they want to do so. Most often it is a referendum vote and that is people’s will.

        Soviet union and some Russians did so many atrocities and nations under them suffered a lot. It is completely logical, that nations don’t want to be their puppets and have a better life.

        But the numbers don’t lie, sales are not increasing and for such old models and so little diversity they won’t be.

        So called “mainstream media” is great. Investigate journalism is one of the bedrocks of democracies. The important thing is they can say, what they think is right without having gun to their head or being send to prison, like they do it Russia.

        It looks like so called @Martha is pro Russian oriented and intellectually handicapped. I don’t blame Russians or pro Russians, they have to listen pro Russian propaganda crap all over again, how the west is bad, capitalism is evil, western media is terrible and that west is the cause of all Russian’s misery and suffering not their corrupt politicians. There is no “mainstream” media in Russia, only media in control of state, which says what the head of the state allows to be said. Otherwise people are send to prisons.

        So many Russian propaganda crap is recycled over and over again, how nato has provoked Russia and Nato expanded without any right and so on,….

      • “and lets ignore the treaty for NATO to not expand in ways that it was and did.”

        You’re talking about the 1990 “Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany”, I assume.

        1. It was a treaty with the USSR, which is long since defunct.
        2. It stated that the newly unified Germany had no *territorial* ambitions.
        3. West German forces associated with NATO couldn’t enter East Germany until Soviet forces had finished leaving.

        There is no treaty barring NATO expansion. None. In 2014 Gorbachev was asked about this and confirmed that there was no such treaty or even verbal agreement. Just of the “spirit” of discussions as seen from Russia, but all actual commitments were kept:

        “M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it.

        Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled. The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been observed all these years. So don’t portray Gorbachev and the then-Soviet authorities as naïve people who were wrapped around the West’s finger. If there was naïveté, it was later, when the issue arose. Russia at first did not object.

        Putin: U.S. attitude to Russia “antagonistic”
        The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990. With regards to Germany, they were legally enshrined and are being observed.”

        You know who violated an ACTUAL agreement in Ukraine? Putin. The Russian-Ukrainian Friendship Treaty. They broke it almost immediately.

        • [ different source tells about a several CIA members were involved, also, why ‘high income’ democracy country members tell ‘lower income’ members of society to defend democracy (, with being a highly corrupt state before (not that long)) in eastern Europe

          from a different pov, ‘https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion’

          me thinking (and maybe learning later) that it’s (again) not an easy story to tell, with getting into all details(?)

          And it’s not about leaders names, wrt priorities for democracy within ‘modern’ systems, few highly paid politicians&system insiders&journalists are publicly positioning (and forming expertise solutions) for the ‘low income groups'(?)
          What’s their (hidden) agreements(?) ]

Comments are closed.