Tuesday, November 25, 2025

Elon Musk admits different automakers do not need to license Tesla’s ‘Full Self-Driving’

After years of teasing that different automakers would license Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system, Elon Musk has now admitted that no different automakers need to license it.

“They don’t need it!” He says.

For years, the bull case for Tesla (TSLA) has relied closely on the concept the corporate isn’t simply an automaker, however an “AI and robotics firm”, with its first robotic product being an autonomous automobile.

CEO Elon Musk pushed the idea additional, arguing that Tesla’s lead in autonomy was so nice that legacy automakers would finally don’t have any selection however to license Full Self-Driving (FSD) to outlive.

Commercial – scroll for extra content material

Again in early 2021, through the This fall 2020 earnings name, Musk first claimed that Tesla had “preliminary discussions” with different automakers about licensing the software program. He reiterated this “openness” steadily, famously tweeting in June 2023 that Tesla was “comfortable to license Autopilot/FSD or different Tesla expertise” to opponents.

The hypothesis peaked in April 2024, when Musk explicitly acknowledged that Tesla was “in talks with one main automaker” and that there was a “good likelihood” a deal could be signed that 12 months.

We now know that deal by no means occurred. And because of feedback from Ford CEO Jim Farley earlier this 12 months, we now have a good suggestion why. Farley, who was doubtless the opposite get together in these “main automaker” talks, publicly shut down the thought of utilizing FSDstating clearly that “Waymo is healthier”.

Now, Musk seems to have given up on the thought of licensing Tesla FSD. In a submit on X late final night time, Musk acknowledged that discussions with different automakers have stalled, claiming that they requested for “unworkable necessities” for Tesla.

The CEO wrote:

“I’ve tried to warn them and even supplied to license Tesla FSD, however they don’t need it! Loopy …

When legacy auto does often attain out, they tepidly focus on implementing FSD for a tiny program in 5 years with unworkable necessities for Tesla, so pointless.”

Suppose you translate “unworkable necessities” from Musk-speak to automotive business customary. In that case, it turns into clear what occurred: automakers demanded a system that does what it says: drive autonomously, which suggests one thing totally different for Tesla.

Legacy automakers usually comply with a “V-model” of validation. They outline necessities, check rigorously, and validate security earlier than launch. When Mercedes-Benz launched its Drive Pilot system, a real Stage 3 system, they accepted full authorized legal responsibility for the automobile when the system is engaged.

In distinction, Tesla’s “aggressive deployment” technique depends on releasing “beta” (now “Supervised”) software program to prospects and utilizing them to validate the system. This method has led to a litany of federal investigations and lawsuits.

Simply this month, Tesla settled the James Tran vs. Tesla lawsuit simply days earlier than trial. The case concerned a Mannequin Y on Autopilot crashing right into a stationary police automobile, a identified situation with Tesla’s system for years. By settling, Tesla averted a jury verdict, however the message to the business was clear: even Tesla is aware of it dangers shedding these circumstances in court docket.

In the meantime, main automakers, akin to Toyota, have partnered with Waymo to combine its autonomous driving techonology into its shopper automobiles.

Electrek’s Take

The “unworkable necessities for Tesla” is an prompt Musk basic. What had been these necessities that had been unachievable for Tesla? That it wouldn’t crash into stationary objects on the freeway, akin to emergency automobiles?

How dare they request one thing that loopy?

No Ford or GM govt goes to license a software program stack that brings that form of legal responsibility into their home. In the event that they license FSD, they need Tesla to indemnify them in opposition to crashes. Tesla, realizing the present limitations of its vision-only system, doubtless refused.

To Musk, asking him to pay for FSD’s errors is an “unworkable requirement.” It’s at all times a driver error, and the truth that he at all times makes use of hyperbole to explain the extent of security being increased than that of people has no affect on consumer abuse of the poorly named driver help programs in his view.

FTC: We use earnings incomes auto affiliate hyperlinks. Extra.

Related Articles

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest Articles