I don't think it's a lame excuse at all. Tesla barely managed to get a profitable car on the market given battery costs, and had to bet their company on a strategy of massive investment and reducing costs over a decade+ period.
They are also ahead of every other auto maker in commercially purchasable L2 autopilot.
With that context, it doesn't make sense to add $50k+ to the price of their cars (e.g. doubling the cost of a Model Y) just to get slightly better autopilot performance. Lidar would help them in some cases (e.g. stationary objects), but it's not a panacea. Their strategy makes perfect sense given they want to sell semi-affordable cars to the public.
On the flipside, Cruise & Waymo's strategy of "geofenced L4 at any initial cost" makes perfect sense for their short term robotaxi ambitions.
Maybe in ~10 years these strategies will intersect, but for the time being they are completely different products.
> Tesla barely managed to get a profitable car on the market given battery costs, and had to bet their company on a strategy of massive investment and reducing costs over a decade+ period.
Numbers came out a few days ago showing that Teslas had some of the highest margins in the mainstream auto segment.
They are also ahead of every other auto maker in commercially purchasable L2 autopilot.
With that context, it doesn't make sense to add $50k+ to the price of their cars (e.g. doubling the cost of a Model Y) just to get slightly better autopilot performance. Lidar would help them in some cases (e.g. stationary objects), but it's not a panacea. Their strategy makes perfect sense given they want to sell semi-affordable cars to the public.
On the flipside, Cruise & Waymo's strategy of "geofenced L4 at any initial cost" makes perfect sense for their short term robotaxi ambitions.
Maybe in ~10 years these strategies will intersect, but for the time being they are completely different products.