Jean-Louis Gassée at Monday Note:

Tesla enjoys a reputation out of proportion with its .15% share of the US market. And Chairman Musk now says production will jump from 50,000 units in 2015 to 500,000 in 2018. This projected 10x jump invites doubt, or worse. But strong reaction (400,000 pre-orders) to the just-announced $35K Model 3 shows hope for the company to make electric cars more mainstream.

Tesla, right now, is a mystery.

Very good thoughts by Ben Thompson on Google and autonomous cars (paywall):

Does [John Krafcik, the chief executive of Google’s self-driving car division] propose removing all of [todays non-autonomous cars] from the road in one fell swoop? And will Google compensate the owners for the value of cars that are necessarily banned from public roads?

I have no doubt that Krafcik is correct when he argues that completely autonomous cars is a superior technology when it comes to safety, which is the topic he spent most of his talk on. There is plenty of evidence, though, that when it comes to in entrenched interests and sunk costs, safety in the aggregate is by no means the top priority, particularly when the sunk costs are owned by individuals. And, I can’t help but note that this is such a classic Google mistake: looking at the world through the lens of data, and forgetting the perspective and feelings of the individual.

This, above all, is why I tend to think Uber, not Google, is better placed to be the long-run winner in the coming transportation transformation. Building the future isn’t simply about building the ideal theoretical product; it is about building a product that includes a path from here to there, and Uber’s reliance on today’s technologies, married to tomorrow’s business model, provides to my mind a much clearer path.

It looks like indeed Google once again is blinded by an ideal down the road and does not take into consideration the road itself to get there successfully. Puns may be intended.

Re/code:

[John Krafcik, the chief executive of Google’s self-driving car division] did not unfurl any deals with carmakers. Instead, he doubled down on Google’s unique commitment to total autonomy, a critical signal to the industry — and its regulators — that this approach is the safest route as self-driving vehicles prepare to become a massive business.

“The industry has been making continuous incremental gains, but for self-driving cars to reach their full potential we need to focus on nothing short of full autonomy,” Krafcik said on Tuesday at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit. (..)

At the moment, however, Google is alone in this camp. All the carmakers working on autonomy, including Tesla, have endorsed an incremental approach — building in self-driving features so consumers can adapt to them. Many disagree with Google that this is fundamentally less safe.

There is not only tension with regards to technological feasability but, more importantly perhaps, with regards to business and incentives:

Several people in the industry say that Google’s business interest is in operating fully driverless taxi fleets. If Google can convince the automotive industry — and, perhaps more critically, automotive regulators — that this is a safer approach, then that better positions its business interest.

That of course is the business goal for Google here. A fully autonomous car fleet could mean in the long run that Google parent Alphabet just added an Uber to its portfolio. (with the according valuation and business opportunity)

Tesla CEO Elon Musk in an interview with the BBC:

Mr Musk said electrification and autonomy were the two biggest innovations in the industry since the moving production line.
“In the long term, nobody will buy a car unless it’s autonomous,” he said.
“Owning a car that is not self-driving in the long term will be like owning a horse – you would own it and use it for sentimental reasons but not for daily use.”