Tesla’s ambitious robotaxi rollout in Austin has hit a wave of skepticism, as troubling incidents during its first public test have cast a shadow over what was meant to be a watershed moment for the company’s self-driving ambitions.

While the pilot drew initial buzz and was hailed by analysts as a major revenue opportunity, footage from test riders now suggests the technology may not be ready for the roads—raising questions not only about Tesla’s timeline but also its core technical strategy.

The test, conducted with select Tesla fans in Austin using Model Y vehicles outfitted with the latest Full Self-Driving (FSD) software, was supposed to be the company’s breakthrough moment in autonomous mobility. But within days, clips emerged showing erratic maneuvers: a robotaxi swerving into oncoming traffic, another stopping abruptly in the middle of a street, and one dropping a passenger off dangerously in the middle of a multi-lane road. In one video, a human monitor had to forcibly halt the vehicle to avoid a collision with a reversing truck.

Analysts now say the shortfalls could undercut Musk’s promises to turn Tesla into a full-fledged ride-hailing business with “millions” of autonomous Teslas generating recurring revenue by late 2026.

A Question of Cameras vs. Lidar

The incidents have also intensified the long-running debate about Tesla’s camera-only approach to autonomy. Unlike competitors such as Waymo, Tesla has deliberately excluded lidar and radar from its self-driving stack, betting on computer vision and neural networks to perceive and navigate the environment. That approach now appears under question.

Waymo, the autonomous driving arm of Alphabet, has faced its own setbacks, including a February 2024 recall involving 444 vehicles, but its technology stack is considered far more robust. Waymo vehicles are outfitted with five lidar systems, six radars, and 29 cameras—compared to Tesla’s eight cameras and zero lidar or radar. Moreover, Waymo integrates multiple redundant safety systems, including:

• A secondary onboard computer
• Redundant steering motors
• A backup braking system
• Multiple positioning and GPS tools

Tesla, by contrast, lacks all of these redundancies. Safety experts argue this makes Tesla’s vehicles inherently more vulnerable to single-point failures—especially in real-world environments filled with unpredictable variables.

Even Grok, the Musk-owned AI platform used within X (formerly Twitter), has acknowledged that Tesla’s exclusion of lidar limits the vehicle’s ability to mitigate phantom braking and weakens performance in challenging visual conditions such as direct sun glare or at night.

“Musk’s approach saves costs, not lives,” an X user noted.

From Hype to Hesitation

The robotaxi rollout had been presented by Musk as a game-changing pivot in Tesla’s business. With EV margins tightening due to global competition and falling prices, the company has increasingly tried to position itself as a tech and software company. Robotaxis, Musk said, could unleash “trillions” in value by monetizing idle vehicles and creating an on-demand autonomous fleet.

Analysts believe Tesla robotaxi’s future is bullish. “We believe the Austin robotaxi launch kicks off a $1 trillion autonomous valuation alone and speaks to our $2 trillion valuation for Tesla by the end of 2026,” said Dan Ives, a Wedbush Securities analyst, and a Tesla bull.

Yet these early results from Austin suggest the reality may be more complicated. Not only are the vehicles far from error-proof, but their behavior has already drawn the attention of federal regulators. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has previously scrutinized Tesla’s Autopilot and FSD programs and may now revisit concerns in light of the new footage.

The launch also arrives at a delicate moment for Tesla, whose sales have declined in key markets such as Europe and China, while competition from better-priced EVs—including those from BYD and other Chinese firms—has intensified.

The Bigger Picture

Tesla’s robotaxi vision remains alluring. A world where cars drive themselves, earn revenue while owners sleep, and reduce accidents is a compelling narrative. But without adequate safety systems, redundancy, or regulatory clearance, that vision risks becoming a liability.

Waymo, Cruise, Zoox, and others have all acknowledged that autonomy is a slow grind that demands not just innovation, but oversight, infrastructure, and caution. Tesla, critics say, continues to push a timeline-first strategy, hoping software improvements will eventually solve what others approach through hardware-backed redundancy.

As the push for a robotaxi economy continues, Tesla’s challenge is no longer just to impress fans—it must now convince regulators, engineers, and a skeptical public that its robotaxis are not only futuristic but also fundamentally safe.

Imagine a desert, vast and unforgiving. The world of business has a desert of competition. And in this desert and disruption, your business needs an oasis – a core, highly defensible, and profitable area where you are the undisputed leader, or at least a very, very strong player. This is your “One Oasis” as I postulated in Harvard.

Think of it like this: for Amazon, initially, it was the dominant online bookstore. For Google, it was search. For a local restaurant, it might be their signature dish and the loyal customer base it attracts. This oasis is your wellspring, the source of your strength, your brand recognition, and your consistent revenue. It’s where you’ve built deep moats – be it through network effects, superior technology, exceptional customer service, or a unique value proposition that competitors struggle to replicate. You nurture this oasis, you defend it fiercely, and you ensure it remains vibrant and healthy.

As in a natural desert, the oasis is the source of life. Your business one oasis is the strength of your firm in that desert of competition.

But in today’s dynamic markets, relying solely on one oasis is risky. The desert winds of change can shift, and even the most robust oasis can face unforeseen challenges. This is where the “Double Play Strategy” comes in. It’s about strategically leveraging the strength of your core oasis to explore and cultivate adjacent opportunities. These aren’t wild, unrelated ventures; they are logical extensions of your core competencies and customer base.

Think of Amazon expanding from books to e-commerce, then to cloud computing (AWS). Alibaba and AliPay. Each move built upon their existing infrastructure, customer data, and technological capabilities. Google moved from search to online advertising, then to Android mobile OS – again, leveraging their core strengths in data and user engagement.

The “Double Play” isn’t about chasing every shiny object. It’s about making calculated bets in areas where your oasis provides a significant advantage. It could be serving a new customer segment, offering a complementary product or service, or utilizing your existing technology in a new application. The key is synergy. The double play should not only generate new revenue streams but also strengthen your core oasis in the long run, creating a virtuous cycle of growth and resilience.

So, the “One Oasis and Double Play Strategy” is about focus and expansion. Building an unshakeable foundation in one key area and then intelligently deploying those strengths to conquer new, related territories. It’s about not just surviving the desert, but thriving by having a reliable source of sustenance and strategically exploring for new fertile grounds.

On July 1 2025, Blucera Market market.blucera.com will go live with dozens of The Great Lectures. This course explains the application of One Oasis and Double Play in business, using business cases from familiar firms like Alibaba, Amazon, Dangote Cement, etc.

The Trump Organization’s recently launched Trump Mobile venture, which includes its own branded smartphone—the T1 Phone 8002 (Gold Edition)—is already facing scrutiny, as its most distinctive marketing claim has quietly vanished.

Once boldly touted as “MADE IN THE USA,” that label is no longer anywhere to be found on the official Trump Mobile website, raising fresh concerns about the phone’s authenticity, origin, and the viability of U.S.-based smartphone production.

Previously, the Trump Mobile homepage prominently featured a banner celebrating American manufacturing. Now, that statement has been replaced by carefully worded alternatives like “Proudly American,” “Designed with American values in mind,” and mentions of “American hands behind every device.” But none of these vague reassurances explicitly state where the phone is actually manufactured, designed, or assembled.

The change lends weight to what experts and supply chain analysts have long insisted: it is virtually impossible to manufacture affordable smartphones entirely within the United States, at least at a price point competitive with devices produced in China, Taiwan, or Vietnam.

A Silent U-Turn from a Signature Promise

The T1’s marketing had leaned heavily on nationalist messaging, echoing Donald Trump’s longstanding campaign to “bring manufacturing back to America.” This approach appeared consistent with his public pressure on Apple, where he urged the tech giant to produce iPhones and other consumer hardware in the U.S. That pressure never materialized into large-scale shifts. Apple continued to rely almost exclusively on its Chinese manufacturing partners, especially Foxconn, citing the deep specialization, scale, and cost advantages of Asia’s electronics industry.

The T1 phone’s quiet rebranding now appears to validate Apple’s position—and expose the limits of Trump’s economic messaging when confronted with the realities of globalized manufacturing.

The confusion doesn’t end with origin claims. The phone’s technical specifications have also changed without notice. Originally listed with a 6.78-inch AMOLED screen and 12GB of RAM, the T1’s updated site now shows a 6.25-inch screen, with no mention of RAM at all. This has prompted speculation that Trump Mobile has changed suppliers or downgraded components, though the Trump Organization has offered no clarification.

Shipping dates are similarly in flux. Once slated for September 2025, the only current commitment on the website is a vague “later this year.” Meanwhile, the product images remain unchanged—visibly photoshopped and offering no real look at a functioning prototype.

Made in the USA? A Myth for Phones

Tech analysts argue that the removal of the “Made in the USA” language is not surprising, but rather inevitable. It is believed that the infrastructure doesn’t exist, and the costs would put any device well out of the consumer market.

Companies like Google and Apple, which design their phones in California, still manufacture nearly all of their components abroad, where specialized suppliers offer economies of scale, mature logistics, and a trained labor force that the U.S. currently lacks in electronics assembly.

The Trump Mobile episode thus reinforces what critics have long argued: repatriating smartphone manufacturing may be politically popular but economically unworkable unless Americans are willing to pay several times more for devices already available at far lower cost from Asia.

A Political Product, Not a Real Competitor?

Some tech experts believe the T1 was never meant to compete with mainstream smartphones. Instead, they see it as a symbolic product, marketed toward Trump supporters as a gesture of brand loyalty, national pride, and anti-globalist sentiment. But even symbolic products must be physically delivered—and that now appears in doubt.

As of now, there’s no evidence the T1 is in mass production. No third-party reviewers have received the phone, no samples have been shown publicly, and no retailer or carrier partnerships have been confirmed.

Trump Mobile’s fading promises, shifting details, and growing opacity are only adding to skepticism. Without clear proof of production or delivery, the T1 is beginning to look more like a marketing stunt than a viable entry into the competitive smartphone market.

The Trump Mobile T1 may still ship “later this year.” But for now, it appears to be yet another patriotic promise running up against global economic reality.