Techfullpost

Tesla gives up on selling cars

Tesla gives up on selling cars

For much of the past decade, Tesla has defined the modern electric vehicle revolution. But in recent months, an uncomfortable question has become harder to ignore: does Tesla still see itself as a car company at all?

That question loomed large during Tesla’s latest quarterly earnings call, where Elon Musk and senior executives appeared to all but confirm what critics have long suspected. Tesla’s future, they suggested, lies less in building and selling cars—and far more in artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, and humanoid robots.

In one of the most striking moves yet, Tesla quietly ended production of its original flagship vehicles, the Model S and Model X, vehicles that once symbolized the company’s technological edge and luxury ambitions. Their exit makes room, executives say, for an entirely different priority: scaling up production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot, a project that still struggles to perform basic tasks without human assistance.

At the same time, a top Tesla executive urged investors to stop thinking of the company as an automaker altogether, framing Tesla instead as a “transportation as a service” provider. Musk reinforced the message with a familiar refrain: in the long run, people won’t be driving cars at all.

“The vast majority of miles traveled will be autonomous in the future,” Musk said. “Probably less than 5 percent of miles driven will be where somebody’s actually driving the car themselves—maybe as low as 1 percent.”

Moments later, he went further. “Long-term,” Musk said, “the only vehicles we’ll make will be autonomous vehicles.”

A Car Company in Name Only?

On paper, Tesla is still very much in the car business. In 2025, the company reported $94.8 billion in revenue, with $69.5 billion—about 73 percent—coming from vehicle sales. But the trend lines tell a different story. Automotive revenue fell 10 percent year over year, while Tesla’s non-car businesses—energy generation, battery storage, and services—continued to grow.

Tesla has also lost its crown as the world’s largest EV seller, overtaken by China’s BYD. Meanwhile, its two remaining mass-market vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, are seeing declining demand despite refreshed designs and attempts to introduce cheaper variants.

The broader market isn’t helping. EV subsidies and tax incentives that once fueled demand are being rolled back in multiple countries. Musk himself played a role in that shift through political donations and vocal support for Donald Trump, moves that have alienated parts of Tesla’s historically progressive customer base. Combined with Musk’s increasingly polarizing public persona, the Tesla brand has lost some of its former shine.

Betting on Subscriptions and Software

Like many technology companies before it, Tesla is increasingly turning toward subscription-based revenue. For the first time, the company disclosed that it has 1.1 million active Full Self-Driving (Supervised) subscriptions, a 38 percent increase from late 2024.

Musk recently announced plans to stop selling Full Self-Driving (FSD) as a one-time purchase and move to a subscription-only model. While FSD enables hands-free driving in many scenarios, drivers must still monitor the road and remain ready to intervene. Tesla’s autonomy claims have repeatedly drawn scrutiny from regulators, lawsuits from consumers, and investigations over safety and marketing practices.

Still, Musk remains convinced that autonomy—and robotaxis in particular—will define Tesla’s future. He claimed Tesla’s autonomous taxi service will launch in “dozens” of U.S. cities this year, a scaled-back promise compared with earlier projections. He also teased a third-generation Optimus robot, which he says could be ready for mass production by late 2027.

The Trillion-Dollar Incentive

Autonomy is not just a technological obsession for Musk—it’s central to his compensation. Under a controversial pay package, Musk stands to earn up to $1 trillion if Tesla meets a series of aggressive milestones, including deploying more than a million robotaxis, producing a million humanoid robots, and generating $7.5 trillion in shareholder value.

Notably, the plan does not require Tesla to dramatically expand car sales. If Tesla averages 1.2 million vehicles sold annually over the next decade, Musk would still qualify for massive stock awards—fewer cars per year than Tesla sold in 2024. In effect, declining vehicle sales are already baked into the deal.

Board Approval and Growing Doubts

Tesla’s board and major shareholders have consistently backed Musk’s vision, despite mounting evidence that the company is lagging behind competitors in key areas. Waymo’s robotaxis operate with fewer incidents, while federal crash data reported by Electrek suggests Tesla’s autonomous vehicles crash at higher rates than human-driven cars—even with safety drivers present.

Optimus robots, meanwhile, remain largely dependent on remote human operators. Musk himself admitted during the earnings call that Optimus is not yet meaningfully deployed inside Tesla’s own factories.

Still, Tesla’s pivot away from traditional car manufacturing reflects a broader industry trend. Automakers increasingly talk about “software-defined vehicles,” promising continuous improvements through over-the-air updates—and recurring revenue through paid features. Compared with the capital-intensive, low-margin business of building cars, subscription software looks irresistible.

A Risky Transformation

The problem is scale. FSD subscriptions, even if they grow, are unlikely to replace Tesla’s primary revenue engine anytime soon. And with the Model S and Model X gone, Tesla has fewer vehicles to sell at a time when it needs cash the most.

Pursuing robots and robotaxis isn’t cheap. Tesla expects to spend $20 billion in capital expenditures in 2026, more than double last year’s spending. The money will go toward Cybercab production lines, the long-delayed Semi truck, Optimus robots, and new battery and lithium facilities, according to CFO Vaibhav Taneja.

Toward the end of the earnings call, Musk conceded that much of this spending is being driven by necessity rather than strategy.

“Why do we have to build these things?” Musk said, referring to lithium and cathode refineries. “Can someone else build these things? It’s very hard to build these things.”

The Identity Crisis Deepens

Tesla’s transformation is far from complete—and far from guaranteed to succeed. For now, the company still depends on selling cars to survive. But its leadership increasingly behaves as though that era is already over.

Whether Tesla can successfully reinvent itself as an AI and robotics powerhouse remains an open question. What is clear is that the company is drifting further away from the business that made it famous—and profitable—in the first place.

ADVERTISEMENT
RECOMMENDED
NEXT UP

Generative AI has moved from specialist interest to part of daily life — transforming all from entertainment to the workplace. From AI-generated art, deepfakes, and intelligent chatbots capable of talking like humans, AI is now part of modern life. Yet with technology racing ahead, so do fears it will spin out of control.

Now, a new generation of scientists, business leaders, and celebrities are calling for a slowdown on the next frontier: AI superintelligence — a form of artificial intelligence that potentially could surpass human intellectual ability in almost every dimension.

The Pushback: A Global Call to Slow Down AI Development

A collection of public personalities — such as Virgin Group creator Richard Branson, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and musician will.i.am — signed a new open letter called the “Statement on Superintelligence.”

The warning asks developers and businesses racing towards state-of-the-art AI systems, including OpenAI and Elon Musk’s xAI, to delay the magnitude of massive AI projects until there is a “broad scientific consensus that it will be done safely and controllably” and a “strong public buy-in” to support it.

Notably among them are two of the leading AI researchers, who are also cofounders of modern machine learning. The movement is thus quite heavily weighted.

“We must ensure that AI is serving humanity, and not vice versa,” the letter demands, threatening dire consequences in the event of runaway progress.

What Is AI Superintelligence — and Why Does It Worry Experts?

In order to understand the alarm, defining what AI superintelligence really is, is essential. Superintelligent AI, according to IBM, is a system which not only matches but far exceeds human intelligence — capable of reasoning, learning, and solving problems for itself in every respect, free of human control.

Contrary to current AI systems such as ChatGPT or Gemini, whose boundaries and data sets are defined, superintelligent AI would be continuously learning and evolving, rewriting its own code to increase efficiency and capability. Such recursive enhancement could make it almost impossible to contain.

“A true superintelligence would no longer need human oversight,” said Stuart Russell, an AI researcher at UC Berkeley. “At that point, its goals might diverge from ours — and we’d have no way to stop it.”

The Risks: From Job Losses to Existential Threats

The possible dangers of AI superintelligence go much beyond job automation or misinformation. The threat is mentioned by experts as the possibility of AI systems executing on their own in pursuit of ends that are in conflict with human values or safety.

Some of the highest threats:

Massive Job Displacement – AI already revolutionizes industries, but an entirely automated self-enhancing system could eliminate entire professions, ranging from programmers to creative professionals.

Loss of Human Control – The moment an AI begins to be smarter than the people who create it, it might be beyond control.

Weaponization and Surveillance – AI might be utilized by governments or corporations for total surveillance or robot war.

Existential Risk – In the worst-case scenario, a rogue AI with goals of its own would view humankind as an obstacle — one which scientists describe as a “digital doomsday.”.

Even if these ideas sound like science fiction, specialists argue that rejection of them would be naively dangerous. History has shown that humanity always underestimated the capabilities of its own inventions — from nuclear energy to biotechnology.

Increasing Public Alarm and Demand for Regulation

Public sentiment is shifting rapidly. A 2025 Pew Research Center survey found that 67% of Americans now support greater government regulation of AI, up from 42% two years earlier. The European Union has already legislatively signed the AI Act into law, establishing the globe’s first extensive regulatory framework for artificial intelligence, while U.S. lawmakers are determining how to follow.

Tech giants, however, are still racing ahead. OpenAI, xAI, Google DeepMind, and Anthropic are investing billions in “next-generation” AI models that could approach or surpass human-level reasoning.

“We’re in an AI arms race, and everyone wants to be first — but that could also mean being first to make a catastrophic mistake,” warned Richard Branson in a recent statement.

Is It Already Too Late to Stop?

Until now, actual AI superintelligence is still theoretical, although most experts foresee that it might arise in the next two decades if trends continue. The question is not whether or when it will happen, but whether human civilization will be prepared — morally, technically, and legally — when it does.

“The clock is ticking,” declared Yoshua Bengio. “We still have time to make this technology safe. But not much.”

The Bottom Line: Humanity at a Crossroads

The debate over AI superintelligence is no longer confined to labs or tech circles — it has become a global conversation about the future of humanity itself. As generative AI becomes ubiquitous, the next phase could redefine civilization in ways we’re only beginning to imagine.

Whether the Statement on Superintelligence does indeed result in change is yet to be known. But this much is definite: the world has finally realized that the latest technology human beings have ever come up with has the potential to be the most deadly — unless we can learn how to control it before it controls us.

For half a century, Caterpillar Inc. has been a heavyweight of heavy machinery and industry globally. Renowned for producing some of the world’s hardest-nosed loaders, bulldozers, and tractors, the Illinois company has built a reputation for toughness and reliability. But behind earthmovers and mining equipment, Caterpillar had another profitable business — truck engines that powered some of America’s most iconic long-distance rigs on highways from sea to shining sea.

Engines like the Cat 3406E and C15 became legends of the trucking aspect, being famous for pure torque, longevity, and going a million miles with TLC. But despite popularity, Caterpillar finally closed down its on-highway truck engine manufacturing — something that took many by surprise within the industry.

So, what drove one of the biggest brands in diesel power to walk away from the trucking market it assisted in generating?

Caterpillar’s Truck Engine Heritage Traces Back to 1939

Eight decades of producing truck engines for Caterpillar started in 1939, when the company entered its first foray into this marketplace with the Caterpillar D468, a six-cylinder diesel engine that produced 90 horsepower at 1,800 RPM — humble by today’s standards, but revolutionary at the time.

This initial introduction began the long-term legacy of Caterpillar in the trucking industry. Over the years, the company released a number of other important engines, including the D312, 3408, and the wildly popular 3406E. The latter, introduced in the 1990s, was a driver and fleet operator favorite due to its power, fuel efficiency, and smooth performance.

But with the dawning of the 21st century, the landscape of diesel engines was about to change overnight — and Caterpillar found itself at a crossroads.

The Emissions Challenge That Changed Everything

By the early 2000s, governments around the world — and especially the U.S. — began implementing stricter emissions regulations to reduce emissions of NOx and particulate matter. For engine manufacturers, this meant massive investments in cleaner-burning technology in a bid to meet the 2007 and 2010 EPA standards.

Caterpillar initially responded to the challenge with its Advanced Combustion Emission Reduction Technology (ACERT) technology. This cutting-edge technology utilized a mix of precise fuel injection, advanced air management, and electronic controls to minimize emissions without compromising power.

But even with its greatness, ACERT engines began causing headaches in the real world. Truck operators reported reliability issues, maintenance nightmares, and higher operating costs, all of which smudged Caterpillar’s then-tarnished image in the trucking industry. There were even customers who sued for performance issues, further damaging the brand’s reputation with its top highway customers.

Meanwhile, competitors like Cummins, Detroit Diesel, and PACCAR were adapting faster and better to the new emission regulations. Their engines met emission regulations with fewer problems of reliability — leaving Caterpillar in a more and more vulnerable position.

Too Costly to Compete

Meeting the rapidly evolving emission standards would cost more than technical expertise — it would cost millions of dollars. Caterpillar would have needed to spend a lot on research, redesigning, and testing to keep its engines in compliance and competitive.

For a company whose business is in the construction, mining, and industrial segments, the revenues no longer justified the investment for its trucking operations. Rather than continue investing in a shrinking, regulation-based business, Caterpillar decided to strategically phase out on-highway truck engine production in 2010.

Though Caterpillar’s off-highway engines — those that drove heavy equipment, generators, and marine equipment — were still strong, driving big rigs was no longer in its plans.

The Legacy Lives On

Even though Caterpillar is no longer making on-highway truck engines, its reputation can’t be shaken. Engines like the 3406E and C15 remain legends for their strength and longevity, typically commanding high prices on the used market. Many owner-operators still rebuild and maintain these engines to this day, holding them as symbols of a generation when power and simplicity ruled the road.

In the last couple of years, Caterpillar has exerted enormous efforts in shifting its focus toward sustainable energy solutions like hybrid systems, electrically propelled machinery, and next-generation diesel technologies optimized for reduced emissions in mining and construction purposes.

Although the golden age of Caterpillar truck engines is in the past, the company’s engineering skills and genius continue to shape industries across the globe — ensuring that legends also evolve with the times.

Final Thoughts

Caterpillar’s decision to stop making truck engines wasn’t a decision based on rules alone — it was one based on survival on a strategic level. Compliance expenses, changing market dynamics, and the emergence of cleaner technology all played a role.

Today, with the trucking sector moving toward electrification and alternative fuels, Caterpillar’s pullback appears a visionary move that allowed it to focus on its core strength: building the world’s toughest machines.

ADVERTISEMENT
Receive the latest news

Subscribe To Our Weekly Newsletter

Get notified about new articles