News
GM’s Mary Barra stands by Cruise’s cautious strategy amid Tesla’s full self-driving push
A recent interview with GM CEO Mary Barra from Axios has provided some of the executive’s insights about full self-driving solutions, competition from Tesla, and the Detroit-based company’s strategy for the deployment of its autonomous driving tech. Barra proved conservative, emphasizing that GM will not deploy its full self-driving suite until it is safer than a human driver.
The emergence of full self-driving technologies is all but inevitable at this point, with companies such as Waymo and electric car makers such as Tesla actively pursuing the development and refinement of autonomous driving solutions. Among the industry’s players, Tesla appears to have the momentum, as the company has the largest amount of real-world driving data gathered from hundreds of thousands of vehicles currently on the road. Augmented by the rollout of Tesla’s custom self-driving computer, Elon Musk has been optimistic with the company’s full self-driving rollout plans. Musk has stated that the company’s FSD suite will be “feature complete” by the end of 2019, and that it will have around a million vehicles capable of being used as autonomous “robotaxis” next year.
When asked by the publication about the competition from Tesla and if it is essential for a company to be the first to deploy an autonomous driving system, the GM CEO response was cautious. “We want to be safe. And so that’s what’s motivating us. We understand this is life-changing technology,” Barra said, later adding that “there are so many different ways that we can improve our customers’ lives by having this technology, not only from a safety, but from a productivity (standpoint), what they can do. But what they do, we want to make sure they do safely.”
Barra’s rather conservative statements in her recent interview feature a rather different tone than her previous forecasts for GM’s full self-driving solutions. Speaking at the Dealbook conference last November, Barra stated that GM was on schedule to deploy its full self-driving technology in 2019. “We’re on track, with our rate of learning, to be able to do that next year,” she said. During her segment, Barra noted that GM had a strategy to show that its vehicles are safer than human drivers. She also mentioned that GM Cruise’s autonomous cars were already capable of running safely at around 30 mph, though the service was limited to a small area.
GM eventually softened its stance on its 2019 target release. In a statement to The Detroit News in April, GM noted that Cruise’s driverless taxi service would be “gated by safety” when it goes get deployed. A report from The Information published this June also suggested that in April, GM Cruise’s full self-driving technology experienced a massive failure in the presence of Honda Motor CEO Takahiro Hachigo, a major investor in the company. During the demo, the vehicle’s autonomous driving system reportedly stopped, forcing the car’s backup driver to take control. The vehicle then refused to reactivate, forcing the Honda CEO to wait until he was picked up by an operational GM Cruise autonomous car.
Amidst these reports, Barra did not commit to a launch date for the company’s driverless vehicle service. Nevertheless, in her Axios interview, Barra stated that she does not regret the company’s aggressive 2019 target. “It’s a rallying cry. And I think it’s been motivational,” she said.
While GM Cruise might have less real-world miles compared to Tesla and Waymo, the self-driving unit of the Detroit-based carmaker has attracted a notable number of investors nonetheless. In its latest fundraising round alone, GM Cruise was valued at $19 billion on its own. That’s quite impressive, considering the company’s progress with its technology so far. Tesla, on the other hand, is valued at $39 billion as of writing, and that covers the company’s electric vehicle and energy storage business, as well as its full self-driving technology. This was addressed in a previous note from Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas, who noted that TSLA investors are “undervaluing” the company’s autonomous driving systems. “We believe investors underappreciate/undervalue Tesla’s Autonomy business. Many investors to whom we speak do not explicitly include Tesla’s Autonomy business in their valuation of the company,” Jonas said.
Elon Musk
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
ARK Invest breaks down six reasons SpaceX’s $1.75 trillion IPO valuation may be justified.
ARK Invest, which holds SpaceX as its largest Venture Fund position at 17% of net assets, has published a detailed investor guide to why a SpaceX IPO may be grounded in a $1.75 trillion target valuation.
The financial case starts with Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet constellation, which has surpassed 10 million active subscribers globally as of early 2026, with 2026 revenue projected to exceed $20 billion. ARK’s research puts the total satellite connectivity market opportunity at roughly $160 billion annually at scale, and Starlink is adding customers faster than any telecom network in history. That growth alone would justify a substantial valuation.
Additionally, ARK notes that SpaceX has reduced the cost per kilogram to orbit from roughly $15,600 in 2008 to under $1,000 today through reusable Falcon 9 hardware. A fully operational Starship targeting sub-$100 per kilogram would represent a significant cost decline and open markets that do not currently exist. SpaceX executed a staggering 165 missions in 2025 and now accounts for approximately 85% of all global orbital launches. That infrastructure position took decades to build and would be nearly impossible to replicate at comparable cost.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
The February 2026 merger with xAI added a layer to the valuation that straightforward financial models struggle to capture. ARK argues that at sub-$100 launch costs, orbital data centers could deliver compute roughly 25% cheaper than ground-based alternatives, without power grid delays, permitting friction, or land constraints. Musk has stated a goal of deploying 100 gigawatts of AI computing capacity per year from orbit.
The $1.75 trillion figure itself is not a conventional earnings multiple. At roughly 95x trailing revenue, it prices in Starlink’s adoption curve, Starship’s cost trajectory, and the orbital compute thesis together. The public S-1 prospectus, due at least 15 days before the June roadshow, will give investors their first complete look at the financials to test those assumptions. ARK’s position is that the track record earns the benefit of the doubt. Fully reusable rockets were considered unrealistic for years. Starlink was considered financially unviable. Both happened on timelines that surprised skeptics.
Elon Musk
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a recent podcast interview that Tesla is not who Americans should look at to beat Chinese carmakers.
The comments have sparked quite a bit of outrage from Tesla fans on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.
Farley said that Chinese automakers are better examples of how to beat competitors. He said (via the Rapid Response Podcast):
“If you’re an American and you want us to beat the Chinese in the car business, you’re all going to want to pay attention, not necessarily to Tesla. Nothing against Tesla—they’ve been doing great—but they really don’t have an updated vehicle. The best in the business for us, cost-wise and competition-wise, supply chain, manufacturing expertise, and the I.P. in the vehicle, was really BYD. In this next cycle of EV customers in the U.S., they want pickups and utilities and all these different body styles. But they want them at $30,000, not $50,000. Like the first inning, they want them affordably.”
Despite Farley’s synopsis, it is worth mentioning that Tesla had the best-selling passenger vehicle in the world last year, and in China in March, as the Model Y continued its global dominance over other vehicles.
Musk responded to Farley’s comments by stating:
“This is before Supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.”
This is before supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 19, 2026
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges
Instead, Ford is “doubling down on its affordable” EVs and said it would pivot from its previous plans.
Reaction from Tesla fans was pretty much how you would expect. Many said they have lost a lot of respect for Farley after his comments; others believe he is the last CEO anyone should be taking advice on EVs from.
Nevertheless, Farley’s plans are bold and brash; many consider Tesla the most ideal company to replicate EV efforts from. It will be interesting to see if Ford can rebound from this big adjustment, and hopefully, Farley’s plans to replicate efforts from BYD work out the way he hopes.
Elon Musk
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
NASA awarded SpaceX a $175 million Mars rover contract while the White House proposes cutting the mission.
NASA just signed a $175.7 million contract with SpaceX to launch a Mars rover that the White House is simultaneously trying to defund. The contract, awarded on April 16, 2026, tasks SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with launching the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosalind Franklin rover from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, no earlier than late 2028. It would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars.
Under NASA’s Rosalind Franklin Support and Augmentation project, known as ROSA, the agency is providing braking engines for the rover’s descent stage, radioisotope heater units that use decaying plutonium to keep the rover warm on the Martian surface, additional electronics, and a mass spectrometer instrument, as noted by SpaceNews.
Those nuclear heating units are the reason an American rocket was required at all. U.S. export controls on radioisotope technology mean any payload carrying them must launch on a domestic vehicle, which narrowed the field to SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. Falcon Heavy’s pricing made it the practical choice.
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
Falcon Heavy debuted in February 2018 and has 11 launches to its record. The rocket has not flown since October 2024, when it sent NASA’s Europa Clipper toward Jupiter. The three-core design, built from modified Falcon 9 first stages, gives it the lift capacity needed for deep space planetary missions that a single Falcon 9 cannot reach.
The Rosalind Franklin rover has been sitting in storage in Europe for years. It was originally due to launch in 2022 as a joint mission with Russia, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that partnership, leaving the rover built but stranded without a launch vehicle or landing hardware. NASA stepped back in through a 2024 agreement with ESA to rescue the mission. The rover is designed to drill up to two meters below the Martian surface in search of evidence of past life, a science objective no previous mission has attempted at that depth.
The contradiction at the center of this story is hard to ignore. The White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal included no funding for ROSA and did not mention the mission at all in the detailed congressional justification document released April 3.
Musk has long argued that reaching Mars is not optional. “We don’t want to be one of those single planet species, we want to be a multi-planet species.” Whether this particular mission survives Washington’s budget fight, the Falcon Heavy contract means SpaceX is now formally on record as the rocket that could get humanity’s next Mars science mission off the ground.
The timing of this contract carries extra weight given that SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC in early April and is targeting an IPO roadshow in the week of June 8. It would be the largest public offering in history.
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
