The CEO of ride-sharing platform Uber has shared some of his doubts about Tesla’s ability to effectively execute robotaxi plans for its customers, pointing to the customer service side of the business as well as vehicle owner skepticism about letting strangers into their cars.
Tesla plans to launch a robotaxi platform in October, and CEO Elon Musk has talked at length over the years about hopes that such a platform could let owners’ vehicles work in a ride-sharing capacity while not in use, effectively making them money while driving themselves and ride-share passengers.
On Friday, Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi appeared on the Logan Bartlett Show on YouTube to discuss autonomous vehicles, during which he expressed more than a few doubts about Tesla’s robotaxi plans. For one, he says, peak ride-sharing times might coincide with the times owners want to use their own vehicles.
“Probably the times at which you’re going to want your Tesla are probably going to be the same times that ridership is going to be at a peak,” Khosrowshahi said during the interview.
He also notes that he doesn’t think society is prepared for self-driving vehicles, even if they are getting closer to goals of becoming safer than human drivers.
“Logic would dictate that if robots are twice as good a driver or three times as good as drivers as humans, that’s good for society going forward, but I honestly don’t know if society’s ready to accept that,” Khosrowshahi said.
The Uber CEO also talked about the business changes that Tesla would need to invest in to successfully build such a platform, and he noted how different he believes the ride-sharing and vehicle-building businesses really are.
“It’s a really, really different business you know, as well as talking about hardware, to build a $20,000 or $50,000 piece of hardware from driving over 30 million transactions every day that on a revenue basis you make $2 off of,” he added. “It’s just a very, very different business.”
Khosrowshahi also goes on to highlight the extra platforms that companies have to create to accommodate things that can go wrong in a ride-sharing vehicle, from people getting sick and wanting to pay with cash to those losing items in their ride-share, accidents, and more.
Unsurprisingly, he notes that it might be worthwhile for Tesla to partner with ride-sharing services like Uber in the future instead of developing its own, noting that he thinks the automaker could benefit from partnering with Uber.
“It’s taken us 15 years. It’s taken us tens of billions of dollars of capital, and we can provide that instantly to a partner,” Khosrowshahi added. “Hopefully, Tesla will be one of those partners.”
You can see the full interview with Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi below, as hosted by the Logan Bartlett show.
To be sure, Tesla has already teased a mobile platform it has been building for its robotaxi plans, and it has been developing its Full Self-Driving (FSD) Supervised for the past several years through testing and training from drivers that have purchased the software.
Other companies like Waymo and Cruise have also been working on their own driverless ride-hailing solutions, with the former already offering paid rides in select areas for the service. Despite this, Musk has previously highlighted that he thinks these companies will have a lot more trouble scaling these services, due to their requirements of high-density mapping of specific serviceable areas.
These, Musk says, are unlike FSD, which can theoretically be used just about anywhere due to its camera-based system and continuously-trained neural network. It’s worth noting that Tesla’s FSD still requires supervision, hence the name FSD “Supervised,” and it isn’t exactly clear just yet when the company expects to launch unsupervised versions of the software.
Although Tesla was originally supposed to hold its robotaxi unveiling event this month, Musk noted that the delayed event would allow the company to make some important changes and allow it to show off additional features.
“Requested what I think is an important design change to the front, and extra time allows us to show off a few other things,” Musk wrote in a post on X last month.
What are your thoughts? Let me know at zach@teslarati.com, find me on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send us tips at tips@teslarati.com.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
