Latest news with #BayArea
The Independent
7 hours ago
- Automotive
- The Independent
Why Tesla is unable to launch robotaxi service in US state
Tesla is currently unable to launch its Robotaxi service in California due to a lack of required permits from state regulators. The company has engaged in multiple discussions with the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) regarding the expansion of its autonomous services. Despite Elon Musk 's promotion of Robotaxis, Tesla has been warned by the DMV and another oversight body against an unauthorised rollout in the Bay Area. Tesla's senior counsel has acknowledged the need for additional permits for both drivered and driverless autonomous rideshare operations in California. Critics, including a California Assembly member, accuse Tesla of attempting to bypass regulations, while the company states it is taking a phased approach to its ride-hailing service.
Forbes
11 hours ago
- Automotive
- Forbes
First Tesla Robotaxi Rides In California May Risk DMV Shutdown
Tesla has begin limited operation of a ride service in the San Francisco Bay Area. The first video by a passenger shows that it is running a similar software system to the one used in Austin TX, with a safety driver, in this case located behind the wheel rather than in the passenger seat. While the saftey driver keeps hands on the wheel, as recommended with Tesla's consumer version of FSD, in this ride they do not appear to control the vehicle, and it drives the trips, including pick-up and drop-off, without input from the Tesla employee. The problem is, this sort of more fully automated ride may run afoul of more subtle complexities in California self-driving vehicle regulations which led to the DMV shutting down testing by Uber's self-driving research unit ATG several years ago. Tesla is using a carve-out in the California laws which state that they do not cover 'driver assist' tools, sometimes referred to as 'Level 2' in specifications from NHTSA and the Society of Automotive Engineers. The California regulations require a large set of permits from both the DMV and the public utilities commission to operate a taxi service based on self-driving vehicles. Seven different permits are needed, and Tesla has only 2 and has not applied for the others. By declaring to the DMV that this is not a self-driving car, but rather a driver assist car that requires a human driver behind the wheel and in control, they hope to bypass the need for those permits. The line, however, between Tesla FSD, which is indeed correctly sold as a driver-assist system and this 'robotaxi' version is challenging. Just when does a system switch from being driver-assist to prototype self-driving? For now, the DMV is accepting that and stated: The Regulations and Driver Assist In 2011-12, I participated in the drafting of the first drafting of the nation's first laws regulating self-driving in Nevada and California. The first laws only enabled testing, and were prompted by Google, the only company trying to do tests. Representatives from big automakers quickly joined the discussions, and they were concerned that these regulations might interfere with some of the systems they sold, such as adaptive cruise controls, and lanekeeping systems, which are known as 'driver assist' tools because a human driver is responsible for the vehicle, and the system only assists. They got the carve-out they wanted. In 2016, Uber was developing self-driving at its ill-fated 'ATG' division. The head of the division, Anthony Levandowski, who had represented Google in the drafting of these laws, began testing their vehicles on California roads. He declared that because the vehicles had a human safety driver on board, they were driver assist, and Uber didn't need a self-driving testing permit. The DMV would have none of it, and threatened Uber with pulling its vehicles from the roads, cancelling their licence plates. Uber complied and got the testing permits. Later, Uber ATG would have a fatal crash. It shut down operations and the team was purchased by Aurora. (Aurora just announced this week that they have begun 'driverless' trucking at night in Texas, though also with an employee behind the wheel.) The DMV has not had enough time to look at the new service that Tesla has deployed. The Tesla robotaxi stack definitely tries to perform the complete robotaxi task, including pick-up and drop-off. It is not ready from a safety standpoint. Other data suggests the Tesla FSD system needs human intervention around every 400 miles, Tesla has said they now have reached near 10,000 miles, but their operations in Austin suggest otherwise. Either way, to make a working robotaxi requires needing a serious intervention every million miles or so to meet Musk's stated goal of 'much safer than a human' and so Tesla still has very far to go and the safety driver is needed. At the same time, Uber ATG was very, very, very far behind this quality level. At the time of their fatality they needed safety driver takeover about every 15 miles. Because their safety driver disregarded her job and watched a video instead of the road, the vehicle struck and killed a pedestrian. Uber ATG never took passengers, so their vehicle also was not capable of doing the things like summoning, pick-up and drop-off that the Tesla vehicle does. It seems very unlikely that an analysis of the Tesla Robotaxi system in comparison to the Uber ATG system would class the Tesla system as less of a prototype self-driving system. Except for one strange irony. DMV Lawsuit Over FSD Name The DMV is currently in court suing to remove Tesla from the roads in general for deceptive labeling, but in the opposite direction. Tesla calls its consumer product 'Full Self Driving (Supervised)' and formerly called it 'Beta.' The DMV has been declaring that Tesla's system is not self-driving (and indeed it isn't) and that they should not be using a name that suggests it is. Tesla robotaxi isn't self-driving either, but like Uber ATG's system, it definitely is intended to be. Uber ATG was made to get the permits because they were trying to build a robotaxi, even though it wasn't ready yet. Tesla is very explicitly calling their system a robotaxi, though it also isn't ready yet. The DMV will have to make a decision and possibly alter its policies. Product Quality At present the service seems very limited. The influencer who got the early ride above got the same car every time he asked for a ride, and appeared to be followed by a Cybertruck chase car, so it was carefully monitored. However, there's no reason Tesla can't put this into operation with a safety driver. Indeed, it's no surprise that Tesla could immediately allow a larger service area than Waymo does for their actual self-driving robotaxi service. Tesla FSD with a supervisor is reasonably safe over most roads in the USA. Other than logistic costs they could offer a service anywhere, though of course it costs as much as a limo service to operate and so is not commercially interesting. You can, and other companies have, offered test robotaxi services with safety drivers even though the robotaxi software still needs 100x or 1,000x improvement in quality in order to work. While Perhaps it only needs a 2x improvement and is thus 'almost ready' it is not easy for outsiders to judge this quality, you need statistics over large nubmers of miles, which Tesla does not release. The robotaxi system, which has been seen in Austin, has added impressive capabilities above the point to point driving abilities that Tesla FSD has shown for some time. Most notably it is doing pick-up and drop-off on aribitrary curbsides, which took many teams some effort to develop, though again, they made it work without a safety driver, which is vastly harder. In pondering why Tesla has released this service, this may be the main reason--it already has been doing lots of testing of the FSD driving system, including in the Bay Area (the rider's route included Tesla HQ after all.) It is the PuDo (Pick-up/Drop-off) which is new and needs testing.
Fast Company
14 hours ago
- Automotive
- Fast Company
Tesla launches ride-hailing in San Francisco, but there's no mention of self-driving robotaxis
TECH Tesla still faces regulatory hurdles in California, which has not permitted the EV-maker to use robotaxis for ride-hailing services. FILE PHOTO: Tesla logo is seen in this illustration taken July 23, 2025. [Photo: Dado Ruvic/Illustration/ File Photo/REUTERS] BY Tesla launched ride-hailing in San Francisco's Bay Area on Thursday but did not mention using self-driving robotaxis for the service. California has not permitted Tesla to offer robotaxi service, and the limited rollout highlights the regulatory hurdles the company faces as it looks to pivot to robotaxis amid cooling electric vehicle sales. The state's rules could potentially delay Musk's target of deploying robotaxis across half the U.S. by year-end. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) said last week that Tesla was not allowed to 'test or transport the public' with or without a driver in a self-driving vehicle. Tesla had notified the CPUC of its intent to include friends and family of employees, plus select public participants in the Bay Area service, but only in human-operated vehicles. But the regulator reiterated that Tesla must first complete a pilot phase without charging customers before pursuing full-autonomous permits, a process that has taken competitors such as Alphabet's Waymo years to navigate. 'You can now ride-hail a Tesla in the SF Bay Area, in addition to Austin,' Musk said in a post on X, without adding other details. Tesla, in a post on X, showed the service area would include the San Francisco area, San Jose and Berkeley. Tesla only has a permit from California's Department of Motor Vehicles to test self-driving vehicles with a safety driver on public roads. It does not have the permits needed to collect fares in robotaxis. For the Bay Area service, Tesla may be able to use its Full Self-Driving (Supervised) feature, which can perform many driving tasks but requires a human driver to pay attention and be ready to take over at all times. A CPUC spokesperson last week did not respond to a question on whether Tesla could use that feature, but such technology does not require an autonomous vehicle permit in California because the human driver is expected to be in control at all times. Tesla did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for additional details. The EV maker will require permits from the CPUC and California's Department of Motor Vehicles to launch a ride-hailing service competing with Waymo, Uber and Lyft, though the regulatory approval process is lengthy and can stretch for years. Tesla's launch pits the company against Waymo on its home turf. The Alphabet unit surpassed Lyft's market share in San Francisco this year, making it the city's second-largest ride-hailing provider behind Uber, according to data from analytics firm YipitData. Musk said last week that Tesla was aiming to get the regulatory permission to launch robotaxis in several states, including California, Nevada, Arizona and Florida, but did not provide details on the approvals it was receiving. —Gnaneshwar Rajan, Akash Sriram and Gursimran Kaur, Reuters The early-rate deadline for Fast Company's Most Innovative Companies Awards is Friday, September 5, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply today. Sign up for our weekly tech digest. SIGN UP This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Privacy Policy
The Verge
18 hours ago
- Automotive
- The Verge
When is a Tesla Robotaxi not a Robotaxi?
Posted Jul 31, 2025 at 11:47 AM UTC When is a Tesla Robotaxi not a Robotaxi? When it's in the Bay Area. Tesla has sent out invites for its 'ride-hailing service,' conspicuously absent any Robotaxi branding. Tesla doesn't have permits for autonomous taxis in California, so its rides include a supervisor in the driver's seat, who Reuters reports must be 'ready to take over at all times' — in Austin the supervisor sits in the passenger seat. A first fan video shows the car doing most of the work, but the human driver's hands always stay near the wheel. Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates. Dominic Preston Posts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All by Dominic Preston Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Autonomous Cars Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Electric Cars Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All News Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Tesla Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Transportation
Yahoo
19 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Spotify boycott: Artists leave 'garbage hole' platform after CEO invests in AI weapons
Greg Saunier already had reasons to be wary of Spotify. The founder of the acclaimed Bay Area band Deerhoof was well acquainted with the service's meager payouts to artists and songwriters, often estimated around $3 per thousand streams. He was unnerved by the service's splashy pivots into AI and podcasting, where right-wing, conspiracy-peddling hosts like Joe Rogan got multimillion-dollar contracts while working musicians struggled. But Saunier hit his breaking point in June, when Spotify's Chief Executive Daniel Ek announced that he'd led a funding round of nearly $700 million (through his personal investment firm, Prima Materia) into the European defense firm Helsing. That company, which Ek now chairs, specializes in AI software integrated into fighter aircraft like its HX-2 AI Strike Drone. 'Helsing is uniquely positioned with its AI leadership to deliver these critical capabilities in all-domain defence innovation,' Ek said in a statement about the funding round. In response, Deerhoof pulled its catalog from Spotify. 'Every time someone listens to our music on Spotify, does that mean another dollar siphoned off to make all that we've seen in Gaza more frequent and profitable?' Saunier said, in an interview with The Times. 'It didn't take us long to decide as a band that if Daniel Ek is going harder on AI warfare, we should get off Spotify. It's not even that big of a sacrifice in our case." A small band yanking its catalog won't make much impact on Spotify's estimated quarterly revenues of $4.8 billion. But it seemed to inspire others: several influential acts subsequently left the service, lambasting Ek for investing his personal fortune into an AI weapons firm. Spotify did not return request for comment about Ek's Helsing investments. Read more: Spotify walks back its controversial 'hate content' policy This small exodus is unlikely to sway Ek, or dislodge Spotify from dominating the record economy. But it may further sour young music fans on Spotify, as many are outraged about wars in Gaza and elsewhere. 'There must be hundreds of bands right now at least as big as ours who are thinking of leaving,' Saunier said. 'I thought we'd be fools not to leave, the risk would be in staying. How can you generate good feelings between fans when musical success is intimately associated with AI drones going around the globe murdering people?' Swedish mogul Ek, with an estimated wealth around $9 billion, may seem an unlikely new player in the global defense industry. But his interest in Helsing goes back to 2021, when Ek invested nearly $115 million from Prima Materia and joined the company's board. [Helsing, based in Germany, says it was founded to "help protect our democratic values and open societies" and puts "ethics at the core of defense technology development."] With his investment, Ek joined tech moguls Jeff Bezos and Palmer Luckey in pivoting from nerdier cultural pursuits (like online bookselling and virtual reality) into defense. The Union of Musicians and Allied Workers said then that Ek's actions 'prove once again that Ek views Spotify and the wealth he has pillaged from artists merely as a means to further his own wealth.' Read more: 'If we don't get paid, songs don't get made': Songwriters take to the streets against Spotify A range of anti-Spotify protests followed later, like a songwriters' rally in West Hollywood in 2022 and a boycott of Spotify's 2025 Grammy party, after Spotify cut $150 million from songwriter royalties. Neil Young and Joni Mitchell pulled their catalogs in response to Rogan spreading misinformation about COVID-19. Yet eventually, both relented. 'Apple and Amazon have started serving the same disinformation podcast features I had opposed at Spotify,' Young said in a pithy note in 2022. 'I hope all you millions of Spotify users enjoy my songs! They will now all be there for you except for the full sound we created.' Ek's latest investment seems to have struck a nerve though, especially in the corners of music where Spotify slashed income to the point where artists have little to lose by leaving. After Deerhoof's announcement, the influential avant-garde band Xiu Xiu announced a similar move. 'We are currently working to take all of our music off of garbage hole violent armageddon portal Spotify,' they wrote. 'Please cancel your subscription.' Read more: Ava DuVernay is the latest artist to follow Neil Young's exit from Spotify because of Joe Rogan The Amsterdam electronic label Kalahari Oyster Cult had similar reasoning: 'We don't want our music contributing to or benefiting a platform led by someone backing tools of war, surveillance and violence," they posted. Most significantly, the Australian rock band King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard — an enormously popular group that will headline the Hollywood Bowl Aug. 10. — said last week that it would pull its dozens of albums from Spotify as well. 'A PSA to those unaware: Spotify CEO Daniel Ek invests millions in AI military drone technology,' the band wrote, announcing its departure. 'We just removed our music from the platform. Can we put pressure on these Dr. Evil tech bros to do better?' 'We've been saying 'f— Spotify' for years. In our circle of musicians, that's what people say all the time for well-documented reasons,' the band's singer Stu Mackenzie said in an interview. 'I don't consider myself an activist, but this feels like a decision staying true to ourselves. We saw other bands we admire leaving, and we realized we don't want our music to be there right now.' Ek's moves with Prima Materia come as no surprise to Glenn McDonald, a former data analyst at Spotify who became well known for identifying trends in listener habits. McDonald was laid off in 2023, and has mixed feelings about the company's priorities today. It's both the arbiter of the record industry and a mercurial tech giant that only became profitable last year while spinning off enormous wealth for Ek. 'It's well documented that Spotify was only a music business because that was an open niche,' McDonald said. 'I'm never surprised by billionaires doing billionaire things. Google or Apple or Amazon investing in a company that did military technology wouldn't surprise me. Spotify subscribers should feel dismayed that this is happening, but not responsibility, because all the major streamers are about the same in moral corporate terms.' Read more: Comedians wanted Spotify to pay them more royalties. Their albums were removed McDonald said the company's push toward Discovery Mode — where artists accept a lower royalty rate in exchange for better placement in its algorithm — added to the sense that Spotify is antagonistic to working artists' values. More recently, Spotify rankled progressives when it sponsored a Washington, D.C., brunch with Rogan and Ben Shapiro celebrating President Trump's return to the White House, and raised $150,000 for Trump's inauguration (Apple and Amazon also donated to the inauguration). While Ek's investments in Helsing are not directly tied to Spotify, the money does come from personal wealth built through his ownership of Spotify's stock. Fans are right to make a moral connection between them, McDonald said. 'Ek represents Spotify publicly, and thus its commitment to music. Him putting money into an AI drone company isn't representing that,' McDonald said. 'He can do whatever he wants with his money, but he is the face of a company as controversial and culturally important as Spotify. So yeah, people want to hold him to a less neutral standard.' For artists looking to leave the service, the actual process of getting off Spotify varies. For King Gizzard, which releases its catalog on its own record labels, it was easy to remove everything quickly. Deerhoof and Xiu Xiu needed time to clear the move with several labels and former band members who receive royalties. Being a smaller, autonomous band enabled Saunier to act according to his values, even at the cost of some meaningful slice of income. He has considered that, by torching his band's relationship with Spotify, Deerhoof's music could slip from away from some fans. 'Everyone I know hates Spotify, but we've been conditioned to believe that there is no other option,' he said. 'But underground music is filled with so many beautiful examples of a mom-and-pop business mentality. I don't need to dominate the world, I don't need to be Taylor Swift to be counted as a success. I don't need a global reach, I just need to provide myself a good life.' Read more: Letters to the Editor: Neil Young put his money where his mouth is. Spotify did not Yet the only artists that might genuinely sway Ek's investments would be ones with a global reach on the caliber of Swift. She has pulled her catalog from Spotify before, in 2014 just after releasing her smash album "1989." 'Music is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for,' she said, before eventually returning to Spotify in 2017. It's hard to imagine her, or other comparable pop acts, taking a similar stand today, especially as the major labels' fortunes are so bound up in Spotify revenues. Spotify reported a $10 billion payout to rights holders in 2024, roughly a quarter of the entire global recorded music business. Its stock has surged 120% over the last year, but in the second quarter of 2025, the firm missed earnings targets and dropped 11% this week, for the stock's worst day in two years. "While I'm unhappy with where we are today, I remain confident in the ambitions we laid out for this business,' Ek said in an earnings call. This recent, small exodus most likely didn't contribute to that. But it might add to a creeping sense among young listeners that Spotify is not a morally-aligned place for fans to enjoy beloved songs. 'I actually think Spotify will eventually go the way of MySpace. It's just a get-rich-quick scheme that will pass, become uncool, one that had its day and is probably in decline,' Saunier said. 'They wrote an email to me seemingly to do face saving, which makes me think they're more desperate than we think.' Read more: Joni Mitchell returns to Spotify two years after boycott over Joe Rogan's COVID-19 'lies' Acts like Kneecap, Bob Vylan and others have been outspoken around the war on Gaza, at real risk to their careers — proof that young fans care deeply about these issues. While Ek would argue that Helsing helps Ukraine and Europe defend itself, others may not trust his judgment. 'Maybe it's silly to expect cultural or moral leadership from Daniel Ek, but I don't want it to be silly,' McDonald said. He thinks fans and artists can morally stay on Spotify, but hopes they build toward a more ethical record industry. 'It's hard to see what 'stay and fight' consists of, but if everyone leaves, nothing gets better," he said. "If we're going to get a better music business, it's going to come from somebody starting over from scratch without major labels, and somehow building to a point where we have enough leverage to change the power dynamic.' King Gizzard's Mackenzie looks forward to finding out how that might work. 'I don't expect Daniel Ek to pay attention to us, though it would be cool if he did,' Mackenzie said. 'We've made a lot of experimental moves in music and releasing records. People who listen to our music have been conditioned to have trust and faith to go on the ride together. I feel grateful to have that trust, and this feels like an experiment to me. Let's just go away from Spotify and see what happens.' Get notified when the biggest stories in Hollywood, culture and entertainment go live. Sign up for L.A. Times entertainment alerts. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times. Solve the daily Crossword
