There are many people who have bought FSD from Tesla, and have had their car reach end of life without ever getting to enjoy FSD.
It's possible after being "less than a year away" for... a decade... that it may be less than a year away now. But it looks like a bit of skepticism has been earned.
I've watched a lot of Munro (and even bought one of their retail reports for fun) and the thing that most bothered me that looked like tesla bias was when he was doing side-by-side stats comparisons of all of the mid-size crossovers like the id.4, mach-e, and tesla y. he kept on harping about the epa range in the comparison and never once mentioned the methodology of the epa estimate and the fact that manufacturers have a lot of leeway to conduct the test themselves - and either overreport or underreport the epa range. this was really glaring to me because tesla is known to stretch their range estimates (as do other manufacturers), but some manufacturers seem to deliberately underreport (mercedes, porsche, ford with some models of the mach-e for example). given that he's in the business of competitive analysis he HAS to know this, but he never said a word about it, which I think made tesla look a little better than it should have. it's one thing to just present the epa range and leave it at that, but he was using it as the basis for a ton of discussion and derived numbers and basically putting down the non-tesla cars... all without mentioning the limits of the number
see this for some real-world testing, there's lots like it and the results usually skew a certain way for each car. for example, there's about a 20% delta in epa vs. tested range for the tesla y LR and mach-e standard range in his chart. the tesla artificially looks 20% better! and this delta was well-known at the time of his video
https://insideevs.com/reviews/443791/ev-range-test-results/
to your question about conflicts of interest, owning a stock is a conflict of interest. nobody needs to show that something is happening inside his head, the circumstances exist and that's it. I think he's usually pretty good and I still watch the videos, and he trades on his reputation and I still regard him as a good source. but I'm still glad to learn that he's sold the stock
A conflict of interest accusation is pretty serious, and I think if all you had to go by is your skepticism, you probably shouldn't just make that claim as if it were a known fact: that's just very dishonest.
Sure, be skeptical, but then maybe say something like "I have no evidence for this, but I believe his manifest enthusiasm can only be explained by the fact that he's trying to manipulate the stock price to his own benefit."
Sure, it sounds less rhetorically convenient, but it's more honest.
It's shocking to me that people are willing to pay to be beta testers for Tesla's entirely-from-scratch manufacturing process and smartphone-with-wheels style of car experience but it doesn't matter what I think - that's the beauty of capitalism.
I have driven a friend's model 3 and while yes its nice, I feel like I would get more value for my buck with the driver assist in for example modern Toyotas.
But I'm also perfectly happy driving my decades old Honda so what do I know.
Based on the videos I've seen I'm not even sure I'd call their software beta. It looks like it's in early development, like where you'd be running it exclusively on closed tracks. Definitely nowhere near folks outside the company.
NFTs don’t have amazing unit economics with gross profit margins of 30% (or any unit economics at all), and incredible discounted cash flows (actually they don’t have any cash flows at all).
It’s like comparing the productivity of a med student on Adderall in a quiet library, and the productivity of a peeled russet potato sitting in the sun.
It's possible after being "less than a year away" for... a decade... that it may be less than a year away now. But it looks like a bit of skepticism has been earned.