Elon Musk says he has repeatedly offered Tesla’s Full Self-Driving software to traditional carmakers, including on terms that would cost them nothing up front, only to be turned down. The refusal, he argues, is not about the technology’s readiness but about legacy brands’ fear of ceding control over their future software stack. I see that standoff as a revealing stress test of how far old-guard automakers are really willing to go in the race toward automated driving.
What Musk is actually claiming about FSD offers
Musk’s core claim is straightforward: Tesla has approached established automakers with offers to license its Full Self-Driving system, including proposals that would let them integrate the software without paying an initial fee, and those automakers have declined. In his telling, the company is not merely dangling a generic partnership but offering the same stack that runs on Tesla’s own vehicles, from perception to planning, with the expectation that partners would supply compatible hardware and validation. That framing matters, because it positions Tesla less as a rival and more as a platform provider that believes its software is already far ahead of anything legacy brands can build on their own.
Reports on Musk’s recent comments describe him saying that multiple “legacy” manufacturers have been approached with licensing options and that none have moved forward, even when he suggested structures that would effectively make the initial access to FSD free and tie Tesla’s upside to usage or performance over time. Coverage of his remarks notes that he has “admitted” other automakers simply “do not want” to license the system, despite his insistence that it could accelerate their path to advanced driver assistance and automated features, a stance reflected in detailed write-ups of his comments on automakers declining FSD and his broader push to position Tesla as an autonomy supplier.
How the latest remarks surfaced
The latest round of attention came after Musk used a public appearance to reiterate that he has “tried to warn” traditional manufacturers about the risk of falling behind on software and autonomy. In that setting, he described outreach to multiple brands, saying Tesla had put concrete licensing proposals on the table and received little more than polite interest in return. I read his tone as a mix of frustration and strategic signaling, aimed both at investors who want to see Tesla monetize its software and at competitors who might be feeling pressure from their own shareholders to show credible autonomy plans.
Video of the event shows Musk returning several times to the idea that Tesla is open to partnerships but cannot force others to accept them, even if the economics are structured to be attractive. In one clip, he frames the refusal as a kind of institutional inertia inside big car companies, suggesting that internal politics and pride are blocking deals that would otherwise make sense. That narrative is echoed in coverage that highlights his comments about offering FSD licenses and being rebuffed, including a widely shared segment of his remarks captured in a recent interview video and further unpacked in analyses that focus on his insistence that Tesla is ready to supply autonomy software to rivals.
Why legacy automakers might say no, even at zero cost
On its face, turning down advanced driver-assistance software that comes with no upfront licensing fee sounds irrational, but the strategic calculus for legacy brands is more complicated. Accepting Tesla’s stack would mean building cars whose most critical software layer is controlled by a direct competitor, which could limit differentiation and hand Tesla leverage over update cadence, feature roadmaps, and data access. For companies that have spent decades defining themselves through engineering prowess, the idea of outsourcing the brain of the car to an outsider, especially one that openly wants to disrupt them, is a hard sell.
There are also regulatory and liability considerations that make automakers cautious about adopting a third-party system that has been controversial in public debate and in some safety investigations. Even if Tesla offered indemnities or shared responsibility, any high-profile crash involving FSD on a non-Tesla vehicle would still land squarely on the legacy brand’s reputation. Analysts who track the sector have pointed out that many established manufacturers are already committed to their own advanced driver-assistance and autonomy roadmaps, often built with partners like Mobileye or in-house software teams, which makes a pivot to Tesla’s stack politically and financially costly. That context runs through coverage of Musk’s comments about automakers being “hesitant” to license FSD, including detailed reporting on ongoing reluctance to adopt FSD despite his repeated offers.
Musk’s “I’ve tried to warn them” message to the industry
When Musk says he has “tried to warn” other automakers, he is not just venting, he is sketching a worldview in which software-centric companies will dominate the next era of transportation and hardware-focused incumbents will be left behind. In that worldview, Tesla’s FSD is not a nice-to-have option but a critical infrastructure layer that will separate winners from losers as vehicles become more automated and more dependent on continuous software updates. By publicly emphasizing that he offered this technology and was turned down, he is effectively putting a timestamp on his warning, so that if Tesla’s approach proves out, he can argue that rivals had a chance to join and chose not to.
The phrase itself has become a talking point among Tesla supporters, who see it as evidence that Musk is playing a long game while legacy brands cling to outdated strategies. A widely circulated post on a Tesla-focused forum highlights his comments about trying to alert other manufacturers to the risk of underestimating autonomy and software, framing their refusal to license FSD as a symptom of deeper cultural resistance inside those companies. That sentiment is captured in a discussion thread where users dissect his remarks and share clips of his warnings, including a post titled around his “I’ve tried to warn them” line that links directly to his comments on warning other auto manufacturers about the stakes of autonomy.
How coverage and commentary frame the standoff
Different outlets and commentators have framed Musk’s claims in subtly different ways, but the core facts line up: he says Tesla has offered FSD licenses to legacy automakers, including on generous terms, and those automakers have not taken the deal. Some reporting emphasizes his admission that there is simply no appetite among traditional brands to rely on Tesla for such a central technology, treating it as a rare moment of candor about the limits of his partnership strategy. Other analysis leans into the competitive dynamics, noting that even a free license could be seen as a Trojan horse that would give Tesla access to valuable driving data from rival fleets.
Several write-ups also highlight the timing of Musk’s comments, coming as Tesla faces scrutiny over the pace of FSD progress and as other automakers recalibrate their own autonomy ambitions. One detailed account of his remarks underscores that he has been consistent in saying Tesla is open to licensing but that the bottleneck lies with hesitant partners, while another piece explores how his comments fit into a broader narrative of Tesla trying to position itself as a software supplier in addition to a carmaker. Those perspectives are reflected in coverage that lays out his admission that automakers “do not want” to license FSD, including a close look at his remarks on automakers not wanting FSD and a separate analysis that situates his comments within the wider debate over who will control the software layer in future vehicles.
Investor angles and the platform play Musk is pitching
From an investor perspective, the idea of licensing FSD to other automakers is attractive because it would turn Tesla’s autonomy stack into a high-margin software platform that scales beyond its own vehicle sales. Musk has repeatedly floated the notion that FSD could become a major profit center if it were adopted widely, with revenue streams from subscriptions, per-mile fees, or fleet services layered on top of the core license. When he says that legacy brands are refusing even when the license could be free up front, he is implicitly telling shareholders that the bottleneck is not Tesla’s willingness to share but the industry’s reluctance to embrace a platform model that puts Tesla at the center.
Coverage of his latest comments often connects them to that platform narrative, noting that Tesla has already built the infrastructure to deliver over-the-air updates, collect driving data at scale, and iterate its neural networks based on real-world performance. Analysts who are bullish on the company see licensing as a way to amortize those investments across a much larger installed base, while skeptics question whether any major automaker would ever accept such deep dependence on a rival. That tension is evident in reporting that details his offers to legacy brands and their refusal, including a breakdown of his remarks about offering FSD licenses and being turned down that appears in a recent market-focused analysis and in social posts that amplify his claim that he has put generous terms on the table.
Inside the reluctance: culture, control, and competing roadmaps
When I look at the pattern of refusals Musk describes, I see less a simple rejection of Tesla’s technology and more a clash of cultures and control. Legacy automakers are used to owning their core systems, even when they buy components from suppliers, and they are now racing to build their own software organizations that can rival tech companies. Handing the keys to autonomy over to Tesla would be an admission that their internal efforts are not enough, and it would lock them into a roadmap they do not control. That is a hard pivot for companies that have already invested heavily in their own advanced driver-assistance systems and in partnerships with other technology providers.
Some coverage of Musk’s comments digs into that cultural resistance, pointing out that many traditional manufacturers are still wrestling with basic software integration challenges, from infotainment bugs to over-the-air update strategies, and may not be ready to layer a complex autonomy stack from an external rival on top of that. Others note that several brands have already announced scaled-back timelines for full autonomy, focusing instead on incremental improvements to Level 2 and Level 3 systems that they can brand as their own. Those dynamics are explored in analyses that describe automakers’ reluctance to license FSD, including a detailed look at how Musk characterizes their hesitation in a recent tech-focused report and in a separate piece that frames their stance as a desire to maintain control over their software destiny.
How Tesla-friendly outlets and communities are amplifying the story
Pro-Tesla communities and blogs have seized on Musk’s comments as evidence that the company is offering an olive branch to the industry while rivals cling to outdated thinking. In those circles, the narrative is that Tesla is generously willing to share its autonomy breakthroughs, even at no initial cost, and that legacy brands are turning down a lifeline that could help them stay relevant. That framing often comes with a subtext that when or if Tesla’s FSD reaches higher levels of capability, the refusal to license it will look like a historic misstep by the old guard.
Several Tesla-focused sites have published detailed recaps of Musk’s remarks, emphasizing his claim that the company has made concrete licensing offers and that the reluctance lies entirely with traditional manufacturers. One such write-up describes him revealing that legacy automakers are wary of adopting FSD despite its potential benefits, while another highlights his view that their hesitation reflects a broader unwillingness to embrace a software-first mindset. Those perspectives are visible in coverage that walks through his account of outreach and refusal, including a blog that details his comments about automakers’ reluctance to license FSD in a recent summary of his remarks and in a separate news piece that underscores his portrayal of Tesla as ready to partner while others hold back.
Public clips, social posts, and how the narrative spreads
Beyond formal articles, short video clips and social posts have played a big role in spreading Musk’s claim that legacy brands are refusing FSD even when it is effectively free. Edited segments of his interviews and presentations, often under a minute long, circulate widely on platforms where Tesla fans and critics alike debate his motives and the credibility of his offers. Those clips tend to focus on his most quotable lines, such as his insistence that he has tried to warn other automakers and that they will regret not moving faster on autonomy.
Some of those snippets are drawn from longer conversations where he lays out his vision for Tesla as both a carmaker and a software platform, while others come from Q&A sessions where he responds directly to questions about partnerships and licensing. They are frequently paired with captions that highlight his claim that automakers “do not want” FSD, reinforcing the idea that the refusal is a conscious strategic choice rather than a misunderstanding. Examples include a widely shared clip of him discussing FSD licensing in a recent video interview and social posts that quote his remarks about offering licensing options, such as a post summarizing his outreach to legacy brands and a detailed news recap that walks through his account of automakers staying on the sidelines, as seen in a recent report on their continued hesitation.
What the stalemate reveals about the future of car software
The gap between Musk’s offers and legacy automakers’ refusals highlights a deeper question about who will own the software layer in future vehicles. If Tesla’s vision prevails, carmakers that do not control a competitive autonomy stack will be forced to license from those that do, turning them into hardware integrators in a software-defined world. If the incumbents’ bet pays off, they will eventually field their own systems that match or surpass FSD, preserving their independence and their ability to differentiate on driving experience as well as design and branding.
For now, the stalemate suggests that both sides are confident enough in their trajectories to avoid compromise. Musk is signaling that Tesla will keep building FSD primarily for its own fleet while leaving the door open to partners who might change their minds later, and legacy brands are signaling that they would rather take the risk of going it alone than tie their future to a rival’s code. That tension is captured in multiple analyses of his comments about offering FSD licenses and being turned down, including a detailed breakdown of his admission that automakers “do not want” to license the technology in a recent report on the failed outreach and in a broader look at how he frames Tesla’s role in the industry in a comprehensive analysis of his licensing push.
More from MorningOverview