Welcome once again to TechCrunch Mobility, the publication’s dynamic and ever-evolving center for information, analysis, and in-depth commentary on how technology is shaping the global future of transportation. This outlet serves as the primary destination for anyone eager to understand the shifting intersections of mobility, automation, electrification, and sustainability. To ensure that these insights consistently reach your inbox without delay, you can subscribe to TechCrunch Mobility completely free of charge—simply follow the link and sign up to receive regular updates directly via email.
Now, for those who have been eagerly anticipating the conclusion of last week’s reader poll, let us satisfy that curiosity. (And an important reminder for newcomers: subscribing to the Mobility newsletter is the easiest way to take part in forthcoming polls and share your perspectives.) The question posed was straightforward yet laden with business implications: “What is the optimal business model for autonomous vehicle technology, particularly when profitability is considered?” The responses painted a clear picture. An overwhelming plurality of readers—roughly 40%—believe that the long-haul delivery market provides the most viable and profitable path forward for autonomous vehicle deployment. Robotaxi operations followed, capturing approximately 25.5% of the votes, while 19.1% favored the idea of licensing self-driving technology to established automakers. In last place, though still a respectable contender, was last-mile delivery, selected by 14.9% of respondents. One reader thoughtfully emailed to note that the survey did not include industrial or warehouse automation—fields such as self-navigating forklifts—which might belong within this broader conversation. Interestingly, even the leading category, long-haul delivery, could be subdivided into numerous specialized markets, making it a suitable subject for deeper examination in a forthcoming poll featured in this week’s edition.
Transitioning from data to drama, few corporate conversations could rival the recent remarks made during Tesla’s third-quarter earnings call. In the extensive catalogue of justifications one might conceive to rationalize a one-trillion-dollar compensation plan, the notion of maintaining authority over a so-called “robot army” would hardly appear at the top of the list. Yet that, remarkably, became the core of Elon Musk’s argument. On November 6, Tesla shareholders will cast their votes on whether to authorize a board-supported compensation package that could grant Musk as much as 12% of Tesla’s total stock—an award whose value would approximate one trillion dollars should the company attain its formidable market capitalization goal of $8.6 trillion.
In the lead-up to this pivotal decision, both Musk and Tesla’s board have devoted weeks to lobbying shareholders, attempting to persuade them that the package aligns with the company’s long-term interests. Their efforts persist even as prominent proxy advisory firms, including Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and Glass Lewis, have urged investors to vote against approval. Musk, clearly undeterred, displayed a combative posture by the close of the earnings call, in which he denounced these firms as “corporate terrorists” and formally made his final appeal. His central claim—the now-infamous “robot army” argument—revolves less around personal financial gain and more around the preservation of influence and authority. As Musk himself quipped, financial wealth often serves as the mechanism through which one sustains both power and control.
During the call, Musk expressed his principal concern bluntly: “If we are building a robot army, will I have sufficient influence over that robot army? I do not feel comfortable constructing it if I lack strong oversight.” His words clearly referenced Tesla’s Optimus robot project, which he presented as a symbolic and practical example of the company’s robotics ambitions—endeavors over which he insists on maintaining comprehensive authority.
The upcoming TechCrunch event, scheduled to take place in San Francisco from October 27 to 29, 2025, will almost certainly revisit these debates, particularly those surrounding executive control, automation ethics, and corporate responsibility. Yet Musk’s rationale is unlikely to sway his detractors, especially in light of his other controversial leadership roles, including his position as head of the Department of Government Efficiency. Nonetheless, the only opinions that ultimately matter belong to Tesla shareholders, who alone possess the power to determine whether his argument proves persuasive enough to justify the monumental payout.
Switching gears, a noteworthy story this week involves General Motors’ decision to terminate its BrightDrop electric van program—a move that, while disappointing, did not come as a shock to seasoned industry observers. After just four years in operation, the program’s abrupt closure highlights the volatility of commercial EV markets. For months, hundreds of completed but unsold BrightDrop vans have been idly parked at storage facilities across Michigan and Canada. (Indeed, one informant whispered that a particularly large collection resides in a Flint, Michigan lot.) The official reason, according to GM, lies in a commercial EV market that has matured more slowly than anticipated, though the company avoided offering specific details about BrightDrop’s operational shortfalls.
However, sources hint at a deeper narrative. Despite commanding relatively high purchase prices, BrightDrop vans were well-reviewed and considered desirable by fleet operators for their durability and efficient design. Their electric drivetrains also made them especially suitable for dense last-mile delivery environments. What truly undermined the program, one insider explained, was GM’s decision to rely heavily on external partners for deploying depot-charging infrastructure, rather than incorporating it into the fleet package. This omission discouraged many potential buyers, who were deterred by the logistical and technical complexities of establishing charging solutions independently.
On the business front, recent capital flows reveal the increasingly intertwined fates of electric vehicles and artificial intelligence. Redwood Materials has successfully raised a substantial $350 million in a Series E round spearheaded by Eclipse Ventures and including strategic funding from Nvidia’s investment arm, NVentures. Although the company’s updated valuation was not formally disclosed, a source familiar with the transaction estimated it at approximately $6 billion, a full billion higher than during the previous financing round. A significant portion of this newly acquired capital will fund the company’s energy storage division, which repurposes EV batteries that retain usable life but are no longer fit for direct reuse in vehicles. These rejuvenated battery systems are being integrated with renewable energy sources—such as wind farms, solar collections, and conventional power grids—to supply electricity to AI data centers and industrial installations.
Other notable funding developments include Avride’s announcement of up to $375 million in strategic commitments, supported by Uber and Nebius. While none of the involved parties disclosed whether this infusion was entirely equity-based, insiders hinted that certain provisions, referred to as “other commitments,” extend beyond simple financial injections. Similarly, African e-mobility startup Spiro, headquartered in Dubai, secured $100 million in a round led by the Fund for Export Development in Africa (FEDA), part of Afreximbank’s development arm. This financing marks the largest single fundraise yet achieved within the African electric mobility sector.
General Motors, elsewhere, convened an event in New York City to unveil its forthcoming trajectory, one that places strong emphasis on artificial intelligence and next-generation computing. Central to GM’s vision is a plan to overhaul its future vehicle architecture—both electrically and computationally—beginning with the Cadillac Escalade IQ in 2028. Its redesigned system will enable faster over-the-air software updates, advanced autonomous driving features including hands-free “eyes-off” capabilities, and an intelligent, conversational AI assistant built directly into the vehicles’ interface.
As earnings season accelerates, attention turns to how tariffs and policy shifts—such as the expiration of federal EV tax credits—are affecting major automakers. GM projects that tariffs will trim $2.3 billion from its 2025 profits, while Ford anticipates a $2 billion reduction. Yet these numbers, while daunting, represent improvements over earlier forecasts, suggesting that both companies anticipate recovering much of the lost revenue through cost management and strategic flexibility. Both automaker CEOs publicly expressed gratitude toward President Trump for extending tariff relief measures on components imported from Canada and Mexico.
Additional developments further reveal an industry in flux. Ford temporarily halted production of its F-150 Lightning EV pickup while focusing on gasoline and hybrid variants after a fire disrupted aluminum supplies from Nevolis, its principal supplier. Meanwhile, GM’s CEO, Mary Barra, confirmed on The Verge’s Decoder podcast that the company plans to eliminate Apple CarPlay and Android Auto from all upcoming vehicle models. Compounding the reorganization, GM recently laid off approximately 200 salaried employees at its Warren Tech Center.
Over at Tesla, third-quarter deliveries surged to a record high in 2025 as buyers rushed to claim the soon-to-expire federal EV tax credit. Yet increased volume did not correspond to higher profitability—the company reported a $1.4 billion profit, down 37% year-over-year. The regulatory sphere brought fresh tension as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) launched an investigation into a Waymo autonomous vehicle captured on film maneuvering around a stopped school bus that was unloading children in Atlanta.
Meanwhile, Rivian initiated another round of restructuring, announcing 600 additional layoffs—its third workforce reduction of the year—and CEO RJ Scaringe’s decision to assume the additional title of chief marketing officer. The company also agreed to a $250 million settlement resolving a shareholder lawsuit stemming from abrupt price hikes on the R1 pickup and SUV models introduced in 2022. Nevertheless, Rivian’s ambitions remain far from static. During a recent visit to the Bay Area, executives from Rivian’s micromobility spinout, Also, showcased a suite of new products, including a modular pedal-assist e-bike and two compact, pedal-assist quad vehicles. The delivery version of these quads has already attracted Amazon as a buyer, underscoring the commercial appeal of flexible, software-integrated mobility solutions.
Each of these developments, from Musk’s trillion-dollar proposal and “robot army” justification to GM’s restructuring strategies and Rivian’s diversification, collectively demonstrates the extraordinary pace at which the mobility ecosystem continues to evolve. As data, infrastructure, and artificial intelligence intertwine ever more deeply with transportation, TechCrunch Mobility will continue to serve as the guiding lens through which readers can track, interpret, and understand the technologies that are redefining movement in the modern age.
Sourse: https://techcrunch.com/2025/10/26/techcrunch-mobility-the-robot-army-argument/
