Boom Founder Blake Scholl: Tesla Will First Use FSD Internally Before Licensing
Blake Scholl predicts that Tesla will use Full Self-Driving (FSD) as an internal advantage for two to three years before licensing it to other models, similar to how they opened up the Supercharger network in the past.
He is the founder of the supersonic passenger aircraft company Boom. Following his post, discussions immediately encountered existing facts: Elon Musk has repeatedly expressed a willingness to license and wrote in November 2025, "I reminded them and offered licensing, but they didn't want it"; traditional automakers occasionally reach out, but it is often for small projects five years down the line with terms Tesla cannot accept. Ford's public stance leans more towards Waymo. To date, there has been no public transaction for complete vehicle FSD licensing.
The difficulty in licensing lies in the implementation rather than the rhetoric. An end-to-end network trained on Tesla's camera perspectives and self-developed computing units would require the recipient to almost entirely change to a comparable sensor layout, computing hardware, and drive-by-wire chassis, and then adjust strategies for wheelbase, weight, and braking, resulting in a cycle close to a complete vehicle development. Sharing charging guns only requires changing interfaces and settlement; driving software alters the electronic and electrical architecture and liability. Xpeng has already marketed its intelligent driving and cockpit solutions and collaborated with Volkswagen, forming an alternative supplier path.
The opening of Supercharging occurred after the competition for charging standards in North America, with Tesla using network density to exchange for standard status and utilization. If FSD follows the same script, the premise is that competitors must approach to the point of "not accepting means losing sales," rather than the current stalemate of "wanting to accept but unable to meet the architecture."
Buyers view FSD as a future platform software that can generate revenue; sellers believe licensing equates to relinquishing architecture, data, and differentiation, which traditional automakers would not agree to. The event-driven prediction is a comparison of the charging network to intelligent driving. Benefiting from this is Tesla, which continues to keep data closed within its own fleet; under pressure are those who write licensing revenue into their valuations prematurely.
The market trades in control of architecture, not whether the old story of opening charging stations can be reused as is.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
Musk has framed FSD licensing as the industry's ultimate outcome since 2021, with the opening of the charging network seen as a reusable template. The reality is that charging involves physical interfaces and energy retail, while intelligent driving combines perception, computation, control, and accident liability. Automakers can accept Tesla's charging connector but find it difficult to accept building their entire vehicle electronic architecture around Tesla's sensors and chips. Farley specifically mentioned Waymo, indicating that traditional automakers want modular autonomous driving suppliers, not to hand over core functions to direct competitors.
On the capital path, Tesla collects video with its own fleet and trains on self-developed chips; if licensing is realized, revenue should come from per-vehicle licensing and ongoing software updates. The resistance lies in liability clauses: who compensates in case of an incident, and who has the authority to stop updates. Xpeng is pursuing a path of selling solutions to automakers like Volkswagen that need software upgrades, proving that the market desires modular supply, not a complete redo of vehicles based on Tesla. The founder of Boom makes predictions based on a two-year window, betting that competitors will approach in capability, thus changing negotiation power, rather than betting that Tesla can sign contracts today.
Comparative examples include Microsoft licensing operating systems to compatible PC manufacturers, Qualcomm selling basebands to phone makers, and Tesla opening charging standards years ago. The first two sell embeddable modules; the charging openness sells network effects. Currently, FSD resembles a non-modular complete vehicle operating system. The industry phase remains where Tesla maintains internal advantages, while competitors either buy from other suppliers or develop in-house, with licensing remaining at the proposal stage rather than contracts.
Structural judgments indicate that the reconstruction of the supply chain is incomplete. Driving automation must transition from complete vehicle functionality to purchasable components, requiring the separation of sensors, computation, and liability. The mechanism is: whoever controls data collection perspectives and computing units controls the licensing terms; before separation, the analogy of open charging only explains willingness, not actual transactions. Whether licensing occurs in two years depends on whether competitors genuinely close the gap and whether Tesla is willing to reduce hardware solutions to embeddable modules.
ABAB News · Cognitive Laws
Opening interfaces is easy; opening complete vehicle architecture is very difficult.
Charging networks sell standards; intelligent driving sells responsibility and computing units.
Before competitors close the gap, licensing is merely a proposal, not a contract.