On the afternoon of April 28th, a sudden wave of "star-chasing" frenzy swept through Chinese internet social platforms, and the star in question was none other than Elon Musk.
Elon Musk's sudden visit to China, landing in Beijing not for the Beijing Auto Show, but to meet with high-level Chinese government officials and even appearing on the national news. According to a recent Reuters report, Musk may be seeking further implementation of FSD in the Chinese market.
Recently, Tesla made significant adjustments to the buyout and subscription prices for FSD services in North America at Musk's request. Tesla also responded to a social media user, indicating they will soon promote the implementation of FSD services in the Chinese market. This aligns with Reuters' speculation.
Furthermore, shortly after Musk's visit to Beijing, the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers and the National Computer Network Emergency Technology Coordination Center issued a report on the testing of four security requirements for car data processing. Tesla, as a foreign-funded enterprise, became one of the first car companies to meet all four national automotive data security requirements. Both the 2022 and 2023 models of Model 3 and Model Y are included in the list.
Combining Musk's lightning visit, high-level meetings with the Chinese government, and obtaining clear permission from Chinese laws and regulations, many people believe, as reported by Reuters, that Musk has cleared the way for FSD to hit the road in China in just half a day, seemingly only needing to wait for the official announcement.
However, upon closer inspection of the news reports, the "unbanning" of certain Tesla models is not quite the same as we imagined, and whether FSD will eventually land smoothly in China remains uncertain.
Tesla is unbanned, but FSD is not
Many netizens automatically assume that the "unbanning" refers to FSD upon seeing the word, but they may overlook another type of "ban" that Tesla faces in China—being prohibited from entering certain areas. Upon careful consideration, we may recall some news, including clear instructions near government compounds and sensitive areas that require Tesla products not to enter or even approach. This type of "ban" is actually the main content of the official document "unbanning" on the evening of April 28th.
Let's take a look at what the so-called "four requirements" specifically refer to.
First, if vehicles can access external cameras to collect information, the cameras must blur pedestrians or license plates when they are in operation (i.e., when Sentry Mode is activated) to erase sensitive information.
Second, by default, vehicles do not collect user information. If collection is necessary, user permission should be obtained beforehand.
Third, cabin data should be localized. Except for certain cases (such as using connectivity for voice commands or remotely viewing the interior of the car), vehicles should not provide cabin data externally.
Fourth, when vehicles process personal information, users should have sufficient information rights, including when personal information is collected, the purpose, the intended use, and who can access or modify it.
It can be seen that these four requirements are not directly related to FSD. The real significance lies in Tesla's lifting of the ban after meeting these requirements, allowing compliant models to enter more areas. This will further reduce driving restrictions on Chinese roads.
From a data security perspective, it can be considered as a groundwork: Tesla allowing access to more places implies a decrease in the sensitivity of data security. Consequently, Tesla can begin preliminary preparations for the implementation of FSD.
However, objectively speaking, "access to more areas," "data security," and "FSD entering China" are three separate events, each interconnected. The challenges facing Musk are clearly not something that can be solved with a single "flash into China."
The fundamental reason why Tesla's FSD cannot enter the Chinese market lies in the storage location and access permissions of road data. Compared to the currently available Enhanced Autopilot (EAP) features, FSD essentially adds a city NOA function. Since Tesla's FSD is based on a pure vision solution, it requires extensive collection of road data for continuous training during operation. The controversy lies in where this data will ultimately be stored.
Tesla could potentially follow Apple's lead and establish a "Guizhou in the Cloud" to store road data locally to comply with regulations. In theory, this is feasible, but Musk's previous request was to collect road data in China and transmit it back to the U.S. headquarters for AI training. Without this, the effectiveness of Tesla's highly AI-dependent Full Self-Driving (FSD) system would be significantly reduced, hindering Tesla's ability to continuously improve FSD capabilities through data.
We understand that national governments cannot compromise on data security issues, so the only possibility for FSD to be implemented in China is if Musk finds a better alternative solution.
In conclusion, based on current information, it is uncertain whether FSD has the opportunity to be implemented in China. At best, Tesla meeting the four requirements set by government authorities is a positive sign. Some opinions suggest that if the Chinese government allows FSD implementation, one of the purposes could be to leverage Tesla's advanced FSD technology to drive the development of China's new energy vehicle intelligent driving industry through the "catfish effect."
Regarding this, one can only say that ideals are always beautiful.
Users may accept intelligent driving but not necessarily FSD.
After years of development, the intelligent driving capabilities of China's new energy vehicle industry have progressed from basic Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) and Lane Centering Control (LCC) to high-speed highway Navigate on Autopilot (NOA) and now to urban and all-scenario NOA. As intelligent driving technology advances rapidly, users of new energy vehicles in China are becoming increasingly familiar with intelligent driving.
Although intelligent driving is not yet a primary factor influencing consumer car purchases, its importance is steadily increasing. Xiaopeng Motors has stated that the proportion of consumers considering G6 purchase due to intelligent driving has risen to the top three, while the CEO of Ceres Power mentioned that over 70% of consumers choose the M5 with intelligent driving capabilities.
Therefore, as Chinese consumers become more familiar with and demanding of intelligent driving, if Tesla's FSD does not demonstrate sufficient competitiveness upon entering the Chinese market, the "catfish effect" may not materialize.
As mentioned earlier, the main difference between FSD and EAP is the addition of urban NOA. Undeniably, Tesla's FSD, as a pioneer and trendsetter in pure visual solutions, has advanced technological accumulation. The well-known BEV+Transformer technology solution was first introduced by Tesla, and the FSD V12 version has introduced an "end-to-end" approach, replacing the intermediate links of different perception modules in intelligent driving with AI large models, upgrading the intelligent driving system from "recognition" to "perception."
It is worth mentioning that Huawei, a leader in China's autonomous driving technology, recently unveiled ADS 3.0 technology and the "Qiankun" technology brand at the Beijing Auto Show. One of the highlights of the ADS 3.0 technology is its "end-to-end" approach. Despite Tesla's FSD V12 system being released and deployed as early as 2023, in terms of pure technological advancement, FSD still leads the industry.
But is this useful? Yes, but not significantly so.
Ultimately, while Chinese automakers may lag behind in underlying technology, they excel in integrating features tailored to China's road environment, enabling them to "overtake" in driving style and safety. For instance, in addressing common issues like "ghost vehicles" and lane cutting, Chinese brands incorporate targeted solutions in their autonomous driving systems. At present, their ability to recognize two-wheeled electric vehicles and other road users is already quite impressive.
In terms of performance, most high-end advanced driver-assistance systems in the Chinese market have shown remarkable levels of completion. Optimizations tailored to Chinese road conditions would further enhance safety, a feature currently lacking in Tesla's Full Self-Driving (FSD) system.
A standout aspect is the cost of the user experience. Tesla recently introduced a subscription service for Enhanced Autopilot (EAP) in China, priced at a steep 699 yuan per month or 1399 yuan per quarter. Considering that EAP is essentially equivalent to highway NOA (Navigate on Autopilot), such pricing is unparalleled nationwide. Of course, the discussion of its 32,000 yuan outright purchase price may leave you even less confident.
In the Chinese market, most car companies offer free smart driving experiences to initial car owners. If they decide to purchase, the cost for full self-driving (including highway and urban NOA) will not exceed 20,000 yuan. Therefore, the primary concern for FSD's entry into China is the cost issue. Without addressing this, if the price of FSD is double or even multiple times higher in a situation where the overall experience is not significantly different, it is believed that it will be difficult to remain competitive.
Elon Musk is urgent, while Chinese car companies remain calm
Elon Musk has recently devoted a lot of energy to FSD, which can be seen as a return to his original intention, in line with the "first principles." After all, Tesla's ultimate mission is to sell autonomous driving services, not just vehicle hardware. Musk was likely reminded of this by Tesla's mediocre sales performance globally. Tesla's electric cars have experienced a decline in sales, and before the introduction of new models, enhancing the attractiveness of FSD may be a viable solution.
Of course, Tesla still has the option of "price reduction." For example, last week, Tesla announced a price reduction plan for the Chinese market, with the maximum reduction reaching 15,000 yuan. However, this price reduction did not replicate the past feat of "immediately gaining tens of thousands of orders through price cuts." It seems that Musk can only hope for the successful implementation of FSD to attract more potential customers.
From the perspective of Chinese automotive companies, I believe they are not so much worried about whether FSD will enter China, as certain companies with advanced technological capabilities actually hope for the successful implementation of FSD. This would allow them to challenge the "world's best" FSD on their home turf and even surpass it.
In specific terms, China's autonomous driving market has essentially become a battleground for several top players in the new energy sector. While this competition can drive technological progress, from a product promotion standpoint, it is essentially a "zero-sum game." Drawing from the experience of the smartphone industry, if one aims to establish an impressive product image, then decisively outperforming the "leader" in a comparison is clearly the most effective strategy.
Chinese smartphone manufacturers often use the iPhone as a benchmark to highlight their own product capabilities. Similarly, in order to establish a strong brand reputation for autonomous driving in the Chinese market, achieving a direct victory over Tesla's FSD may be more convincing.
As for whether FSD can truly become Musk's "antihypertensive drug" or serve as the "touchstone" for Chinese automotive companies to test their autonomous driving capabilities, only time will tell once the rubber meets the road. In any case, Musk seems to be genuinely anxious this time.
