Standard founder bravado. This is basically part of their pitch.

"If we are right, then we're going to dominate the market that all the big boys are investing billions to control."

(Not being disparaging at all - their value proposition actually looks interesting.)

Zoox is differentiated. They're the only autonomous vehicle outfit thinking about a self driving car as a robot from the ground up, rather than just a car with some sensors slapped on to it and a giant computer in the trunk.

For those of us who don't have a background in robotics, do you mind giving a short explanation on the difference between a robot and a car with sensors/computers attached?

Take a look at their prototypes, the wheels are all independently articulated. A human would have a lot of difficulty handling a car like that, but for a robot it's no big deal. This might be genius or it might be crazy, it really depends on whether they can execute.

Zoox is the only company we know of that is building a robotaxi from the ground up rather than just retrofitting a vehicle designed for something else. Although Einride has a concept built for a highway freight hauler with no driver cabin, and Nuro has several delivery vehicles built with no room for a human on board.

The term 'self driving car' is kind of like the term 'Horseless Carriage'. It's transitional.

You win the prize. First person to articulate clearly the differentiating factor.

Give that, I'll say this. Mobile robot from the ground up = next level hard. Level 5 autonomy = next level hard. Both simultaneously? Good luck.

Question though, what if there's a regulatory requirement for future vehicles to have a mandatory human driver mode (manual override) that's a touch of a button away?

if that is such a great driver of value, they could have set themselves up purely as a car builder that could partner with companies doing self driving cars..

It's robotics, at the design/development stage the software and hardware are entwined. Conceivably, when Zoox has a finished, validated prototype and are ready to mass produce, they could go to a contract manufacturer like Magna-Steyer.

Yeah, not disputing that. Like I wrote, they have an interesting value proposition.

The line about disrupting a huge market is still par the course, what's expected of them.

I wasn't disagreeing with you, just adding to your point. I too find their value proposition very interesting

Or alternatively, Pride comes before hundreds of millions of investment leading up to an eventual buy out from one of the many cash rich tech giants who are all afraid of being outmaneuvered by a nimble start up. Zoox doesn't need to change the world, it either needs to stockpile engineering talent that a tech giant thinks is important (See also: Nervana) or stockpile some basic foundational technologies (See also: Otto, Levandowski).

Cruise Automation was going to do exactly the same things as Zoox. Cruise sold for around $1Bn to GM. Cruise had 40 employees and had basically sold nothing.

Cruise definitely had a strong whiff of dot com about it - all talk, little substance, ridiculous exit price...clueless bigco exec buyers...

That's the thing, if they succeed, we will call them visionaries and if they fail we'll call them bravado and hubris. I think some amount of hubris is essential at succeeding in high risk businesses.