Why do you think that "having a vision and working towards it" necessitates naming the product as if the vision already exists _today_? If you don't think that it does, why are you intentionally trying to derail the discussion by ignoring the actual thing that people are criticizing?

If we down to naming things - my Apple products are inedible, AI personal assistants do not assist in most cases, footlong subs are 6”, SuperCruise is SomeplaceCruise…

Let's not pretend that naming a computer "Macintosh" but it not being edible and calling a car "full self-driving" that can't self-drive fully are equally confusing. One of them is inaccurate about a purpose that no one actually intends to use it for, and the other is inaccurate about a purpose that people do actually want to use it for, and they're paying for it because it sounds like it fulfills tht purpose.

My brain read _today_ in the voice of Elon Musk.

It's a good question.

But let's turn it around - after how long can we admit it's a fraud ? Let's say they manage to make it to a real Full Self-Driving in 20 years. Eventually somebody will do it, it's nearly certain.

Was it a fraud then to sell it 30 years early, on promises it will be operational in '2 weeks probably' ?

I don't think Elon Musk is advertising visions, or hopes and dreams. He advertises concrete features, and gives his word they are just around the corner, but has been always doing what looks like blatant bait and switch.

Even if Musk believes it's always right around the corner, it's still fraud to sell what you don't have. Calling it "beta" forever doesn't make it OK to deliver oranges when people are paying for apples.

Selling something that doesn't exist is fraud.

Booo hooo Mr BeyondMeat TotalCommander