The story of Tesla (with Optimus) and Strike Robot is actually two almost opposite approaches. One side, like Tesla, chose a complete take approach: building the entire robot from hardware and sensors to AI. Their advantage lies in their massive data (from self driving cars) and their ability to mass produce. If successful, they would have a synchronized, well optimized product that is easy to deploy on a large scale. However, this system is quite closed and difficult to adapt flexibly to other types of robots. Conversely, @StrikeRobot_ai doesn't build robots but focuses on building the brain an AI layer that can be attached to various platforms. It's like they're not selling the body, but the intelligence. The key point is that this approach prioritizes true autonomy: handling new situations, reacting quickly, and not needing rigid scripts. This is very suitable for real world environments like factories or logistics, where everything is constantly changing. Looking at the long term, I lean towards a rather familiar scenario in technology: hardware will gradually become standardized, while AI and software will be what differentiate it. Tesla remains extremely powerful thanks to its ecosystem and scale, but if an AI platform like Strike Robot is good enough, it could run on many different types of robots like an Android of robots. In short: Tesla: building a complete robot, strong in ecosystem Strike Robot: building shared intelligence, strong in flexibility And if I had to choose a trend, I think the long term game would lean more towards who is smarter than who makes better hardware.