Author: Wesley Diphoko

03.10.25

Is Connectivity Good for Townships?

BY Wesley Diphoko 2 MINUTE READ

Monde Ntoyanto is a young entrepreneur behind Culo’s Kitchen, an African cuisine cloud kitchen, in Kayamandi township (Stellenbosch). Serving African cooked meals is nothing new but the process of ordering online and picking up later is a new business model in a township economy environment. The business gets orders via Facebook and WhatsApp. Clients are able to pay via EFT. To deliver goods to local restaurants they also make use of Uber package service. This level of technology integration is unheard of for a township business. Businesses in townships have been slow to adopt technology however we are beginning to see a change. This is just one of the few businesses that is enabled by the digitisation process of townships in South Africa. In recent years, we’ve seen a proliferation of fibre businesses digging holes, setting up fibre poles to install fibre across South African townships. In Kayamandi where Monde operates, the connectivity is enabled by a number of internet service providers (Fibertime and Vumatel) that have made it easier for online businesses and solutions to emerge. As townships are getting wired, it’s about time that a support system is developed to ensure that township communities get full benefits of connectivity.

This matters as connectivity could also lead to useless activities that are not adding value. A question that should be upper most on our minds is whether connectivity is changing the lives of those who are connected? It’s probably too early to tell. There are signs however that we are likely to witness digital adoption at a scale that we’ve never seen before. It’s as if townships are undergoing an internet rebirth moment that we saw when the internet took off. What seems to be missing however is the support that should come with the massive connectivity that we are beginning to see in townships. What we see currently are green shoots of something far bigger to come. I’m convinced that South African townships can produce African technology unicorns. What is needed however is a support system that is tailored for growth of technology startups that can emerge out of townships. There’s something about current conditions in South African townships that requires entrepreneurs who grew up in townships to be the ones that are developing solutions. For that to happen there’s a need for entities that are similar to Y-Combinator and dedicated to ensuring that township inspired tech startups emerge. The Y-Combinator in the US succeeded in creating companies like AirBnb, DropBox and others that emerged out of Silicon valley. Through this startup accelerator young entrepreneurs with promising ideas could access funding, business support within a supportive network.

This approach could address the current unemployment challenge in townships. At the same time, technology startups that could emerge from townships can form part of developing solutions to major township challenges. Business activity is one way we can measure the impact of connectivity in townships. Beyond business we will have to look at how connectivity has improved access to health, education and information. These are just some of the few things that will form part of my research to study the Township Connectivity Impact. I’m looking forward to see more beneficiaries of connectivity in townships. As South Africa registers township businesses, there’s a need to gather quality data about activities that are advancing human lives across the board. If you know about anyone in any township whose life has been impacted by connectivity please let me know via LinkedIn: @WesleyDiphoko. Findings of this exercise will be published to enable better access to information about townships.

You Might Also Like:
02.18.25

Silicon Cape is dead, long live the Silicon Tech Startup Community

BY Wesley Diphoko 2 MINUTE READ

 

Cape Town is considered the Innovation Capital of Africa. Some even refer to it as a place that is equivalent to Silicon Valley due to the prevalence of technology startups in the region.

Whether Cape Town is truly an innovation capital of Africa is debatable. We are however certain about the origins of this claim. We know that it was partly a public relations exercise by leading economic organisations in Cape Town. One of those organisations became what we’ve come to know as the “Silicon Cape”. The organisation was formed by Vinny Lingham and Justin Stanford. Lingham had spent some time in Silicon Valley (California, US) and he felt that Cape Town needed the same tech intervention. He wanted to enable local tech entrepreneurs to have ease of accessing venture capital. To an extent the organisation managed to connect tech entrepreneurs and venture capital firms. Importantly, the organisation re-developed a tech community in Cape Town.

Sadly, Silicon Cape is no longer what it used to be. The organisation is no longer as active as it was in its early years. The inactivity of Silicon Cape has left a vacuum in the Cape Town tech startup ecosystem. This is not to say there are no other organisations that are working towards the advancement of the tech startup sector in Cape Town. The difference is that the Silicon Cape was an important brand that enabled the international community to have a door to knock on when they are looking for insights and information about tech startup investments.

Once upon a time there was an address and a door to knock on whenever there was technology investment matter to raise. The organisation could serve as a voice about tech startup matters. The Silicon Cape has tried to revive itself. At some point it appointed Vusi Thembekwayo as its Chairman. It was hoped that his name and industry weight could draw attention to the organisation and potentially bring it back to life. It seems Silicon Cape has not fully reaped the rewards of being led by Vusi Thembekwayo.

The inactivity by Silicon Cape has not stopped the advancement of tech startups in Cape Town. What is missing however is a sense of community. There are no tech community events, there’s no online community for tech startups in the same way that they organised them. Those that exist are organised by tech companies themselves and they are not industry led initiatives.

It’s time for an organisation to take the lead and bring the tech community together. This is important for entrepreneurs who are starting their companies. It is important for the international community as well as the government to know that there’s an organisation that advances the interest of the tech startup community. If Cape Town is the innovation capital of Africa, then Silicon Cape needs to rise again and do its job. Part of this means that there’s a need for those with interest in the advancement of tech to fund its operations. There’s also a need for the community to commit by becoming paying members of the community such as Silicon Cape. All of this requires an overhaul of its leadership. Current technological developments require tech leadership. The intervention of organisations such as Silicon Cape can play a meaningful role taking tech to another level not just in Cape Town but across the country and continent. If Silicon Cape succeeds it will have rippling effects across the continent in the form of strong tech startup community. It’s time for Silicon Cape to come back.

You Might Also Like:
02.10.25

Inside the Tech Race for the Control of Governments

BY Wesley Diphoko 3 MINUTE READ

In the midst of noise that flowed between South Africa and the United States of America (US) there’s a hidden message about the future of governments.

In the US it started with a government office that was established by the Obama administration. The office launched in 2014 to improve the federal government’s digital capabilities following difficulties that were experienced with the HealthCare.gov website. It brought some of the smart people from Silicon Valley to focus on addressing government challenges through tech. Fast forward to 2025 that same government office has been repurposed, into Department of Government Efficiency also known as DOGE, by the Trump administration and led by Elon Musk.

DOGE is also staffed by members of Silicon Valley with a heavy focus on young people from some of Elon Musk’s companies. WIRED has reported that their mission is to implement Trump AI-first agenda. Reports show that the team is trying to get access to data in order to improve how the US government operates through the use of AI. This is not new, part of the difference is that the current team is trying to develop systems internally with speed. According to tech media reports the DOGE team is developing a custom generative AI chatbot for the US General Services Administration. At the core, the DOGE team is trying to modernise the US government using the same approach used in Silicon Valley to break things and build fast.

In South Africa, during the 2025 State of the Nation Address, President Cyril Ramaphosa acknowledged the need to use technology to improve government operations. President Ramaphosa said, “there are global fundamental shifts underway that affect every aspect of human life. From the growing impact of climate change to rapid advances in artificial intelligence” These utterances were followed by an outline of how the South African government would use technology to make life better. Here’s how:

– Give South Africans access to government services anytime, anywhere, through a relaunched gov.za platform.

– Implementation of a digital identity system

– Streamlining funding for small businesses, unlocking venture capital for high-growth start-ups

On the basis of what the President shared during his State of the Nation address it seems more government services will be accessible online. Currently, some services can be accessed online. Citizens can now manage their taxes online and apply for schools using Department of Basic Education websites. All of these are great examples of how the citizens are able to able to interact with government online. The President indicated that the government’s online platform will be revamped. He promised that a newly launched platform will be underpinned by a digital identity system. In simple terms, South Africans will be able to log into any government system and be recognised based on their online identity. This may be useful in addressing fraud and other criminal activities committed with the use of ID cards. The digital identity system will also address red tape issues that create delays in the process of assisting citizens.

While this is a positive move by the government, it was not clear how it would be done. Currently, the government has no capacity to create great technology solutions. Prof. Eldrid Jordaan who commented after SONA indicated that Africans have capacity to solve their problems by developing their own systems. He is someone who has experience in developing Civic Tech, tech solutions that address citizens’ challenges. He founded GovChat which was instrumental in enabling citizens to interact with government about SASSA grants. He fought a David and Goliath war with Meta around the use of their systems for civic tech. He now runs SUPPPLE an entity that develops systems for governments and getting them ready for the age of artificial intelligences. If there’s absence of skills to deliver government tech dreams there’s an option of public private partnerships that can deliver. It was encouraging to note that the South African government is finally recognising the role of high growth startups. The President indicated that funding will be streamlined to small businesses there by unlocking venture capital for high-growth start-ups.

As part of this process, there’s a lot to learn from the Elon Musk DOGE which is designated to use tech to modernise the US government.

There’s also a need to be very careful. It’s great to dream about AI, at the same time its important to remember who own the technology infrastructure that drives AI. Governments ought to be careful that the systems they adopt in the process of modernising may lead to state capture of sorts. It’s possible that governments that will use systems built elsewhere may be held hostage at some point. It’s important to understand that there’s a tech race underway. There’s no doubt that in future governments will be driven by tech and therefore decisions about who will build the tech infrastructure are key to avoid re-colonisation.

You Might Also Like:
01.28.25

DeepSeek – The Chinese Open Source AI challenge to Western Tech Giants

BY Wesley Diphoko 2 MINUTE READ

 

As I write this column the leading app on the AppStore is DeepSeek, a competitor to ChatGPT. DeepSeek is developed by a Chinese artificial intelligence lab which develops open-source large language models. Over the weekend I played around with the DeepSeek app and I was surprised by the quality of its answers in comparison to other leading AI models. One major difference between DeepSeek and other leading AI apps is that it’s not powered by a US based company but by a Chinese based entity. It’s something that is surprising to those who assumed that all answers will come from Open AI and the Google AI giant, DeepMind. No one could have predicted that a major AI technology could come from China. How did this AI platform come into existence? The answer to that question is important now when one considers the dispute between Elon Musk and Sam Altman about the formation of Open AI. For those who missed this important piece of technology history, in the OpenAI name lies the intention to build an open source entity to power the development of AI technologies for the benefit of all. In other words, OpenAI was not built to be a profit seeking entity. It was designed to rely on open research or wisdom of the crowds to benefit from researchers across the globe and not from a single entity. Elon Musk argues that OpenAI has betrayed the promise to create an open entity and instead its co-founder is building a closed and profit seeking entity.DeepSeek on the other hand has embraced everything that is open source. The entity has been forced by circumstances to take the open source route. The ban by the US designed to stall the development of AI in China has forced Chinese entities to be innovative. DeepSeek is a classic example of developing under difficult circumstances when resources are limited and conditions are less perfect.

The Chinese model has been developed by young people from Chinese universities backed by a Hedge fund billionaire Liang Wenfeng. One of the key differences between DeepSeek and others is that it’s powered by research focused people. The entity is staffed with PhDs from top Chinese schools, Peking, Tsinghua and Beihang universities rather than experts from US institutions. Beyond just relying on a corporate team their approach is to expand their workforce within the open source community. They released a detailed paper on how to build a large language model on a bootstrapped budget that can automatically learn and improve itself without human supervision. The DeepSeek story tells us that no country has monopoly on innovation. It also tells us that attempts to strangle progress will fuel innovation. It remains to be seen how DeepSeek will evolve beyond these early stages. OpenAI also came with a major hype. It’s one thing to create a product and placing it on the market. It’s adoption and market relevance over a period of time is what matters. For now we know that China has an AI answer which is a game changer in the AI race. Let’s hope DeepSeek inspires others to innovate. Africa has a lot to learn from DeepSeek approach. As you download this app, let’s hope that we will not see other attempts to ban another Chinese creation as we’ve seen with TikTok and Huawei.

You Might Also Like:
01.20.25

TikTok ban is a WakeUp call for All

BY Wesley Diphoko 2 MINUTE READ

The Tik Tok ban and shutdown marked a historical event on the internet since the Wikileaks ban. The popular social media platform was banned due to unverified claims that it was collecting US citizens data for the Chinese government. Although the platform is now back, the ban demonstrates the fragility of building digital platforms as commercial entities.

The platform was no small player in the digital ecosystem. At the time of being banned it boasted 170 million users in the US and billions around the world and yet on the 19th January it disappeared without a trace (in the US). It was an economic enabler for content creators. Young people relied on the platform to access information. The value of this platform is not debatable. How was it possible for it to be removed in the US?

A legal instrument was used, whichever entity was hosting the platform removed it on its servers and more importantly it was removed from the App store (Apple owned) and Play store (Google/Alphabet owned).

The manner in which this platform was temporarily removed indicates how any other app could be deactivated.

Although Tik Tok has been reinstated under conditions, its removal should serve as a lesson. As part of creating a platform, it’s not enough to create only digital presence. Creators of digital platforms ought to consider other forms of existence that go beyond the app stores. The existence of digital platforms has to be done in parallel with the physical existence. The existence of a digital business in tangible form is a moat that can never be touched. A digital entity that develops a physical community can exist beyond the destruction of its digital presence. This is even more important in the age of AI. Businesses are now trying to find their form of existence in the AI realm. Many forget that AI presence if not built by the business creates a dependency situation. Most businesses that are moving towards AI are building their businesses on top of AI foundations that are built by others.

In the same way that the apps economy is dependent on the two app stores, AI is also dominated by major handful of tech giants. As leaders reflect on how they will build they need to understand that building digital only businesses is equivalent to building on shaky grounds.

The Tik Tok ban will change how digital platforms are perceived. In the past they were highly valued and considered safe bets. What has just happened to TikTok may have shaken the strong belief in the strength of digital platforms. This situation does also call for an independence of the app ecosystem. The fact that major entities, Apple and Google, dominate app stores creates vulnerability for others. App stores should be independent of national and commercial interests. An effort towards creating a global app store that is free from any government interference ought to be the next logical step by global leaders.

For now it’s TikTok tomorrow it will be another platform built outside of the US. Although splinternet (fragmentation of the internet) is not ideal, l such developments create a world that embraces divisions in the digital sphere. A global digital infrastructure is needed if we are to build unshakable digital platforms that are not vulnerable to political winds.

Wikileaks suffered and TikTok became another victim. Who will else will suffer from powerful entities of the world?

You Might Also Like:
12.23.24

African Fintech needs more dialogue between regulators and fintech innovators

BY Wesley Diphoko 3 MINUTE READ

The African continent looks set to realize around $230 billion in financial sector revenue by 2025, despite various political and economic challenges, according to a McKinsey report on Africa’s evolving fintech industry.

The report further reveals the only factor that could prevent the continent from realizing this goal is its ability to reach the continent’s 1.4 billion-strong population, providing them with the services they so desperately need to establish and run businesses at home and across the region.

One barrier to achieving this growth is fragmented regulation. The fintech regulatory landscape in Africa is a fascinating paradox. While it grapples with fragmentation and occasionally lags the rapid pace of innovation, it uniquely positions itself ahead of many global regions while still ambitiously striving for international standards.

COST OF REGULATORY COMPLIANCE IN AFRICA

Regulatory compliance comes at a cost to fintechs and businesses in Africa. The financial burden is emphasized by a 2021 World Bank report, which states that this cost for businesses in Africa can be as high as 5-10% of revenue. Additionally, the World Bank’s Doing Business 2020 report highlights that sub-Saharan Africa scores the lowest globally due to complex regulatory environments. These factors not only discourage foreign direct investment (FDI) but also stifle economic growth.

The upshot is that fintech companies need to employ ingenious and, of course, legal ways of navigating the complex requirements and licensing procedures in each of the 54 African countries. This process inevitably drives up the operation costs for the fintech companies and creates barriers for expansion especially for smaller startups with limited funds.

This is not unique to Africa and we have seen how this dynamic has played out the world over. According to the Financial Times, in 2023 crypto and fintech companies were fined more for lax controls than the entire traditional financial system. These companies paid $5.8 billion in fines last year for shortcomings in customer checks and anti-money laundering controls, as well as for failing to uphold sanctions and other financial crime issues.

Certainly there is no disputing the need for stringent regulation, but more can be done in implementing them effectively. Across Africa, there is a need for simple, harmonized regulation which achieves two critical tasks: industry oversight and the encouragement of reasonable risk-taking and innovation.

COLLABORATE FOR GROWTH AND GREATNESS

When regulation is standardized across African economies, the sky’s the limit! This is precisely what the fintech community, driving economies and livelihoods in Africa, is advocating for. There have been notable successes when regulators and fintech communities and associations collaborate.

FintechNGR, the body of fintech players in Nigeria, partnered with the National Insurance Commission (NAICOM) to develop a Fintech Adoption Roadmap Policy for the Insurance Sector. The body also achieved this in 2019 when it collaborated with Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Nigeria’s stock market regulator, to develop The Fintech Adoption Roadmap Policy in the Capital Market.

Similarly there has been some progress when regulators collaborate; the Pan-African Payment and Settlement System (PAPSS) is making strides in facilitating seamless cross-border transactions by reducing the need for foreign currencies in intra-African trade, thereby fostering greater financial integration across the continent.

Africa’s fintech market is among the most promising sectors, in the most exciting geography in the world. Clearly, with all its innovation, Africa deserves a market that balances innovation with protection, clear laws that define boundaries, and adaptable regulatory frameworks, a market where innovation thrives within a framework that ensures market stability, and financial inclusion.

For more

Olugbenga Agboola is founder and CEO of Flutterwave.

IMPACT COUNCIL

The Fast Company Impact Council is an invitation-only collective of innovative leaders and the most creative people in business.

Connect with others financial professionals professionals and innovators at the upcoming Raging Bull Awards

You Might Also Like:
12.06.24

EDITORIAL: Inside the Most Creative People issue of FastCompany (SA)

BY Wesley Diphoko 2 MINUTE READ

Through the course of this past year, as South Africa celebrated 30 years of democracy, observers have reflected on the country’s achievements and weighed in on its unsolved problems. But while a lot was written and said about the well-known political leaders who have helped shape the nation’s path over the past three decades, not much was heard about the creatives who influenced this important period in our country’s history.

Among them is Nathan Reddy, the founder of award-winning advertising agency Grid Worldwide. In this issue of Fast Company, where he features as our cover star, we examine the creative role Reddy has played in shaping several of South Africa’s most iconic brands. Spending time with him has left me thinking deeply about the role creativity could play in addressing the more complex problems facing our society.

We also look at other creative people and the organisations they have established. Overall, what struck me is that creativity and its application has allowed them to build something out of little or nothing. In this regard, think Dubai and Singapore, where the application of intense creative thinking has built world-beating economic hubs.

When people apply creativity — in a country, business, or organisation — productivity and economic development usually follows. Which prompts the question: If this is what creativity can do, what is stopping nations, businesses and organisations appointing “leaders of creativity” at the top of their hierarchies? If you need proof of this concept, look at the organisations on our list of Best Workplaces for innovators.

What stands out is the way they foster creativity and encourage big ideas at every level of their organisations.

In line with this thinking and as part of our plans for 2025, we plan to run a series of creativity workshops. We are of the view that infusing creativity into an organisation is an essential part of creating products not imagined before. The 2025 Most Creative People will feature the outcomes of these creativity workshops. I am eager to see the results and the products that will emerge from these sessions.

As you reflect on your achievements over this past year and make your plans for 2025, we hope the plans and ideas you find in this issue will form part of your arsenal when it comes to tackling challenges and winning your business battles.

All the best in your future endeavours…

You Might Also Like:
11.19.24

Checkers Sixty 60: How to balance the side effects of innovation?

BY Wesley Diphoko 2 MINUTE READ

There’s something beautiful about the Checkers Sixty 60 as a service. At the same time there’s something very ugly about what makes the service possible. The ability to get groceries from the comfort of your home is a life saver for some. Imagine the delivery benefits for someone with mobility challenges due to a sickness . Imagine an elderly person who can be assisted to get her shopping with ease. The Checkers Sixty 60 service is not just for convenience. It is also an income generator for the brave and those with entrepreneurial mindset. What cannot be denied however is that the service comes at a great cost to human lives. There’s a high risk attached to a quick delivery on a motorbike in South Africa. While risk cannot be detached to anything in life that has to be weighed against a return.A very ugly part seems to be related to the income generated by someone who places so much risk on his life to earn a living. It has been suggested that the income of many drivers of delivery motorbikes is not equivalent to the service and the risks attached to it.

Checkers Sixty 60 was supposed to be an innovation. Current reports however suggest it’s a double edged sword. As it enables convenience it is also a risky and unthankful way of generating income. Creators of the service and those who are profiting from it ought to reflect about the impact on human lives. They need to avoid the thinking that was adopted by the founder of Uber who was prepared to do whatever it takes to make a profit. Innovation is great when it truly makes a difference in peoples lives. Regulators ought to think deeply about designing laws that will save lives in the delivery sector. The fact that some have been avoiding the delivery sector due associated risks should serve as inspiration to create better working conditions.

What has been done to address the risks faced by delivery motorbike drivers?

Users of these services ought to also raise their concerns about labour practices in the delivery sector. Failure to raise a concern also renders them complicit in the abuse by businesses that enjoy profits from this sector. As society adopts technology for everyday life, it will deliver great benefits that will make life better. Businesses that design such services should be celebrated and rewarded. At the same time, technology adoption will also deliver bad life experiences for some. Society is not obliged to accept everything that seems good whilst destroying lives. Laws can be designed to reduce harm. Society enjoys the benefits that come with extra income from AirBnB, at the same time it has been accepted that it negatively impacts the affordability of property for locals. Uber has enabled many to access mobility services almost anywhere. In South Africa the service has also heightened the risk for drivers. Is it not time we start to slow down the speed of innovation to understand and address negative externalities before they harm society?

The faster we innovate the more harm we see in society. At some point the innovation process needs to value humans above beautiful and convenient things. We need responsible innovation if all of us are to reap its benefits. Currently, some are enjoying innovation while it’s destroying lives.

You Might Also Like:
11.05.24

The rising power of Big Tech leaders in Politics

BY Wesley Diphoko 2 MINUTE READ

If the influence of technology leaders was ever in doubt it is now clearly visible. When Elon Musk made a decision to buy Twitter it was not clear how the billionaire would use the social media platform. People who understood technology knew that he would turn it around and build something more than just a social media platform. We now know that it has been used as a very powerful tool leading up to the US elections. Post elections it will become a tool that will be used in favour of the former President whether he wins or not. If Trump becomes a US President, Elon Musk will probably become one of the most influential people in history. His companies that include SpaceX, Tesla, Boring Company and Neuralink will probably have unfettered access to US government power. This will probably be achieved under a new government department that may be formed under the Trump Presidency, the Department of Government Efficiency. Trump promised once that he would setup such a government entity and enable Musk to lead it. “I will create a government efficiency commission tasked with conducting a complete financial and performance audit of the entire federal government,” Trump told an audience that included Trump’s former treasury secretary, Steve Mnuchin, and financiers Scott Bessent and John Paulson.

Jeff Bezos is another technology leader whose influence has been visible during the 2024 elections. It is reported that he stopped the Washington Post (a publication he owns) from endorsing any candidate which is a practice that was a norm for the US newspaper. It is also reported that the Washington Post editorial team had already decided to endorse Kamala Harris. During the same period leaders from companies owned by Bezos were meeting with the Presidential candidate, Donald Trump.

The world has seen enough to get the understanding that technology leaders rule the world. Their influence has gone beyond just the machines and algorithms. The very fabric of society is now in the hands of technology leaders. As everything becomes technology powered and driven the people who create such technology maintain the power. It’s clear that the power of technology leaders has gone beyond national boundaries. The question that should be upper most amongst those who care about the future of society ought to be about the shape of governance measures of not just elected leaders but also technology leaders who back them. Further consideration has to be given to creators of systems that are used across nations. Leaders of such platforms and systems have immense influence that can turn nations around. Accountability for leaders of global platforms is not global but remains a national process.

If there’s any lesson from the Elon Musk involvement in US domestic issues it is that leaders of technology leaders are not neutral as we always assumed. This episode has taught us that technology leaders are extremely powerful and possibly, more than we’ve imagined. The transparency in this regard is important as it informs decision makers fully about who they dealing with when they buy technology products for national objectives. Such power however has to be accompanied by balanced form of accountability. The bigger question is, who will hold big tech leaders accountable?

You Might Also Like:
10.14.24

These Tesla Robots are coming to shape our future

BY Wesley Diphoko 2 MINUTE READ

Technology leaders often talk about creating the future however few of them do.

Elon Musk has demonstrated the meaning of creating the future when he showcased a Tesla line of products that includes Optimus (humanoid robot), Robotaxi and the Robovan. Some technology analysts and investors have expressed disappointment for the lack of technical details about the latest products from Tesla. What many have actually missed is the fact that Musk presented an integrated blueprint of the future. I say integrated in the sense that Tesla is not the first tech company to create a robovan or even a humanoid robot. Amazon has developed the Zoox which is a form of a robovan and Xiaomi has developed CyberOne, a humanoid robot. Tesla however developed all these products categories under one roof, an integrated product portfolio of robots. What Elon Musk unveiled at the We,Robot event is what can be described as the robotic future. It was a blueprint of what the next 10 to 20 years could feel and look like.

Elon Musk envisages a future where transportation will be robotic. He unveiled two products that may take us there, the Robotaxi (CyberCab) and the Robovan. Both of them have no steering wheel. The Robovan looks like a train diesel engine from the art deco era, and is designed to carry up to 20 passengers.

They will operate more like an Uber and AirBnB services. You can enjoy transportation services without the need to own a car. As a user you can request a ride that will come without a driver. During the presentation Elon Musk indicated that he believes that these vehicles could change how cities are designed as there will be a need for less vehicle parking.Musk said that he wants to reshape urban spaces, transforming parking lots into parks. On paper, it’s a lovely vision of a future defined by sleek, autonomous vehicles and urban renewal that will start in 2026, when the first vehicles will arrive to get hailed by customers that will get magically driven everywhere, he claimed. As for humanoid robots, Tesla has Optimus a product they believe will become a human companion and do some repititive and tedious work.

During the We.Robot presentation the Optimus robot was showcased offering drinks to guests, assisting with carrying groceries and watering plants.

Elon Musk may have not delivered a product that investors need for quick returns. He unveiled products that may shape the future of transportation and the way we work. When Tesla cybercab and robavan becomes available they will reshape the meaning of owning a vehicle. Owners of robotic vehicles could use them for personal reasons and business. Robots may become our replicas that carry out our work in our absence. It is my view that what Elon Musk delivered is less about a product but more about more about an economic system. He may single handedly initiated a process that may change the way we work and how we move around.

You Might Also Like:
close