Both have a very different approach in trying to get to self-driving, and when combining what both can't do, it would seem nobody can do anything. And whilst both throw out their fair share of "demo videos" (=advertising), they have different track records for what they can (and actually do), and what they can't (but claim to do).
They're still doing better than a lot of the wannabe-unicorns that pursue self-driving or Lidar though.
And that decision means their Level 1 autonomy is nowhere near good enough to form a foundation for Level 4 autonomy.
They've obviously gone a lot slower than planned though.
Tesla, on the other hand, is completely faking it. They have nothing to show for yet.
Their current set of feature outshines most car manufacturers, yes - but you have to remember: Tesla seems that far ahead because - unlike most other manufacturers - they push their beta-features to the production fleet.
[Edit]: I should note: I don't subscribe to the sentiment that Tesla is "completely faking it" - I think they very much oversell their capabilities, and are nowhere near the point where the driver can stop paying attention (which to me is a core component of autonomy).
Or in the case of the Quest, having powerful and reasonably priced SoC's.
For VR, a lot was advances in (affordable) processing power (latency causes significant issues in VR), and screen (manufacturing) technology (i.e. pricing improvements).
For self-driving, it's again processing power (with the focus on the ratio between computation power and power consumption/size), but also the advances in technologies like Lidar, as well as advances in theoretical research (and better understanding) of machine learning.