News
BMW, Nissan and Tesla to Develop Universal Charging Network?
Now that Tesla has tentatively opened some of its intellectual properties (IP) to the competition and that we have some insight as to its motives, who else wants to benefit from this strategy?
Tesla welcomes the competition
Welcoming the competition might seem like a bold and dramatic move, but it is one Elon Musk has carefully planned. In the past articles, we visited what it means to open some of the company’s IP to the competition, and asked what does Tesla Motors mean by “good faith” use. We also saw this is a strategic move to once and for all cement Tesla’s role at the core of the electric vehicle (EV) industry. It also gives it a chance for its charging protocol to become a de facto standard.
BMW and Nissan
BMW has demonstrated a willingness to step into the 22nd Century, leaping over its local German competition. It has dabbled with the idea of selling directly, but is careful not to rock the boat. The matter of the fact is that BMW needs other carmakers more than Tesla does in terms of manufacturing. Case in point, its partnership with Toyota, which gives it more production capacity. BMW also gains much of a strategic alliance with Tesla.
Nissan is the next logical choice. Already at the forefront of EVs with its best selling Nissan LEAF, which stands for Leading, Environmentally friendly, Affordable, Family car, it built and sold more electric cars than any other company in history.
Tesla already announced last week that it had a meeting with BMW, who showed great interest. BMW is working hard to make its “ultimate driving” electric machines not only fun to drive, but feasible. And serious, BMW is. BMW bought its own carbon fiber manufacturing company and developed a sophisticated resign carbon fiber tub for its electric i3 and the stunning plug-in hybrid (PHEV) i8. I was fortunate to interview Benoit Jacobs, the head designer of the iDrive team, who revealed the gist was to have static air flow control with no electronics. Every curve and line are functional on both the i8 and i3, from the static upper windshield spoiler to the dramatic rear air diffusers. Benoit told me he wanted static aerodynamics, not electronic automation. One glance at the i8 and we can say they achieved something the Germans are not always known for, dramatic beauty. Now the real work rests on batteries and electronics, something Tesla does brilliantly.
The only problem BMW has, as well as an other recent EV I tested on CarNewsCafe is the (in)famous Combined Charging Standard (CCS) plug. CCS stations are far and few between compared to more readily available CHAdeMO, with more than 1,000 globally and the Superchargers, 100 globally. Nissan uses CHAdeMO and enjoys many more locations than CCS, but it, too, has never developed a charging network.
How come electric carmakers don’t build charging networks?
One of the many question we, journalists, ask EV makers is why they haven’t actively built a charging infrastructure like Tesla? There are many reasons, most about keeping their core competencies and ROI balanced for survival. Both BMW and Nissan would benefit tapping into Tesla’s technology and hopefully shift the power away from the idiotic charging standard war dividing manufacturers, leaving consumers to pay the price once more. If BMW and Nissan adopt Tesla’s charging protocol, the industry inexorably tilts toward a unified charging standard, leaving the CHAdeMO versus CCS battle a vestige of yesterday’s knuckle-dragging battle techniques behind. Did I make that last point strongly enough? Now imagine how the rest of carmakers and the charging industry feels.
Image source: Autoguide
-
In a new note to investors on Tuesday, Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco said that Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors regarding its Robotaxi rollout, Full Self-Driving software, and Optimus.
Percoco said in the note that, for the most part, investors are still very positive about the direction the company is headed. However, there are some things the firm would like to see, and they have to do with financials.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla bulls are more than convinced that the company’s Full Self-Driving software is proof it can develop physical AI. Financially, however, there are still some questions, especially on elevated spending, which CEO Elon Musk said would occur as the company works to roll out Robotaxi faster and continue developing its Optimus robot.
The latter two are where Tesla will have to prove progress to investors, as Percoco writes that both projects “will require clearer evidence that Robotaxi is scaling and more tangible Optimus proof points to support the ROI on elevated capex.”
Percoco said the second quarter earnings call did not change his long-term thesis of where Tesla is positioned in the AI race, which is out in front. However, there are concerns that weaker gross margins and higher R&D spend will stress financials, and that has “sharpened our (and investors’) focus on measurable progress across Robotaxi and Optimus.”
Additionally, Robotaxi still needs to be proven with more operation in existing cities while maintaining safety but improving how many rides it gives in any given time, he said. For Optimus, Percoco wrote that he is “still looking for evidence beyond commentary around SOP.”
-
Morgan Stanley put Percoco in charge of covering Tesla after long-time analyst Adam Jonas transitioned to the automotive side.
Currently, Morgan Stanley has a $415 price target on Tesla and a ‘Hold’ rating on the stock. It is trading at around $330 at the time of publication, which was 2:30 P.M. on the East Coast.
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
-
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
-
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.
Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”
Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.
🚨 Tesla is recalling 20,349 2020-23 Model Y vehicles and 2017-23 Model 3 vehicles due to an excessively bright headlamp low beam.
Currently, there is no remedy plan in place, as it is still being developed. pic.twitter.com/y34cIO2U0B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 11, 2026
Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.
-
However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.
Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.
Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.
Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors: Morgan Stanley
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
