News
Tesla’s cease and desist letter has Dan O’Dowd calling Elon Musk names
Tesla’s cease and desist letter to The Dawn Project, has Dan O’Dowd resorting to childish antics and targeting a Tesla customer. Tesla’s cease and desist letter demanded that the defamatory ad be removed. Tesla also demanded that the anti-Full Self-Driving campaign be immediately halted. O’Dowd isn’t taking the letter too well as he’s sharing his thoughts about the situation on Twitter.
O’Dowd’s response included several childish antics such as name calling, an unhealthy focus on one of Tesla’s customers, Elon Musk, and Elon’s following.
Please improve your own product instead of falsely caiming that other‘s are dangerous!
— Magnus Maximus (@marky110) August 25, 2022
In the tweet promoting The Dawn Project, O’Dowd included a meme depicting Elon Musk tweeting “It never happened,” while what looked to be a young adult is tied up, gagged, and being held down by two villainous goons.
The link that O’Dowd tweeted is The Dawn Project’s response to Tesla’s cease and desist letter. The letter is full of immature name calling such as alluding to Elon Musk as “another crybaby hiding behind his lawyer’s skirt,” and being obsessed with O’Dowd who paints himself as a hero for campaigning against FSD. O’Dowd claimed that it appeared to him that Elon Musk wrote the letter mocking him for running for the U.S. Senate with the goal of stopping FSD.
The letter goes on to target a Tesla customer and FSD Beta Tester, Omar Qazi, who has also been the target of many “$TSLAQ” supporters. Omar is a Tesla FSD Beta tester and an avid supporter of Tesla. He’s also a friend of mine in the Tesla community.
O’Dowd previously mentioned Omar saying that he endorses the deployment of “AI killing machines, even if they are trying to kill our kids.” Although Omar does support Tesla and Tesla’s FSD Beta, the claim that Tesla’s FSD Beta is an AI-killing machine that is trying to kill children is entirely false.
In the response to Tesla’s cease and desist letter, O’Dowd wrote:
“It appears you are talking about unsolicited scrutiny by your infamously virulent band of fanboy Tesla stockholders, led by you and your apparent agent, @WholeMarsBlog, and motivated by greed. They immediately and widely promulgate baseless accusations against those who say anything negative about Tesla or Elon Musk.”
He also called Omar Elon Musk’s top attack dog on Twitter Although Tesla sent a cease and desist letter, O’Dowd said that Elon Musk’s plan is to use his supporters to attack O’Dowd online and hinted that perhaps Elon Musk couldn’t afford an attorney.
🦇 💩 crazy
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 25, 2022
“Master Scammer Musk’s game plan: if the fanboys’ vile attacks don’t scare off a critic he threatens them with endless baseless litigation which will cost them their house even if they win. Fortunately, I can afford not to be intimidated by these threats.”
“Tesla Full Self-Driving software has no future. It is the most incompetently designed, implemented, and tested commercial software I have ever seen. All it does is take a perfectly good Tesla car and make it occasionally try to kill the driver, the passengers, and innocent bystanders.”
“I dare you to come out and defend this technology.”
The irony of all of this is that O’Dowd is also the CEO of Green Hills Software which is developing self-driving software. O’Dowd apologized for misleading people earlier this month about FSD. In his tweet, he said that he relied on reports from others that he did not verify. I responded to this tweet with a question that O’Dowd still hasn’t answered.
https://twitter.com/JohnnaCrider1/status/1558454356013469698
My question was rhetorical, but the point remains. He invested millions of dollars in an anti-FSD campaign before even trying it. Instead, he was relying on misinformation.
And according to his tweet, he only experienced it for 20 hours. It should be noted that FSD is still in beta and with O’Dowd trying to be a direct competitor of Tesla’s FSD software, it’s only natural for him to be intimidated by it.
Personally, I think O’Dowd should retire his anti-Tesla campaign and apologize to Elon Musk, Omar Qazi, and Tesla’s shareholders, customers, and employees who work hard to make a product dedicated to saving lives.
Note: Johnna is a Tesla shareholder and supports its mission.
Your feedback is important. If you have any comments, or concerns, or see a typo, you can email me at johnna@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @JohnnaCrider1
News
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Tesla shared a striking video showcasing the decommissioning of the original Model S and Model X assembly line at its Fremont Factory in Northern California. Completed in just 46 days, the teardown involved heavy machinery dismantling concrete pits, removing robotic arms and conveyors, and clearing the space for new production.
The post, captioned “End of an era,” captured both the end of a historic chapter and Tesla’s aggressive pivot toward its next major initiative, Optimus.
End of an era: Decommissioning the original Model S & X assembly line in just 46 days pic.twitter.com/kGEdfhl62h
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) July 10, 2026
The decision to retire the Model S and Model X originated during Tesla’s Q4 2025 Earnings Call in late January 2026. CEO Elon Musk announced that production of the company’s flagship sedan and SUV would wind down by the end of Q2 2026, describing it as bringing the programs to an “honorable discharge.”
Custom orders ceased around early April 2026, with the final vehicles rolling off the line in early May. A special signature delivery ceremony on May 20 marked the emotional close for these vehicles, which had defined Tesla’s early success and luxury EV segment since the Model S launch in 2012.
The primary reason for tearing down the lines was to repurpose the valuable factory floor space for high-volume production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot. Musk had indicated on Earnings Calls that the Fremont S/X line would be replaced by a dedicated Optimus manufacturing line targeting a capacity of one million units per year.
This move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategic shift from traditional vehicle manufacturing toward robotics and artificial intelligence, leveraging the company’s expertise in autonomy, AI training, and high-volume production.
Optimus, Tesla’s general-purpose humanoid robot, is designed to perform repetitive or dangerous tasks in factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. Powered by Tesla’s AI and Neural Networks, it aims to be a versatile, affordable platform. Production of Optimus Gen 3 is already underway in limited form at Fremont, with full-scale output on the converted line expected to begin in late July or August.
Tesla is targeting rapid scaling, with internal ambitions pointing toward tens or even hundreds of thousands of units annually by the end of 2026.
Longer-term, Tesla is constructing a much larger second-generation Optimus facility at Giga Texas, with potential capacity reaching millions of units per year. The company views Optimus as a transformative product that could eventually surpass its automotive business in scale and value, enabling widespread deployment of useful robots across industries. CEO Elon Musk has even predicted it would be the most popular product of all-time.
As one era closes at Fremont, another is rapidly taking shape.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
News
Tesla analyst says Full Self-Driving is about to have its iPhone moment
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.