News
Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos: The Rivalry of the Century (that we are all benefitting from)
Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos have shared an extremely public rivalry throughout the past few years, aiming to one-up each other in space exploration and self-driving cars. The two men, who own the top two positions on Forbes’ Billionaires List, are chomping at the bit to get ahead of one another, and the competition that lies within the Tesla and Amazon CEOs gives the people of Earth all something to benefit from: longevity and innovation.
The two most powerful men in the world in their respective sectors, Bezos being at the helm of the most dominating company in the e-commerce world, and Musk surging forward the acceleration to sustainable energy with Tesla. There is a lot of money, a lot of power, and a lot of reputation at stake, and the rivalry between the two men is mostly comprised of healthy competition to out-do the other. However, the two men share a similarity in their strategy to help humankind move forward, and it lies within their aerospace companies: Musk’s SpaceX and Bezos’ Blue Origin. But it isn’t a competition that has always been healthy and in good spirits. It has often resulted in name-calling and Twitter contradictions, showing that even the two richest men in the world can share a very public rivalry while benefitting the rest of us.
In past years, Musk has been the more successful entrepreneur in the space exploration and self-driving vehicle front, of course. His two companies being Tesla, the largest car company in the world in terms of market cap, and SpaceX, which has been launching satellites for global internet service with Starlink and sending astronauts to the International Space Station on several missions. It is no secret that Musk has an astounding lead over Bezos in those sectors, and he doesn’t have any intention of selling consumer goods, even though he would encourage competition in that market after calling Amazon a monopoly.
Time to break up Amazon. Monopolies are wrong!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 4, 2020
But Musk’s lead must leave a small portion of Bezos feeling left out. Musk undoubtedly receives more recognition and more kudos for his work, and he should. He’s made legacy automakers change their strategies moving forward, forcing them to work on all-electric powertrains, and SpaceX has made the possibility of human space travel possible again. Bezos, being the extremely successful person that he is, must thrive off of competition and the work that it takes to make things more efficient and better than anyone else.
In the early 2000s, both Musk and Bezos were struggling entrepreneurs who worked to grow their entities into the world’s biggest and most successful companies. Bezos, who once held an office in a shady part of Seattle above a Chinese food restaurant, had a desk that wasn’t level, and an uneven canvas on the wall that said “amazon.com” in blue spraypaint. He drove a run-of-the-mill sedan and shared an incredible joy for his work, which was then just an online bookstore.
Jeff Bezos reveals Rivian’s plans to produce electric vans for Amazon
Meanwhile, Musk was fresh out of his sizeable sale of PayPal. He reinvested his money into Tesla, and he was sleeping on the floor of his office building. Showering at the YMCA in Los Angeles, Musk and his brother Kimbal were also subjected to startup life’s genuine struggle: long hours, less-than-luxurious living conditions, and minimal pay.
Fast forward a few years, and the two men are among the most powerful people on Earth thanks to their influence on their respective sectors. But what is really driving things forward between the two men is the competition they share with one another. The constant need to outperform the other person is evident, and the two men’s based opinions constantly encourage the other one to work a little harder.
In the end, the personal rivalry has benefitted us all. SpaceX and Blue Origin are both doing things to accelerate the possibility of normalized space travel. Amazon is making consumer goods easy to obtain, and Tesla is making electric cars fun, fast, and affordable.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
