News
Opinion: Tesla and India is the right thing at the wrong time
Tesla and India will not be working together any time soon, as new reports now indicate that Tesla has pulled its team responsible for entrance into the Indian market to other regions. Tesla and India might be a powerful one-two punch in the future, but in 2022, the two are just the right thing at the wrong time.
When Tesla first started making moves toward entering the Indian automotive market, there was a lot of excitement. The unbelievable potential of a partnership between the world’s leading electric car company and a government that primarily focuses on domestic manufacturing efforts, mainly due to the Make in India initiative, had people buzzing. However, there were still hoops to jump through. Any person with any sort of knowledge about India and cars knows that it is an expensive place to own one, especially if it was not built there. Getting cars from outside of India into the country doubles the cost of the vehicle on most occasions due to import duties. This is when Tesla started to realize how difficult this whole process might be.
Tesla places its India entry on hold after failing to secure lower import taxes: report
In routine negotiations, even with companies and governments, there is always a brief standoff period to see who will budge first. The hypothetical game of chicken can be magnified when dealing with two large entities, but eventually, something happens where someone makes a move, and things start to come together. I thought a great, recent, and relevant example of this would be the Elon Musk-Twitter buyout, where, as the board of the platform mozied over the Tesla CEO’s offer, new developments were few and far between, as expected. Nothing was going to move forward until someone budged.
The issue is that sometimes people choose not to budge because their needs in a particular deal are non-negotiable. When the needs of both sides are non-negotiable, it complicates the entire ordeal, and this is what made the Tesla-India deal stagnate: Two large entities that had specific requirements to make something happen. Neither was asking for a small thing, so it is not necessarily unreasonable that Tesla put its plans for India on hold.
Tesla needed to test demand for its cars. It would only be able to do this by building them in Fremont, California, Austin, Texas, Brandenburg, Germany, or Shanghai, China, and then shipping them to India. The problem with this system was it would not be an accurate representation of what Tesla might be able to sell in the market, as the vehicles would still be subjected to massive import duties that would double the cost of the car in some cases. Only a small percentage of the population would be able to afford that, and with very little EV infrastructure in India, it made the company’s products even less attractive. Tesla was effectively stuck between a rock and a hard place because it had an interest in building and selling cars in India, it just needed to confirm that the people of India wanted to buy the cars. Indian government officials rarely offered commentary that was indicative of a willingness to budge.
India wanted Tesla to commit to building a new Gigafactory in their country, which would align with the government’s focus on domestic manufacturing efforts and would likely give officials enough to pull back import duties for Tesla. However, Tesla could not commit to this: there was no indication that demand would be high enough to justify an entire factory, and Tesla was not sure it would be able to export vehicles from the Indian factory to other countries. Given the economic situations across the world during the past two years due to the COVID-19 pandemic, neither entity would be able to budge from their needs.
India and Tesla were the right thing, just at the wrong time. Given the extreme demands that both Tesla and Indian officials needed, it was best to not beat a dead horse any longer and move on from the potential partnership, at least temporarily. Tesla does have a lot of potential in India, but it cannot justify purchasing massive land plots for a new facility, it cannot justify spending millions more on showrooms and service centers, and it can not adequately test the want for its vehicles with massive import taxes trailing behind every car sent to the market.
Try again in a few years, hopefully.
I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, please email me at joey@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can email us at tips@teslarati.com.
Elon Musk
Tesla director pay lawsuit sees lawyer fees slashed by $100 million
The ruling leaves the case’s underlying settlement intact while significantly reducing what the plaintiffs’ attorneys will receive.
The Delaware Supreme Court has cut more than $100 million from a legal fee award tied to a shareholder lawsuit challenging compensation paid to Tesla directors between 2017 and 2020.
The ruling leaves the case’s underlying settlement intact while significantly reducing what the plaintiffs’ attorneys will receive.
Delaware Supreme Court trims legal fees
As noted in a Bloomberg Law report, the case targeted pay granted to Tesla directors, including CEO Elon Musk, Oracle founder Larry Ellison, Kimbal Musk, and Rupert Murdoch. The Delaware Chancery Court had awarded $176 million to the plaintiffs. Tesla’s board must also return stock options and forego years worth of pay.
As per Chief Justice Collins J. Seitz Jr. in an opinion for the Delaware Supreme Court’s full five-member panel, however, the decision of the Delaware Chancery Court to award $176 million to a pension fund’s law firm “erred by including in its financial benefit analysis the intrinsic value” of options being returned by Tesla’s board.
The justices then reduced the fee award from $176 million to $70.9 million. “As we measure it, $71 million reflects a reasonable fee for counsel’s efforts and does not result in a windfall,” Chief Justice Seitz wrote.
Other settlement terms still intact
The Supreme Court upheld the settlement itself, which requires Tesla’s board to return stock and options valued at up to $735 million and to forgo three years of additional compensation worth about $184 million.
Tesla argued during oral arguments that a fee award closer to $70 million would be appropriate. Interestingly enough, back in October, Justice Karen L. Valihura noted that the $176 award was $60 million more than the Delaware judiciary’s budget from the previous year. This was quite interesting as the case was “settled midstream.”
The lawsuit was brought by a pension fund on behalf of Tesla shareholders and focused exclusively on director pay during the 2017–2020 period. The case is separate from other high-profile compensation disputes involving Elon Musk.
Elon Musk
SpaceX-xAI merger discussions in advanced stage: report
The update was initially reported by Bloomberg News, which cited people reportedly familiar with the matter.
SpaceX is reportedly in advanced discussions to merge with artificial intelligence startup xAI. The talks could reportedly result in an agreement as soon as this week, though discussions remain ongoing.
The update was initially reported by Bloomberg News, which cited people reportedly familiar with the matter.
SpaceX and xAI advanced merger talks
SpaceX and xAI have reportedly informed some investors about plans to potentially combine the two privately held companies, Bloomberg’s sources claimed. Representatives for both companies did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
A merger would unite two of the world’s largest private firms. xAI raised capital at a valuation of about $200 billion in September, while SpaceX was preparing a share sale late last year that valued the rocket company at roughly $800 billion.
If completed, the merger would bring together SpaceX’s launch and satellite infrastructure with xAI’s computing and model development. This could pave the way for Musk’s vision of deploying data centers in orbit to support large-scale AI workloads.
Musk’s broader consolidation efforts
Elon Musk has increasingly linked his companies around autonomy, AI, and space-based infrastructure. SpaceX is seeking regulatory approval to launch up to one million satellites as part of its long-term plans, as per a recent filing. Such a scale could support space-based computing concepts.
SpaceX has also discussed the feasibility of a potential tie-up with electric vehicle maker Tesla, Bloomberg previously reported. SpaceX has reportedly been preparing for a possible initial public offering (IPO) as well, which could value the company at up to $1.5 trillion. No timeline for SpaceX’s reported IPO plans have been announced yet, however.
News
Tesla already has a complete Robotaxi model, and it doesn’t depend on passenger count
That scenario was discussed during the company’s Q4 and FY 2025 earnings call, when executives explained why the majority of Robotaxi rides will only involve one or two people.
Tesla already has the pieces in place for a full Robotaxi service that works regardless of passenger count, even if the backbone of the program is a small autonomous two-seater.
That scenario was discussed during the company’s Q4 and FY 2025 earnings call, when executives explained why the majority of Robotaxi rides will only involve one or two people.
Two-seat Cybercabs make perfect sense
During the Q&A portion of the call, Tesla Vice President of Vehicle Engineering Lars Moravy pointed out that more than 90% of vehicle miles traveled today involve two or fewer passengers. This, the executive noted, directly informed the design of the Cybercab.
“Autonomy and Cybercab are going to change the global market size and mix quite significantly. I think that’s quite obvious. General transportation is going to be better served by autonomy as it will be safer and cheaper. Over 90% of vehicle miles traveled are with two or fewer passengers now. This is why we designed Cybercab that way,” Moravy said.
Elon Musk expanded on the point, emphasizing that there is no fallback for Tesla’s bet on the Cybercab’s autonomous design. He reiterated that the autonomous two seater’s production is expected to start in April and noted that, over time, Tesla expects to produce far more Cybercabs than all of its other vehicles combined.
“Just to add to what Lars said there. The point that Lars made, which is that 90% of miles driven are with one or two passengers or one or two occupants, essentially, is a very important one… So this is clearly, there’s no fallback mechanism here. It’s like this car either drives itself or it does not drive… We would expect over time to make far more CyberCabs than all of our other vehicles combined. Given that 90% of distance driven or distance being distance traveled exactly, no longer driving, is one or two people,” Musk said.
Tesla’s robotaxi lineup is already here
The more interesting takeaway from the Q4 and FY 2025 earnings call is the fact that Tesla does not need the Cybercab to serve every possible passenger scenario, simply because the company already has a functional Robotaxi model that scales by vehicle type.
The Cybercab will handle the bulk of the Robotaxi network’s trips, but for groups that need three or four seats, the Model Y fills that role. For higher-end or larger-family use cases, the extended-wheelbase Model Y L could cover five or six occupants, provided that Elon Musk greenlights the vehicle for North America. And for even larger groups or commercial transport, Tesla has already unveiled the Robovan, which could seat over ten people.
Rather than forcing one vehicle to satisfy every use case, Tesla’s approach mirrors how transportation works today. Different vehicles will be used for different needs, while unifying everything under a single autonomous software and fleet platform.
Tesla director pay lawsuit sees lawyer fees slashed by $100 million
SpaceX-xAI merger discussions in advanced stage: report
