News
SpaceX is in no rush for a Starlink IPO and that should terrify competitors
SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell says that the Starlink satellite internet business is in no rush to become a separate company and pursue an IPO, and that relaxed demeanor should terrify competitor constellations and ISPs like OneWeb and Comcast.
Announced in January 2015, SpaceX has been developing a massive constellation of satellites capable of delivering high-quality broadband internet anywhere on Earth for half a decade. Known as Starlink, SpaceX launched its first dedicated satellite prototypes – known as Tintin A and B – in February 2018, serving as a very successful alpha test for the myriad technologies the company would need to master to realize the constellation’s goals. 15 months later, SpaceX launched its first batch of 60 radically-redesigned Starlink satellites – packed flat to fit in an unmodified Falcon 9 payload fairing.
Less than nine months after that first ‘v0.9’ mission, SpaceX has completed another three dedicated launches and made Starlink – now some 235 operational satellites strong – the world’s largest private satellite constellation by a huge margin. Now just two days away from its fifth Starlink launch, SpaceX’s second-in-command has revealed that the company will likely split Starlink off into its own separate company, enabling an IPO without sacrificing SpaceX’s broader freedom. However, Shotwell also made it clear that SpaceX is in no rush to do so, and that fact should strike fear into the hearts of Starlink’s many potential competitors.
Bloomberg first broke the news with a snippet revealing that SpaceX COO and President Gwynne Shotwell had told a private investor event that Starlink could eventually IPO as an independent company. While undeniably important, a SpaceX source – after confirming the news – also told Reuters reporter Joey Roulette that it would be “several years” before the company might kick off the process of a Starlink IPO.
While a seemingly small piece of information at face value, the fact that SpaceX is years away from a potential Starlink IPO implies that the company is incredibly confident in where it stands today. Given that SpaceX only started ramping up its Starlink production rates and launch cadence a handful of months ago, that apparent confidence – assuming SpaceX’s respected President and COO isn’t lying to the faces of prospective investors – is no small feat.
Thanks to that production and launch cadence ramp, SpaceX is likely in the midst of one of the most capital-straining periods its Starlink program will ever experience. As a private company, SpaceX’s balance sheets are a black box to the public, but it’s safe to say that the it’s going through – or has already gone through – a phase of “production hell” similar to what Tesla experienced when it began building Roadsters, Model S/Xs, and Model 3s.
Building satellites like cars
In less than 12 months, SpaceX has effectively gone from manufacturing zero satellites to mass-producing something like 2-4 Starlink spacecraft every single day, almost without a doubt smashing any records previously held in the industry. It’s possible that companies like Planet (now the owner of the second-largest private constellation) or Spire have built more spacecraft in a given period, but SpaceX’s satellites are at least an order of magnitude larger, on average.
Around 260 kg (570 lb) apiece, SpaceX has built and launched a total of 240 spacecraft – together weighing more than 60 metric tons (135,000 lb) – in less than nine months. Furthermore, the company not only intends to crush that average but wants (if not needs) to do so for several years without interruption.
Back in May 2019, CEO Elon Musk confidently stated that he believes SpaceX already has all the capital it needs “to build an operational [Starlink] constellation”, likely referring to at least ~1500 operational communications satellites – launches included. This is why competitors should be moderately terrified that SpaceX isn’t even privately pushing for an IPO sooner than later. Perhaps the single biggest reason modern companies pursue IPOs is to raise substantial capital – usually far more than can be practically (or quickly) raised while private when executed successfully.
A step further, “several years” should mean titanic changes for SpaceX’s Starlink constellation if everything goes as planned. In 2020, SpaceX has publicly stated that it will attempt as many as 20-24 dedicated Starlink launches, an achievement that would translate to a constellation more than 1600 satellites strong by the end of the year. SpaceX says that 24 launches (20 if the first four missions are subtracted) is enough to offer global coverage and plans to begin serving customers in the northern US and Canada as early as this summer.
As of now, SpaceX has performed three 60-satellite Starlink launches total in the last three months – two in January 2020 alone – and Starlink V1 L4 (the fourth v1.0 launch and fifth launch overall) is scheduled to lift off just two days from now on February 15th. If Musk and Shotwell are correct and SpaceX can launch at least one or two thousand satellites without raising any additional capital, the constellation – potentially reaching those numbers by early to mid-2021 – may already have hundreds of thousands of customers by the time more funding is needed. 2000 Starlink v1.0 satellites, for reference, would theoretically offer enough collective bandwidth for more than 500,000 users to simultaneously stream Netflix content in 1080p.
As of early 2019, SpaceX had raised a total of $2B in venture capital, investments, and debt. Thus, even in the unlikely event that 100% of that funding goes to Starlink, the company would ultimately have to spend $500-700M annually from 2018 to the end of 2021 to run that large pool of capital dry by the time 1000-2000 satellites are in orbit.
500,000 customers paying $50-100 per month by the end of 2021 would conservatively allow Starlink to generate $300-600M in annual revenue, excluding the likely possibility of even more lucrative government or commercial contracts. In other words, if SpaceX can accumulate an average of 20,000 paying subscribers per month between now and the end of 2021, Starlink could very well become self-sustaining at its current rate of growth – or close to it – by the time SpaceX is hurting for more funding. In a worst-case scenario, it thus appears all but certain that “several years” from now, SpaceX’s Starlink program will have at least a few thousand high-performance satellites in orbit, an extensive network of ground stations, and a large swath of alpha or beta customers by the time IPO proceedings begin.
Given that all that potential infrastructure would easily be worth at least $1-2B purely from a capital investment standpoint, Starlink’s ultimate IPO valuation – under Shotwell’s patient “maybe one day” approach – could be stratospheric.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Elon Musk said today on X that Teslas will start to learn your individual preferences. This is something that he seemed to hint toward earlier this month when he said parking was by far the biggest reason drivers intervene with Full Self-Driving.
Musk made the comment in response to notable Tesla influencer Whole Mars, who said that his vehicle will sometimes disobey the settings he has enabled for his car. He responded to the post, stating that “The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences.”
The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 18, 2026
This is something that could be perhaps one of the biggest ways Tesla could minimize or even work closer toward eliminating interventions altogether. While FSD does a lot of things really well, many people intervene a vast majority of the time not due to major or critical safety errors.
Instead, many take over because the car is doing something that they do not like as a preference; it might park in a parking spot that is not preferred by the driver, it might linger too long in the left lane on the highway (a personal favorite), or it could even take a route that the driver does not like.
These all lead to interventions, but they are not triggered by a major safety issue. Instead, it’s just preference.
READ OUR REVIEW OF TESLA’S LATEST FSD VERSION:
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.5 Early Impressions: new features and early performance
If Teslas could start to learn the personal preferences of the person who owns them, interventions will truly begin to be less frequent. Some of this is already pretty evident, in my opinion. Teslas use a neural network to learn behaviors and accumulate data to improve performance.
For months now, we’ve tracked FSD’s performance at “Except Right Turn” stop signs, something that is very common in Pennsylvania, but many of our readers located in other parts of the U.S. have never heard of. FSD handles one Except Right Turn stop sign very well, one that I travel past frequently. Others that I do not navigate through as often do not have as confident a performance. It seems like the cars might already be doing this to an extent.
🚨 Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3 proceeds through an Except Right Turn Stop Sign pic.twitter.com/YemRSlens7
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 8, 2026
That example is also for something that is a street sign and not necessarily a driver preference; however, I still feel it is worth mentioning because it only handles that commonly passed Except Right Turn stop sign with true confidence. Others it still seems to struggle with.
This could be one of Tesla’s big moves toward full autonomy, and it could be a pathway to truly unsupervised driving. Every day, millions of cars on the road travel at a human driver’s personal preferences with no incident. Why can’t autonomous vehicles still cater to a passenger’s preferences while being autonomous? Tesla seems to have the idea that it would be possible.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has sharply criticized legacy media outlets for what he describes as selective and biased reporting on vehicle accidents involving Tesla. In a recent X post, DeSantis questioned why headlines routinely spotlight the Tesla brand in crash stories, even when human error is the clear cause, while similar incidents with other automakers often receive generic treatment.
A prime example is the June 19, 2026, fatal crash in Katy, Texas. A Tesla Model 3 driven by Michael Butler struck a brick home at high speed, killing 76-year-old Martha Avila inside. Initial reports and headlines prominently featured “Tesla crash” and referenced the driver’s claim that an automated driving-assistance system was engaged.
Many outlets quickly speculated that Full Self-Driving or Autopilot were the cause of the crash, immediately blaming the suites for the accident shortly after it happened.
However, Tesla responded shortly after the accident with vehicle data that showed Butler manually overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100 percent, reaching 73 MPH in a residential area, more than double the speed limit. The accelerator remained floored after impact.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) later confirmed these findings, and Butler now faces manslaughter charges. His phone searches also included queries like “Tesla FSD too timid,” suggesting he may have intervened aggressively. Despite this, many headlines continued to center Tesla’s technology rather than the driver’s actions.
DeSantis highlighted a Washington Post headline, which was labeled, “Newly released photo shows wreckage of Tesla crash that killed grandmother.”
Do legacy media outlets typically use headlines involving the make of a car in a crash or is that only for Tesla?
It would be one thing if the self-driving malfunctioned but the crash was purely human-induced.
Seems like these outlets want to associate Tesla with crashes as… pic.twitter.com/EmfyeYiuv6
— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) July 17, 2026
The subheadline noted the driver overrode assistance and floored the accelerator, yet the brand name dominated the framing. He asked whether legacy outlets typically name the make of a car in routine crashes or reserve that treatment for Tesla to push a narrative.
This pattern appears widespread. Crashes involving Ford, Chevrolet, or Toyota vehicles frequently appear as “pickup truck slams into home” or “fatal car crash kills pedestrian” without brand specifics, especially absent new technology angles.
High-profile Ford F-150 or Chevy Silverado incidents tied to large sales volumes often escape brand-callout scrutiny. In contrast, Tesla stories consistently lead with the manufacturer, amplifying perceptions of risk despite data showing strong overall safety performance:
🚨 Why do Tesla Owners get so defensive over the narrative of crashes involving Teslas? https://t.co/aX7ogtjTCR pic.twitter.com/KO4QWaLOKl
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 24, 2026
Tesla’s own 2025 Impact Report indicates vehicles using FSD logged 0.19 major incidents per million miles, roughly eight times fewer than the U.S. average. Models like the Model Y also rank among the safest in IIHS and NHTSA testing for occupant protection. Critics argue disproportionate coverage ignores these statistics and driver behavior factors, such as younger or more aggressive Tesla owners in some studies.
DeSantis frames this as part of a broader political agenda against innovative American companies like Tesla. By consistently naming Tesla while downplaying others, media outlets risk eroding public trust and shaping perceptions detached from the evidence of human error in most cases.
As autonomous technology evolves across the industry, consistent and factual reporting will be essential to separate real safety concerns from narrative-driven coverage.
Tesla entered two new markets this week by advancing its presence in Latvia (Europe) and officially launching operations in Uruguay (South America), marking a rapid dual-continent expansion.
These moves underscore the company’s strategy to tap into emerging EV markets with supportive policies, renewable energy grids, and growing demand for sustainable transport.
Latvia: Strengthening the Baltic Footprint
In Latvia, Tesla has built on its earlier registration of Tesla Latvia SIA in late 2025 with recent steps toward full operations, including job postings for a service center and representation in Riga. This aligns with broader Baltic expansion following Lithuania’s model of pop-up stores and service centers.
Coming to Latvia https://t.co/XNkQQJ2O6a pic.twitter.com/yS9kpcNky1
— Tesla Europe, Middle East & Africa (@teslaeurope) July 17, 2026
EV penetration in Latvia stands at around 7 percent for BEVs in new passenger car registrations. 2025 data showed 1,602 BEVs out of about 22,500 total, or 7.1 percent, with combined plug-ins nearing 19 percent. Growth has been steady but below the European average, supported by government subsidies and infrastructure development. Tesla models like the Model 3 lead local EV registrations.
Vehicles for the Latvian market will likely be sourced from Gigafactory Berlin or Gigafactory Shanghai. Charging infrastructure is robust for the region as well, with over 400- 2,000 public points, with Tesla Superchargers in Riga, Jūrmala, and along Via Baltica routes offering up to 250 kW.
Uruguay: Third South American Country
Tesla teased its Uruguay arrival with “Estamos llegando,” or, “We are arriving,” on social media, followed by an official presentation scheduled for mid-July.
Hola Uruguay 🇺🇾
Nuestros Model 3 y Model Y están cada vez mas cerca! pic.twitter.com/FR41fsA7um
— Tesla Latinoamérica (@Tesla_LatAm) June 30, 2026
The company established Tesla Uruguay SAS, homologated Model 3 and Model Y (three versions each), and appointed local leadership. This makes Uruguay Tesla’s third official South American market after Chile and Colombia.
Uruguay boasts one of Latin America’s highest EV penetrations, with battery-electric vehicles exceeding 20 percent market share recently, driven by tax incentives, high fuel prices, and a nearly 95-100 percent renewable electricity grid. Hundreds of Teslas already operate via grey imports, but official sales bring warranties, service, and support.
Vehicles will be imported from Gigafactory Shanghai, enabling competitive pricing for Model 3 and Model Y. Charging plans include Supercharger development alongside existing infrastructure, leveraging the country’s green energy advantage for affordable operation.
Tesla Superchargers follow Model 3 and Model Y to South American country
Tesla’s Dual Continent Expansion
Tesla’s simultaneous push into Latvia and Uruguay demonstrates efficient scaling: prioritizing service and infrastructure first, then direct sales in high-potential niches. In Europe, it fills Baltic gaps; in Latin America, it counters Chinese dominance while leveraging renewables.
This dual move signals Tesla’s ambition to accelerate global EV adoption amid varying regional paces. By addressing local needs, like subsidies in Latvia or incentives and green grids in Uruguay, Tesla not only boosts volumes but advances its mission of sustainable energy.
For investors and consumers, it highlights resilience and opportunity in diverse markets, potentially paving the way for further growth in underserved regions. With strong fundamentals in both, these entries could yield long-term gains as EV transitions mature worldwide.
Elon Musk says your Tesla will start to learn your individual preferences
Ron DeSantis calls out media bias in Tesla crash coverage
