Investor's Corner
Tesla’s battery tech and software push is starting to make sense for veteran vehicle-makers
When Tesla was designing the Model S, the company made it a point to build the vehicle from the ground up. This means that everything, from the electric cars’ battery packs to its software, are manufactured by Tesla itself. Tesla’s approach to electric cars is the auto equivalent of Apple’s strategy with the iPhone and iOS, and it finally seems to be making sense to some legacy vehicle-makers.
Elon Musk’s private space firm, SpaceX, is known for producing its rockets in-house. Musk took this same approach with Tesla in the company’s early days, and the result of this approach was the Model S, a vehicle like no other on the road, with simple, powerful, all-electric internals and a software that is custom-built for the car. A particularly telling image of this hands-on, in-house approach was taken during the company’s younger days, featuring a much younger CTO JB Straubel assembling one of Tesla’s early battery packs by hand.

And in a lot of ways, this strategy worked. Tesla’s in-house approach for the Model S was a key point in the vehicle’s allure to consumers. This carried over to the Model X, and now, the Model 3. With Tesla’s 2170 cells used in the Model 3 gaining rave reviews from teardown experts like Sandy Munro of Munro and Associates, and with the company preparing to release Software Version 9, Tesla is poised to take even bigger steps in its mission to usher the transition to sustainable mobility.
Tesla’s history is rife with criticism and doubts from the veterans of the auto industry, but now that the company has established itself as a leader in the premium electric car segment, its progress and breakthroughs now seem to be undeniable, even to traditional vehicle makers.
Just recently, a report from German publication Electrive emerged, citing insiders from Jaguar who noted that the veteran carmaker will be using Samsung SDI’s cylindrical 2170 battery cells for the electric cars it would produce from 2020 onwards. This is a big step for Jaguar, considering that the I-PACE, its first all-electric vehicle that can actually compete with the Model X 75D and 100D in terms of performance, is currently using pouch cells from LG Chem.
Using Samsung SDI’s 2170 cells for its electric cars’ batteries would likely benefit Jaguar, considering that the I-PACE is currently being bogged down by reports that the vehicle is lacking in efficiency and range. Jaguar might never admit it, but it’s not difficult to infer that the company’s decision to reportedly commit to 2170 cells was partly influenced by Tesla’s progress in its battery tech.
Tesla Model 3s side by side in a parking lot.
Another vehicle-maker is starting to see the value of software and its relationship to hardware. Earlier today, veteran motorcycle maker Harley-Davidson stated that it is planning to open a dedicated research and development facility in Silicon Valley to support its plans for its upcoming line of electric bikes. Harley-Davidson plans to release its first motorcycle, dubbed the “LiveWire,” sometime next year, and it would be the first of a line that features a “twist and go” system. The LiveWire is set to be followed by other electric bikes in 2022 as the company transitions to producing cleaner and possibly even quicker, more powerful vehicles.
Seemingly taking a cue from Tesla, Harley Davidson is now in full throttle recruiting Silicon Valley talent in electrical, software, and mechanical engineering. Just like Jaguar and its decision to commit to 2170 cells, Harley-Davidson’s decision to establish a Silicon Valley-based team seems to be inspired partly by Tesla and its software-focused electric cars.
Tesla is not a perfect company by any means, and its leader, Elon Musk, is not infallible. Musk himself would be the first to admit that Tesla committed a lot of errors in the past, and it is through these failures that the company was able to fail forward. Tesla is now a much more mature electric car maker that knows its market and knows what it’s doing; and if the recent updates from Jaguar and Harley-Davidson are any indication, it appears that other vehicle-makers are now starting to realize the value of Tesla’s experience.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk breaks his silence on the Starlink impact to Ukraine drones
Musk says the US military and president set Starshield limits, not SpaceX, amid Ukraine complaints.
Elon Musk says the speed limit cutting out Ukraine’s military Starlink terminals is not SpaceX’s decision. In a post on X Wednesday, Musk wrote that “Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the US government. Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the US military and ultimately POTUS.” He added that Starlink is a commercial service limited to civilian or defensive activities and “cannot be used for offensive military action, as doing so would be inappropriate for a commercial company.”
He was replying to Mykhailo Fedorov, Ukraine’s former defense minister, who had thanked Musk for restoring connectivity at speeds up to 160 km/h and said removing the Starshield limit entirely is “now critical for Ukraine’s defense.”
Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the US government. Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the US military and ultimately POTUS.
Starlink is a commercial service owned and controlled by SpaceX. Usage of Starlink is limited to civilian or defensive activities and cannot be used for offensive military action, as doing so would be inappropriate for a commercial company.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 14, 2026
The complaint started Tuesday night, when Ukrainian officials said military terminals began losing service above roughly 100 mph. Presidential adviser Serhiy Beskrestnov said the defense forces got no warning and several missions were disrupted, as Teslarati reported earlier Wednesday. The 7th Rapid Reaction Corps told Reuters connections dropped for 10 to 20 seconds at speeds well below the limit, which made drones harder to control. Poland’s foreign minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, asked Musk on X whether he is “playing politics with your products again.”
That is why the Starlink and Starshield distinction matters. SpaceX introduced Starshield in 2022 as the government version of Starlink, with an initial focus on Earth observation, communications and hosted payloads. It won a Space Force contract in 2023 with a $70 million ceiling. In December 2024, the Pentagon moved Ukraine’s terminals onto Starshield, covering about 3,000 units across two contracts. Ukraine’s military connections therefore run through a service that Musk now says sits under Washington’s control.
While Musk’s post describes who holds authority, it does not infer that anyone ordered the limit, and neither SpaceX nor the US government has confirmed who set it. Ukrainian officials have pointed to the timing, which follows President Trump’s push for an energy ceasefire and Musk’s Saturday post that “Zelensky has gone too far.” The BBC noted Trump denied threatening to restrict intelligence sharing with Kyiv, and no evidence has been presented that Washington requested the cap.
The episode also revives a promise from 2025. After Poland accused him of threatening Ukraine’s access, Musk said Starlink “will never turn off its terminals” and would not be used as a bargaining chip. Poland has since supplied more than 29,000 terminals to Ukraine. Teslarati also covered Kyiv’s search for Starlink alternatives in 2025, and the latest dispute gives that search new urgency.
Investor's Corner
Tesla opens the Q&A for its biggest earnings call yet
Tesla opens its Q3 earnings Q&A, and Cybercab, Robotaxi, Optimus and regulators loom over October 21.
Tesla has opened its shareholder question portal for the Q3 2026 earnings call, with the Say Q&A page already listing questions. Investors have until 4:00 p.m. EDT on October 20 to submit and vote on what management should answer.
The call is set for Wednesday, October 21. Tesla will post results after the market closes, with a live webcast at 4:30 p.m. CT, or 5:30 p.m. ET, through its investor relations site.
Say ranks questions by the number of shares behind the votes, which gives institutional holders extra weight over the retail crowd.
Ahead of Q2, retail investors asked why Robotaxi growth had stalled, when Cybercab would start customer rides, and where the Optimus Gen 3 ramp stood, while an institutional holder asked how Tesla and SpaceX would split Terafab duties. Cybercab has since answered one of those. Tesla said last week it has 300 plus Cybercabs serving Austin, up eightfold in 30 days, with Dallas named as the next city. The questions now are likely to move from when to how fast.
There is also a regulatory question hanging over the call. NHTSA has demanded sworn answers on how the pedal free Cybercab was certified against federal safety standards, with responses due October 30, nine days after the call. Whether an analyst raises it live is unknown, but it is the kind of exposure that tends to find its way into a Q&A.
The numbers will not be the main draw. Tesla already reported 486,532 deliveries and 13.7 GWh of storage for the quarter. Consensus sits around 43 to 45 cents per share on roughly $27.8 billion in revenue, according to Zacks, after a Q2 report that missed on EPS. Goldman Sachs, which holds a Neutral rating and a $360 target, argues the outlook for Robotaxi, FSD and Optimus will matter more to the stock than the quarter itself.
The call also lands six days after the rescheduled Roadster event, which Tesla will stream on X on Thursday, October 15, at 7:55 p.m. CT. If the Roadster shows up with a production date or a SpaceX thruster package, expect it to climb the voting list before the deadline.
Elon Musk
FAA kicks off review of SpaceX’s bid to fly Starship nearly every day
FAA is reviewing SpaceX’s plan for 456 Starship launches a year, up from 25 today.
The FAA said Tuesday that it will prepare an environmental impact statement on SpaceX’s proposal to run as many as 456 Starship launches and 912 landings a year from Starbase, Texas. SpaceX is currently authorized for 25 launches and 50 landings annually, which makes the request roughly 18 times the existing ceiling. The notice of intent is set to publish in the Federal Register on Wednesday.
The plan comes in two phases. Phase 1 would allow up to 100 launches and 200 landings a year, on any day and at any hour. Phase 2, which the FAA says could arrive within several years, would raise the limit to the full 456 launches, still at any hour but only on weekdays. The agency noted that 912 landings is the upper limit for the Texas facility no matter where a given mission begins, and that Starship and Super Heavy could come down at the launch site or in the Gulf and open ocean.
A draft statement will be released for public comment at a later date, and the FAA has not said when. According to the Federal Registar, written comments are due November 30 on regulations.gov under docket FAA-2026-12808, with in person scoping meetings on November 17 in Brownsville and November 19 in Port Isabel, plus a virtual session on November 18. The review will weigh air quality, wildlife, coastal resources, water, noise, and aviation, and the FAA said any increase beyond this proposal would need its own separate review.
The numbers look large next to what Starbase has actually done. Starship has flown three times from Texas this year, including Flight 14 on September 28, the first orbital flight, which deployed 26 Starlink V3 satellites. Bloomberg reported that Starbase has never launched more than five times in a calendar year. The current cap of 25 comes from an FAA approval in May 2025. In February, the agency also approved up to 44 Starship launches a year from Launch Complex 39A in Florida, so Phase 1 in Texas alone would more than double that allowance.
Musk has said Starship could eventually fly more than once per hour within less than a decade, per Bloomberg. The nearer term target is Flight 15. Musk said on October 10 that it is hopefully four to six weeks away and will try to catch the ship with the tower, as Teslarati covered. That flight still runs under the existing 25 launch limit, and so would every Starbase launch for as long as the new review takes.
As of mid morning Pacific time on Tuesday, SpaceX had not posted about the filing on its own account.