News
How Tesla Challenges Other Car Makers
Tesla challenges other car makers to build better cars says Diarmuid O’Connell, Telsa’s vice president of business development at an industry conference.
Tesla Motor service center. (Source: Tesla Motors)
Diarmuid O’Connell, Tesla’s VP of business development, had harsh words for competitors last week at the CAR management briefing seminars in Michigan. He told the group that Tesla challenges other car makers to build better cars.
“You can split the market of EVs into two programs,” he said. “Many are compliance programs. Exceptions are Nissan, ourselves and BMW. Most are focused on minimum compliance, lowest common denominator behavior, and the vehicles reflect that. In some respect, they are appliances, in terms of the way they look.”
CARB And The EPA
His remarks come at a time when two important regulatory programs are up for review. The California Air Resources Board is taking a look at its zero emissions vehicle policies and the Environmental Protection Agency is considering changes to its CAFE standards.
Traditional car makers are trying to get both agencies to relax those standards, but O’Connell says they should stop trying to “slow walk” the rate of progress toward a emissions free future and get busy building better cars. He says his company wants California and the EPA to raise their standards, not relax them.
“From an empirical standpoint, the [regulations] are very weak, eminently achievable and the only thing missing is the will to put compelling products on the road,” he said, according to The Wall Street Journal.
This week, Mary Nichols, CARB chairwoman since 2007, announced that she isn’t satisfied with having just a few electric cars on California roads. The current standard calls for 2.7% of all cars sold in California to be electric. Nichols wants to set the bar higher. In fact, she would like it if all the cars sold in California were electric by 2030.
For its part, the automotive industry is busy telling the EPA that the current CAFE standards are too high. Any further tightening would be bad for business. “We need consumers to buy them in high volumes to meet the steep climb in fuel economy standards ahead,” the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, an industry lobbying group, told the conference. The implication is that higher standards will kill the automotive business, cause massive layoffs, and have a negative impact on the economy.
This is precisely the same argument the automobile industry made about safety related changes in the ’50’s, seat belts in the 60’s, exhaust emission in the 70’s, airbags in the 90’s and better crash test performance at the beginning of the 21st century. Its complaints today are just more of the same.
CAFE Olay
The furor over EPA standards is actually a tempest in a teapot. On the surface of it, the 54.5 mpg requirement by 2025 seems like a huge increase above present day performance. But in reality, that standard is based on the old EPA mileage testing protocol, which was amended several years ago because it resulted in numbers that were wildly optimistic.
When the EPA adopted a new standard designed to better reflect real world expectations, it did not apply the new standard to the computation of the 2025 goal. If it did, that 54.5 mpg number would convert to around 37 mpg — which many of today’s cars are already capable of achieving.
To suggest that car companies cannot achieve a CAFE of 37 mpg using the current EPA protocol is patently absurd. In fact, a representative of Johnson Controls, one of the largest suppliers of components to the automobile manufacturing , said last year that car makers can easily meet the new standard and, in fact, many are already doing so today with internal combustion cars.
Charging Technology
One area where other manufacturers need to step up involves recharging technology for EVs and plug-in cars. At present, the best any of those other cars can handle is 50 kW. Tesla already has Superchargers with more than double that capacity. It’s new liquid cooled charging cables indicate the company has even higher power chargers in mind for the future.
O’Connell told the conference that drivers of competitors’ cars would be welcome to use the Supercharger network if only their cars were capable of handling the higher current. Tesla made its Supercharger patents public last year, but no other manufacturer has expressed any interest in them. Instead, the industry seems content to live with 50 kW “fast chargers” that really aren’t all that fast.
The Week In Review
Tesla has had a rough week. The stock market was disappointed with what Elon Musk had to say during the 2nd quarter conference call and punished the company’s stock, which closed down nearly 9% for the week.
The real question on people’s minds is whether Tesla will bring electric cars to the masses the way the Model T put the world on wheels almost a century ago, or whether it is a company that caters only to the wealthy and will flame out the way the Concorde SST did? If you are reading this, chances are we know how you would answer that question.
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.
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.
Investor's Corner
NASA taps SpaceX to launch the telescope that could unlock new worlds
NASA’s Roman Space Telescope heads to orbit this August aboard SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with massive scientific ambitions.
SpaceX is set to play a central role in one of NASA’s most anticipated science missions in years. The company’s Falcon Heavy rocket, currently the most powerful operational launch vehicle in the world, will carry the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope into orbit on August 30 from Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Roman is now in final preparations inside the Payload Hazardous Servicing Facility, where on June 26 technicians used a crane to lift the observatory into a specialized stand for fueling and pre-launch testing.
Roman is named after Nancy Grace Roman, NASA’s first chief of astronomy, whose career helped shape how the agency approaches space science.
NASA chose SpaceX Falcon Heavy because of Roman’s needs to reach a specific orbit far from Earth, well beyond where a standard Falcon 9 can deliver it. The Falcon Heavy, which first flew in 2018, has since become NASA’s go-to option for missions that need serious muscle without the cost and complexity of older launch systems.
Celebrating SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy Tesla Roadster launch, seven years later (Op-Ed)
Roman will carry a field of view at least 100 times wider than the Hubble Space Telescope, meaning it can photograph enormous swaths of the universe in a single shot rather than the narrow slices Hubble captures. That difference in scale is significant. While Hubble reshaped our understanding of the cosmos over 30 years, Roman is built to work faster and wider, surveying hundreds of millions of galaxies at once.
One of Roman’s most compelling capabilities is its potential to discover and photograph planets orbiting stars outside our solar system, and with enough precision to directly image planets that would otherwise be lost. That means scientists could study the atmosphere and surface characteristics of distant worlds rather than simply confirming they exist. Combined with Roman’s sweeping field of view, the telescope could detect thousands of exoplanets, and some of those planets may be in habitable zones where liquid water could exist. No telescope currently in operation has this level of power and capability. That capability alone could change what we know about other worlds, and perhaps finally answer the question: are we the only intelligent lifeforms in existence?
What Roman actually finds once it reaches orbit is an open question, and that is exactly what makes this launch worth watching.
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
Tesla analyst says Full Self-Driving is about to have its iPhone moment
