The Tesla community is one of the more polarizing groups that exists in the world of cars. It appears that it is almost 50/50 in terms of whether supporters of Tesla are willing to lend their support to other manufacturers. Some aren’t willing to hear other companies out.
While there isn’t an overwhelming push in one way or another, one thing is for certain: Tesla supporters love Tesla. But whether they’re willing to commend another automaker for developments that they may have made or cars they plan to build is a different story.
For years, Tesla was always considered a car company that didn’t have much potential. It didn’t have much money. It didn’t have many proven automotive industry veterans behind the engineering or supply chain of their cars, and it was trying to convince people that gas was inferior to electric. In 2008, this wasn’t a simple task. It was closer to impossible at the time.
Only a few people could afford Tesla’s Roadster, which was all apart of the plan so the company could pile up some funding for future projects. But on top of that, even if it was affordable, would people have bought it? Who knows.
This is a preview from our weekly newsletter. Each week I go ‘Beyond the News’ and handcraft a special edition that includes my thoughts on the biggest stories, why it matters, and how it could impact the future.
But after Tesla started manufacturing the Model S, people began to really listen. People had invested their money into the company’s IPO just two years earlier, and the Model S was the sleek, fast, and pretty car that everyone wanted. But it was still an uphill climb. After the Model X came out, it wasn’t much of a difference; it was just the SUV version of an electric car. But the Model 3 came around and convinced many people around the world that Tesla was for real. It had built a car that people could afford. It had great range, it had performance. Most of all, Tesla proved that it could mass-produce a vehicle, even if it was hell.
Slowly but surely, the doubters switched sides. They realized they had been all wrong about Tesla, but the early investors and the people who have believed in the company since the beginning weren’t having it. Who could blame them?
They had believed in Tesla from the start. They were the ones who knew that Elon Musk could lead the company to a new era, and they were right. Now that others are coming on board, there is a spot in that where many of us can feel a bit of sympathy for them. If you weren’t with us then, don’t be with us now. Hints of a bandwagon feel come to mind when explaining this situation. It’s almost reminiscent of how I see a lot of Chiefs hats and jackets at the store now. I don’t for a second believe there are this many Kansas City fans in York County, PA.
I don’t necessarily disagree with what the Tesla loyal fans are doing. They have believed in Tesla since day 1, and now that it’s the most valuable car company in the world and is successful, many people are on board, and that can be not very pleasant.
However, more fans means more sales, which means the stock price goes up. It means there are more EVs on the road instead of gas cars, and it means Tesla’s mission is coming true. While the fandom is something that can be chalked up to a “bandwagon feel,” maybe some people just wanted proof that Tesla was for real, and I can understand that too.
Tesla’s Day 1’s also have had to deal with other car companies casting stones in Tesla’s direction for years. GM, Ford, all of these companies didn’t care about making EVs. They would roll out one or two models, some of them never even making it to production lines. Then they would say Tesla’s business model was ridiculous or unsustainable. Now, they’re drawing inspiration from that “unsustainable” company. Interesting how that works, isn’t it?
Now that other car companies are all about the electric mission, they’re claiming their car is the “Tesla Killer” (a term I have come to hate in my time as an automotive journalist). They’re claiming their batteries will be better, and their cars will be cheaper. Blah blah blah, we’ve all heard it before. The problem is these companies continue to talk the talk but not walk the walk. They’re always saying how they will be the next big thing, but it rarely comes to fruition considering car companies constantly delay releases or do away with projects completely.
On the other hand, Elon has always been an open supporter of more car companies making more EVs. It all contributes, and I don’t think he’s ever taken any criticism very personally; I would imagine he’s used it as motivation based on the way things have turned out. I personally commend him for always taking the high road and never being petty or ugly toward a car company that hasn’t supported him. I think it only added fuel to the fire for him and made him want to accomplish the Master Plan that much more.
But if we all love Elon and support him and are thankful for what he’s done for the EV community, should we take his guidance and support other car companies for what they’re trying to do? Is it just a lost cause? What do you make of other car companies trying to release effective modes of electric transport?
Personally, I support any EV. I will never say that any EV is better than Tesla’s because I truly believe they are the best EVs out there. I think there are always things to work on, but if you want something that will be dependable and deliver great range, Tesla is the best option currently.
I do like other car companies, too. Rivian and Lucid are both showing tremendous potential, and I think they have a great chance to be right there in a few years. Volkswagen will always have a little place in my heart since the first car I ever had was a 1998 Jetta K2, but I think they have a lot of work to do. It will get done, I’m sure, but if I am going to support an EV company that once produced ICE, it will be VW.
I would love to hear what your thoughts are on this. I want to know if you support other car companies that are producing EVs, or are you Tesla-loyal? Let’s keep it respectful as always. Please do not openly attack any company or attack anyone else’s beliefs. Try and be as respectful as you can and consider everyone’s opinions.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
I use this newsletter to share my thoughts on what is going on in the Tesla world. If you want to talk to me directly, you can email me or reach me on Twitter. I don’t bite, be sure to reach out!
Elon Musk said weeks ago during SpaceX’s third-quarter earnings call that the company’s Grok Bot, its autonomous AI Agent platform, was showing “the fastest growth of a product” that he’d ever seen in his life.
Now, SpaceXSI is scaling back Grok Bot users’ weekly limits, much to the surprise of those who have relied on it to take away monotonous tasks in their lives.
Elon Musk’s terse November 1 reply on X captured a sharp tension in the early days of agentic AI. Responding to a user who asked for a Grok Bot usage reset after hitting 100 percent with four days still left on the weekly cycle, Musk wrote: “The cost of serving Grok Bot was unsustainably high relative to revenue.”
@DogecoinNorway The cost of serving Grok Bot was unsustainably high relative to revenue
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 1, 2026
The post arrived amid a wave of similar complaints from paying subscribers whose meters had jumped unexpectedly toward or to the limit, sometimes overnight and with little corresponding activity. It also stood in clear contrast to statements Musk had made only days and weeks earlier.
On the SpaceX third-quarter earnings call in mid-to-late October, Musk had described Grok Bot in almost the opposite terms. He called it “the fastest growth of a product that I’ve ever seen in my life” and said he had “never seen anything grow this fast.”
Company figures put paid weekly users at roughly 800,000 earlier in the month, more than doubling over the prior period. Daily active users had climbed from under 100,000 in early September to over 600,000 by late October.
Musk emphasized that the product has no free tier and that users appear to be getting real value beyond what they pay. In other remarks, he noted that usage per user was rising rather than declining, the opposite of the usual decay pattern for new software.
Grok Bot, launched around August, functions as an always-available agent with its own persistent cloud computer; it can schedule, research, shop, browse, and execute multi-step workflows even after the user steps away. Access is bundled into X subscription tiers (roughly $30, $100, and $200 per month) and certain Cursor plans, drawing from shared weekly usage pools whose exact sizes have not been publicly detailed.
The economics of that model are what Musk’s November 1 post put in the spotlight. Agentic systems burn far more compute than ordinary chatbot exchanges. Each task can trigger repeated model calls, tool use, web actions, and sustained background work.
When growth is as rapid as Musk celebrated, the absolute compute bill scales quickly even if average revenue per user stays fixed under flat monthly subscriptions. Industry observers noted the opportunity cost as well: the same GPUs can be rented to other AI labs at higher rates.
A simple back-of-the-envelope comparison circulating after the post illustrated the gap: if every reported daily user paid the top tier, annualized subscription revenue would still be modest relative to the scale of compute infrastructure SpaceX is building and leasing to companies like Anthropic.
Some users also reported possible dashboard anomalies around the same period, though Musk’s framing treated the underlying cost-revenue imbalance as the core issue rather than a pure metering glitch.
The juxtaposition is the core of this exchange. Within roughly two weeks of publicly framing Grok Bot as an unprecedented success with strong unit economics and no free tier, Musk acknowledged that serving the same product had become unsustainable relative to the revenue it generates.
For the broader industry, the episode underscores a structural challenge of the agent era: demand is real and growing faster than many expected, yet the cost of fulfilling that demand through always-on, multi-step agents can outrun subscription pricing before companies can adjust limits, introduce metered billing, or raise prices.
Musk’s reply did not promise an immediate reset or higher allowances; it simply stated the constraint. In doing so, it supplied a rare, explicit public data point on the unit economics of a high-profile AI agent just as adoption numbers were still being celebrated as the fastest in Musk’s experience.
The tension between rapid, paid growth and the compute required to deliver it is now on the record.
News
Tesla owners who tap Emergency Drive Away for fun are in for a surprise
Tapping Activate on Tesla’s Emergency Drive Away reportedly triggers a $539 service bill without moving.
Tesla owners who press Activate on Emergency Drive Away may be on the hook for a service bill even if their car never leaves the Supercharger stall.
Yaro, who posts about Tesla service cases on X as @Tutrifour, said a customer called after tapping Activate while still plugged into a Supercharger. The owner was about to pull away, remembered the cable was still connected and stopped. The car never moved, but the touchscreen showed a red alert reading “Emergency Drive Away has been activated” with “Service is required” underneath. A Service Mode screenshot showed the active alert BMS_a228_EmergencyDriveAwayServiceRequired, which Yaro said only Tesla Service can clear.
Here is a lesson to Tesla owners. Don’t press Activate on the new Emergency Drive Away feature on your Tesla because service charges $539 to inspect the charge port and to clear the alert. Yes, even if you didn’t move the car an inch. https://t.co/NZJENw4SQv
— Yaro (@Tutrifour) October 30, 2026
The cost of clearing it was the bigger surprise. “Don’t press Activate on the new Emergency Drive Away feature on your Tesla because service charges $539 to inspect the charge port and to clear the alert. Yes, even if you didn’t move the car an inch,” Yaro wrote. The $539 figure comes from that single case, and Tesla has not published a set price for the inspection or commented on the post. Yaro also noted that the car would still charge with the alert on screen.
Tesla launched Emergency Drive Away on October 1 with software update 2026.38.3, letting drivers pull away from a U.S. Supercharger with the cable still attached, as Teslarati reported. To use it, a driver shifts into Drive while connected, holds the brake and taps Activate. The prompt warns that driving with the cable connected will damage the vehicle and the Supercharger, and that short camera recordings will be shared with Tesla.
Tesla Charging has been clear about what follows a real activation. Repairs to a Supercharger stall can run up to $25,000 depending on the site, a service visit for the car’s charge port is mandatory, and deliberate misuse “will invoke additional penalties.” What the company had not spelled out is that the service requirement is triggered the moment Activate is pressed, not the moment the cable breaks away.
From an engineering standpoint, that is the cautious choice. Once Activate is pressed, the car cannot be sure the charge port latch was not stressed, so flagging it for inspection removes the guesswork. It also means the button carries a price on its own, which is a stronger deterrent against casual use than any warning screen.
Customer called because they have an active alert after tapping ACTIVATE on the new Emergency Drive Away feature. They didn’t actually drive away but were about to until they “remembered” they had the charge cable connected.
This alert can only be cleared by Tesla Service. https://t.co/SkHyJJPFwU
— Yaro (@Tutrifour) October 28, 2026
The report follows the feature’s first known real world use, when a driver in Austin during F1 weekend appeared to trigger it by accident and dragged the Supercharger cable along with the car. The Reddit user who filmed it said the driver seemed to have only half read the prompts.
For owners, the takeaway is to treat the red prompt as a stop sign. If it appears after shifting out of Park by mistake, shift back and unplug the normal way from the touchscreen, the Tesla app or the button on the charge handle. Activate is meant for moments when staying at the stall is the bigger risk, and Tesla is now pricing it that way.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk calls Earth’s data centers “peanuts” next to what SpaceX is planning in orbit
Elon Musk says SpaceX capex efficiency is underestimated as orbital data centers loom by 2028.
Elon Musk is pushing back on one of the biggest worries hanging over SpaceX stock. In a reply on X on Sunday, Musk said the company’s capital expenditure efficiency is severely underestimated. He was responding to a Milk Road Stocks post citing analyst Kyle Reidhead, who estimates SpaceX will need to spend roughly $470 billion over the next five quarters.
Reidhead built that figure around the target SpaceX set on its third quarter earnings call: 13 gigawatts or more of compute by the end of 2027. In his breakdown, Nvidia captures 83 to 89 percent of the spending. SpaceX ended the quarter with 1.7 GW of nameplate compute and guided to $35 billion to $40 billion in fourth quarter capex, as Teslarati reported.
Musk did not attach a number to his claim, but the earnings call shows the argument. CFO Bret Johnsen said new compute currently pays for itself in under a year at today’s pricing, and Musk said that window could shrink to six months next year. Using that pace, Reidhead argues about $230 billion of the $470 billion could come from operating cash flow and about $60 billion from SpaceX’s roughly $90 billion cash pile, leaving around $180 billion to borrow. Musk confirmed last week that SpaceX had already closed a new $40 billion debt raise to buy GPUs.
The ground buildout is not the end goal. It is what is meant to pay for the move to orbit. Replying on Friday to charts built from Sequoia partner Shaun Maguire’s SpaceX model, Musk wrote that “Terrestrial compute will be peanuts compared to orbital compute,” adding that orbital compute deployed per month “probably exceeds terrestrial around the end of 2028 and then far exceeds it in 2029.”
Maguire’s model shows how steep that path is. It has capex climbing from $88 billion this year to $290 billion in 2027 and $369 billion in 2028, with SpaceX burning $77.8 billion in cash this year and $122.6 billion next year before turning $114.9 billion cash positive in 2028. Musk’s response to the model was, “I think we can do better.”
The orbital half runs through Starmind. SpaceX plans to operate up to 1 million AI satellites flying in clusters of about 10, linked by roughly 10 terabits of bandwidth, with deployment of thousands of units starting as soon as late 2027 out of its Gigasat factory in Bastrop, Texas, according to SpaceX’s space safety page. Musk has said each Starmind spacecraft will carry more than 250 kW of solar power.
Getting there depends on launch volume. Maguire’s model assumes 250 Starship flights in 2028, up from two this year and 38 next year. The nearer test is financial: SpaceX guided to $33 billion to $37 billion in first quarter 2027 revenue, more than double the $14.58 billion it booked in Q3, and Musk reposted that guidance again on Sunday morning.
Grok Bot users hit with weekly limits early, Elon Musk explains what happened
Tesla owners who tap Emergency Drive Away for fun are in for a surprise
