News
Tesla’s disruption is making Germany’s elite automakers very tense about the future
There was once a time when Germany’s largest automakers looked on with amusement as Tesla, a small Silicon Valley electric car maker, purchased a gigantic car factory in Fremont, CA to produce its first ground-up premium sedan. Today, amidst the Model 3’s disruption and the impending arrival of the Model Y, it appears that no one in Das Auto is laughing anymore.
Electrification is something that used to be scoffed at, especially among the industry’s serious players. When Tesla was starting out, the transportation sector was still fully committed to the internal combustion engine. And in this era, Germany’s elite three — Daimler, Volkswagen, and BMW — reigned supreme. Their vehicles were sought after, and they were known for their power and pedigree. That was, at least, until upstart companies such as Tesla entered the picture.
Tesla represented everything that legacy auto was not. Instead of relying fully on a vast dealer network, Tesla sold its cars on its own. Instead of relying on a network of suppliers, Tesla adopted a vertically-integrated model. Instead of spamming its cars with all the plush amenities found in traditional luxury cars, Tesla’s EVs were spartan and minimalistic. These little differences, coupled with the fact that its vehicles are unlike any other on the road in terms of performance and tech, made the electric car maker a brand to watch among consumers looking to purchase a vehicle.

What really makes Tesla a pretty concerning opponent is the company’s dedication to its mission — to accelerate the advent of sustainability. This means that the company is about so much more than just profits. It’s a company that is legitimately trying its best to change the world, and it is beckoning everyone for support. And support it has gained. Among automakers, Tesla currently stands supreme according to social media presence. Today, the Model 3 is outselling mainstays like the BMW M3, and the arrival of the Model Y could end up disrupting a market previously held by cars like the Porsche Macan.
Today, Tesla stands as a leader in the EV market, with vehicles that have advanced driver-assist features such as Autopilot, a Full Self-Driving suite that includes capabilities like Smart Summon, and a system that constantly improves through free over-the-air updates. With these, Tesla’s electric cars such as the Model S and Model 3 have dominated their respective EV segments.
So how did Tesla end up disrupting the market even if Das Auto had all the resources all along to beat Tesla at its own game years ago? Perhaps it’s hubris, or maybe it was simply an honest mistake. Nevertheless, Tesla has now reached a point where it would be very difficult to reach and overtake, especially when it comes to the tech and batteries of its vehicles. This was highlighted when Volkswagen reportedly got its hands on a Mid Range Tesla Model 3. After tearing down the vehicle, the veteran automaker was reportedly shocked at how advanced the vehicle was.

Sajjad Khan, a Pakistani-born Daimler executive who is a member of the divisional board for CASE (Connected, Autonomous, Shared, Electric) at Mercedes-Benz, believes that this does not need to be the case. In a recent town hall meeting, Khan told an audience that the time is nigh for Germany’s auto sector to get a wake-up call.
“We need a wake-up call. We have to change fundamentally — as individuals, as departments, as a company, as a country. If we don’t, we’re going to be facing tough times ahead. We need to rebuild the mentality that made the economic miracle (in postwar Germany) possible. And we can’t wait until we have fallen on our faces to do this,” he said.
Fortunately, it may be too premature to dismiss Germany’s veteran automakers and their EV efforts. Porsche proved to the world that it can match and perhaps even exceed the performance of Tesla’s flagship sedan with the Taycan, though it had to make do with significantly less range and a far higher price. Volkswagen, for its part, is spending large amounts in its efforts to produce electric vehicles. The company is looking to conduct its ramp quickly, to the point where it would no longer sell diesel and gasoline cars by 2040.
That’s what one could call the end of an era.
Investor's Corner
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
News
Tesla headlights cause recall of over 20,000 Model 3 and Model Y
Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.
Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”
Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.
🚨 Tesla is recalling 20,349 2020-23 Model Y vehicles and 2017-23 Model 3 vehicles due to an excessively bright headlamp low beam.
Currently, there is no remedy plan in place, as it is still being developed. pic.twitter.com/y34cIO2U0B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 11, 2026
Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.
However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.
Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.
Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.
Elon Musk
Another Tesla SpaceX merger prediction by ARK Invest has Elon Musk talking
Elon Musk again denies a Tesla China split as new SpaceX merger speculation resurfaces quickly.
Elon Musk restated that Tesla has no plans to separate its China business from the rest of the company, responding to a new round of merger speculation from ARK Invest.
On the firm’s “Brainstorm” podcast, Cathie Wood’s team, including chief futurist Brett Winton and research director Nick Grous, argued a Tesla and SpaceX combination remains likely, with an announcement possible before the end of the year even if the deal itself would not close that quickly. Winton called Tesla’s Shanghai operations a “small ish wrinkle” for a merger rather than a real obstacle, since SpaceX’s national security work with the U.S. government sits uneasily next to Tesla’s manufacturing base in China.
Musk pushed back on the framing directly. “China is awesome. I strongly encourage people to visit,” he wrote on X. He also repeated language he first used in late July, when the Wall Street Journal reported that Tesla executives had been told to prepare for a possible spinoff, sale, or closure of the China business ahead of a SpaceX tie up. Musk called that report “absurdly fake news” at the time, adding that a separation had “never even come up in a discussion ever,” a line he echoed again this week.
The repeated denial has not settled the underlying question, because Shanghai’s role in Tesla’s business is exactly what makes a merger complicated. Gigafactory Shanghai still ships more than half of Tesla’s global deliveries and functions as the company’s main export hub for Europe and Asia. Teslarati previously reported on Musk’s initial denial, and the merger conversation itself has been building since SpaceX’s IPO gave it public shares to use as acquisition currency.
Wedbush’s Dan Ives has pegged the odds of a Tesla SpaceX merger at 80 to 90 percent by early 2027, and ARK’s prediction of a year end announcement adds another data point to that timeline, even as Musk keeps rejecting the specific mechanics reporters have described. Neither position rules out the other. Musk can deny a China spinoff was ever discussed while analysts still expect some form of combination to move forward, since ARK and Ives are both describing convergence at the corporate level, not necessarily the internal restructuring the Journal described in July.
For now, Tesla’s China business remains intact, and Musk’s comments this week make clear he has no interest in publicly walking that position back, no matter how often the merger question resurfaces.
