News
Tesla’s rise is unmasking Japan’s risk of being left behind
Tesla has been one of the automakers that have actually managed to thrive this year despite the pandemic. And as the electric car maker continues its rise, it is becoming pretty clear that legacy automakers who refuse to ride the transition to renewable transport risk getting left behind. This is the case even if the automaker in question is Toyota, the previous Number 1 carmaker by market cap.
Tesla only sells a fraction of the vehicles sold by Toyota every year, but the electric car maker has a market cap that is around $370 billion now. That’s roughly equivalent to the annual gross domestic product of Hong Kong, and it’s nowhere near reaching its full potential yet. TSLA bulls like Cathie Wood of ARK Invest note that Tesla’s Autopilot tech and data are pretty much ignored for now, and billionaire investor Ron Baron argues that Tesla Energy has as much potential as the company’s EV business.
Tesla is showing rapid growth across the globe, and this is no more evident than in China, a country that is currently home to the company’s first offshore Gigafactory in Shanghai. Thanks to this, as well as grassroots efforts that make Teslas widely supported by the Chinese government, the company is poised to reap benefits in the country. In Japan, however, things could not be more different. Tesla may have close ties with Japan thanks to its longtime battery partnership with Panasonic and its previous deal with Toyota, but today, the far east country’s mainstream vehicle market remains out of reach for the Silicon Valley-based maker.
Despite this, William Pesek, an award-winning Tokyo-based journalist and author of “Japanization: What the World Can Learn from Japan’s Lost Decades,” argues that Tesla’s rise across the globe further highlights how Japan’s auto market is still stuck in first gear. In an article on the Nikkei Asian Review, Pesek noted that what Japan is so far missing in the Tesla picture is the fact that Elon Musk does not sell cars. While Japan is still busy focusing on hardware, Tesla is already exploring software, allowing Elon Musk to pretty much sell than iPhone on wheels. This ensures that Tesla is capable of embracing the next generation of motoring.
“What Toyota long missed about Musk is that he is not selling cars. He is selling an iPhone with wheels. The vehicle itself is merely a medium to market the software undergirding the iTunes-like community that he is building. The data Tesla collects from users, their environs, interests, tendencies, travel habits and the range of behaviors will arguably be more valuable than the engines and high-performance batteries powering them. This enables Tesla to hone the customer experience, while discerning where the market will veer next,” Pesek wrote.
Perhaps what Japan really needs right now is to embrace the fact that sometimes, disruption is a necessary evil during times of transition. Strictly speaking, legacy automakers like Toyota should have no problem catching up to Tesla by, say 2025, due to their massive talent pool and resources. This does not seem to be case, however, as carmakers like Toyota have a tendency to focus more on legacy than innovation. Toyota has refined its car making processes through decades of refinements, and its global supply chain helps create millions of jobs. This, while noble in a way, is a weight that a company like Tesla simply does not have.
Tesla moves fast, fails fast, and innovates fast. The company’s vertical integration allows it to implement changes and improvements as soon as they are ready. Granted, automakers like Toyota could not adopt such changes overnight, but efforts must be done to increase innovation. This is something that Japanese companies are capable of doing, as seen in the continued efforts of Panasonic’s and its longtime battery partnership with Tesla in Gigafactory Nevada. Perhaps companies like Toyota, Nissan, Honda, and the other premier Japanese carmakers could do the same.
For now, it appears that Elon Musk has already won. So great is the gap in the electric vehicle market that newcomers like Lucid Motors and Rivian Automotive seem to have a better chance at catching Tesla than legacy carmakers. But amidst this threat of being permanently left behind, veterans in the auto market could also see this time as an opportunity to change and raise their electric vehicle game. If there’s anything that Tesla’s rise shows, after all, it is that renewable solutions are the new standard, and they are here to stay.
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
