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.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
