News
Tesla Power Play: Why running a contested Elon Musk narrative is playing with fire
Award-winning journalist Tim Higgins‘ book, “Power Play: Tesla, Elon Musk, and the Bet of the Century,” is among the most recent explorations into the fascinating character of Elon Musk. But unlike other works such as the still-definitive biography from writer Ashley Vance, Higgins’ book chronicled Tesla’s story during the Model X and Model 3 ramp (among others), periods that Musk himself admitted were among the most challenging times of his professional life.
Filled with stories from numerous sources and spanning Tesla’s history from its early days to last year’s pandemic, Power Play painted a picture of how an incredibly determined Elon Musk practically willed Tesla into being, and how his ego and pettiness caused the company to pay the price more than once. This was a point that moderate Tesla critics would argue: Tesla is a success today not because of its CEO, but in spite of Elon Musk.
After all, as the book noted in its Prologue, Musk may be a very public figure, but there is still a question surrounding him. “Is Elon Musk an underdog, an antihero, a con man, or some combination of the three?” Higgins noted in the book.
A Strong Story with Strong Denials
A book written about Tesla’s most turbulent years is bound to have some controversial elements. And in Power Play, few excerpts would be as controversial as a supposed call between Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Apple CEO Tim Cook in 2016. At the time, Tesla was in dire financial straits as it attempted to produce the Model 3 and master the Model X’s production. According to the book, Tim Cook then had an idea: Perhaps it would be a good idea to buy Tesla. Musk reportedly proved interested, but on one condition: he stays on as CEO.
Cook thought the condition was reasonable. After all, when Apple bought Beats in 2014, it decided to keep the company’s original founders. Musk, however, supposedly clarified his request, stating that he’d have to be the CEO of Apple. Gobsmacked at the request, Cook reportedly gave Musk a solid “F*ck you” before hanging up the phone.
The anecdote was shocking enough, and it prompted quite a lot of coverage from the mainstream media, several of whom argued that the story was believable. This was despite the story being denied by both Musk and Cook. Last year, Musk remarked on Twitter that he did try to arrange a meeting with the Apple CEO during the Model 3’s most painful days, but Cook declined the meeting. Cook, on the other hand, clearly told The New York Times‘ Kara Swisher during an appearance at the Sway podcast that he’d never spoken to the Tesla CEO.
Power Play did mention that Cook denied the anecdote presented in the book, though it did not include Musk’s comments about him and the Apple CEO never speaking with each other. The book mentioned, however, that while the two executives claimed to have never spoken to each other, Musk and Cook have been photographed sitting close together at a meeting held by former US President Donald Trump in 2016.
A Compelling Narrative for a Compelling Character
In a Twitter post, Higgins stated that the tale of Musk and Cook’s phone conversation was a story told inside Tesla, and its details were related by individuals who heard it. That being said, it is still quite interesting to see that the anecdote made it to Power Play despite solid denials from both Cook and Musk. The book was published August 2021, after all, and Cook’s comments in the Sway podcast were published on April 2021. Musk’s statements about never meeting Cook, despite relating to a different time in Tesla’s history, were made even earlier in December 2020.
It should be noted that Power Play is, at its core, a nonfiction book that aims to provide a nonfictional account of some of Tesla’s most challenging times. This is why, at least to some degree, a story denied by both participants like the supposed Musk-Cook conversation seems far too risky. A nonfiction writing coach contacted by Teslarati noted that an author would typically be hard-pressed to find a more reliable source than the actual participants of an event.
That being said, the anecdote does help establish the character of Elon Musk in the book as someone egoistic enough that he would make an obviously unreasonable demand on Tim Cook at a time when Tesla desperately needed Apple’s help. There is no doubt that the image of Tim Cook, who is known for always being soft-spoken and well-mannered, giving Elon Musk a sharp “F*ck you” on the phone definitely makes for a compelling narrative.
Dr. John Cook, founder of Skeptical Science and a specialist on false news, noted in a statement to Teslarati that stories such as the two CEOs’ supposed conversation could easily become an inspiration for conspiracy theories, or at least confirm people’s preconceptions of individuals in power. The Skeptical Science founder noted that when people encounter new information that confirms their own preconceptions, there is simply a high likelihood that they would believe it, even if the anecdote’s turthfulness is contested.
“When you have powerful people involved in misinformation, that’s ground for conspiracy theories. So having people like Elon Musk and Tim Cook — inevitably, people get suspicious of people in positions of power, and that’s a very human and natural bias called intentionality bias. We tend to ascribe motives and intent behind what can even be random events. And that’s especially the case when you have powerful people,” Dr. Cook said.
The Burden of Truth
Nonfiction writers have a huge burden on their shoulders, as the stories they tell serve the purpose of relating a truthful recounting of real-life events. As such, it is pretty common practice for books in the genre not to include stories that don’t have corroborating evidence. Otherwise, a nonfiction author might end up countering the nonfiction values of truth and honesty.
Emma Frances Bloomfield, Assistant Professor of Communication Studies at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, told Teslarati that the burden of proof ultimately rests on the author in cases like the Musk-Cook phone call. And if an author does decide to push through with a story denied by the people involved, then the anecdote would be best presented as a contested account so that readers could decide for themselves. Power Play did this to a point for Cook’s side with its note about the Apple CEO’s denial, but the book did not mention Musk’s comments on Twitter at all.
“If a story is presented as being truthful and accurate (such as in a nonfiction book), the storyteller has a burden of proof to verify the story or provide evidence of its truthfulness, which is hard to do when the people the story is about are denying it. If the author has some external reason to believe it still happened, then it could certainly be told, but with the caveat that the people in question dispute it.
“We don’t, of course, want to promote falsehoods and inaccuracies, so making it clear how much evidence there is for certain occurrences is crucial. Because this book is under ‘nonfiction’ as opposed to historical fiction, I would expect that there is a minimum truth quality to all of the work therein. In other words, the author must have a compelling reason to believe the conversation took place even though Musk and Cook dispute it,” she wrote.
Playing with Fire
There is some irony in the idea that by publishing the contested story of Musk and Cook’s supposed conversation, Higgins ended up playing with fire himself, much like the character depicting the Tesla CEO in Power Play. Pushing through with a contested narrative carries some risk, and not just in terms of social media clout. In a message to Teslarati, Jonathan Crafts, a partner at Fields & Dennis LLP, Wellesley, MA, stated that both the author and publisher of Power Play might be at risk of legal trouble, at least if either Musk or Cook seeks an injunction against them.
Intellectual Property Litigation Law partner Craig R. Smith of Lando & Anastasi, LLP, Boston, MA, added more insights to the potential risks involved when an author runs with a contested story. Smith noted in a message to Teslarati that overall, authors and publishers of nonfiction are at an increased risk of being sued for defamation due to the nature of their work. “In this situation, either Musk or Cook could allege that the statements made in the book are false and that the false statements harmed his reputation,” Smith said.
Every book has a narrative, regardless of whether it is fiction or nonfiction. Books such as Power Play are character-driven since it focuses on people’s struggles as they attempt what could very well be described as the impossible at the time. And central to the book’s narrative is the polarizing figure of Elon Musk, whose persona both online and offline could be the perfect bait for misinformation and conspiracy theories. And while tales with little truth are definitely questionable, Dr. Cook noted that it is easy to see why people tend to gravitate towards them.
“Conspiracy theories can be compelling because they’re simple stories with compelling characters. A conspiracy theory doesn’t even have to have a relation to the truth at all. But if it’s a simple story with villains, with nefarious intent — that grabs people’s imaginations — and simple stories like that are easier to process and understand than more complicated truths,” Dr. John Cook remarked.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with account tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
News
Tesla removes Safety Monitors, begins fully autonomous Robotaxi testing
This development, in terms of the Robotaxi program, is massive. Tesla has been working incredibly hard to expand its fleet of Robotaxi vehicles to accommodate the considerable demand it has experienced for the platform.
Tesla has started Robotaxi testing in Austin, Texas, without any vehicle occupants, the company’s CEO Elon Musk confirmed on Sunday. Two Tesla Model Y Robotaxi units were spotted in Austin traveling on public roads with nobody in the car.
The testing phase begins just a week after Musk confirmed that Tesla would be removing Safety Monitors from its vehicles “within the next three weeks.” Tesla has been working to initiate driverless rides by the end of the year since the Robotaxi fleet was launched back in June.
Two units were spotted, with the first being seen from the side and clearly showing no human beings inside the cabin of the Model Y Robotaxi:
A Tesla without a driver was spotted traveling on public roads! pic.twitter.com/ZLbduf4cKa
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) December 14, 2025
Another unit, which is the same color but was confirmed as a different vehicle, was spotted just a few moments later:
NEWS: A second Tesla Model Y Robotaxi running FSD Unsupervised has just been spotted driving itself on public roads in Austin, Texas, with no one in the front seats.
This is a different car from the one spotted earlier. They have different license plates.
h/t @Mandablorian https://t.co/5URYsUGyD0 pic.twitter.com/CIUi4mXi33
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) December 14, 2025
The two units are traveling in the general vicinity of the South Congress and Dawson neighborhoods of downtown Austin. These are located on the southside of the city.
This development, in terms of the Robotaxi program, is massive. Tesla has been working incredibly hard to expand its fleet of Robotaxi vehicles to accommodate the considerable demand it has experienced for the platform.
However, the main focus of the Robotaxi program since its launch in the Summer was to remove Safety Monitors and initiate completely driverless rides. This effort is close to becoming a reality, and the efforts of the company are coming to fruition.
Testing is underway with no occupants in the car
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 14, 2025
It is a drastic step in the company’s trek for self-driving technology, as it plans to expand it to passenger vehicles in the coming years. Tesla owners have plenty of experience with the Full Self-Driving suite, which is not fully autonomous, but is consistently ranked among the best-performing platforms in the world.
News
Tesla refines Full Self-Driving, latest update impresses where it last came up short
We were able to go out and test it pretty extensively on Saturday, and the changes Tesla made from the previous version were incredibly impressive, especially considering it seemed to excel where it last came up short.
Tesla released Full Self-Driving v14.2.1.25 on Friday night to Early Access Program (EAP) members. It came as a surprise, as it was paired with the release of the Holiday Update.
We were able to go out and test it pretty extensively on Saturday, and the changes Tesla made from the previous version were incredibly impressive, especially considering it seemed to excel where it last came up short.
Tesla supplements Holiday Update by sneaking in new Full Self-Driving version
With Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2.1, there were some serious regressions. Speed Profiles were overtinkered with, causing some modes to behave in a strange manner. Hurry Mode was the most evident, as it refused to go more than 10 MPH over the speed limit on freeways.
It would routinely hold up traffic at this speed, and flipping it into Mad Max mode was sort of over the top. Hurry is what I use most frequently, and it had become somewhat unusable with v14.2.1.
It seemed as if Speed Profiles should be more associated with both passing and lane-changing frequency. Capping speeds does not help as it can impede the flow of traffic. When FSD travels at the speed of other traffic, it is much more effective and less disruptive.
With v14.2.1.25, there were three noticeable changes that improved its performance significantly: Speed Profile refinements, lane change confidence, and Speed Limit recognition.
🚨 Many of you asked us to test highway driving with Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2.1.25. Here’s what we noticed:
✅ Speed Profiles are significantly improved. Hurry Mode is no longer capped at 10 MPH over the speed limit, and now travels with the flow of traffic. This is much… pic.twitter.com/48ZCGbW0JO
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) December 13, 2025
Speed Profile Refinement
Speed Profiles have been significantly improved. Hurry Mode is no longer capped at 10 MPH over the speed limit and now travels with the flow of traffic. This is much more comfortable during highway operation, and I was not required to intervene at any point.
With v14.2.1, I was sometimes assisting it with lane changes, and felt it was in the wrong place at the wrong time more frequently than ever before.
However, this was one of the best-performing FSD versions in recent memory, and I really did not have any complaints on the highway. Speed, maneuvering, lane switching, routing, and aggressiveness were all perfect.
Lane Changes
v14.2.1 had a tendency to be a little more timid when changing lanes, which was sort of frustrating at times. When the car decides to change lanes and turn on its signal, it needs to pull the trigger and change lanes.
It also changed lanes at extremely unnecessary times, which was a real frustration.
There were no issues today on v14.2.1.25; lane changes were super confident, executed at the correct time, and in the correct fashion. It made good decisions on when to get into the right lane when proceeding toward its exit.
It was one of the first times in a while that I did not feel as if I needed to nudge it to change lanes. I was very impressed.
Speed Limit Recognition
So, this is a complex issue. With v14.2.1, there were many times when it would see a Speed Limit sign that was not meant for the car (one catered for tractor trailers, for example) or even a route sign, and it would incorrectly adjust the speed. It did this on the highway several times, mistaking a Route 30 sign for a 30 MPH sign, then beginning to decelerate from 55 MPH to 30 MPH on the highway.
This required an intervention. I also had an issue leaving a drive-thru Christmas lights display, where the owners of the private property had a 15 MPH sign posted nearly every 200 yards for about a mile and a half.
The car identified it as a 55 MPH sign and sped up significantly. This caused an intervention, and I had to drive manually.
It seems like FSD v14.2.1.25 is now less reliant on the signage (maybe because it was incorrectly labeling it) and more reliant on map data or the behavior of nearby traffic.
A good example was on the highway today: despite the car reading that Route 30 sign and the Speed Limit sign on the center screen reading 30 MPH, the car did not decelerate. It continued at the same speed, but I’m not sure if that’s because of traffic or map data:
🚨 We listened to and read a lot of you who had a complaint of Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2.1 incorrectly reading Speed Limit signs
This appears to be resolved in v14.2.1.25.
Here’s a breakdown: pic.twitter.com/TEP03xrMbt
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) December 13, 2025
A Lone Complaint
Tesla has said future updates will include parking improvements, and I’m really anxious for them, because parking is not great. I’ve had some real issues with it over the past couple of months.
Today was no different:
🚨 My lone complaint with my drive on Tesla FSD v14.2.1.25 was this strange parking instance.
FSD swung out wide to the left to pull into this spot and this is where it seemed to be stumped. I gave it about 10 seconds after the car just stopped moving for it to make some… https://t.co/ZEkhTHOihG pic.twitter.com/TRemXu5DLf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) December 13, 2025
Full Self-Driving v14.2.1.25 is really a massive improvement over past versions, and it seems apparent that Tesla took its time with fixing the bugs, especially with highway operation on v14.2.1.
News
Tesla hints at Starlink integration with recent patent
“By employing polymer blends, some examples enable RF transmission from all the modules to satellites and other communication devices both inside and outside the vehicle.”
Tesla hinted at a potential Starlink internet terminal integration within its vehicles in a recent patent, which describes a vehicle roof assembly with integrated radio frequency (RF) transparency.
The patent, which is Pub. No U.S. 2025/0368267 describes a new vehicle roof that is made of RF-transparent polymer materials, allowing and “facilitating clear communication with external devices and satellites.”
Tesla believes that a new vehicle roof design, comprised of different materials than the standard metallic or glass elements used in cars today, would allow the company to integrate modern vehicular technologies, “particularly those requiring radio frequency transmission and reception.
Tesla has recently filed a US patent application on integrating RF transparent materials into the roof structure.
“facilitating clear communication with external devices and satellites”
Tesla fleet is getting @Starlink connectivity integration soon. LFG @Tesla @elonmusk… pic.twitter.com/bLa8YtPLd1
— Chansoo Byeon (@Chansoo) December 9, 2025
Instead of glass or metallic materials, Tesla says vehicles may benefit from high-strength polymer blends, such as Polycarbonate, Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene, or Acrylonitrile Styrene Acrylate.
These materials still provide ideal strength metrics for crashworthiness, stiffness for noise, vibration, and harshness control, and are compliant with head impact regulations.
They would also enable better performance with modern technologies, like internet terminals, which need an uninterrupted signal to satellites for maximum reception. Tesla writes in the patent:
“By employing polymer blends, some examples enable RF transmission from all the modules to satellites and other communication devices both inside and outside the vehicle.”
One of the challenges Tesla seems to be aware of with this type of roof design is the fact that it will still have to enable safety and keep that at the forefront of the design. As you can see in the illustration above, Tesla plans to use four layers to increase safety and rigidity, while also combating noise and vibration.
It notes in the patent that disclosed examples still meet the safety requirements outlined in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).
Starlink integrated directly into Tesla vehicles would be a considerable advantage for owners. It would come with a handful of distinct advantages.
Initially, the inclusion of Starlink would completely eliminate cellular dead zones, something that is an issue, especially in rural areas. Starlink would provide connectivity in these remote regions and would ensure uninterrupted service during road trips and off-grid adventures.
It could also be a critical addition for Robotaxi, as it is crucial to have solid and reliable connectivity for remote monitoring and fleet management.
Starlink’s growing constellation, thanks to SpaceX’s routine and frequent launch schedule, will provide secure, stable, and reliable internet connectivity for Tesla vehicles.
Although many owners have already mounted Starlink Mini dishes under their glass roofs for a similar experience, it may be integrated directly into Teslas in the coming years, either as an upgrade or a standard feature.
Tesla removes Safety Monitors, begins fully autonomous Robotaxi testing
Tesla refines Full Self-Driving, latest update impresses where it last came up short
