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.
Elon Musk
SpaceX showcases exactly how it plans to catch Starship next month
SpaceX played a new Starship Flight 15 simulation showing the ship caught by tower chopsticks.
SpaceX gave its clearest look yet at how it plans to catch a Starship upper stage, playing a roughly 80 second animation of the maneuver during its third quarter earnings webcast on Tuesday. The clip ran under an “Up Next: Ship Catch” banner moments after Elon Musk confirmed that Flight 15, expected next month, will try to catch both the Super Heavy booster and the ship with the launch tower.
The animation opens at ground level, looking up through the launch mount at a tower with its chopstick arms spread wide. It then cuts to the ship gliding back through the atmosphere in its horizontal belly flop position, with its forward and aft flaps steering the descent. A wide shot from the Starbase shoreline follows, where the ship is a small dot in the sky before it swings vertical and drops toward the launch towers. The final shots show the ship sliding down past the top of the tower, a close view of the hardware along its side meeting the arms, and the vehicle hanging in the chopsticks.
SpaceX has released a new Starship tower catch animation for the upcoming Flight 15! https://t.co/kStn01Da8u — Truthful🛰️ (@Truthful_ast) October 20, 2026
Musk called the catch the step that closes Starship’s reuse loop. “If we succeed, it will be the first time that an orbital launch vehicle has been fully recovered,” he said. He put the odds of success on the first attempt at “more likely than not,” and said SpaceX has “a steady stream of Starship flight attempts through the end of this year” if Flight 15 falls short.
The sequence mirrors work SpaceX has already done with real hardware. In September, Ship 42, the vehicle assigned to Flight 15, was lifted by the Pad 2 chopsticks into a simulated catch position, where crews cycled the arms and connected the ship quick disconnect arm while it hung from the tower. NASASpaceflight has since reported that SpaceX removed Ship 42’s engines before its static fire and sent it back for another cryogenic test.
Gwynne Shotwell covered the regulatory side on the same call. After what she called “significant constructive engagement with the FAA,” SpaceX expects the Flight 15 license “to include return to launch site and tower catch for both stages.” Bringing the ship home means reentering toward land instead of the open ocean, which Musk said in February would only happen once the chance of the ship breaking up over land was very low, after two perfect soft landings at sea.
SpaceX has caught Super Heavy with the tower three times, on Flights 5, 7 and 8, but the ship returns from orbit at far higher speed and has never been caught. Flight 14 on September 28 was the first Starship to reach orbit, and it deployed 26 Starlink V3 satellites before splashing down, a mission SpaceX counted as its first revenue flight in the Q3 results it reported Tuesday.
The timing lines up with what Musk told the crowd at Giga Texas earlier this month, when he said Flight 15 would probably launch a little before Thanksgiving and that Flight 16 could refly both stages. On Tuesday’s call he went further, saying Starship should fly weekly at some point in the first half of 2027 and twice weekly or more by the end of next year as SpaceX works toward landing a rocket and launching it again with no refurbishment.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk just confirmed the Tesla and SpaceX merger step everyone was waiting for
Tesla and SpaceX formed special committees to weigh a merger, and Elon Musk supports it.
Elon Musk confirmed Tuesday that Tesla and SpaceX have each formed special committees of independent directors to study a possible merger, the first formal step toward combining the two companies after months of speculation.
Musk made the disclosure during SpaceX’s third quarter earnings call. “Both SpaceX and Tesla have formed special committees to discuss this idea at the request of shareholders,” he said. “Because I’m a conflicted party, I can’t actually be in the discussions of the special committees.” He described the setup as “an odd kabuki dance where two groups of people are talking and I can’t be in the conversation.”
Musk did not hide where he stands. “Do I think it would be a good idea? Yes,” he said, pointing to shared work on super intelligence software, chip design, the Terafab facility in Austin, robotics, mass to orbit and connectivity. “I do think there’s a lot of merit to combining the companies as we are pretty much in the super intelligence singularity.”
He also tried to cool expectations. The committees have not agreed on terms for any transaction, and Musk said assuming a merger is a certainty “would be overstating it.” Any deal would go to shareholders, and on the Tesla side it would need approval from 50 percent of all outstanding shares, not just the shares that are voted. Musk called that “quite a high hurdle.”
That bar has tripped Tesla up before. The company’s 2025 attempt to declassify its board won support from only 39.4 percent of outstanding shares and failed. Musk’s own voting stake sits near 20 percent after he exercised his 2018 options in June, so a deal would need broad backing from institutions and a retail base that often leaves votes uncast.
Timing is another open question. Tesla filed its proxy statement Monday for its December 3 annual meeting, and the ballot has only three items: director elections for Musk, Robyn Denholm and JB Straubel, a say on pay vote and auditor ratification. Barclays analyst Dan Levy had argued that an announcement would need to land by late October or early November to make the annual meeting, as Teslarati noted in its SpaceX earnings preview. With no terms agreed, any vote would likely require its own special meeting.
Elon Musk gives his most telling Tesla-SpaceX merger conversation yet
Musk has been edging toward this for weeks. At the All-In Summit in September, he asked “who can imagine what action one might take when there’s so much close collaboration,” Teslarati reported. Last week’s Roadster unveil, built around SpaceX derived cold gas thrusters, pushed the talk further. The two companies already share the Terafab chip project, and Tesla holds a small SpaceX stake that came from its earlier investment in xAI.
SpaceX brought strong numbers to the conversation. It reported Q3 revenue of $14.58 billion, up 161 percent year over year, with its Super Intelligence segment now its largest at $7.56 billion. A higher SpaceX valuation would shape any exchange ratio Tesla holders are offered.
Tesla reports its own third quarter results after the close on Wednesday, October 21. Investors had already ranked merger timing among the top retail questions for SpaceX’s call, and the committees will almost certainly come up again on Tesla’s.
SpaceX reported its third-quarter 2026 financial results on October 20, posting the company’s first solidly profitable quarter since going public earlier in the year under the ticker $SPCX.
Revenue reached $14.58 billion, up 161 percent year-over-year from $5.6 billion, and well ahead of consensus estimates in the $12.7 to $12.9 billion range. The results highlight a rapid shift in SpaceX’s center of gravity toward artificial intelligence/super intelligence, while Starlink and traditional space operations continue to show robust progress.
Here are the key financial results for the quarter:
- Revenue of $14.58 billion (+161% YoY)
- Adjusted EBITDA of $8.8 billion (+306% YoY)
- GAAP net income of $4.4 billion (versus a $1.1 billion net loss in the prior-year quarter)
- Adjusted EPS of approximately $0.35 (versus roughly $0.13–0.16 expected)
- Income from operations of $2.8 billion
The AI/SI segment generated $7.56 billion in revenue, an 830 percent year-over-year increase, making it the company’s largest segment for the first time. Growth was primarily driven by the activation of major cloud services agreements, the integration of Cursor (acquired earlier in 2026), and rising usage of Grok models and the newly introduced Grok Bot personal agent.
🚨 SpaceX just reported earnings! Here are some highlights:
Financial:
Revenue $14.58B (+161% YoY) vs. consensus ~$12.7–12.9B
Adjusted EBITDA $8.8B (+306% YoY)
GAAP net income $4.4B (vs. prior-year loss; first solidly profitable quarter post-IPO)
Adjusted EPS ~$0.35 vs. ~$0.13–0.16 expectedSegments:
Super Intelligence (SI, formerly AI): $7.56B (+830% YoY) — now the largest segment, driven by cloud contracts, Cursor, and Grok.
Connectivity (Starlink): $5.25B (+69% YoY).
Space: $1.77B.Other highlights:
Starlink subscribers: 13.6M (+89% YoY).
Nameplate compute: 1.7 GW.
Capex: $19.6B (majority AI infrastructure).
Cash & marketable securities: ~$90B.
First revenue-generating Starship mission (26 V3 Starlink satellites, ~10× Falcon 9 downlink capacity per launch).— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 20, 2026
SI adjusted EBITDA reached $5 billion, and nameplate compute capacity stood at 1.7 GW at quarter-end, up from 1.4 GW in June and 0.6 GW a year earlier. Capital expenditures totaled $19.6 billion, with the majority allocated to AI infrastructure, including continued expansion of the Colossus facilities.
The Connectivity segment, which primarily surrounds Starlink, produced $5.25 billion in revenue, a 69 percent year-over-year and 22 percent sequentially. These are pleasant results to see and expected, considering how many airlines have adopted Starlink over the past year.
Starlink consumer subscribers reached 13.6 million, an 89 percent increase from the prior year, and a sequential gain of 1.6 million. Consumer average revenue per user improved to $69. Meanwhile, Enterprise and Government revenue also grew strongly, and Starlink is now installed on more than 3,800 aircraft, making internet more accessible and better performing than previous options.
The Space segment also performed well and contributed $1.77 billion in revenue, up 6 percent year-over-year and 84 percent sequentially. A major milestone was the successful first revenue-generating Starship mission (Flight 14), which deployed 26 V3 Starlink satellites. Those satellites added roughly 10 times the downlink capacity of a typical Falcon 9 Starlink launch.
SpaceX completed 12 customer launches during the quarter, including NASA’s Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope mission, and continued to grow its backlog of crewed, national security, and commercial flights.
CFO commentary noted that the combination of launch leadership, recurring Starlink revenue, and rapid SI expansion is producing meaningful operating leverage.
The company ended the quarter with roughly $90 billion in cash and marketable securities, providing substantial resources for ongoing investment while targeting an investment-grade balance sheet. Sequential revenue nearly doubled from the $7.81 billion reported in the second quarter, illustrating the pace of the AI-driven acceleration. Things are looking strong for SpaceX.
What’s incredibly striking is the fact that SI has grown to be larger than the rest of the company in such a short amount of time. CEO Elon Musk said on the earnings call that Grok Bot is the “fastest-growing product I’ve ever seen,” so it seems that it could be a true keystone of SpaceXSI over the next few years.
SpaceX showcases exactly how it plans to catch Starship next month
Elon Musk just confirmed the Tesla and SpaceX merger step everyone was waiting for
SpaceX delivers blockbuster Q3 results as Super Intelligence segment booms
SpaceX reveals how its 1 Million AI satellite network will work and prevent space collisions
Tesla Roadster: Three configs, one can fly, 0-60 in 0.8 seconds
