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 patent aims to make massive change to common automotive part
Detailed in US 2026/0110320 A1 and published on April 23, the patent re-engineers the humble trim clip—the small plastic fastener that secures interior panels to the vehicle’s body structure. Traditional clips are single-piece plastic parts designed for one-time installation.
A new Tesla patent aims to fix a common automotive item for a more peaceful ride, revolutionizing its design to remove vibrations and noise during normal operation.
Detailed in US 2026/0110320 A1 and published on April 23, the patent re-engineers the humble trim clip—the small plastic fastener that secures interior panels to the vehicle’s body structure. Traditional clips are single-piece plastic parts designed for one-time installation.
Over time, they loosen, rattle, and transmit road noise, suspension vibrations, and minor panel buzz directly into the passenger compartment. Tesla’s new design turns that ordinary item into a reusable, two-material vibration-damping system built for long-term silence.
A TESLA PATENT DETAILS THE TWO MATERIALS AND FOUR FORCES THAT MAKE A TRIM CLIP REUSABLE
Tesla published a single patent application on April 23 that describes how to make an interior trim clip reusable across multiple service cycles.
US 2026/0110320 A1 was filed in October 2024… https://t.co/02yOUKkar2 pic.twitter.com/pEJUCw46yc
— SETI Park (@seti_park) May 3, 2026
The clip consists of four components drawn from just two material families. The pin and grommet are molded from rigid glass-fiber-reinforced nylon, giving them the strength needed to hold panels firmly in place.
Not a Tesla App reported on the patent.
A soft thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) is then overmolded onto the assembly in a distinctive mushroom shape that flares outward beyond the pin shaft. This soft layer does the heavy lifting for comfort: it spreads mechanical loads over a wider area and actively damps oscillations before they can reach the interior trim.
The result is a measurable reduction in noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH)—the very factors that separate a merely quiet electric vehicle from one that feels genuinely serene.
Engineers used finite-element analysis to dial in four precise forces that make the system both secure and serviceable. It takes 31 newtons to insert the grommet into the body panel and 243 newtons to pull it back out, ensuring it stays anchored during normal driving. The pin, however, slides in with only 7 newtons and releases at 152 newtons, the patent says.
Because the grommet grips the sheet metal far more tightly than the pin grips the grommet, technicians can pop the trim panel off, service wiring or components behind it, and snap everything back together without disturbing the grommet or degrading the soft overmold.
The clip survives repeated service cycles with no measurable loss of damping performance.
For drivers, the payoff is a noticeably more peaceful ride. Road rumble, panel flutter, and high-frequency buzz that often sneak into luxury cabins are absorbed at the source rather than conducted through rigid plastic. Over the life of the vehicle, the reusable design also prevents the gradual loosening that causes rattles in conventional clips. Fewer replacements mean less cabin noise from degraded parts and lower long-term maintenance costs.
Tesla’s patent shows how even the smallest hardware decisions affect the overall driving experience. By giving a mundane trim clip two distinct personalities—rigid where strength is needed, soft where silence matters—the company is quietly engineering away one more source of distraction.
If the design reaches production, future Tesla owners could enjoy an even calmer, more refined interior without ever noticing the clever little clips holding it all together.
News
SpaceX and Google mull massive partnership on Musk’s orbital data dream: report
The two companies are currently in talks for a rocket launch deal to support the placement of data centers in orbit as part of their push into space-based computing.
SpaceX and Google are in the process of ironing out the details of a potential partnership, a new report from the Wall Street Journal says. The two companies are currently in talks for a rocket launch deal to support the placement of data centers in orbit as part of their push into space-based computing.
In a move that blends cutting-edge AI demands with the final frontier of space exploration, Google is in exclusive talks with Elon Musk’s SpaceX for a rocket launch deal to deploy data centers in orbit. The Wall Street Journal is now reporting today, May 12, that the discussions mark Google’s aggressive expansion into space-based computing, addressing the exploding energy needs of artificial intelligence that terrestrial infrastructure can no longer sustain.
Exclusive: Google is in talks with SpaceX for a rocket launch deal as the search giant expands its own efforts to put orbital data centers in space https://t.co/QUCD3cPjxi
— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) May 12, 2026
SpaceX, nor Google, have commented on the report.
The catalyst for a potential deal is clear: AI’s voracious appetite for electricity. Global data centers consumed about 415 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity in 2024—roughly 1.5 percent of worldwide usage—according to the International Energy Agency. That figure is projected to more than double to around 945 TWh by 2030, with AI-focused servers growing at 30 percent annually, outpacing overall electricity demand growth by more than four times.
Some forecasts peg data center consumption exceeding 1,000 TWh by 2026, equivalent to Japan’s entire national electricity use. A single large AI training facility can draw as much power as 100,000 homes. On Earth, this translates to grid overloads, skyrocketing costs, land shortages, and massive water demands for cooling—constraints that threaten to throttle AI progress.
Orbital data centers promise a radical workaround. In space, satellites can harness constant, unobstructed sunlight for power—solar panels generate roughly five times more energy in orbit than on the ground, with no night cycle or atmospheric interference.
Excess heat radiates harmlessly into the vacuum of space, eliminating energy-intensive cooling systems and water usage. No terrestrial land or power grid is required, freeing operations from regulatory and environmental bottlenecks.
Musk has long championed the concept, framing it as inevitable. “Space-based AI is obviously the only way to scale,” he wrote on SpaceX’s site following the xAI merger. “Global electricity demand for AI simply cannot be met with terrestrial solutions… In the long term, space-based AI is obviously the only way to scale.”
He has repeatedly highlighted solar advantages: “Space has the advantage that it’s always sunny,” and “any given solar panel is going to give you about five times more power in space than on the ground.”
Musk predicted in early 2026 that “in 36 months but probably closer to 30 months, the most economically compelling place to put AI will be space,” adding that within five years, annual space-launched AI compute could surpass Earth’s cumulative total. “SpaceX will be doing this,” he declared when discussing scaled-up Starlink satellites with high-speed laser links for orbital data transfer.
Meanwhile, Google has been quietly advancing a similar vision under Project Suncatcher, its internal “moonshot” initiative. CEO Sundar Pichai has described plans to launch two prototype satellites equipped with Tensor Processing Units (TPUs) by early 2027 for testing thermal management and reliability in orbit. In interviews, Pichai has called orbital computing a potential “normal way to build data centers” within a decade, enabled by launch cost reductions.
SpaceX is uniquely positioned to make this reality. The company recently filed with the FCC to launch up to one million satellites dedicated to orbital data centers at altitudes between 500 and 2,000 kilometers, projecting capacity for 100 gigawatts of AI compute.
These talks align with SpaceX’s broader ambitions, including a potential IPO where orbital infrastructure features prominently in investor pitches.
FCC accepts SpaceX filing for 1 million orbital data center plan
Challenges remain formidable, as is expected with a project with expectations so lofty. Radiation-hardened hardware, laser-based inter-satellite and Earth-downlink communications, launch economics, and orbital debris management are key hurdles.
Yet early movers like Starcloud (which trained the first large language model in orbit in late 2025) and Google’s prototypes signal accelerating momentum. Rivals, including Amazon and Blue Origin, are exploring similar paths, but SpaceX’s Starship and Starlink heritage give it a launch cadence edge.
This partnership could redefine AI infrastructure, turning the skies into the next data center frontier. As Earth’s power limits loom, Musk’s vision, combined with Google’s ambition, could position space not as sci-fi, but as the scalable solution for humanity’s computational future.
Investor's Corner
Legendary investor Ron Baron says Tesla and SpaceX stock buys will continue
In a wide-ranging appearance on CNBC’s Squawk Box on May 12, legendary investor Ron Baron, founder, CEO, and portfolio manager of Baron Capital, reaffirmed his deep conviction in Elon Musk’s two flagship companies.
Legendary investor Ron Baron says he will continue buying stock of both Tesla and SpaceX, as he continues his support behind CEO Elon Musk, who he says is a special person and “brilliant.”
In a wide-ranging appearance on CNBC’s Squawk Box on May 12, legendary investor Ron Baron, founder, CEO, and portfolio manager of Baron Capital, reaffirmed his deep conviction in Elon Musk’s two flagship companies.
With assets under management approaching $55–56 billion, Baron detailed his firm’s substantial holdings, outlined plans for the anticipated SpaceX IPO, and painted an exceptionally optimistic picture for both Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) and SpaceX, framing them as generational opportunities that will reshape industries and deliver extraordinary long-term returns.
Baron Capital’s position in SpaceX has grown dramatically since the firm began investing around 2017. What started as roughly $1.7 billion has ballooned to more than $15 billion, making it the firm’s largest holding.
Tesla ranks second, valued at approximately $5 billion in the portfolio. Together with stakes in xAI and related Musk-led ventures, these investments account for roughly one-third of Baron Capital’s $60 billion in lifetime profits since 1992. Baron emphasized that the growth stems from Musk’s singular ability to execute ambitious visions—from reusable rockets to global satellite internet and beyond.
The centerpiece of the discussion was SpaceX’s expected initial public offering, targeted for mid-2026 following a confidential S-1 filing. Baron announced plans to purchase an additional $1 billion in shares at the IPO.
Ron Baron said today that he plans on buying an additional $1 billion of SpaceX stock during the upcoming IPO:
“At the IPO price, I’ve got an order for $1 billion. I want to buy more stock at the IPO. I don’t know if we’re going to get filled, but we’re going to try. I believe… pic.twitter.com/KOv1HvYcZ0
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) May 12, 2026
He described the company’s trajectory in sweeping terms: “This is going to become the largest company on the planet.”
He highlighted Starlink’s expansion of high-speed internet to every corner of the globe, the revolutionary economics of reusable rockets, and Starship’s potential to enable massive space-based data centers and interplanetary infrastructure.
Baron sees SpaceX not merely as a rocket company but as a platform poised for exponential scaling once it goes public, with post-IPO appreciation potentially reaching 10- to 20- or even 30-times current levels over the next decade or more.
On Tesla, Baron struck an equally enthusiastic note, declaring that “now is Tesla’s moment.” He projected the stock could reach $2,000 to $2,500 per share within 10 years—implying a market capitalization near $8.3 trillion and roughly 5–6 times upside from recent levels. While Tesla remains a major holding, Baron’s optimism centers on its evolution beyond electric vehicles into an AI, robotics, autonomous-driving, and energy platform.
He pointed to robotaxis, Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology, Optimus humanoid robots, energy storage, and the vast real-world data advantage from Tesla’s global fleet as catalysts that will fundamentally alter the company’s revenue model and valuation multiples. Baron views these developments as transformative, shifting Tesla from a traditional automaker to a high-margin technology and infrastructure powerhouse.
Throughout the interview, Baron’s admiration for Musk was unmistakable. He has likened the entrepreneur to a modern Leonardo da Vinci for his artistic, multidisciplinary approach to solving humanity’s biggest challenges.
Baron’s personal commitment mirrors this confidence: he has repeatedly stated he does not expect to sell a single share of his own Tesla or SpaceX holdings in his lifetime, positioning himself as the “last one out” after his clients. This stance underscores a philosophy of patient, long-term ownership rather than short-term trading.
Baron’s comments arrive at a time of heightened anticipation around SpaceX’s public debut, which could rank among the largest IPOs in history and potentially value the company at $1.5–2 trillion or more at listing.
For investors, his message is clear: the Musk ecosystem—spanning electric vehicles, autonomy, robotics, satellite communications, and space exploration—represents one of the most compelling secular growth stories of the era. While short-term volatility in tech and EV stocks may persist, Baron sees these as buying opportunities for those who share his multi-decade horizon.
In summarizing his outlook, Baron reinforced that the combination of technological breakthroughs, massive addressable markets, and Musk’s leadership creates asymmetric upside that few other investments can match.
For Baron Capital’s clients and long-term Tesla and SpaceX shareholders alike, the investor’s latest CNBC remarks serve as both validation and a call to remain patient through the inevitable ups and downs. As Baron sees it, the best days for both companies—and the returns they can deliver—are still ahead.
Tesla patent aims to make massive change to common automotive part
SpaceX and Google mull massive partnership on Musk’s orbital data dream: report
