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.
Investor's Corner
Tesla Optimus is already benefiting investors, top Wall Street firm says
Piper Sandler has updated its detailed valuation model for Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA), concluding that at recent share prices around $400–$420, investors are essentially acquiring the company’s ambitious Optimus humanoid robot project at no extra cost.
Tesla Optimus is already benefiting investors from a fiscal standpoint, at least that is what Alexander Potter at Piper Sandler, a top Wall Street firm covering the company, says.
Piper Sandler has updated its detailed valuation model for Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA), concluding that at recent share prices around $400–$420, investors are essentially acquiring the company’s ambitious Optimus humanoid robot project at no extra cost.
Analyst Alexander Potter, in the firm’s latest “Definitive Guide to Investing in Tesla,” built a comprehensive framework covering 17 separate product lines.
This granular approach values Tesla’s core businesses—including electric vehicles, energy storage, Full Self-Driving (FSD) software, in-house insurance, Supercharging network, and a standalone robotaxi operation—at approximately $400 per share, without assigning any value to Optimus or related inference-as-a-service opportunities.
“At $400/share, we think investors can buy Optimus for ‘free,’” Potter stated in the note. Piper Sandler maintained its Overweight rating on Tesla shares and a $500 price target, which implicitly attributes roughly $100 per share to the robot-related businesses— a figure the analyst views as potentially conservative.
The updated model incorporates elements often overlooked by other sell-side analysts, such as detailed forecasts for Tesla’s insurance operations, Supercharger revenue, and a distinct valuation for the robotaxi business separate from FSD software licensing. It also accounts for Tesla’s 2025 CEO compensation plan for the first time.
Potter acknowledged that his estimates for 2026 and 2027 fall below Wall Street consensus, citing factors like declining deliveries from certain discontinued models and reduced regulatory credit income.
However, he expressed limited concern, noting that traditional vehicle delivery metrics are expected to matter less over time as FSD subscriber growth and robotaxi deployment metrics gain prominence. On Optimus specifically, Potter suggested the humanoid robot program, combined with inference services, “arguably will be worth more than Tesla’s other businesses combined,” though the firm has not yet produced formal long-term forecasts for these segments.
Tesla shares have traded near the $400 range in recent sessions, reflecting ongoing investor focus on the company’s autonomous driving progress and expansion into robotics and AI. The Optimus project remains in early development stages, with Tesla aiming to deploy the robots initially for internal factory tasks before broader commercial applications.
This Piper Sandler analysis highlights the growing emphasis among some investors and analysts on Tesla’s long-term technology platform potential beyond its current automotive and energy businesses.
As with any forward-looking valuation, outcomes will depend on execution timelines, technological breakthroughs, regulatory approvals for autonomous systems, and market adoption of humanoid robotics—areas that carry significant uncertainty and execution risk.
The note underscores a common theme in Tesla coverage: differing views on how to quantify emerging high-growth opportunities like robotics within the company’s overall enterprise value. Investors are advised to consider their own risk tolerance and conduct thorough due diligence regarding these speculative elements.
News
Tesla Giga Texas buzzing as new Cybertruck appears to enter production
Additionally, the Cybercab manufacturing ramp-up is continuing amidst Tesla’s busy May, which includes a handful of things from an automotive perspective.
Tesla Giga Texas is buzzing with a lot of action, as it appears the new Cybertruck trim that was offered a few months back has entered production. Additionally, the Cybercab manufacturing ramp-up is continuing amidst Tesla’s busy May, which includes a handful of things from an automotive perspective.
Drone operator Joe Tegtmeyer captured striking footage over Giga Texas on the morning of May 11, 2026, revealing fresh batches of Cybertrucks that may mark the start of series production for the long-awaited $59,990 Dual Motor AWD variant.
Tesla launches new Cybertruck trim with more features than ever for a low price
The vehicles lined up in staging areas, and we got a great look at three of the units parked on the property:
Hard to say for sure, but production of the $59K AWD @Cybertruck may be just getting started here on this early and soggy morning at Giga Texas … this version is much harder to visually distinguish from the premium AWD versions, so I’ll come back on Wednesday and we’ll see if… pic.twitter.com/UX7yCQpgeC
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) May 11, 2026
Tegtmeyer notes the difficulty in visually distinguishing this base AWD model from higher-trim versions, unlike the earlier Long-Range RWD that lacked a motorized tonneau cover.
Tesla launched the $59,990 Dual Motor AWD Cybertruck in late February 2026 with a brief introductory pricing window that closed by month’s end.
Initial U.S. delivery estimates of June 2026 quickly slipped to September–October and, for newer orders, as far as April 2027.
The move underscores robust consumer interest in a more accessible all-wheel-drive Cybertruck priced under $60,000 before incentives—positioning it as a volume play for Tesla’s electric pickup lineup while premium AWD and Cyberbeast variants continue to be sold as usual.
Meanwhile, Cybercab production at the same Austin facility shows steady, if deliberate, progress. Tegtmeyer’s latest flyover documented dozens of glossy production-spec Cybercabs parked in the outbound lot—consistent with Tesla’s early statements that initial output would remain modest before scaling later in 2026.
The purpose-built robotaxi, unveiled in 2024 and lacking a steering wheel or pedals, rolled its first unit off the line in February. Volume manufacturing began in April, with early examples already undergoing autonomous testing around the factory grounds.
Elon Musk has repeatedly emphasized that Cybercab and Semi production will start slowly before ramping “exponentially” toward year-end. The presence of multiple finished units signals Tesla’s Unboxed manufacturing process is maturing, even as the company balances Cybertruck output with autonomy milestones.
Recent drone imagery also shows ongoing construction for Optimus and test-track expansions, highlighting Giga Texas’s evolving role as Tesla’s hub for next-generation vehicles.
For Cybertruck buyers, the potential ramp of the $59K AWD offers hope of shorter waits and broader market access. For autonomy enthusiasts, the growing fleet of Cybercabs hints at robotaxi service trials on the horizon.
While official confirmation from Tesla remains pending, Tegtmeyer’s footage provides the clearest public signal yet that both programs are advancing in parallel at Giga Texas.
News
Tesla Full Self-Driving gains momentum in Europe with new country mulling approval
Tesla is advancing FSD’s technology across Europe with fresh talks underway in Ireland, signaling broader regulatory progress. On May 10, Ireland’s Department of Transport confirmed that Tesla is actively engaging with national authorities, including the National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI) to secure approval for FSD Supervised.
Tesla Full Self Driving (FSD) technology is gaining momentum in Europe, with yet another new country mulling a potential approval for operation on its roads.
Tesla is advancing FSD’s technology across Europe with fresh talks underway in Ireland, signaling broader regulatory progress. On May 10, Ireland’s Department of Transport confirmed that Tesla is actively engaging with national authorities, including the National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI) to secure approval for FSD Supervised.
While the department noted that full rollout in Ireland would ultimately depend on EU-level clearance, the engagement marks a notable step forward in Tesla’s European expansion strategy, Irish media outlet RTE said.
The news comes on the heels of a landmark breakthrough in the Netherlands. In April, Dutch vehicle authority RDW granted the first-ever EU type approval for FSD Supervised after 18 months of rigorous testing on public roads and tracks. The provisional approval allows the system on all Dutch roads, with Tesla already rolling it out to select owners following mandatory safety training.
The Netherlands has since notified the European Commission and is advocating for wider recognition, positioning the Dutch decision as a potential template for the bloc.
Europe has long lagged behind the United States, China, and other markets where FSD is more widely available. Strict EU regulations on automated driving systems have required extensive validation, but momentum is building.
Tesla now lists the Netherlands alongside established markets such as the U.S., Canada, Australia, and South Korea on its regional FSD page. Other countries, including Belgium, are reportedly fast-tracking their own review processes in response to the Dutch precedent.
Analysts see Ireland’s involvement as strategic. As a smaller EU member with unique road challenges—narrow rural lanes, hedgerows, and variable weather—successful validation there could demonstrate FSD’s adaptability and strengthen the case for harmonized EU approval.
Tesla has indicated it aims for broader EU deployment as early as summer 2026, though the timeline remains fluid. Discussions at the EU’s Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles continue, with a possible vote later in the year. Some member states, particularly in Scandinavia, have expressed reservations over edge cases like speeding protocols and long-term safety data.
For Tesla, European expansion is more than a software update; it unlocks significant growth. The continent’s dense population and high vehicle ownership could accelerate data collection, refine the AI models powering FSD, and pave the way for unsupervised autonomy and robotaxi services.
Owners stand to benefit from enhanced safety features and reduced driver fatigue, while regulators weigh innovation against proven risk reduction. Early Dutch results already cite safety improvements:
Tesla Full Self-Driving shows stunning maneuver in Europe to silence skeptics
But the work is far from done, and challenges are still present. FSD Supervised still requires driver attention and a readiness to intervene. EU rules emphasize that the technology is not fully autonomous, placing legal responsibility on the human operator. Tesla must also navigate varying national road conditions and public perception.
Nevertheless, the Ireland talks underscore a clear trajectory: one national approval at a time, Europe is inching closer to widespread FSD access. If the Dutch model gains traction, Summer 2026 could mark the beginning of a transformative chapter for autonomous driving on European roads.
Tesla’s persistent engagement with regulators is starting to pay off, and it suggests the company is still heavily committed to the expansion efforts across Europe, despite the red tape it has had to persist through.
Tesla Optimus is already benefiting investors, top Wall Street firm says
Tesla Giga Texas buzzing as new Cybertruck appears to enter production
