The user experience of Tesla’s electric cars is centered mostly on the vehicles’ large, high-resolution displays. Coupled with custom software that provides a quick, smartphone-like experience, Tesla’s screens in its vehicles are already among the best in the auto industry. But in the spirit of the company’s habit of constant innovation, it appears that Tesla is looking to improve the quality of its displays even more.
A recently published patent from the electric car maker, titled “Holographic Decorated Glass for Screen Color Matching,” outlines a way for the electric car maker to improve the viewing angles of its vehicles’ displays. In the patent, Tesla notes that “because display screens typically have a periodic micro-structure (e.g., a pixelated structure), the color of the display screen may be dependent on the angle at which a viewer is looking at the display screen.” This results in viewing angles that have significant room for improvement, even among high-quality screens.
“The non-displaying portions of the device may be unable to match this angular color dependence of the display screen, resulting in a readily visible boundary between the display screen and the non-displaying portions of the device. Accordingly, there is a need for better color integration between the displaying portions of a device and the non-displaying portions of the device,” Tesla wrote.
To address this, Tesla opted to utilize a pigmented frame and index match glue to coat its vehicles’ screens, as well as a holographic glass panel. By adopting these techniques, Tesla expects to provide its vehicles with a screen that can offer optimal viewing angles for all passengers. This is especially useful when paired with the company’s entertainment features such as Tesla Theater or Tesla Arcade, which are accessible when a vehicle is on Park.
Tesla describes its use of index match glue and holographic glass panels as follows.
“Index match glue 206 may change the perceived color and appearance of display 204 to match the color and appearance of surrounding frame 202 within a small range of viewing angles. For example, index match glue 206 may change the perceived color and appearance of display 204 to match the color and appearance of frame 202 within a range of viewing angles approximately normal to the surface of display 204. However, due to the angular dependence of the perceived color and appearance of display 204 (due to display 204 having a holographic structure resulting from the pixels of display 204), index match glue 206 may be unable to change the perceived color and appearance of display 204 to match the color and appearance of frame 202 within a broad range of viewing angles so that the boundary between frame 202 and display 204 is invisible to a viewer. Accordingly, with display 204 coated with index match glue 206 surrounded by frame 202, the boundary between frame 202 and display 204 may still be readily visible at certain viewing angles.”
“The directionality of the periodic structure of holographic film 402 may approximate or match the directionality of the periodic structure of display 406. For example, if display 406 includes a plurality of periodic features (e.g., pixels) oriented in a first direction (e.g., rectangles, triangles, or the like having a common orientation), holographic film 402 may include a plurality of periodic features oriented in the first direction. FIG. 5 shows exemplary system 500 in which the visibility of a boundary between display 504 and a surrounding frame including a holographic structure (here holographic glass panel 502) may be reduced or eliminated over a broad range of viewing angles. In exemplary system 500, a periodic structure is formed on holographic glass panel 502 directly. For example, laser etching on holographic glass panel 502 may produce the periodic structure responsible for the holographic effect of holographic glass panel 502. Holographic glass panel 502 may include holographic structures formed in a variety of other ways, including ablation, etching, deposition processes, and the like.”
The full text of Tesla’s “Holographic Decorated Glass for Screen Color Matching” patent could be viewed here.
A color-matched display with optimal viewing angles might be a rather minor aspect of a vehicle, but for connected cars such as Teslas, it is these little things that make a difference in user experience. A car that boasts some of the most advanced automotive tech available in the auto segment today, after all, deserves a screen that is on par with some of the best mobile devices on the market.
Tesla’s display design outlined in its recently published patent can come in handy as well, particularly as the electric car maker introduces more updates to its fleet of vehicles. Among these is a “Fade Mode,” which Elon Musk has hinted at in the past. While responding to a Twitter follower last year, Musk responded positively to the suggestion of adding an option that allows drivers to dim their vehicles’ display while a car is in motion. This, together with features like V10’s Joe Mode, could help make long trips in Tesla’s electric vehicles much more convenient for passengers.
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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
