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.
Elon Musk
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a recent podcast interview that Tesla is not who Americans should look at to beat Chinese carmakers.
The comments have sparked quite a bit of outrage from Tesla fans on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.
Farley said that Chinese automakers are better examples of how to beat competitors. He said (via the Rapid Response Podcast):
“If you’re an American and you want us to beat the Chinese in the car business, you’re all going to want to pay attention, not necessarily to Tesla. Nothing against Tesla—they’ve been doing great—but they really don’t have an updated vehicle. The best in the business for us, cost-wise and competition-wise, supply chain, manufacturing expertise, and the I.P. in the vehicle, was really BYD. In this next cycle of EV customers in the U.S., they want pickups and utilities and all these different body styles. But they want them at $30,000, not $50,000. Like the first inning, they want them affordably.”
Despite Farley’s synopsis, it is worth mentioning that Tesla had the best-selling passenger vehicle in the world last year, and in China in March, as the Model Y continued its global dominance over other vehicles.
Musk responded to Farley’s comments by stating:
“This is before Supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.”
This is before supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 19, 2026
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges
Instead, Ford is “doubling down on its affordable” EVs and said it would pivot from its previous plans.
Reaction from Tesla fans was pretty much how you would expect. Many said they have lost a lot of respect for Farley after his comments; others believe he is the last CEO anyone should be taking advice on EVs from.
Nevertheless, Farley’s plans are bold and brash; many consider Tesla the most ideal company to replicate EV efforts from. It will be interesting to see if Ford can rebound from this big adjustment, and hopefully, Farley’s plans to replicate efforts from BYD work out the way he hopes.
Elon Musk
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
NASA awarded SpaceX a $175 million Mars rover contract while the White House proposes cutting the mission.
NASA just signed a $175.7 million contract with SpaceX to launch a Mars rover that the White House is simultaneously trying to defund. The contract, awarded on April 16, 2026, tasks SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with launching the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosalind Franklin rover from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, no earlier than late 2028. It would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars.
Under NASA’s Rosalind Franklin Support and Augmentation project, known as ROSA, the agency is providing braking engines for the rover’s descent stage, radioisotope heater units that use decaying plutonium to keep the rover warm on the Martian surface, additional electronics, and a mass spectrometer instrument, as noted by SpaceNews.
Those nuclear heating units are the reason an American rocket was required at all. U.S. export controls on radioisotope technology mean any payload carrying them must launch on a domestic vehicle, which narrowed the field to SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. Falcon Heavy’s pricing made it the practical choice.
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
Falcon Heavy debuted in February 2018 and has 11 launches to its record. The rocket has not flown since October 2024, when it sent NASA’s Europa Clipper toward Jupiter. The three-core design, built from modified Falcon 9 first stages, gives it the lift capacity needed for deep space planetary missions that a single Falcon 9 cannot reach.
The Rosalind Franklin rover has been sitting in storage in Europe for years. It was originally due to launch in 2022 as a joint mission with Russia, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that partnership, leaving the rover built but stranded without a launch vehicle or landing hardware. NASA stepped back in through a 2024 agreement with ESA to rescue the mission. The rover is designed to drill up to two meters below the Martian surface in search of evidence of past life, a science objective no previous mission has attempted at that depth.
The contradiction at the center of this story is hard to ignore. The White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal included no funding for ROSA and did not mention the mission at all in the detailed congressional justification document released April 3.
Musk has long argued that reaching Mars is not optional. “We don’t want to be one of those single planet species, we want to be a multi-planet species.” Whether this particular mission survives Washington’s budget fight, the Falcon Heavy contract means SpaceX is now formally on record as the rocket that could get humanity’s next Mars science mission off the ground.
The timing of this contract carries extra weight given that SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC in early April and is targeting an IPO roadshow in the week of June 8. It would be the largest public offering in history.
Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) is set to hold its Earnings Call for the first quarter of 2026 on Wednesday, and there are a lot of interesting things that are swirling around in terms of speculation from investors.
With the company’s executives, including CEO Elon Musk, answering a handful of questions that investors submit through the Say platform, fans want to know a lot of things about a lot of things.
These five questions come from Retail Investors, who are normal, everyday shareholders:
- When will we have the Optimus v3 reveal? When will Optimus production start, since we ended the Model S and Model X production earlier than mid-year? What’s the expected Optimus production rate exiting this year? What are the initial targeted skills?
- What milestones are you targeting for unsupervised FSD and Robotaxi expansion beyond Austin this year, and how will that drive recurring revenue?
- How will Hardware 3 cars reach Unsupervised Full Self-Driving?
- When do you expect Unsupervised Full Self-Driving to reach customer cars?
- When will Robotaxi expand past its current limited rollout?
Additionally, these are currently the three questions that are slated to be answered by Institutional Firms, which also answer a handful of questions during the call:
- Now that FSD has been approved in the Netherlands and is expected to launch across Europe this summer, can you discuss your Robotaxi strategy for the region?
- What enabled you to finish the AI5 tapeout early and were there any changes to the original vision? Last week, Elon said AI5 will go into Optimus and the Supercomputer, but one month ago said it would go into the Robotaxi. Has AI5 been dropped from the vehicle roadmap?
- Given the recent NHTSA incident filings, can you update us on the Robotaxi safety data? If safety validation remains the primary bottleneck, why not deploy thousands of vehicles to accelerate the removal of the safety driver?
The questions range through every current Tesla project, including FSD expansion and Optimus. However, many of the answers we will get will likely be repetitive answers we’ve heard in the past.
This is especially pertinent when the questions about when Unsupervised FSD will reach customer cars: we know Musk will say that it will happen this year. Is Tesla capable of that? Maybe. But a more transparent answer that is more revealing of a true timeline would be appreciated.
Hardware 3 owners are anxiously awaiting the arrival of FSD v14 Lite, which was promised to them last year for a release sometime this year.
The Earnings Call is set to take place on Wednesday at market close.
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
