News
Follow the Leader: Tesla’s Influence on Other Manufacturers
As enthusiasts of Tesla’s automobiles and what comes with them in terms of technology, we all know that their cars offer things that no other manufacturer can offer. This is not only because of Tesla’s sizeable lead in battery technology and entertainment features but simply because the cars provide a design and aesthetic that is just different than others. We all know Tesla seems to handle themselves in a more “fun” way than any other large company that builds vehicles; one would only have to see Fart Mode to know that this company is a lot different than others.
However, we see carmakers adapt more and more to Tesla’s style, technology, look, and demeanor. Every day, it seems like another company is doing something that is geared toward taking a chunk out of Tesla’s market. This idea does not only have to do with the company’s increasing performance and technology standards, but even entertainment features offered by Tesla are influencing other carmakers to do the same thing.
Earlier this week, it was announced that BMW would be offering a Tri-Motor performance electric car that would be released in 2023 or 2024. The M5 EV from the German automaker is poised to outperform Tesla’s highest-performing vehicles, like the Model S P100D or the yet-to-be-released Model S outfitted with Plaid Mode.
Speaking of Plaid Mode, when comparing the M5 to Tesla’s revised Model S Powertrain, it is a pretty similar idea. Both cars offer Tri-Motor setups with massive amounts of Horsepower: the BMW having 1,000+ and the Plaid Mode Model S, while unconfirmed, will likely have around 800 ponies. Both cars are obviously geared toward fast, high-performance driving with crazy acceleration points for 0-60 MPH.
BMW had to realize that when the Plaid Model S does release, it will likely be the only car that real speed enthusiasts will buy if they want an EV. While some may choose to spend an extra 100 grand on the Tesla Roadster, some will want a more versatile vehicle that they can use for everyday driving. Nobody has really even challenged Tesla in this portion of the industry except for Porsche, whose Taycan offers excellent performance capabilities but has fallen short of what people expect in terms of range.
This is a preview from our weekly newsletter. Each week I go ‘Beyond the News’ and handcraft a special edition that includes my thoughts on the biggest stories, why it matters, and how it could impact the future.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
In terms of battery performance, GM has been the automaker that comes to mind when thinking of those who want to challenge Tesla. A few weeks ago, I wrote an interesting op-ed on GM’s 180 degree perspective of Tesla. Nine years ago, GM executives claimed Tesla would be “in the graveyard” due to money management and lacking vehicle technology. But just a few weeks ago, GM came out and said, “We’re close to a million-mile battery, too!” Directly acknowledging Tesla’s lead in battery tech, GM realized even to begin to compete with Tesla down the road, things better change, and developments better start happening…and they better start happening fast.
Now, I am sure many, if not all, of the newsletter readers, have heard of Xpeng in some capacity. Whether it is Tesla’s current lawsuit with the Chinese automaker or the striking similarities in the company’s website, the brand has become a pretty popular name within the EV industry. I am going to focus on the latter portion, with the website comparison, along with another example of Tesla’s influence on Xpeng.
The website: Woah. Talk about similarities. Not only does Xpeng’s general website look just like Tesla’s, but their ordering page for the P7 holds striking similarities compared to the ordering page for the Model S, Model 3, Model X, and Model Y. It is basically a carbon copy, see for yourself.
Not only did Xpeng use Tesla’s website design, but their cars can also dance as an Easter Egg. Boy, that sure does sound familiar too…*cough cough* Model X.
In terms of disrupting Tesla’s sector, two examples come to mind: GM’s Electric Van and Nikola’s series of Electric Semis.
Now, Tesla obviously does not have a van, but they may make a twelve-seater for Boring Company tunnels. But interestingly enough, GM’s most significant concern for making a van was to beat Tesla to the punch. That’s what a UPS Fleet Director said because he realizes that a battery-powered van could disrupt the commercial industry as a whole. He actually compared it to the Model 3’s disruption of consumer sedans.
Nikola is sort of a different story compared to what I’ve talked about thus far. This is a company that is planning to offer a pickup and several Semi-trucks that will use sustainable energy (depending on what your ideas about hydrogen are). But we know the Tesla Semi is going to do some real damage in the Semi market because of its impressive performance standards. A lot of pre-orders from a lot of big companies, and it will surely disrupt a sizeable industry, especially when companies with environmental concerns have it available to them and see what the Semi is capable of.
More interesting to me, though, is the company name. Really original. We should call them Edison at this point.
So what does all of this mean? What’s the big idea?
Tesla is not the company in the EV sector. Tesla is THE company in the automotive industry altogether.
Forget about batteries or entertainment or vehicle design. Tesla is the company right now in the entire industry. There is no comparison. We have EV companies gunning for them, gas-powered legacy automakers after them; there are no limits. Everyone wants a slice of the Tesla pie. And who can blame them?
—————————————————–
Please consider Subscribing and joining me next week as I go ‘Beyond the News’
—————————————————-
Elon Musk
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
ARK Invest breaks down six reasons SpaceX’s $1.75 trillion IPO valuation may be justified.
ARK Invest, which holds SpaceX as its largest Venture Fund position at 17% of net assets, has published a detailed investor guide to why a SpaceX IPO may be grounded in a $1.75 trillion target valuation.
The financial case starts with Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet constellation, which has surpassed 10 million active subscribers globally as of early 2026, with 2026 revenue projected to exceed $20 billion. ARK’s research puts the total satellite connectivity market opportunity at roughly $160 billion annually at scale, and Starlink is adding customers faster than any telecom network in history. That growth alone would justify a substantial valuation.
Additionally, ARK notes that SpaceX has reduced the cost per kilogram to orbit from roughly $15,600 in 2008 to under $1,000 today through reusable Falcon 9 hardware. A fully operational Starship targeting sub-$100 per kilogram would represent a significant cost decline and open markets that do not currently exist. SpaceX executed a staggering 165 missions in 2025 and now accounts for approximately 85% of all global orbital launches. That infrastructure position took decades to build and would be nearly impossible to replicate at comparable cost.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
The February 2026 merger with xAI added a layer to the valuation that straightforward financial models struggle to capture. ARK argues that at sub-$100 launch costs, orbital data centers could deliver compute roughly 25% cheaper than ground-based alternatives, without power grid delays, permitting friction, or land constraints. Musk has stated a goal of deploying 100 gigawatts of AI computing capacity per year from orbit.
The $1.75 trillion figure itself is not a conventional earnings multiple. At roughly 95x trailing revenue, it prices in Starlink’s adoption curve, Starship’s cost trajectory, and the orbital compute thesis together. The public S-1 prospectus, due at least 15 days before the June roadshow, will give investors their first complete look at the financials to test those assumptions. ARK’s position is that the track record earns the benefit of the doubt. Fully reusable rockets were considered unrealistic for years. Starlink was considered financially unviable. Both happened on timelines that surprised skeptics.
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.
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
