News
Tesla and EV-only carmakers are legacy auto’s karma for killing the electric car
Karma could be a cruel mistress. It has a tendency to sneak up from behind before delivering a cruel haymaker to the jaw. Karma takes a while to rev up sometimes, but when it comes, things change, and sometimes these changes can be painful. Considering the state of the auto market, as well as the momentum carried by companies like Tesla, Lucid Motors, and Rivian, it appears that legacy carmakers are finally dealing with some well-deserved karma — for killing the electric car.
The general death of EVs amidst the emergence of the internal combustion engine during the early days of automobiles is understandable. Back then, fossil fuels presented a cheap, efficient way to travel, with vehicles like the Baker Electric and the Porsche P1 taking a very long time to charge. However, the death of the electric car that happened in the late 90s was something that is far more difficult to justify.
During the mid-90s, a modern electric vehicle was created by General Motors, and it could have been the driving force of a change in the motoring world. The vehicle, dubbed the EV1, was on the bleeding edge of tech at the time, with its three-phase alternating current induction motor and lead-acid (later changed to NiMH) battery. It had enough range for inner-city travel, it was fast, and it was sleek. But inasmuch as it was beloved by those who leased it, the EV1 was fated to meet an unfortunate demise.
In a series of events that inspired the creation of the documentary “Who Killed the Electric Car,” General Motors decided to discontinue the EV1, reclaiming the car from the leasees and destroying the vehicles. Segments of the acclaimed documentary depicted customers asking GM if they could just purchase the all-electric car, with some even holding demonstrations for the EV. But despite all these efforts, GM let the EV1 die, and most, save for a few, were unceremoniously crushed.
There were many speculations surrounding the EV1’s demise. General Motors insisted that the vehicle was not commercially viable. But the trend of large, gas-guzzling SUVs that followed the EV1 in GM’s lineup contributed to rumors that the electric car was killed because it represented a potential threat to the fossil fuel industry. In a sense, the electric car did die a painful, crushing death in the 90s, and it was not until Tesla came to the picture that EVs emerged as viable alternatives to gas-powered cars once more.
And it’s not like there was no resistance to the emergence of electric cars like Tesla, either. Tesla faced and continues to face strong opposition, and if it weren’t for its dedicated team and Elon Musk’s own stubbornness and resilience, the company could have followed the same fate as the EV1. But with vehicles like the Model S changing the game and cars like the Model 3 disrupting vehicle classes that used to be dominated by the internal combustion engine, it eventually became evident that this time around, it will be far more difficult to kill the electric car.
Amidst the success of companies like Tesla, even legacy automakers are playing catch up. Vehicles like the Jaguar I-PACE and the Chevy Bolt EV are representations of this. But even with these efforts, the pace of innovation in the electric vehicle segment is fast. Companies like Tesla work like tech companies, failing fast and failing forward. And now, legacy auto does not only have Tesla to contend with. Other premier electric cars from companies that are EV-only are coming. Tesla may have put EVs back on the map, but now, more companies are joining the fray.
There’s Lucid Motors with the Air, a hyper-luxury sedan that would likely put the Mercedes S-Class in its place. There’s the Rivian R1T and R1S, which bring luxury and comfort even in places off the beaten path. Even Bollinger Motors is attacking a small niche of rock-crawling vehicles with its no-nonsense, rough-and-tough B1 and B2. These are only the tip of the iceberg as well. Veteran auto is even getting increasingly dedicated to EVs, as evidenced by Porsche’s decision to revamp its entire factory in Zuffenhausen just to get the company ready for more electric vehicles like the Taycan.
It appears that this time around, killing the electric car will not be as simple or easy as before. Unlike the early 1900s, EVs now charge fast and they go the distance, and unlike the 90s, electric cars are now being embraced by mainstream consumers. There’s a demand for them, and EVs are now being noted for their performance. Electric cars are here to stay, and every single one that gets released is additional karma to an auto industry that appears to have dug itself far too deep into fossil fuels.
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
