News
Is Tesla Motors disruptive or disturbing?
Tesla Motors stands out in many ways, leaving many wondering how disruptive is it and how disturbing it is for corporations. One thing is for certain, Tesla reflects a need in society, that of a deep fundamental change. The problem is, are giant corporations ready for this change and can they adapt?
To disrupt, or not, that is not longer the questions.
Tesla Motors disrupts and irritates the way corporations operate. Elon Musk and Martin Eberhard didn’t invent the wheel, they both used what entrepreneurs are best at, that of asking what is needed. They wanted a cool and fun car that didn’t use dirty polluting petroleum. They went to see what AC Propulsion was working on with their incredible t-zero, the grandfather of the Roadster and the Tesla Roadster born soon after.
Tesla Motors didn’t reinvent the wheel, but disrupted the automotive world by using old and tested technologies, an electric motor and off the shelf batteries. On the flip side, automakers build vehicles with planned obsolescence and constant maintenance, which perpetuate a thriving cash flow through after market and distribution. Tesla introduced an electric car that required close to no maintenance, sold directly to buyers who choose to buy it or not. That was the disruptive part, now let’s look at the disturbing part for automakers.
Steady as she goes down the drain.
We often fault carmakers for everything wrong in the automotive industry, but their worn out business model that won’t adapt to our fast changing needs is really what is wrong. The biggest mistake they made was to over-rely on the market it created in the first place. It simply didn’t see the electric car technology progressing faster than their gasoline one and doubted this new market was ready. They simply didn’t understand people want a real fundamental change, which means taking a step back from bottom line profits.
The Tesla Motors business model frightens established companies because it operates outside their reality and shifts the emphasis back to the consumer. We can debate how much hype there is around a Roadster and a Model S, but fundamentally, one either buys cars because of its superior performance over a gasoline car, or because of the freedom of energy use, with its convenience and reliability and finally, or because it just darn changes things a lot.
Now flash back to the post 2008 era, when the financial world was partying as if there were no tomorrow and carmakers sued any states imposing better fuel economy. Carmakers perpetuated the belief we wanted cars with more cup holders than we truly needed, and favored creature comforts over performance and evolution. The advent of the electric wrestled that grip on the lulled market away from them, the way only a silicon valley startup could with its different business model.
Who’s disturbing now?
So, who’s disturbing now? When we look back in time, almost all big corporations were at one point disruptive. AT&T gave us Unix, Microsoft gave us the potential of the personal computer, but we certainly can’t call them disruptive anymore. They are disturbing in the fact they no longer innovate, but stubbornly pursue a path of pure profitability. Unfortunately, Apple is also following the same trend. The company once famous for stellar customer service and extremely well made computers is now more focused on profits than innovations. It’s Apple store is no longer fun to visit, and manufacturing problems are happening often.
It doesn’t take much extrapolation to see that one day too, Tesla Motors will be in the same situation. Are there exceptions? Certainly IBM made the right change. After decades of focusing on manufacturing, it made the boldest move to go back to consulting. Look at where IBM is now, and compare it to other personal computer makers. So what can companies learn from newer players and what can newer players learn from older companies having come full circle?
-
In a new note to investors on Tuesday, Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco said that Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors regarding its Robotaxi rollout, Full Self-Driving software, and Optimus.
Percoco said in the note that, for the most part, investors are still very positive about the direction the company is headed. However, there are some things the firm would like to see, and they have to do with financials.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla bulls are more than convinced that the company’s Full Self-Driving software is proof it can develop physical AI. Financially, however, there are still some questions, especially on elevated spending, which CEO Elon Musk said would occur as the company works to roll out Robotaxi faster and continue developing its Optimus robot.
The latter two are where Tesla will have to prove progress to investors, as Percoco writes that both projects “will require clearer evidence that Robotaxi is scaling and more tangible Optimus proof points to support the ROI on elevated capex.”
Percoco said the second quarter earnings call did not change his long-term thesis of where Tesla is positioned in the AI race, which is out in front. However, there are concerns that weaker gross margins and higher R&D spend will stress financials, and that has “sharpened our (and investors’) focus on measurable progress across Robotaxi and Optimus.”
Additionally, Robotaxi still needs to be proven with more operation in existing cities while maintaining safety but improving how many rides it gives in any given time, he said. For Optimus, Percoco wrote that he is “still looking for evidence beyond commentary around SOP.”
-
Morgan Stanley put Percoco in charge of covering Tesla after long-time analyst Adam Jonas transitioned to the automotive side.
Currently, Morgan Stanley has a $415 price target on Tesla and a ‘Hold’ rating on the stock. It is trading at around $330 at the time of publication, which was 2:30 P.M. on the East Coast.
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
-
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
-
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.
Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”
Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.
🚨 Tesla is recalling 20,349 2020-23 Model Y vehicles and 2017-23 Model 3 vehicles due to an excessively bright headlamp low beam.
Currently, there is no remedy plan in place, as it is still being developed. pic.twitter.com/y34cIO2U0B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 11, 2026
Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.
-
However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.
Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.
Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.
Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors: Morgan Stanley
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
