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?
Ferrari unveiled its Luce EV over the weekend, and so far, its reception has been an absolute disaster, gathering negative reactions from a wide variety of people, including former executives.
The stock even took a hit on its first day of trading following the unveiling, dropping over 7 percent at one point.
Ferrari moving to EVs from its traditional V12s and mid-engine sports cars is a massive move. It was designed by Sir Jony Ive and Marc Newsom’s LoveFrom studio, which is known for design work for tech giant Apple. “Luce” means “light” in Italian, so Ferrari drew inspiration for its name from its sleek design, characterized by a smooth, sculpted body with rounded edges.
But its reception has been far from what Ferrari expected. The overall design has drawn some harsh criticism since its reveal, and it is simply stunning that such a storied company, with a rich history of beautiful, powerful cars has revealed a design that many are not a fan of.
Ferrari unveiled its all-electric Luce over the weekend, and it has truly gotten some attention…not for the right reasons.
From an Italian legend that has built some beautiful cars in its history, this almost feels like a ploy to inevitably cancel its electric program. pic.twitter.com/rczSSb3pJx
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 26, 2026
Responses to the design were widely negative, with some saying, “Enzo is rolling in his grave,” and “This looks like a Nissan LEAF with a bad body kit.”
Former Ferrari Chairman Luca di Montezemolo said:
“If I said what I really think, I’d harm Ferrari. We’re risking the destruction of a myth, I’m very sorry about that. I hope they at least remove the Prancing Horse from that car.”
🚨 Luca di Montezemolo former Ferrari chairman reacts to the new electric Ferrari Luce:
“I’ve seen the project has already been delayed more than two years. I don’t like commenting from the stands—when I was in the game, it annoyed me when people did that. I think for now the… https://t.co/TzIDxFzHso
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 26, 2026
Ferrari has scaled back EV commitments in the past, primarily in response to weaker-than-expected demand for its electric powertrains.
Priced at roughly $640,000 in the U.S., it is tough to see how this car will ever truly live up to the massive expectations many had for it. It almost feels like, to a certain extent, Ferrari is looking for a way to get out of building EVs.
Tesla unveiled a juicy new detail on the Roadster, its long-delayed supercar project, and additionally hinted at a new unveiling timeline, as it appears yet another month will pass without seeing the capabilities of the vehicle.
Vice President of Vehicle Engineering at Tesla, Lars Moravy, revealed on the Ride the Lightning podcast that the Roadster will be built at Gigafactory Texas, adding that “you’ll start to see a lot of things unfold in the next months.”
While we get a good detail on the plant of manufacture, we also get another letdown, as it appears the unveiling event will not take place in May, as CEO Elon Musk hinted during the Earnings Call.
Franz von Holzhausen revealed in the Ride the Lightning podcast that the Tesla Roadster will be built at Gigafactory Texas https://t.co/t9Bu9k824Q pic.twitter.com/TT01IWJaFD
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) May 24, 2026
The Roadster was first unveiled back in 2017, alongside the Semi, which entered production earlier this year. It was Tesla’s attempt at a true supercar; it would be rare, expensive, and lightning quick, among other incredible capabilities, like potentially hovering for a short period thanks to a collaboration project with SpaceX.
However, the vehicle was set to be delivered in 2020. Parts and supply chain issues due to the COVID-19 pandemic started these delays, and since then, Tesla, and specifically Musk, have wanted to push the capabilities of the Roadster to somewhere the human mind may not be able to currently comprehend.
Both Chief Designer Franz von Holzhausen and Moravy have said many things about the Roadster over the past few years, hinting that the car truly could be worth the wait. However, the continuous delays we’ve seen have undoubtedly been discouraging.
With that being said, it’s not like Tesla has been doing nothing. Instead, the company has been focusing on revamping current models, phasing out others, and working on developing the cars of the future, specifically, the Cybercab, which entered production at Giga Texas in April.
Despite the Roadster’s delays, there is still a ton of anticipation for the vehicle to be released. It will have a steering wheel, as Musk said it will be “the best of the last of the human-driven cars.”
NASA has filed a procurement notice announcing its intent to add six post-certification missions to SpaceX’s existing Commercial Crew Transportation Capability contract. The agency said it would order up to three of those missions immediately upon adding them to the contract, with the remaining three available as needed through the end of the International Space Station’s planned operations in 2030.
The reason for the expansion is straightforward. NASA cited recently shortened ISS mission durations, technical issues and schedule delays encountered by Boeing, the allocation of missions between Boeing and SpaceX, and the ongoing technical challenges of maintaining a reliable crew transportation capability as the driving factors behind the decision. Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner has still not been certified for crewed flights, and a cargo-only Starliner mission was not included on NASA’s most recent mission manifest. With Boeing effectively sidelined for the foreseeable future, SpaceX is the only American company capable of rotating crews to the station.
The history behind this contract tells the fuller story of how SpaceX got here. NASA originally awarded SpaceX its Commercial Crew contract in 2014 for $2.6 billion. In 2022 NASA modified the contract to add five missions covering Crew-10 through Crew-14, worth $1.436 billion, bringing the total contract value at that point to $4.9 billion. The recent May 18 filing by NASA extends that runway further, with Crew-12 currently docked at the station and Crew-13 assigned and targeting a mid-September 2026 launch.
According to a report by SpaceNews, NASA stated in its filing: “It is necessary to award additional PCMs to SpaceX given the recently shortened ISS mission durations, technical issues and schedule delays encountered by Boeing, the allocation of missions between Boeing and SpaceX, NASA’s projections for when an alternative crew transportation system may become available, and the ongoing technical challenges of maintaining a reliable capability for crewed flights to ISS.”
No dollar value for the new six missions has been publicly confirmed yet, but based on the 2022 precedent of roughly $287 million per mission, the new block could represent close to $1.7 billion in additional contract value. With SpaceX simultaneously preparing Starship as NASA’s Artemis lunar lander, filing its S-1 for a June IPO, and now absorbing more ISS crew rotation work, the company’s role as the primary contractor for American human spaceflight is no longer a matter of circumstance. It is NASA policy.
Ferrari unveils its Luce EV, and its reception has been a disaster
Tesla unveils juicy new detail on the Roadster and hints at new unveil timeline
