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?
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
