Connect with us

News

Is Tesla Motors disruptive or disturbing?

Published

on

Tesla-Store-NJTesla 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.

Advertisement

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?

Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla to discuss expansion of Samsung AI6 production plans: report

Tesla has reportedly requested an additional 24,000 wafers per month, which would bring total production capacity to around 40,000 wafers if finalized.

Published

on

Tesla-Chips-HW3-1
Credit: Tom Cross

Tesla is reportedly discussing an expansion of its next-generation AI chip supply deal with Samsung Electronics. 

As per a report from Korean industry outlet The Elec, Tesla purchasing executives are reportedly scheduled to meet Samsung officials this week to negotiate additional production volume for the company’s upcoming AI6 chip.

Industry sources cited in the report stated that Tesla is pushing to increase the production volume of its AI6 chip, which will be manufactured using Samsung’s 2-nanometer process.

Tesla previously signed a long-term foundry agreement with Samsung covering AI6 production through December 31, 2033. The deal was reportedly valued at about 22.8 trillion won (roughly $16–17 billion).

Advertisement

Under the existing agreement, Tesla secured approximately 16,000 wafers per month from the facility. The company has reportedly requested an additional 24,000 wafers per month, which would bring total production capacity to around 40,000 wafers if finalized.

Tesla purchasing executives are expected to discuss detailed supply terms during their visit to Samsung this week.

The AI6 chip is expected to support several Tesla technologies. Industry sources stated that the chip could be used for the company’s Full Self-Driving system, the Optimus humanoid robot, and Tesla’s internal AI data centers.

The report also indicated that AI6 clusters could replace the role previously planned for Tesla’s Dojo AI supercomputer. Instead of a single system, multiple AI6 chips would be combined into server-level clusters.

Advertisement

Tesla’s semiconductor collaboration with Samsung dates back several years. Samsung participated in the design of Tesla’s HW3 (AI3) chip and manufactured it using a 14-nanometer process. The HW4 chip currently used in Tesla vehicles was also produced by Samsung using a 5-nanometer node.

Tesla previously planned to split production of its AI5 chip between Samsung and TSMC. However, the company reportedly chose Samsung as the primary partner for the newer AI6 chip.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk: Tesla could be first to build AGI in humanoid form

Musk’s statement was shared in a post on social media platform X.  

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Elon Musk predicted that Tesla could become one of the developers of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) in humanoid form. Musk’s statement was shared in a post on social media platform X.  

In his post, Musk stated that “Tesla will be one of the companies to make AGI and probably the first to make it in humanoid/atom-shaping form.”

The comment comes as Tesla expands development of its Optimus humanoid robot.

During Tesla’s Q4 earnings report, Elon Musk stated that production of the Model S and Model X would be phased out at its Fremont, California, facility. The vehicles’ production line will then be converted to a pilot line for Optimus. Tesla is looking to produce 1 million units of the humanoid robots annually to start.

Advertisement

Musk has previously stated that Optimus could eventually function as a von Neumann probe. The concept, proposed by mathematician John von Neumann, describes a machine capable of replicating itself using planetary resources and sending those replicas to other worlds.

Optimus would likely only be able to achieve this potential if it manages to achieve Artificial General Intelligence.

Other leaders in the AI sector have also expressed strong expectations about AGI’s potential. Demis Hassabis, CEO of Google DeepMind, recently spoke about the technology at the India AI Impact Summit 2026, as noted in a Benzinga report.

“It’s going to be something like ten times the impact of the Industrial Revolution, but happening at ten times the speed,” Hassabis said.

Advertisement

Elon Musk’s recent comments about Tesla producing a product with AGI could hint at further collaboration among his companies. So far, Tesla is actively pursuing autonomous driving, but it is xAI that is pursuing AGI with its Grok program.

Considering that Elon Musk mentioned a Tesla humanoid product with AGI, it appears that an Optimus robot running xAI’s AI models could become a reality.

xAI had recently merged with SpaceX, though reports suggest that Elon Musk is also considering an even bigger merger for all his companies, including Tesla.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tesla influencers argue company’s polarizing Full Self-Driving transfer decision

Tesla maintains it will honor transfers for orders with initial delivery windows before the deadline and offers full deposit refunds otherwise, citing longstanding fine print that the program is “subject to change at any time.”

Published

on

Tesla’s decision to tighten its Full Self-Driving (FSD) transfer promotion has ignited fierce debate among owners and enthusiasts.

The company quietly updated its terms in late February 2026, changing the eligibility from “order by March 31, 2026” to “take delivery by March 31, 2026.”

What began as a flexible incentive to boost sales, allowing buyers to transfer their paid FSD (Supervised) to a new vehicle, now excludes many, particularly Cybertruck owners facing delivery delays into summer or later.

Tesla maintains it will honor transfers for orders with initial delivery windows before the deadline and offers full deposit refunds otherwise, citing longstanding fine print that the program is “subject to change at any time.”

The reversal has polarized the Tesla community, with accusations of a “bait-and-switch” clashing against defenses of corporate pragmatism. Many owners who placed orders under the original wording feel betrayed, especially as production backlogs and new unsupervised FSD rollout complicate timelines.

However, Tesla has allowed them to cancel their orders and receive a refund.

Critics of the decision argue that the change disadvantages loyal customers who helped fund FSD development, calling it poor communication and a revenue grab as Tesla pivots toward subscriptions.

Popular influencers have amplified the divide. Whole Mars Catalog struck a measured but firm tone, acknowledging the original “order by” language but emphasizing Tesla’s right to adjust terms. He has continued to defend Tesla in this particular issue:

He criticized extreme backlash as “dramatization” and “spoiled kids,” noting the unsupervised FSD era and broader sales challenges make blanket transfers financially risky. Whole Mars advocated for polite outreach to CEO Elon Musk over the issue.

In a contrasting perspective, Dirty TesLA voiced sharper frustration, posting that blocking transfers feels “crazy” and distancing himself from “people that want to worship a corporation and say they can do no wrong.” His stance resonated with owners who view the policy flip as disrespectful to early adopters.

Popular Tesla influencer Sawyer Merritt captured the frustration felt by thousands. In a widely shared thread viewed over 700,000 times, Merritt detailed how pre-change Cybertruck orders now risk losing FSD eligibility unless their initial delivery window falls before March 31.

The controversy underscores deeper tensions—between Tesla’s need for revenue discipline and owners’ expectations of goodwill. As FSD evolves toward unsupervised capability, the community remains split: some see the change as necessary business, others as a broken promise. Whether Tesla reconsiders under pressure or holds firm remains to be seen, but it does not appear they are planning to budge.

Continue Reading