News
Tesla’s $5B giga battery factory will disrupt more than carmakers and utilities
Making sense of Tesla Motors’ giga battery factory means taking a few steps back to see the bigger picture. We invite you to come along this electric ride as we put the pieces together and see just how disruptive Tesla really is.
Tesla is disrupting more than carmakers.
First things first, Tesla Motors isn’t a carmaker. Sorry to break it to you, but Tesla is a statement, an energy company, a lifestyle enabler and much more, wrapping it altogether into sexy computers on wheels. This is the biggest flaw carmakers made, seeing Tesla Motors as competition. Don’t believe us?
Tesla Motors, the energy management company.
Tesla Motors answered all of your electric vehicle (EV) needs, even those you didn’t know you had. What other carmaker offers you free supercharger? What other carmaker gives you soon the possibility to zip from Los Angeles to San Francisco swapping two or three battery packs? And even better, who gives you the option to pick up your original pack or keep the new one for a fee? Tesla is an EV enabler and much more.
Tesla Motors, the energy producing company.
Spending $5 billion on a battery manufacturing plant means serious business. It also means serious competition for a few unsuspecting industries, such as utilities and battery makers. Carmakers can’t make that kind of investment in battery technology, and won’t. It is too far out their business model.
Utilities is the industry segment Tesla is going after. This investment means Tesla will recycle lithium batteries and use them as storage with the solar energy it harvests. Connecting the plant to the grid means deadly competition for utilities, still trying to understand how to use EVs to their advantage. Tesla will force them to buy their energy or create their own micro-grid.
Tesla Motors, the battery company.
Tesla knows the price of lithium batteries has to continue to come down. Traditional companies struck strategic alliances to outlets, but not Tesla. After buying off the shelf, commodity lithium-ion batteries, it now will forgo the middleman to build its own batteries. This is yet another threat to battery makers worldwide. To think of the application this battery manufacturing plant has is staggering.
Tesla Motors, the lifestyle enabler challenges marketing.
More than anything, Tesla is beyond a performance cool car that runs on electrons. Tesla revolutionized the world of marketing and advertising by… not advertising. It’s not only brilliant, it saved the company millions of dollars better spent in R&D. Let’s face it, these advertising campaigns are not efficient. Why would you trust a manufacturer’s claim to be the best? It’s so impartial; everyone knows it and it just doesn’t work. Tesla is shaking the marketing world who is left to figure out what the “next big thing” is.
Tesla simply lets you drive your Model S for others to see that lifestyle statement. Remember that the Model S outsells any other car in its price range. If you think it bothers GM and Ford, imagine how Mercedes, BMW and Audi feel.
Can Tesla do no wrong?
We would be remiss not to point that the company is on a fast track to complete and absolute success in more than one industry. Still, as with such potential success, the opposite is equally valid. Investors are the Achilles heel, as the company’s stock price inflates to ridiculous levels. They could soon make unrealistic demands that could force the company down murky waters. Even Elon Musk agrees Tesla’s stocks are over-inflated.
It’s going to hurt when mainstream carmakers fully understand the wide-reaching scope of the Tesla Motors’ effect. They cannot compete with it, as much as they cannot compete with Apple or IBM. They will desperately try to catch up with a company that isn’t a carmaker. This year, utilities will wake up to the Tesla threat, after they barely get a grasp on what EVs mean for them. They will try to benefit using outdated models, but Tesla will throw a monkey wrench. Remember that if you stand in the way of Tesla, they will remove you by manufacturing it.
As we move away from a national grid to a smart grid system, with localized smart grids, utilities will have to switch from energy producers to energy managers. These are business model changes none of these industries are not equipped to make. Tesla Motors has played a fine chess game, not too many industries fully understand.
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
