>> live from peer three in san francisco, welcome to "bloomberg west" where we cover innovation, technology and the future of business. i'm emily chang. the c.e.o. of target has now resigned. we get the latest on google as v.c. business. the jury in the apple-samsung patent trial was hauled back to court to recalculate some of the damages and they came to the same overall figure, $119.6 million. samsung plans to appeal. nokia plans to invest in

companies that develop smart car technologies. the investments will be made by a new nokia fund. it is trying to rebrand itself after selling its hand set business to microsoft last month. twitter and amazon have teamed to let customers buy by hashtag. twitter has been looking for ways to boost revenue and user engagement to our lead story of the day, the head of target has resigned after that massive data breach. greg steps down as president, chairman, and c.e.o. of the retailer. c.f.o. john mulligan will be interim c.e.o. while the company looks for a replacement. the changes come about five months after hackers broke into system gaining access to personal information of millions of customers and two months after a bloomberg business week report found that target ignored warnings about the hacking. we have more on the data breach that rocked the retail

industry. >> the first time the public heard that target had been hacked was on december 18, 201 when a blogger revealed that the company was investigating a massive breach. the breach itself actually began sometime before then. what did target know and when did they know it? hackers began capturing credit card data on november 27. three days later, a sophisticated security tool spotted the malaware. target paid $1.6 million for firize because of its ability to detect hacking in real time. it was sent on to the minneapolis operation center. the alert is overlooked. on december 2, security tools detect another version of the malaware. this red flag also goes undetected. had target acted on the alerts at this point, they would have been able to prevent one of the biggest data thefts in history. instead for more than two weeks, the hacker software

collected credit card information and bounced it around the globe to places like moscow and ukraine. federal law enforcement knives target saying they are seeing suspicious activity. on december 15, target confirms it's been hacked and removed the mall aware. target issues its first public statement about the data theft on thus, december 19, revealing that up to 40 million cards may have been compromised. 22 days later, on january 10, target knives customers that in addition to the credit card theft, personal information for up to 70 million customers has also been stolen affecting as many as 1/3 of american consumers. >> that was bloomberg business week's brendon greeley. for more on the breach, we bring in our editor at large and michael riley from d.c. michael, you're the guy who wrote that in-depth investigative piece in

bloomberg business week about target. what's your target on the c.e.o. leaving. was it inevitable or was it a surprise? >> i was one of four reporters who worked on the story for several weeks. on one level, it's a surprise. it's really hard to come up with a data breach, even a really, really large one that has gone all the way up to the c.e.o. in terms of the costs to jobs. target as we know had already fired their chief information officer and that's a typical move to try and deflect any of the problems. you can basically just stop there. what it seems to indicate is that there may be more to come. we know that there are a couple of investigations that the result of which aren't public. one is an investigation that target and its consultants are doing itself. another one is being handled by audience authorize who are looking to see if the security issues that target had or problems that they had contributed to the loss. if so, the banks are going to be looking at shifting as much liability as they can to

target. it could be that the result of those investigations when the board looked at them meant that the c.e.o. had to go as well. >> cory, this may well have been the biggest retail breach in history. what do you imagine continued followout from this could be? >> i think, there is a reasonable expectation there is a customer fallout. we have seen an impact of people unwilling to hand their credit card over when they get to the checkout at target. >> i have a second thought about it. i do. >> that lasting impact really hurts this business which has been a struggling business for quite a while. i also think that this is just a big wake-up call. today is the day that every c.e.o. in the world should be thinking about the issues of cyber security in a very different way, in the same way that the i.t. guy that ran a company, down the hall, and it's next to the c.e.o., the c.e.o.s have to take cyber security as an issue that is going to keep them in their job or in the case of target, force them to lose their job.

>> michael, how confident are you at this point that target now has its ducks in a row, if something like this were to happen again, they would be more prepared, more responsive? >> that's a good question. obviously time is going to tell. one of the things we can tell is they have learned at least one lesson is you don't skimp on security. they are already in the process of upgrading all of their payment systems to a chip and pin system which is what europe uses and which is much more secure. the problem with a system like that is it actually one retailer can't change the game themselves. the cards that the banks issue or the card issuers issue actually have to have the technology in them. target is putting an advanced system in and has to wait for everybody to catch up with them. what happens in that space, again, we'll have to wait and see. >> right, don't hold your breath for something like that, right, cory? it's taken years for the credit card industry to get to the place where it is now, even though the rest of the world is operating differently? >> their system with credit cards is one of those, most

developed credit card business itself is very important to target. it's also worth noting that this company has had struggles. they have gone into canada recently and they're losing money hand over fist in canada. they predicted revenues over $400 million in canada and they're losing $2 for every $4 of revenue they get in the next year. they got really big issues. they couldn't weather this massive data breach. as difficult as business is, you can't screw up on the cyber security efforts when you got other business problems as well. the c.e.o. certainly had that. >> what do you imagine, michael, that other businesses have truly learned? we can't even say target would be ready for this to happen again, what about everybody else? >> again, i think every other, not just every other retailer, but every other large corporation in the u.s. is looking at this and the c.e.o.s especially are taking note of

the impact that this can have, not just on the brand, on the business that everybody has been concerned about for years but on their jobs. as cory said, this is a watershed when this goes all the way up to the top, it indicates that cyber security has gotten to a different level in terms of the impact that it can have on a company. >> all right, well, michael riley, a story we will continue to follow for sure and our editor at large, cory johnson. alibaba gets ready to file for one of the biggest tech i.p.o.'s in history. how much control will they maintain? we'll explore the options later this hour. you can watch us streaming live on your phone, tablet, bloomberg.com and amazon fire tv. ♪ ♪

>> welcome back to "bloomberg west." i'm emily chang. alibaba could be one of the biggest i.p.o.'s since

facebook. the chinese e! commerce giant is expected to file for an u.s. offering any day now. as we wait for the official filing, we're looking at the unique way that the company plans to structure its share ownership which is different from the structure of recent tech i.p.o.'s like facebook and linked in. i want to bring back our editor at large cory johnson, also with us is leslie joining us from new york. cory, i'll start with you. what exactly is alibaba doing here and how is it different from google, facebook, and other structures that we are used to in technology? >> the structure is uncommon in the market widely with the exception of a lot of media companies, newspaper companies, companies with a history of family ownership like a copy like berkshire hathaway. you see it in the "new york times" and comcast. >> they're much more common in tech. >> lately we have seen this with a handful of technology companies. google kind of introduced ha to the world of technology when it

went public in 2004, as far as i recall standing on the lawn covering that story. we had a lot of these stories going public had crummy results. outside investors have been unable to get active and force zinga, groupon and others to change their behavior because the insiders don't control the majority of the company, but they do control the majority of the voting shares. alibaba's situation is a little bit different. the board will have separate power than the regular shareholder class, that was not good for the listing in hong kong. >> how will this situation actually work? >> the partnership basically what we're told is that they will be given an unequivocal right to nominate the board members for the i.p.o. which then the shareholders vote and approve. that's for the majority of board members. so shareholders will still be able to put up a majority of shareholders and vote on all other measures related to this company. there will be essentially a single class of shares except for that one, that one

privilege that the partnership gets to keep. >> well, it's interesting, t. rowe price did a study that dual class share structures actually aren't performing that well? >> that's interesting, because the investments in some of these fields are private. it's interesting that they're going against their own best advice as an investing company. think of yahoo!, a couple that has had a lot of problems for a long time. activist shareholders get involved because they can take large positions in the company. they demand some board seats in ways that aren't possible at alibaba and fix a company that isn't broken. alibaba and yahoo! are joined at the hip. investors would think at some level, historic performance of dual class shares or the notion that the shareholders willfully have control of the company they own, there is additional risk with a listing like this, it's more difficult for them to go public given their adding

this risk to the company. >> leslie, what are you hearing from potential investors, how do they feel about this structure and is it going to deter them from investing? >> so i hear two sides from jefferson. on one hand, you have the investors who are growth oriented and say i don't know what the corporate governance structure is. look at the returns i have gotten from google and facebook. i'm in it for growth and growth alone and capital gains. you have the other side, the people who like to dig deep and look into these companies. some investors tell me they're concerned about the transparency related to alibaba. this is one other aspect that is kind of a red flag to them. >> cory, how do you see alibaba faring in the current environment? we have been seeing a selloff in tech stock. is this tech stock immune because they're so different or not? >> there is going to be so much in this filing that will answer a lot of these questions. to leslie's point, how obscure are the finances, we don't know yet. how is the investment banking

fees different, something i'm looking at a lot, we don't really know yet. they're probably going to try to take a lot of money out of the public markets. there is not a lot of money racing into the public markets right now. on some level, their ability to show a lot of growth and a lot of profit might help them a lot. if they go with an offering like a much smaller offering, a very different dynamic. >> and an offering that was delayed or appears to have been delayed. >> didn't at least rush out the gates that they would have liked to have done. it suggests this market is not immune to all risk. this deal is going to suck a lot of the wind out of the sails. it's also coming now after may, a time when the famous saying for tech investors is sell in may and go away. the notion that people are not wanting to pony up for a lot of risk because it's now may and no longer april also will have a headwind against the offering. >> facebook sold in may. it worked out for them in the longer run. cory johnson, our editor at large, leslie who covers

i.p.o.'s for bloomberg numbers, thanks so much. we'll stay in touch to watch the filing. 480 million twitter shares become eligible for sale tomorrow. is the company doing enough to boost user growth and to keep insiders from selling. you can watch us streaming on your phone, tablet, bloomberg.com, apple tv and amazon fire tv. ♪

>> welcome back to "bloomberg west." i'm emily chang. more than 480 million twitter shares are eligible for sale tomorrow at the company's share lock-up fires today. the c.e.o. and the co-founders have announced they don't plan to sell their shares. is it enough to boost twitter stock which has plunked 39%

this year? the chief economist max wolf joins us from new york. he wrote one of the first twitter reports on the street two years ago. max, we actually have the c.e.o., a company that is helping many twitter employees manage their portfolios on the show last week. he said, a., the first day lock-up expires is the worst to sell, and b., most of the twitter employees that they're working with aren't planning to sell right now. is that what you're hearing? >> yes, always a pleasure for joining you. thanks for having me, emily. a couple of things have changed in the market the last few years, nothing to do with twitter and there are specific things about the twitter story that makes us feel that whatever down draft is already in the shares, there is not a great selling opportunity, and the world has changed a bit. there is second market liquidity in a way there didn't used to be. i think twitter is a good

story, a bit misunderstood lately. twitter has been sort of buffetted around by the risk on, risk off market mood more than anything specific to the entities more specific to the last seven to eight weeks of trading. >> shares are down, more than 38% since the start of the year. they're actually up today. how much of an impact do you think a lock-up is really going to have on the stock? >> lock-ups are law, they are not, they are a suggestion. jumped writers release people from lock-ups all the time. twitter had a weird lock-up. they let employees selling 101 days after the i.p. o. there was an early lock-up. they let employees sell shares covering their tax bills beginning on february 15. the initial early lock-up, nonexecutives to sell to cover their tax bills, it was nearly half a billion dollars worth of stock. that came locked off or unlocked, lock-up, whatever, that happened at this

particular point in february when the stock was sold well over $50 a share. if you look at the performance of the stock, you can see the effect perhaps of those insiders selling to cover that tax bill and the stock got a really big bump on april 15, the last day they would have been able to sell to cover the tax bill. it's an interesting lock-up strategy here that a lot of people who wanted to cover themselves get out to cover a tax bill that would have resulted from the i.p. o. let's also remember they were able to sell on secondary markets before the i.p. o. there have been very fewer companies that let the insiders sell before the i.p. o. >> i spoke with the c.e.o. last week, a lot of questions whether twitter can react sell rate user growth and the financials look good. take a listen to what he thinks about the big picture. >> we have a very specific way of thinking about the long term plan for the company. it's about balancing investment in growth and operating every

ago and operating efficiencies. that combination is the way i think about how we'll build the business and how we'll build the company and paying attention to the market landscape. >> max, how do you feel about the response to the critics, to the skeptics? >> to be honest, it makes little sense. it's a touch academic. it's not super effective at pushing back against the bears in the community. it makes sense. they need to be careful. that's the $64,000 question for everybody with social, particularly for a mobile first and twitter is an 80% mobile story, how do you monday advertise your audience engagement without driving wie the trendsetters and younger engagers. that is always tricky. he has to do it. that is not a spirited rebuttal to fairly nasty commentary in the market focused dead center on twitter lately. >> i love his answer. we have a very specific way to

look at these three things plus the markets and we're not going to tell you how specific we are. >> the market was always on his periphery. cory, when you and i looked at the numbers last week, we thought they actually looked pretty good. someone made a point to me, if you took the name twitter off the earnings report and looked at it, you stripped out everything that was twitter, are they being held to an unfair standard? >> the stand they were held to is the market valuation they were able to achieve in the market. i can't blame twitter to sell the stock at the value at which people were going to pay for it. they have a really high valuation for a growth story that has really come apart. the fact that this quarter was a little bit better than last one is good for them, it's good for the company, good on them. with this kind of valuation, you got to knock the numbers. you got to achieve growth rates and show a clear path to profitability and cash flow return that twitter is not able

to do. >> cory johnson, our editor at large. we will follow twitter. max, thank you both. we will be right back with more of "bloomberg west" in a moment. ♪ >> let's get you caught up where stocks closed at the session. we had a little bit of gain by the end of the day, a little bit of push and pull happening at the session between better than estimated data on the services sector in the u.s. and worse than estimated economic data out of china on manufacturing. still the ukrainian situation hovering in the background as well, but we managed a gain by the end of the day, not a large one, but a gain across the board. we want to talk about the investment conference, the 19th annual version of that. one of the movers related to that was liberty global. t a pop today, shares of the

london-based cable company controlled by billionaire john malone could top $100 over the next five years. liberty will be acquired and bet a bid and that the merge company potentially could then be bought by at&t. ♪

>> you are watching "bloomberg west" where we focus on technology and the future of business. i'm emily chang. google may be known for its big bets on robots, drones, and driverless cars, but the internet giant also has a growing giant venture called google ventures committed to investing in start-ups. rich meyer is a partner at google ventures and came to google through the acquisition of android back in 2007, yes, he was aco founder. rich joins us from new york. rich, thanks so much for joining us again. it's great to have you on the show. question regarding all of the big bets that google is making in robots, drones, driverless

cars, how does that impact the work you guys do at google ventures? >> yeah, that's a great question. the key thing is that while we're an independent venture group, we certainly get to look within google to help inform where google thinks the next big ideas are. so to that exten, it's a huge group of experts who we get it to call in to help evaluate deals we look at, help us do due diligence. it's a great resource for us. >> is there any sort of mandate where they say we're interested in robots, robotic companies, if you see anything good, let us go or specifically look out for robotics companies? >> google is not dictating where they invest. we're an independent investment group. they want us to make a rush on the capital that we're investing. we leverage the resources we have within the google group. they're not telling us where we should put our money. those are simply bright people that we get to talk to as we're

going through our own investment thesis. >> so we're looking at investment pieces, uberpocket. what are things you're nose excited about in your portfolio right now? >> ube better is one. that speaks to a whole category that you see where you press a button and great things happen around you. in the case of uber, you press a button and a car takes you from point to point. we are making other similar bets. we have a company called home joy where if you need to get your house cleaned, you press a button. someone comes to your house and they clean your house. we have a seed investment in open bay which is looking at the 200 million cars on the road that each year probably spend about $300 to get their car fixed typically twice in one year. you typically have a hard time finding out what garage you should be take your car to, so open bay very similar, you press a button, say you need to get your clutch fixed. you told it the make and model of your car. it helps tell you what garages around will fix the car for what price. it will schedule it. it will handle the payment all

with a simple press of a few buttons on a mobile app. >> what is next for uber, they want to go bigger than driving people around. what about delivery or taking on fedex or something like that? >> he think uberhas a great and brilliant vision. you should talk to them about their specific plans. we're very excited to have them as a part of the port polo and lead them and help them when we can. >> another company you invested in which was ultimately bought by google. is there a certain percentage of google ventures companies that google ends up buying or do they get a first look at potential companies for acquisition purposes? >> yeah, absolutely not. we're certainly happy that that was a good fit for google and nest, we have sold companies to yahoo!, to a.o.l., to facebook, so, again, we're a financially motivated investment group. we're perfectly happy to have our portfolio companies have great exits if that's to google, terrific. if that's to somebody else,

that's fine. >> how do you see nest fitting into the broader google idea? >> well, i think the senior management team, larry at google, i think they have a pretty broad vision that goes beyond the current products that they have. you see that with google x as well and nest is just part of the building blocks of trying to understand the intersection of not just smart services in the cloud, but smart and intelligent devices that are around you. >> now, for more mature companies like nest, we're seeing bigger and bigger valuations, facebook buying what's-up for $19 million. ocular virtual reality. drop box, pinterest with multibillion dollar valuations. we have never seen the finances. what do you think of the talk of a potential bubble right now, or this idea that there are ridiculous amounts of capital chasing deals right now? >> there is certainly a fair amount of capital.

we went through a period where there weren't a number of exits. people were feeling optimistic about the economy. they're looking after a period of time maybe where you haven't been investing as much in forward looking r and d., if you can look at what bright start-ups have done, that's a great way to accelerate the development. we are happy to see the exits and we hope that they continue. >> as aco founder of android, what do you think is next in mobile? >> great question. we certainly have been happy with where android has been going. we're continuing to make bets in the mobile space, the one we talked a little bit about, pressing a button and having a car appear and get your car fixed, that is something you do from your mobile device. i think if you look at the space of where people are spending their time, there is still a huge shift of the eyeballs going from people's desk top screens to mobile phone screens and tablet screens. the investment in advertising dollars hasn't shifted yet. you're still going to see a lot of advertising dollars from

major brands shifting over to mobile phones and tablets. that's a great place to be making some bets and we have been doing that. >> now, you guys were an investor bought by facebook. facebook made a number of announcement linked to the back end servicer of a number of third party apps. they introduced this way to log in anonymously, though still using facebook. what do you think of the moves that facebook is making to be more of a middle man in this mobile world between third party apps and android and apple? >> i think facebook, again, i talked about the shift of eyeballs to mobile phones. facebook gets some amount of that time. they're trying to figure out with the large number of users with what they know about those users and the users spending time on screen, how can they leverage that and monday advertise that. that will be good for that. there are a lot of people that are cautious for wanting to leverage that. it's a great opportunity for facebook and a huge opportunity

for other start-ups as well. >> do you feel it's a threat to google at all? >> no, again, i don't fit in a google operational rule, but i don't think it's a threat to google. >> all right, rich miner, thanks for joining us today on "bloomberg west." catch our live coverage, rich is actually in new york this week for the tech crunch disrupt conference. we're going to be covering the keynote there live, the c.e.o. of yahoo!. that is 2:00 p.m. eastern right here on bloomberg television. and speaking of mariss mayer used to website to test more than 40 shades of blue for the google logo. that is next. ♪

>> welcome back to "bloomberg west," i'm emily chang. at any given time. optimizely is running 30,000 experiments on websites all

over the world, the website testing service allows companies to run multiple versions of their website to help them optimize performance. the company announced an additional $57 million in series b funding. so what are their plans for this new money? optimizely c.e.o.'s joins me now here in the studio. just to explain what you guys do, this is a company that helped marisa mayer test 40 shades of blue for the google logo. >> the idea of a.b. testing is just simply running an experiment and trying different variations of your website or mobile app and see which is more effective at getting visitors do what you want them to do. >> you have high patrol investors, tell me where you have seen the most success. >> crate and barrel is a great example. in the last three years, 650 experiments with optimizely. they use it to try to personalize the experience you get when you go to crate and

barrel.com. a good example, after the winters in the northeast, they decided to show a message to people after the winter is over, congratulations, you made it through the winter, let's start planning for the summer. they wanted to sell them nice furniture for their patio. >> it's surprising how many websites don't use it. are j. crew one of your clients? >> no. >> it treats me like anybody else. why don't more companies use it? >> in the past, it required engineering resources. for many businesses, that was a very bottlenecked area. what optimizely enables them to do is enable marketing and product management and design to drive the process of experimentation. that shift within the organization has enabled businesses who weren't doing a.b. testing before to start do it. >> what are you planning to use the money for? >> we envision the world to turn data into action and raise this money to build toward that vision. we think the first step is

optimization. we launched an i.o.s. product and we look for an opportunity to create an experience through optimization. >> you are one of the hottest companies to come out of late. it's an interesting story how you got investments. tell me that story. >> i had dinner with my management team. two folks on my team had worked for scott when he was a c.e.o. and talked about how great their culture was and how scott was one of the best c.e.o.'s they ever worked for. as the current c.e.o., i didn't take it personally. i had to meet this guy. i had dinner with him and was immediately impressed how he built a company that was built to last. i want our company to be around for 100 years and it starts with culture. scott is the right person. >> a.b. testing, is this really a global multi-year opportunity? >> it is. it's an example of turning data into action.

we think that opportunity is tremendous. that's why we have raised this money to go after that bigger opportunity. >> when doesn't a.b. testing work? >> well, a.b. testing won't work if you don't have much traffic to your site or a clear conversion goal. if you have traffic and things they want you to do on your site or on the app, this is great for you. >> to get more clients onboard, you have big competitors, google has a similar product, adobe, they're trying to do the same thing, how do you handle that kind of competition from giants and differentiate yourself? >> as we have emerged as the number one leader in the space, we have been flattered to see the competition try to go after the same market. what we have done that makes us unique is the ability for nontech business users to do a.b. testing. we didn't invest the idea. we made it easy enough for anybody to do. >> to get clients, do you have a huge sales team? how do you reach retailers. some websites don't have their

finger on the latest in tech. >> most of our customers come to us. we're lucky to have been the benefactor of a lot of tail wind where businesses want to become more data driven. this is a tool for them to do that. >> one of the most surprising things you discovered through a.b. testing, an experiment that worked out in a way you didn't expect? >> we run optimizely on optimizely quite a bit. we eat our own dog food to turn people into our customers. we ran an experiment on our home page. we got more questions than answers from the experiment. we do geotargeting and personalization and really good opportunities after running that first experiment. >> we will keep our eye on you guys, the c.e.o. of optimizely, thank you very much. one of gamings biggest urban legends was uncovered. we sit down with the man who found that mass grave for atari's video games, next.

♪

>> welcome back to "bloomberg west." i'm emily chang. turning now to our partnership with george washington university's planet forward, charge point, the largest installer of electrical charging stations is expanding its network to help electric vehicles breakthrough. it could be a sign of things to come for carmakers. >> we hate paying for gas, but electric cars just don't have the range we need, right? well, ambitious companies like california's charge point have taken on the charging challenge to make it easier tore drivers to ditch the gas, installing more than 16,000 charging stations nationwide. so right now it's about 170,000 cars on u.s. roads. that's going to about double within the next 12 months. as those double, our network will at least double.

>> charge point has partnered with some of the biggest carmakers to try to expand the market for electric and plugin hybrid vehicles. cadillac is the latest deal. each car comes with a charge point card. drivers can download an app to track stats from their drive, find the nearest station and see if a charger is available. this feature could be the next big thing for g.m. >> we'll be able to take the learning from these programs, these vehicle programs and apply them to other brands within g.m. and be able to reduce costs and make higher volume brands and get more on the road overall. >> the next step it to get the charge point technology in the car itself, telling the driver where to find the newest station. >> this display is completely custom myselfable. you can change the information shown based on what you know. >> they are still more expensive than traditional vehicles. for those who can pay for them, they're getting more

convenient. the hope is that cost will go down and supply goes up. with a growing nation of market, stations, and data, they want to have more communities, cut emissions and move the planet forward. >> and if you have an idea you would like to submit, visit planet forward.org. for more environmental and sustainability news check out bloomberg.com/sustainability. well, the truth about one of gamings biggest urban legends was uncovered last month when e.t. atari cartridges were dug up in the new mexico desert. the game was called by many, the worst video game ever made. a story about atari hiding the game became one of the industry's greatest legends. my partner cory johnson is back with more. cory. >> what a great gaming legend one. and a true it was documented as part of his new original xbox documentary called atari

gameover, the first to be released on xbox 1 and x. box 350 later this year. what is it working on these super hero movies, and writer, that attracted you in fact to this story of these atari cartridges? >> well, i grew up a gamer. my dad got us pong when i was 6. so i wasted an inordinate amount of time playing video games. atari probably took up a good 1/3 of my childhood. the other thing is i just happen to like these kind of urban legends, strange stories that perpetuate themselves. so it was kind of a no-brainer. i think they got two sentences into the pitch and i said, ok, i'll do it. >> to me, this story touches so many of my favorite things. you have the excitement of technology, the failure of technology, the incredible growth of this company warner brothers.

you have this bombastic amazing character and steve ross was the c.e.o. and chairman of warner brothers, you have failure and accounting fraud all in one. what in particular was it about this story that drew you? >> well, i actually think the larger -- you know, there is definitely a corporate story here that is very interesting, but there is also a larger story about why people are so attached to atari, what kind of cultural import it holds for them, why are people, why did 300 people show up to watch us dig up garbage that was buried in a dump. i think the answers to those questions are pretty interesting. it's not exactly what i expected. >> those themes are interesting. there is one thing in particular, you mention pong. there is something about game play that wires into your brain in a very different way when the game is great. people experience when it's a

great call of duty, they experience when it's at the time his. is that something you can get out in this documentary? >> absolutely. in fact, i was like a spoiler just a spoiler alert for everyone. lan bushnell, shame us blackley, important figures in the video game industry made exactly that point. they talked about how you could drop asteroids in a group of kids today and they will still play it. certain games, there is a reason why people still play checkers. even if it's tarted up and it looks as good as "halo" or something, there is a reason people go back to a game and that's game play. those early atari games were all about game play. that's all that mattered, really. so it's kind of a very pure version of gaming that existed. >> i was more of a battle zone guy myself, tempest was also a favorite. you're right about that.

the stories i know from connie brooks' terrific book about steve ross, master of the game, he wanted to do a deal with steven speakberg. he did a deal with a $23 million guarantee and presented to the atari guy saying we need a new game, it's about e.t., we have never done a movie game before, it's got to be out at christmas, four weeks to develop it. go get them. is that the true story? >> what is funny is that every single person who quotes the number, the dollars that were given steven spielberg has a different number. it ranks between 16 and 26. some version of that is true, although it was paid to universal, not to spielberg directly. it's also true that they gave howard scott war shaw, the designer, about five weeks to design the game, which is not enough time. so there are elements involved that are accurate. they definitely did want to get

it out for christmas, but there are also parts of the story that aren't exactly true. first of all, the whole deal with spielberg, spielberg picked howard scott warshaw, he really liked the idea for the game. he played the game before it came out and liked it a lot. a lot of the kind of neatly fitting pieces here when you pull the story apart, they're very different than you might imagine. >> thank you very much. emily. >> thanks, cory, and thank you all for watching this edition of bloomberg west. remember you can get the latest at the top of the hour at bloomberg radio and at bloomberg.com/technology. we'll see you later. ♪.

>> and welcome to "money clip." the ceo of target is out. the president takes his stand up back on the road. today's investor has an exclusive interview from the investment conference. we are going there. we are also going to space. a special series this week, behind the scenes to lead the next generation of space travel. motors, writing full. seriously. we will take this electric vehicle for a .