>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> david remnick is here. he is the editor of the new yorker magazine. he brings with him a new book

that looks at 1940's history and culture through new yorker stories and pawns. -- end helen's. the collection represents the great turn. the magazine's artistic awakening. how do you decide to do this? >> in internet terms, you want to surface your material. the new yorker has been around for coming up on 90 years. >> in the south, we call this plowing the ground. if you are starting to read the new yorker, you have no idea -- e.b. white is not a name that comes up. by publishing to be like this,

you bring -- first of all, you are showing how the new yorker developed. it started as a comic weekly. it was light, lively, age as a jazz age creation. it didn't ignore the depression, but the depression was in contradiction to the spirit of the magazine. it did not consider itself a political magazine. during the war, it grew up. it got more serious. >> that is because it took the war seriously? >> how could you not. this was the catastrophic world changing event of our time. to go on dancing to the edge of apocalypse would have been ridiculous. harold ross was himself a veteran.

previously the editor of stars & stripes. >> andy rooney wrote for him. >> he sent writers to war. not ernie pyle types. not a.p. dispatch people. that was left to the newspapers. but people like janet and philip, writer writers, to see what they would make of the war. take their different kind of approach to it without the vicious deadlines, the daily deadlines war correspondents had to deal with. a great literature of all into into theult -- evolved pages of the new yorker. when you think of somebody like dexter filkins. the investigative work of jane mayer.

even the literary voice of somebody like adam. they are steeped in the stuff. >> you mean they were -- >> i think a writer -- >> is the natural evolution from the 1940's. >> i think so. that was the pivotal moment for the new yorker. the founding editor and his deputy. who had gone to edit the magazine as its leader. working with very little resources. so many of the writers went off to war, not just as writers but soldiers. the room emptied out. the magazine was forced to hire more women. >> if you look at the pantheon of great american writers, whether it is faulkner or hemingway, how many have been

associated -- what are the names that have been associated with "the new yorker?" n, theterms of fictio strategy when they began in the mid-20's is they could not afford to pay hemingway and fitzgerald. there were loads of magazines that published fiction. the saturday evening post paid wonderful rates for short stories. the new yorker could not afford that strategy of going for the big names. instead, they scheduled for names that had not quite surfaced. young writers. katherine white, the great first fiction editor. she found writers like john cheever. eventually people like updike. >> what does an editor do?

>> easy. find good writers. >> that is a huge part of the job. find a new one and you have not heard of yet. when i started, i found myself reading the galley of a novel called, "i married a communist." by philip roth. i didn't like the short story we were about to run. it occurred to me, why don't we read a piece of this. but running philip roth when he is in his 60's, that doesn't take much of a brain. but when our fiction editor comes in and says, you must read this. you have never read this before or heard of this person. she is excited about it. or somebody brings in a long

piece by a then unknown dave eggers. that is as exciting as it gets. >> did david foster wallace write for you? >> no, but jonathan franzen. a magazine can't get everything. you will see in this anthology, for example, in the poetry section. the new yorker was great about elizabeth fisher. it completely missed the boat on wallace stevens. that is what shapes the character of the magazine. the decisions in real time. you wish you had been wise about everything. that is not going to happen. the san francisco poets, the beat poets.

later on the new yorker published them. that is something that was in city lights and more avant-garde magazines. >> at what point did you think, i would love to be the editor? >> not once. not one minute, not one day. it didn't make any sense. i loved writing and reporting. i was nowhere near an editing track. occasionally tina brown would give me a piece or two. but it was oblique to what i was really doing. >> how long does it take you decide to take the job? >> i talked about on friday. he offered it to somebody else over the weekend. that fell apart. he has been a great editor in

the past. i came in on monday. i had no idea what had happened with michael kinsley. he offered me the job. he gave me about 20 minutes to decide and that was that. >> what did your wife say? >> she said, it will be a great adventure. that was 16 years ago. >> hop on board and see what happens. and what point will it become too much of a burden for you? >> i think the best thing editor in new york is and has been bob silvers who edits the new york review of books. not only did he edit the new york review of books but he invented the new york review of books. he is now in his early 80's. i can't imagine doing what he does. >> in his early 80's. >> he does it with a small

staff. he does not write. he is more purely an editor. he is a kind of genius, too. i just can't think that far in advance. >> i watched the olympics and thought you were picking of being a sportscaster. [laughter] >> i did that once and the excursion is, once a philosopher, twice a pervert. [laughter] i don't expect to repeat that stunt again. nbc called me up. they needed a russia person. maybe to kosher them. matt lauer knows a lot of things -- but they are not russian specialists. it was an experience for me. sochi looked like new jersey

with ski slopes. it didn't feel like russia. >> they're going to have a formula one race there. >> that is just what russia needs is formula one. >> nothing wrong with formula one. >> they have other problems. it was a view of big-time tv. when i go to cover a story, it is me and a pencil. maybe a translator. >> the reason i am jealous of you is because of your talent -- bob dylan. philip roth. >> this is why you get into journalism. i went to columbia university graduation today. it was the journalism school kids. >> did you speak? >> i did not. there are med school students who know what they are going to do. the business school.

there are the journalists going into this radically changing field. if you ask them seriously if they know what they will do six months from now, a lot of them have no idea. the one thing they want in on is the adventure of it. they want to get lucky. i have had parts of my life that are unlucky. this part has been -- >> i understand. i walk out every morning. 5:00. in the summer, it is green when the sun is up. i say i am the luckiest person in the world. i open the doors and say, this is what is happening today. i have the greatest group of correspondents around the world who are wordsmiths. who understand picture and words. who are going to tell you stories. >> i feel the same way, too. >> that i come over here and do

what is important. the deeper understanding that comes with time. >> the job, my job, has changed a lot. the best, most thrilling part of it. i got a manuscript from nathan heller about silicon valley. he is a young writer in his 20's. i read this thing and it made me feel good. i got something from another young writer. fantastic young reporter. clearly going to be an enormous presence in the journalistic scene. people all over -- we are navigating an enormous communications revolution. how people read the new yorker

-- how we should integrate the web into the values of any processes of the print magazine. to see the number of people reading on their phones, serious things. how to rationalize that with the way you think about design. speed. editing. checking. these are issues that did not occur to anybody in this job before. they demanded enormous attention. they change all the time. >> my impression is the future is clearer than it has been. people are beginning to see how it will evolve. >> in some ways, yes. in some ways i cannot say that is the case. >> the technology is helping them. >> i don't have all the answers to this. the orthodoxies shift all the time. when i started meeting with people younger than me.

the great evangelist of the web as it was emerging. i would go to these dinners or meet people. you felt in a defensive crouch. you felt like you are being invited as a dinosaur. there were certain orthodoxies. nobody would read anything of any length on the web. that was an orthodoxy. now it turns out people want to read things at terrific length. >> the newest web journalism is about drilling down. we will provide for those people who want a clearer understanding and explanation -- >> precisely. the new yorker is doomed us to success. there is a lot more of

everything new. there are sites that people are excited about that may be here in 20 years or gone in a year. if we stick to what we do which has to do with death and talent and find editing, and we apply that to any technology we become involved with, we are going to be in fine shape. we might have bumps along the road. >> the same thing. for the program, a stun the same reasoning. >> your viewers in their 20's do not have a television. you don't even ask. they are not not watching. a lot of my son's friends, the

idea of getting a print anything is out of date. i think a print magazine is a good technology. but if you want to read up on the phone, the laptop, i really don't care. i want to get better at all these technologies. i want the operations at the new yorker to be integrated not only in the bureaucratic sense but in the, forgive me, spiritual sense. we are sharing the same values of accuracy and depth and rigor. we don't want the web to be a b team. >> the other thing that has come up, we thought the web was about -- whether it was what television does or print does -- we thought it was finding a place to put print online.

it is not that. >> that is not what i -- that is initially when a website was. the web also offers creative possibilities, too. and, for example, the new york times had the piece called snowfall. they put a lot of resources into that. it was a terrific money loser. it showed them what is possible. i don't think it is the best story they have done. it was a noble experiment and showed to the rest of us what was possible. i know there has been a lot of controversy about the leadership of the times in the last week. one of the footnotes to that was this leak to report that came out at the times it was entrusting about the way they are thinking about technology. >> the one written by the publisher's son.

>> and a big committee. >> now that you brought up "the new york times," what you make of the firing? >> i think the new york times is a singular news gathering institution. i don't get is one of the best, i think it is the best. i have spent my career in a sense in opposition to it. competitive with it. i was a washington post reporter for 10 years. i learned to be a reporter by getting my butt kicked by bill keller in moscow. when i picked up a piece, you can be sure i feel competitive with it. as a newsgathering organization, they are not -- they are not the wall street journal or the

washington post. i want the new york times to be great. i think it is possible it is the most important private institution in this country. i can't read every language. it is better than anything i can read. >> what does that have to do with the fact that the new york times -- and your take on the changing leadership? >> i think it is tough on the institution. >> the institution suffers. >> at least temporarily. >> it is suffering because people call into question its -- >> i don't think so. a lot of people out in the world who read the new your times. this is fairly invisible to them. >> that would be one of my questions. we know -- >> the difference between this incident in the howell raines

period -- there would not have been a firing if it weren't for the scandal. that was the trip wire. here is something more complicated. a paper is great. we can argue about the coverage of this story. but nobody is arguing the paper, jill abramson was fired because the paper was poor. clearly there was a -- i don't want to go too deeply into this, because it is not my workplace -- but the relationship between leaders of the paper were so frayed they were not able to survive the disagreements and arguments.

that is tough on an institution. if you have a lousy marriage and have a blowup, you could end up in court next day. if you had a solid marriage, you could walk it back. what role -- i think the salary piece of it, which remains a bit murky. i'm not sure we know the end of the story. clearly when you bring a lawyer in and you already have a bad relationship, it does not make the publisher feel warm and fuzzy. that is obvious. i don't think that was the breaking point. the breaking point was the other piece of business having to do with the hiring of a digital managing editor. that was the final explosion.

>> and you had all this personnel involved. it wasn't just one. >> the key thing here, the only thing i can bring to the table other than try to publish things that are accurate and rounded, is that it is tough on an institution that this country needs. without being too mushy and romantic, i don't think anybody wants to see a diminished "new york times." the publisher's news values through a very hard time to publish a newspaper are not in question. >> would you like to have had the "vanity fair" piece? >> i want everything. [laughter] by the time that came out, with respect to that, it was clear what the story was.

there is a bigger thing to do. maybe that will happen. a running story more and more of what the case is emerges. any good story i see, you have to respect what it is. >> or a good interview. bob dylan. philip roth. >> is stupid to say, i used to know a guy at the washington post. he would get his butt kicked all the time. he would say, "we had that." it's not important. >> somebody said that very thing to me. >> it was the ceo of comcast. he said, because of the successful mergers, every time we do one, somebody says, i could have done that.

>> go ahead and try. >> russia. >> things are going great. [laughter] >> you love russia. >> i do. i love my friends in russia. i love reporting there. what is happening now is deeply disturbing to me. we are talking about russia, not ukraine. russia as such, the leadership, is getting more xenophobic and reactionary. >> is adjust the leadership or vladimir putin? >> what is the difference. it is the complete autocracy. >> are we in a new cold war? >> well, we are not -- there is a question of the nature of what

the confrontation will be and for how long. we tend to -- we throw words around like cold war. we forget how brutal and expensive and prolonged the cold war was. >> lost opportunity. >> and it shapes everything from 1945 to 1991. it is one thing to try to understand, as an intellectual and strategic exercise, to see how putin sees the world. it is also important to call things by their proper name. russia has tried to destabilize a country to its south.

in opposition to the leadership of the ukraine and the west. this is embarrassing, in the nerd direction. i have an app on my phone. i can now walk around or sit in a chair and watch russian tv live. 35 channels. with just a flick. >> what is this called? >> russian tv. i watched the main tv news programs. >> what do you see and hear? >> a level of malevolent propaganda and rhetoric i have not heard. i did not even here in the late soviet period. it's very bad. you have the leadership describing ukrainian fascists. describing aggressions against

our fellow countrymen. this is false. >> do you think the president of the united states is up to the challenge? >> i think they were taken by surprise. >> which is a problem. >> it is. i think they were taken by surprise by the vehemence of the action. i'm trying to do a longer piece on u.s.-russia relations. there were people in the situation room who, many months ago, said it is not unthinkable that russia will take crimea. but i don't think russia was high on the priority list of foreign subjects in the white house. not with syria, not with, particularly, getting out of

iraq and afghanistan. the so-called pivot to asia. >> continuing concern about terrorism. >> absolutely. russia was not a top priority. this is not to be protective of the president of the u.s. by the way, there were tactical errors by the european union and u.s. but -- again, call things by their primary name. the primary actor in this is vladimir putin. i am hoping, i am hoping -- now he has taken crimea and destabilized to the east. i hope there is some backing off. i hope the election goes well. it seems to me for russia to call ukraine fascist is

preposterous. fascist countries don't call democratic elections. it doesn't happen. that is what is meant to happen on sunday. the likely victor is problematic. picture shankill. he is known as the chocolate king, but he is an oligarch. ukraine has been terribly served by its leadership. i don't want to say -- it is not the czech republic or poland. they have been unlucky in their leaders. fairy unlucky in their politics. things are not going to be improved by the strong hand of vladimir putin. >> good to see you. >> great to be here. ♪

>> daniel ek is here. he is the founder of spotify. it is a music streaming service. he was called the greatest digital influencer. he is worth more than $300 million at 31 years old. he says he is unsure of the

exact figure. i am pleased to have him here for the first time. >> thank you. >> you strike me as somebody who is not in this for the money. >> no. >> as good as it might be. >> in 2006, we started the company. people told me getting into the music industry was the worst thing you could do. this was a $45 billion industry. now it is probably around $15 million. one third the size it was a decade ago. if you are in it for the money, not the right thing to be going into. for me, it was all passionate about music and technology. trying to marry them. >> let's ask the question, what does spotify do?

>> it takes all the world's music and makes it accessible anywhere, anyplace, on any device. the problem we tried to solve was -- before spotify, it was clear that piracy was one of the things people were doing. not because they thought it was the right thing to do, but it was what fit their lifestyle. it was the only way they could access the music they wanted in an affordable way. we tried to create a product that was better than privacy. -- dan piracy. >> so there would not be piracy. >> instead of trying to legislate against it, you can't stop technology. it is about creating a legal alternative that in the end is a better product. that is what we tried to do. that is the embryo of spotify.

it still is today. >> it is good for music because, people will have access to music. it eliminates the piracy, which is not good for music. >> the way we looked at it was, this is an innovation on two fronts. one. is the actual product. the other is the business model. everybody was talking about the concept of subscription music. nobody had realized it in a way that people cared about it. we knew what we had to do was solve two problems. create a product that was better than piracy. and create a business model around it that made sense so musicians and the industry could benefit. figuring that dynamic output was the ethical thing here.

-- the difficult thing here. >> how did you figure it out? >> again, it is a freemium business. we are saying, you can get access to the music for free. we knew when people were listening to music and starting to listen, they would listen more. that is when they care about the extra benefits of having it in better quality. not having to endure the advertising. being able to download it off-line so you could have it when you do not have a network connection. we thought those were big things people were willing to pay for. that is what ultimately happened. >> are you a musician? >> yeah, but more on a hobby basis. i got a guitar when i was four and a computer when i was five.

i never really could pick. that is why i ended up starting spotify. >> are you an itunes killer? >> no, we want to be a piracy killer. >> why would i pay $10 a month and then go order a song? >> i think it is a better model than the itunes model. that said, what i think is going to end up happening -- and even looking at my home country, sweden, spotify is 70% of the revenue in the music industry. >> 70%? >> exactly. what is interesting there -- itunes is still available and an important revenue source.

vinyl sales, weirdly enough, have spiked and grown. i think the future of the music industry -- although the masses will -- what we are seeing is people are willing to pay for music on top of that. the trick with a service like spotify -- you will end up listening to more music. because you listen to more music, you care more about music. it means you will go to more concerts. buy special edition boxes. or you might want to buy it. that is the fascinating thing for the future. >> it is an introduction. gives you the ability to appreciate. >> you don't have to pay a dollar for every song you want to listen to. you will be discovering bowie even if you don't know who he

is. you can dig into the catalog. if he is then doing a show, or there is vinyl you might be interested in, that is great. >> you know what netflix has done to streaming. we all know what netflix has done to streaming. >> is streaming going to take over? >> i think so. >> digital delivery of music and books? >> i think so. everything right now is being streamed. music, video. even news. for me, i think definitely the future is streaming. especially as we get better networks and availability of smartphones. >> so many entrepreneurs don't

get that you have to hit underneath what you are trying to accomplish -- the right technology. marc andreessen has said that. >> i certainly agree with that. there is a lot of engineering that goes into a product like spotify. people don't realize we spent thousands of hours perfecting the fact that it takes is 200 milliseconds for you to perceive a delay. how do we deliver music to you faster than 200 milliseconds so you won't perceive this is coming from a cloud? when you think about music recommendations, how do we take music and personalize it to you? that is a huge problem. just knowing your taste profiles. figuring out how we can introduce more interesting

people and music you might want to explore. that is really hard technologically to solve. >> this is a quote from forbes. in the current tech landscape, daniel ek wants spotify to supply the soundtrack. >> i think about it as a soundtrack to your life. we have technology more available in your life -- your smartphone -- the internet. >> the internet of things. >> for us, when we think about it -- why shouldn't you, why shouldn't we figure out how to give you the perfect song when you start your morning?

and how would your life -- if we play do that song, wouldn't your day become 10% better? and what if you go to the gym and we could recommend running tracks? or you are having a house party and we know what people are into? then figure out the perfect mix? i think personal moments will be better if we provided more music. >> what the perfect song for you in the morning? >> that is a great question. right now, i listen to a lot of a new swedish producer. a little bit of electronic, a little bit hip-hop. it changes all the time. >> what you want spotify to become in 10 years?

other than the soundtrack of our life? >> the way i think about the internet is it starts with utilities. search is pretty utility-based. it is becoming more of a personal assistant, suggesting things to you before you have thought about it. >> the next leap. >> yes. i call it experiences. utilities becoming experiences. i think for spotify, we started out being a utility to play music. we are becoming a utility for every moment of your life. i am hoping we can take this shift and take it from not just being about listening to music to even how we create music. for me, music has been

constrained by the format it has been on. we have always had, depending on if it was a cassette tape -- it was 60 minutes worth of music. then cds became 60 minutes again. then 80 minute cds. then 12 and 14 tracks. when we regret the internet, it is not just audio. it is audio, visual, and interactive. what will the future of music be if the format is not just about the actual sound itself? it is about the sound, the visual, and maybe even the interactive part. if we can contribute to providing a platform for musicians to be more creative, and move what music means to people, that is something for me that would be the holy grail. that is one of the problems i

would like to tackle. as a musician, seeing how we can impact culture. >> last night, it is the 25th anniversary. only 25 years that the internet has been in existence. >> it keeps accelerating. >> exponentially. >> 2007 is when we had smartphones. >> not the first but the iphone. 2007, there was no youtube. barely any youtube. facebook is not what it was today. there are so many things -- spotify did not exist either. >> when did you create it? >> we created it in 2006. but we didn't launch until the

end of 2008. >> some people have talked about the purchase of the sprint deal -- maybe you are thinking about an ipo? >> it is not one of those things i am spending any time thinking about. we do have investors. >> they expect cash at some point. >> that is of course clear. i'm not ruling it out. right now, my focus is a lot more on how do we take the position we are in now and do something even more impactful. >> it is that more than market share. >> this is not about growing the market share. this is about growing the market. if you think about the billion people around the world that listen and consume music, and the fact we are talking about the whole recorded music industry, which is $15 billion, for something that impacts one

billion people. that is not where it should be. i want to grow the pie, not increase our market share. >> you also have expenses. one of the expenses of the deals you can make with record deals. the same thing with netflix. the first time, they made good deals. the second time, the deals were not so easy. >> i guess it is true. what i will say, we have renegotiated our deals many times now. we launched in 2008. we launched in the u.s. in 2011. we added more markets. we went from 20 plus markets to 56 markets.

the music industry in our case is rooting for us. certainly, again, the conversation has shifted from is this good to us to how can we help you grow faster? >> artists and record companies? >> mostly record companies. but i have conversations with artists around how we can help them promote their records. how we can get the message out there about their latest songs. the things they are doing. >> there is always this question. somebody is bigger than you -- can they get into your business? how easy is the entrance if you are as big as amazon? or google? >> so most of the players you are talking about are actually in music already. amazon has a music service. google has a similar offering in

terms of the subscription offering. i think for us, even making the analogy of something like dropbox, google and apple and microsoft all have a dropbox product. but dropbox is still thriving. i don't think it is as cutthroat as media thinks. just because some of the big companies do it. consumers are drawn to companies which have brands they respect and like. our advantage is we are focused around music. the message to consumers is clear. there is no hidden agenda. >> these companies have a ton of money. apple has a ton of money.

they are giving some back to stockholders, but they have a ton of money. google has a lot of money. suppose apple said they want to buy you. would you say no? or would you say, tell me more? >> i'm not very motivated by money. >> would that be a natural fit? >> i don't know. i don't know the apple guys well enough to answer. i can tell you our perspective. we care about how do we get everyone in the world to listen to more music. >> is that your mission statement? >> yeah. pretty much. we are thinking about how we can get the world to listen to more

music. that is our thing. i don't know one moment -- in someone's life that couldn't be better if we had a better soundtrack. what we are thinking about is how can we get to that level. this is not about financial gain. we are focused on the path we are on right now, which is delighting more customers by giving them more music. >> 20 million songs available. is that the number? >> it varies by market, but in the u.s., more than 20 million. a lot and growing 10,000 per day. >> what about china? >> china is an interesting market. it is hard in terms of copyright in figuring out the local

markets. we are taking a wait and see approach. we would love to eventually be -- >> more than one billion people. >> we would love to be in every market. >> what is the advanced to being in sweden? >> the advantage, i think, we have for media in particular, we have one of the more progressive landscapes. to give you some idea of what i mean, in sweden, not just with music -- netflix is available. hbo has a service which does not require you to be a cable subscriber. you can buy it on a standalone basis. you can get sports on a standalone basis training over the internet. for us to test his new features and functionality on that audience is remarkable.

you see the future in terms of media consumption. but then, the other benefit early on is it is such a small market. being a swede forces us to think outside of our home market. from day one, to think international. we have seen when we have opened the markets how that is benefiting us. we open in turkey. all of the sudden, in germany, we saw spikes. for me, that was weird until you start thinking about it. you realize there are about 6 million turkish folks living in germany, switzerland, and austria. we licensed a lot of the local repertoire. that became available in germany. it is kind of affects are interesting. same when we saw on the west

coast of the u.s. a spike in usage. the cultural exchange happening almost in real time. >> it is great to have you here. >> thank you for having me. >> daniel ek is the founder and ceo of spotify. ♪

in san from pier three francisco, welcome to bloomberg west, where we cover the future of business. i am emily chang. jd.com get a jumpstart on alibaba, going public in new york today. we look at what the shares say about the market for tech companies. and intel is looking to get inside the growing maker movement. we caught up with the ceo to find out his plans for their future. this is a "bloomberg west" exclusive. first, our editor-at-large cory johnson has the top tech headlines. >> cutting another 16,000 jobs,