>> live from pier 3 in san francisco, welcome to "bloomberg west." i'm cory johnson in for emily chang. ahead on "bloomberg west" this hour, first the new iphone and the new ipad. apple unveiling its latest full and mini ipads, an event on october 16. according to a person familiar with the matter, these ipads reportedly have a gold color as an option. but can the new devices reverse the decline, any color new device, decline the reverse in plummeting sales.

just as investors criticize the company for its tumbler investment, yahoo! is close to another deal. yahoo!'s also buying a small company called message me. and tesla will unveil auto pilot to be announced next week. will this self-driving sales job really fly? there's been buzz about new ipads for months. now we're learning just when they'll be unveiled. apple's unveiling a new full-sized ipad and a mini ipad. just in time for the holiday shopping season, according to a person familiar with the matter. apple's counting on these new ipads, which are said to include a gold colored option, to reverse plummeting tablet sales. it tries to reduce its reliance on the iphone which now accounts

for roughly half of apple's revenues. the growth rate of tablet sales has been amazing and really almost all of that has been the ipad. yet we've seen this surprising stall in that growth. almost as surprising as the growth itself. >> yeah. i think as the platform diversifies and as you have different products, different price points, the phones getting bigger and the tablets getting smaller, i think that the ecosystem is starting to figure itself out. what is the price point across each of these devices? and what is the screen size across each of these devices and what is the use case across each of these devices? i think we're sort of -- the dust is finally settling. and the other part is the corporate use of tablets. that's still projected to grow. if you look at all of these products, i think we'll start to find a balance between what the

phone is going to be used for, what we will pay for the phone, and what the tablet's going to be used for and what we're going to pay for it. >> we talk about the corporate market figuring it self out. one thing we don't know about this product is whether the rumored 12-inch ipad will be announced. is that a corporate market device? >> if you look -- so, we use i.d.c. numbers. if you look at the 2013 to 2018 projections you'll see that the tablet market is expected to grow roughly 10%. but if you look at the corporate ecosystem within that, that's projected to grow almost -- a little bit more than double. 20% over the same time period. so there's room for corporate tablet adoption but the question is, and they're not as price sensitive as the consumer is, so the question is, what are the features? is it larger sized, is it the inclusion of a keyboard, is it control over the ecosystem that the i.t. guy needs to have in order to make it corporate

friendly? those are all the things that need to be figured out for corporate adoption to sort of take off. >> so therefore when this announcement comes, clearly this time of year you announce products because you want to sell them during the holidays. when you sell them during the holidays, it's not budget flush. it's more likely consumer-facing. are there things in this announcement that you will be looking for that may speak to the corporate environment and different security options, different functionality in and of itself? >> right. i want to see -- i think that with the adoption of a larger screen, as well as more clarity on pricing and the lower -- you want to see a platform broaden itself out. right now if you look at it, you've got tablets starting $299, $399 and $499 across different -- the mini and the regular versions, across retina and nonretina versions, so you want to see that expand.

number two, you want to see pricing and screen sizes achieve some sort of clarity. they need to be clear definitions and people ought to know, if i need a tablet for this sort of scenario, that's the tablet i'm going to pay for and that's a screen size i need. you want to see some clarity around that. number three pricing and number four, you want to see some big announcements around corporations as we go through the end of the year. i think those are the sort of four key things and obviously the colors also help. >> who doesn't like a little bit of color? our senior analyst. thank you. to other late news today. we see lots of interesting news. yahoo! the lead investor in snap chat. it's a company without revenues. yahoo!'s interested. maybe because of the way alibaba went. they brought that into the yahoo! coffers, $9 billion with that i.p.o. just last month.

so the question is, could snapchat be yahoo!'s next alibaba? also in new york is june group c.e.o. let me start with you. why such excitement about alibaba? i'm sorry, snapchat? there's so much startups, so little time. >> yeah, there's a lot of excitement around alibaba as well. snapchat represents an evolution in email. if you think about email as being old school, which is tough for some of us to do, you have it evolving into instagram and then snapchat is the way a lot of millennials like to communicate. if yahoo! is true to its word, it wants two things. it wants to be very mobile and obviously snapchat solves that for them. and it wants to be a habit, every day. i think for a lot of millennials, that is check and check. >> we've heard about a round for snapchat for a while. is there really a round happening? is there a lot of investor

interest in this thing and from whom? >> there is absolutely investor interest and we have heard about this round going on for quite a while now. everyone who deals with snapchat has to be super secretive. it's a very secretive company. but it really could be worth $10 billion. that's what we're hearing from our sources. and one of the reasons is the very high engagement, the last numbers that came out were 700 snaps per day. i'm sure it's much higher than that now. i've been talking to advertisers all week as you know and they can't wait to get their hands on it. but of course there is no advertising to speak of yet. there's no revenue. >> maybe i'm just old-fashioned but i imagine businesses being profitable, let alone revenue-creating. but so the investors are smarter than i am. surely, what do they see here? >> sometimes they are, sometimes they're not. i think they see lots and lots

of eye balls and i think they see eye balls that are tough to reach in the form of millennials. that is how a lot of these businesses get valuated and sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. if you think back to youtube, they didn't have any revenue either and google was heavily criticized for that purchase and it's turned out to be a big win for them. i think that that's what you look for in these kinds of things and there are busts also. the tumbler acquisition, kind of the jury's out on that one. that was another high-profile yahoo! investment and we'll see where it goes. i'm not sure that anyone could really say that's been a success yet. >> what does it mean if yahoo!'s an investor? does it mean something strategic that they imagine and incorporate in their service or is it like earlier investments like alibaba and people forget, manly because it's a secret, but yahoo! was an investor in google. google came around and ate yahoo!'s lunch. they made money on the deal but that was it. >> yahoo!, who knows if this is

the beginning of whatever it could be, but they don't have a venture capital arm. so it looks like they're just making investments in products that they think will succeed. of course yahoo! is known as the company that buys up a lot of failing startups on the low end, right? they bought message me for less money than investors put into it today. so they're playing all across the spectrum here. yahoo! needs to be cool again and this is part of the picture. and with snapchat, the other thing you need to think about with the valuation, is evan spiegel turned down facebook's offer for about $3 billion last year. so what you're dealing with is his idea of how much his company is worth. we actually don't know -- the company hasn't given any numbers for how many viewers they have, how many users they have. >> the controversial young c.e.o. thank you very much. we appreciate your time. thanks.

one of the largest cyberattacks ever all started with a lousy single employee password. up next, we're going to look at the lessons that can be learned from the massive hack attack of jpmorgan chase. ♪ >> i'm cory johnson.

this is "bloomberg west." jpmorgan chase discloses the size of its data breach in one of the largest cyberattacks ever. the data on 76 million households, seven million small businesses, all discovered by hackers. that's 2/3 of the u.s. households affected. user content of information was swiped. but there's no evidence the hackers took account numbers, passwords, birthday and social security numbers, if you believe what jpmorgan has to say today. this happened after hackers exploited a single employee user's name and password and wormed their way through the system for months. earlier i spoke to our center

editor and tripwire security. i started by asking if this was an unusual approach for the hackers to take? >> no, actually. especially with the retail breaches we've seen. finding different side channels. in target they were able to go in and compromise the system through a trusted business partner. targeting employees, you know, in their home networks, generally those are going to be less secure than the corporate network. so it makes it a very easy target. >> 2/3 of americans. that's an amazing number. >> yeah. i mean, it's to the point you really -- i mean, this year, let's just say, it's to the point this year that it's almost impossible to be shocked anymore. the scale of these intrusions have gotten so large that you look at a number like this and you say, wow, that's really big but it's remarkable both in terms of the duration of these things, you know, in this case it sounds like they were in there for at least a month, possibly longer, and that was a similar situation with home

depot as well, earlier in the year. i mean, so it's not just the scale, it's how long they're inside the systems before people notice, which on both levels is remarkable. >> yeah. let me ask you also. when we look at sort of the size of this, it's amazing number. we've seen so many of these, perhaps we've become inured to this point. in this case, you know, jpmorgan came out and said, we are spending more -- they gave an exact number, about how much they're spending on this, into the hundreds of millions last year. and yet they still got hacked. >> right. a lot of businesses need to be aware of that. we always say that it's not a matter of if you're going to be breached but when. and this is a good example of that. if attackers want in, they're going to find a way in. be it through a remote port, an application has a vulnerability, or of course people. phishing attacks very common. i think jpmorgan did some good things here. this could have been a lot worse. the information that was compromised was limited to name

and phone number and address. no financial information was compromised and no passwords were compromised. so that's actually a good thing here. that they actually were able to protect the inside of their network and secure the data. so there are some good things about this particular case. >> if that's the case. >> it's not clear to me, i mean, that's what jpmorgan is saying, that there's no evidence that further information was collected, but i mean, and not to force them to disprove a negative, but there's also no evidence that some of that information wasn't collected, right? my understanding of what they've said so far is that it seems to be limited to some basic information. but given the duration of time inside the system, it's just not clear to me that we have a really good handle on what information was collected. and their reassurances so far seem really tepid to me. >> what we've seen in the past from a lot of these things, what we've seen from so many of these are drib drabs of information. we saw that disastrously with

target. where every single week or so we'd get new information that it was worse and worse. bigger and bigger. and that in fact the initial sort of promises that, hey this wasn't that bad, actually seemed to get worse. is there any reason to think jpmorgan's different here? >> right. you raise a really good point. when there is an issue like this, when there is a breach, it's very difficult for businesses to identify the scope of that breach. and look how long it took them to actually provide that information. they've had security teams working on this for a pretty long period of time. so that's why i'm assuming that given the amount of times they've done to do this research, they wanted to be able to wait before they could actually speak with confidence as to what information was actually compromised. there's still a chance more information could have been compromised but so far from what they're telling us, you know, i'd like to believe them. >> that was ken weston of tripwire security and bloomberg's paul.

up next, tesla isn't tripping, it's hitting the gas, on an automated driving feature. find out what they are and how it could impact tesla's business next. ♪ >> i'm cory johnson and this is

"bloomberg west." tesla's adding some features to

the model s that suggests a driverless car? its new capabilities will be revealed in an announcement next week. the news comes after the c.e.o. posted on twitter that the electric car make already, quote, unveil something else. it included a photo of a tesla. the date october 9. joining me now is our bloomberg tech reporter. first of all, this announcement, i guess, i was wrong about the dog? >> it looked like the garage door was open just enough to let the dog get under. no one knows the extent of the announcement. we think we just have part of it so far. >> what's that? >> basically, if you're buying tesla, unless you're cory johnson, it's an expensive vehicle, so you're up against the b.m.w.'s and mercedes of

this world. >> basically the average cost is about $95,000 per car last quarter. >> a lot of the competition amongst that bracket right now is what's called advanced driver assistance, lane keeping, automatic parking, the improved -- stop you running into the back of other vehicles. that kind of feature. >> speaking of my fantasy life, i got inside of an audi, the new one, and it has a heads-up display. that kind of high-tech driver assistance. is that really driverless or is that just driver assisted? >> you mentioned the audi. one drove itself onto the stage. >> really? >> but that -- obviously there are a lot of regulatory issues. there are a lot of other issues in terms of testing that need to actually happen before we really get there. before the regulators are going to allow cars to drive themselves. >> no one's more of a showman in the car industry possibly than elon musk. talk to me about sort of what this means?

>> they bill themselves as a technology company. if you don't have the latest technology, then how can you call yourself a technology company? right now we've seen the model s has a huge 17-inch touch screen and it adds a lot of -- in a sense, the last generation of technology, which was the entertainment stuff, that was the revolution that they were a part of. other automakers have passed them in bringing other electronics into the vehicle. >> passed tesla. so last i checked, you were the chip reporter. here you are doing these automotive stories. what's going on with the chip business and the car business? because cars have actually been a huge consumer of chips over the last decade. >> it's on the up and up. as we've reported, companies like invidia and intel, they want to talk about vehicles. they're looking for hundreds of millions of units and they see vehicles as one of them because there's so much electronics going into it.

you need a strong brain. take, for example, invidia. >> let's back track. we're not talking national semiconductor, analog chips that make this signal go to this signal, but essentially funky compacitors. we're talking about graphics processer to the most powerful computers, visual things ever done. >> that's absolutely right. if you want to trust your car to be driving at speed and not drive into the back of some vehicle that slowed down immediately in front of it, what do you need? you need the ability to process those images as fast as is possible and send a signal to the car. what's best way of doing that? with a graphics processer. >> that's really interesting. it also makes me think, we see these stories about subprime lending into the auto sector and what could that mean beyond the auto sector? but we're really talking about technology going into the auto business, technology going into every business, means that if the auto sectors of the overall economy, it actually can affect the tech sector in a big way. >> it's a great story.

if auto sales go up 5%, down 10%, it doesn't really hurt them particularly because there's 10%, 20%, 30% more chips this cars every year. >> specifically, do we think this is tesla playing catchup or are they going to play a leap frog here? >> that's what we're not in a position to be able to say right now. depends on the sweep of capabilities that they bring, how they integrate them together. >> ian king knows what's going on. thank you very much, we appreciate it. we're going to look at what and where and when and why, that's next. ♪ >> you're watching "bloomberg

west." we focus on innovation, technology and the future of business. from fred wilson, to some of the loudest voices in venture capital, a warning that they're burning through cash and way too fast. when the market turns, and it will turn, we'll find out who has been swimming without their trunks on. many high-burn rate companies will vaporize. so money's sloshing around, we know that. it's getting spent, we know that too. but still, some startups need some help getting from point a to point b. i sat down with a man who does just that.

here's his definition. >> a super angel is one of the most unfortunate words ever selected for describing something. >> you're super. you have that going for you. >> great. super angel though is an institutional venture fund of small size. this word super angel got coined as a result of individual angels writing bigger and bigger checks and making their own family office essentially the bank. and we now are stuck with a word that actually is the opposite what have it means. we're institutional seed funds. >> but you guys are looking at -- to me what's interesting is that you're in this place. after the angel, the seed round, hey, i though this rich guy and

i've got a great idea, but you guys are almost there in a bridging capacity, yes? >> it's amazing what's happening right now. it's like there's two completely parallel universes of venture capital. you have the big firms. they're trying to write $10 million checks, then you have micro-v.c. firms. we're trying to put $500,000 in. the two worlds have completely different views of how the companies are, how they're growing, and one of the big concerns right now, for example, among the big venture firms, is while the burn rates get really high, well, when you put $30 million into a reasonably early stage company, the burn rate's going to go up. in our world that doesn't happen. when you're raising a $1 million round, a $200,000 a month burn rate is significant and opulent whereas when you put $30 million in from a battery or a benchmark, you're in a very different world. this has been a big topic of discussion right now. >> i think the opulence is not just for optics all over the world, new yorkers hate silicon valley because they think they spend like crazy out here, but there's this notion that they're not really businesses. but the concern is when you're

writing young founders checks with a lot of zeros on it. >> that's why i like what we do at bullpen. we have a very kind of blue collar operational orientation to the way we do stuff. we're trying to put that last amount of money in before the big firms come in. if we do this right, the c.e.o. actually has a very interesting decision during our investment window. am i ready to go big? is this a company that's actually figured it out and now i need money to scale? by keeping it lean and mean, our founders have the option of not raising that big round and getting profitable instead. this is not something you can do back in 1999 and 2000. >> i was talking to one of our producers about you coming on the show and he was saying, isn't the point of like the first -- the a round only going to a handful of the seed round companies, sort of the weaning process, darwinian thing that gets rid of the crumby companies that can't get there? >> what's so interesting is the definition of an a round, that's the funniest thing of all. we're involved in companies that have done their fifth and sixth and seventh institutional

closes. we're in the seventh institutional close, but someone comes in and puts $20 million in and calls it the series a. it's the seventh institutional close. so in many ways, by the time the big firm comes in, that company is actually derisked to an extent that we haven't seen in other tech cycles because it was so cheap and cost effective to get to those proof points. that doesn't mean you go spend all the money, but you do deserve the money because you've hit that point where you've hit those milestones. >> you also changed the negotiating stance. if someone comes in and says, you're going to accept these terms because you need the money right now, you've been there to sort of let them choose their terms a little better. >> a lot of times a c.e.o. will come to us with a series a term sheet in hand from a bigger firm, say to us, hey, bullpen, i don't need this much money yet. what if i hit a couple more quarters of sales milestones before i took this big money, won't i have potentially a bigger offering and a potentially more derisked company, more peopled buying?

we love when a company says that to us because that's in the interest of the company and the c.e.o. can provide with proper information, is it time to go big or not? that's one of the reasons we've been so successful. >> you probably have had a lot of cleaning up to do of these companies, where the paperwork's all over the place, the warrants and the convertibles, who owns what and how that's going to change with further round of investment are probably a mess. in our first fund we had 34 deals. about seven of them, there was a salient mistake. not some minor thing like a cap table was off by a couple shares. the price was wrong. someone was not on it. a check was not in the round. and doing this kind of cleanup at the bullpen stage before the big money comes in, arms the companies to be better equipped to go in and not have the later round guys have to clean up the mistakes. but when a lot of institutional seed funds are one guy shops or

family offices, it's not surprising that there's cleanup that needs to be done before you're ready for the big round. >> they really do make us eat our lunches at our desks at bloomberg. that's the way they run this place. you name it, digital health gadgets all the rage. since the beginning of this year, digital health companies have raised $5 billion, twice the previous year. but is the market really big enough for all those companies? joining me from new york, founder of a global health care growth platform unity. >> startup health is a global platform to help entrepreneurs who are transforming health care. we're building an army of entrepreneurs and innovators who are using technology to literally reinvent every aspect of health care today. we help companies during the

first three years of growth. we help them with customer development, we help them raise capital, we help provide the resources that these early stage health care companies need at the very beginning of growth. >> one of those companies' basis, when he a basis executive on this week, talking about the new basis watch. he's an intel executive. that company was sold off intel. intel thinks there's something there. how big is this market? >> the market is huge. there's already been $5 billion, as you mentioned, invested in 2014, which is double the size as last year. 347 companies have been funded to date. but health care's a $3 trillion market. and what we're seeing is this moment of creative destruction where the entire industry is being reimagined by technology. so, we're seeing health reforms -- >> let me -- we know health care is huge. fitness isn't huge. i mean, it seems like a lot of

this these devices, i'm geeked out with my up on my arm, my heart rate monitor or whatever, but i don't really believe that that's a huge business. >> this is why i think the apple watch announcement is so significant as well as intel buying basis which is one of our companies. because wearables are moving to the mainstream. it started with fitness and quantified selfers. but really now -- my mother now wears a device, the fitbit. so it's starting to break into the mainstream. but these wearable devices are being designed into our clothes into our car seats, into our refrigerators. so if you start to look about where the market's going in terms of health and wellness, it's larger than just the fitness market today. >> how large? how do you measure it? >> really every aspect of our lives are being reinvented. so if you think about the consumer electronics market, you think about the automobile market, and how they are -- these companies are now

essentially becoming health care companies, ford is designing sensors into your car seat, into the steering wheel, as an example. companies like google, with google -- >> sensors to measure what? >> to measure your stress level, to measure your heart rate. to measure your alertness and whether you're awake. >> really? that's pretty wild. so, from a startup perspective, are there things that you're able to take from one to the next to the next and sort of apply some of those lessons learned? >> yeah. i think in health care startups today, one of the big differences from what's going on in internet tech or silicon valley is that as a health care startup, you really have to work with the established stake holders in health care today. so the large hospitals, the insurance companies, government. it really takes being an entrepreneur to work with these other very important stakeholders so that you can grow and scale more quickly.

>> when you look at the market, are there sort of lessons that companies in the startup realm here might believe certain things to be true and then they go through sort of a thought evolution to find out other things? >> yeah. i think one of the big lessons is how long it can take to get your first customer. it can take 12 to 18 months to really validate your data and get your first customer. so the timeline can be a lot longer. so there's a lot of challenges at the early stage. but i think that's why organizations like startup health and other accelerators out there in the ecosystem are so important today. because coming together as a community of entrepreneurs to really try to solve some of these big challenges, the long sale cycles, privacy issues, the regulatory hurdles, it's a lot easier as an ecosystem of entrepreneurs working together to tackle those challenges.

>> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> just a programming note. has anyone seen my keys? >> they're right there. >> i can't find my keys. if you're watching and you found my key, let me know. if only there was an app for that. there is an app for that. we're going to be back with the makers of an app and a device called tile. really interesting thing that helps people find their keys and other lost stuff. that story is next. ♪ >> welcome back.

this is "bloomberg west." next week, the supreme court hears a key case involving amazon.com. workers at amazon's fulfillment centers have to wait at security checkpoints before they go home to make sure they haven't stolen anything. lines the workers say can take up to a half an hour to get through. two employees at integrity staff solutions, which supplies workers to amazon, are suing integrity staff solutions to get paid for time that they spend in line. they're suing amazon as well. earlier i spoke with bloomberg editor and news labor reporter to talk about this very issue. i started by asking josh whether this case goes back to the fair labor standards act of 1938 or before. >> all the way back in the 1930's the federal government said, if you have someone

working for you, you have to pay them for their time. that very quickly turned out to be not as simple as it might have seemed. so in the 1940's congress came back and said, wait, wait, just to be clear, you don't have to pay people for the time they spend getting to the job. or going home from their job. then another nine years after that, in the 1950's, the supreme court said, ok, well, what does that mean? so, for example, if you come in and you're at work sharpening your knife before you clock in as a butcher, do you have to be paid for that time? they said, yes. they said, the time you spend showering if you're at a battery factory and you might have acid on your clothes, that you should be paid for too. so the question now decades later for the supreme court is, that up to 25 minutes, that you spend waiting in line for a security check at an amazon warehouse, is that like the commuting time that you don't get paid for? or like that knife sharpening time that you do get paid for? and that's a question with potentially billions of dollars at stake, if it sets a larger

precedent about how these checks are handled. >> i'm so interested in the notion that these old rules about -- you know, i'm watching the ken burns documentary on the roosevelts and teddy roosevelt's efforts to sort of provide for worker rights in the very earliest parts of his career, both in new york state and later on of course in the white house. those old issues, for more than 100 years ago, are issues today for tech companies like amazon. >> yeah. it's really remarkable. it was a great story by the way from josh. really sort of bridging across how these old labor standards go, kind of running into the malleability of work? what does it mean when people are telecommuting? when we have issues with respect to things like security. you can see the argument with respect to amazon. this is closer to commuting than sharpening a butcher's knife but

at the same time, the reason why these acts existed was to try and attach some value to people's time. so that you wouldn't force them to spend half an hour standing in line in the morning to get -- any more than you would have one elevator going up to the bloomberg offices in new york and everybody stands around for an hour. you want some value attached to time and so employers are forced to actually act in a way that gives people time to do whatever it is they're being set out to do. i'm very sympathetic surprisingly enough to me, to the union case here. because it seems as if amazon's not doing everything it can do to expedite the process. >> i think these are nonunion workers but to that point, whenever i do a deal with someone and they see me coming out on the other side, i think about, jeez, is an accident they're coming out on the other side to their benefit or do they have a financial return? if you had to wait in a long line and they were already paying you, they'd probably have more lines. right? >> but in the same token, if you turn it around and say, it's costing amazon money now to have people standing in line if they

have to pay them, so what are they going to do? well, they're going to put more people in place to do these inspections and check for people who have actually got goods that they're potentially taking out the door. the flipside argument is, well, you know, theft is not part of the job. so we shouldn't have to pay you while we try to figure out whether or not you're stealing things. it's a very interesting balance. >> what do you think? >> indeed, one of the points the plaintiffs make is that, the point of the fair labor standards act was not just to make companies give their workers more money. it was also to say, if you have to pay for your workers' time, you're less likely to waste their time. and so the plaintiffs have argued i think very reasonably that if they were paying for those 25 minutes, if integrity or indirectly amazon in its contract with integrity were paying for those 25 minutes, then it wouldn't be 25 minutes. maybe they would stagger people's shifts, maybe they would put in more inspectors. and there's lots of mischief or negligence that can go on when you have a precedent that you can have people required by

their employment agreement to stand somewhere for 25 minutes and not paid for that time. >> that was our bloomberg news labor reporter, i tweeted out that article. and our bloomberg contributor editor joining us. facebook goes to war with drag queens and loses. we'll explain when "bloomberg west" returns. you can always watch us streaming on your tablet, phone and at bloomberg.com. ♪ >> welcome back to "bloomberg

west." it's time now for the bwest byte. what's the number? >> today's number is 23. >> 23, which is michael jordan's number.

but that's not why you chose it. >> no, because in 23 short days, san francisco drag queens brought facebook to their knees. >> the issue was facebook kicking off drag queens from facebook. >> well, 23 days ago, reports started to come in that drag queens were using fake names on their profiles so -- >> duh. >> right, exactly, so our profiles started to disappear. so we mobilized and started a #mynameis campaign to get facebook's attention and we got it. >> to me this mirrors a lot of issues about privacy and their notion of what you disclose and how you disclose it and who has a right to privacy. >> well, what they revealed is that they really want people to reflect their genuine identity on facebook so they can have an authentic relationship with people. in our meeting with them, they said that they want us to be able to use our chosen names and reflect our true identity. so we actually had a huge

victory in our meeting with facebook. >> mark zuckerberg said something in his book, i'll read the quote. he said, you have one identity. having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity. to me it shows he doesn't know much about drag queens, among other things. >> well, that quote is a few years old. i think he may have come around since then. that's definitely true they need to work on some of their policies, which they're going to do. before, when people reported profiles, there was no way to contest it. it was their way or the highway. we're going to shut you down unless you change your name. now they're going to have place where you can appeal the profile. they're going to review it and see that we are genuine, real people. because facebook has a huge responsibility. there are a lot of people who do creepy things on facebook. so they're trying to keep the community really safe. nobody wants predators and spammers and bullies on facebook. so we're working together on this. it really feels very, very, very exciting. >> fundamentally, part of the lgbt community and the drag queen community is having a separate identity, having a second identity, yes? >> exactly. if you ask anybody what my name is in or out of drag, it's roma.

that is who i am. facebook realizes that. this is a great victory for people like me who have proven identities and a great big presence on facebook. >> and the market opportunity for facebook gets a little bit larger. >> exactly. >> thank you very much. that's it for "bloomberg west" today. you can watch us on your phone and tablet and at bloomberg.com. check you out next week. ♪ >> he invented the self driving

car, is considered the godfather of artificial intelligence. he cofounded google x, google's innovation laboratory. he helped launch broadband balloons to connect to the internet through the stratosphere. now, sebastian thrun is on to his greatest ambition yet, democratizing a higher education, by sharing knowledge with people that can't afford it, via the internet. joining me on "studio 1.0," inventor, professor, and