>> live from pier three in san francisco, welcome to "bloomberg west." we cover innovation, technology, and the future of business. i'm cory johnson, in for emily chang. a strong jobs report did not send the markets soaring. the nasdaq and larger s&p 500 dipped slightly after the u.s. added 214,000 jobs last month. >> we recognize that this fight for solid growth, there are still a lot of folks out there who are anxious about their futures, who are having trouble making ends meet at the end of

the month. >> the unemployment rate dropped to 5.8% in october, the lowest level in six years. president obama approved a plan to double the u.s. military in iraq to 3000 personnel. president says the troops will not be in combat but will be in a better position to help iraqis and kurds fight the islamic state militants. the president asked congress to approve $5.6 billion in added spending for effort against the islamic state. at&t is making a big push into mexico. the phone giant just released a deal to acquire a mexican wireless company for $2.5 billion. at&t will receive the company's 8 million subscribers. starting today, users will have

the option to see fewer posts from certain friends or block all of that, according to a friend post. facebook launched a newsfeed setting page. uber is trying to raise at least $1 billion in new capital at a valuation of $17 billion, or so says the financial times. this less than six months after seeing $1.2 billion of funding back in june. uber is already silicon valley's highest valued private company. one year ago today, shares of twitter started trading on the new york stock exchange with much excitement. it has been a rocky road for the stock, perhaps a roller coaster. down 10% since the first day's close of 4490.

twitter's challenge, user growth still declining. the company not expected to turn profits until 2017. the c-suite has been in a state of near constant turnover with pressure heating up on the ceo dick costolo, joining us now leslie picker from new york. let me start with you. any sort of big reflections looking back on the excitement of that day a year ago on the new york stock exchange? >> it was excitement. there were so many people on floor just one year ago today. those people who received allocations on that day are the ones who benefited. the people who bought after the first day of trading, depending on if they are still holding it, did not benefit. it's interesting how far the sentiment has come from that first day when there was so much hype surrounding the ipo, so

much excitement surrounding the company. after a couple of earnings reports and numbers showing that user growth is slowing, the sentiment is not quite as exciting. >> i think of you and your work as a business analyst, not a stock analyst. i know you talk to people who care about the stock. what is the feeling around the stock right now is that divorced from the business? >> i think the feeling around the stock is missed opportunity and missed expectation. to the points that were just made, on the day of that ipo there was so much opportunity for what we still believe could be a large part of the future of media. at the end of the day, it is just not living up to expectations. too hard to use, too hard to get people engaged. there hasn't been a twitter moment. the moment when people jump in. that is what the chatter is about, how do they make the learning curve less steep associated with getting new users on board. >> in terms of expectations, what is the number you look at that shows that?

all three of us, we are on twitter all the time. i found it a very effective medium to spread the news, to do my job as a reporter. but i wonder when you look at the numbers, what numbers indicate there are problems? >> it is the user growth. they are just not attracting people. it's not a direct correlation, but i do believe that the ease of use is correlated to the user growth. i think that the number of people who understand how to use this technology is just a lot smaller than facebook. facebook has had a number of moments. interesting conversation with randall stephenson recently, where facebook jumped to one of the largest providers of video on the internet because of the als challenge. people figured out how to upload video and train themselves. they gained a new functionality. i think a lot of the world outside of the technical people

kind of think that the hashtag is a key slip with a #. they don't really understand what that means. there's a lot of opportunity to get the common computer user interested in this technology. >> there is so much excitement around technology ipo's, particularly consumer facing ones. then they have so many users and such great possibilities for profits, god forbid even profits themselves. from your perspective, covering ipos as you do, is there still excitement about the consumer-facing technology company? >> there certainly is. you look even outside the technology space at consumer restaurants, at fast food restaurants. those stocks have been tremendously well this year because people know about them. it is easier businesses for the vast majority of people to understand. that does not mean a big enterprise software company --

that company went out at 100 times sales and it shot up, i think it more than doubled its first day of trading last year. that is a company that is not as consumer facing as say, at twitter. twitter is a good example for people looking to go public. you have to make your numbers. you have to show the user growth increasing. there is an increasing trend for these later stage private round companies to come in and therefore these companies are at stages in a later part of their growth phase. you are not seeing these topline growth like you may have seen earlier in the decade. >> it's interesting to me also that there is a lot of pressure from a lot of places on this company to go public when it did . the venture capital investors, employees who wanted liquidity -- i remember a year ago we were talking about it's not the same screwup that facebook had on the nasdaq. is there a sense that venture

investors, the people behind a lot of private technology companies who have got the experience they wanted out of twitter because they got that big pop, they got a lot of their money off the table and they want to bring more to the markets now? >> the problem is a lot of them are still holding onto their shares. no vc's or inside investors sold on that day. nobody really benefited from it except the people who may have gotten allocations the first day and happen to sell on the first day. really they had to hold for 6 months. for those who are still holding a stock today, they probably did not see the opportunity that they may have seen back in december when the stocks hit a high and they could not sell out. >> someone is paying for all these teslas driving around pier three right now. thank you both. i appreciate it. marketers thriving on twitter. companies ad revenues up.

keeping casual users engaged, a much bigger challenge for the company. we will dig into that next on "bloomberg west." ♪ >> i'm cory johnson.

this is "bloomberg west." twister has invested tens of

millions of dollars for it its platform to work with advertisers. the company is reporting a 7% slide in the timeline views per user. that is engagement, how much people are using this thing. we know that user growth is slowing down. how important are these factors like engagement to the future of the microblogging site? jeff, let me start with you. when you look at these numbers -- i'm going to call it engagement. i think the timeline views -- you can see how much people are clicking, how much they are looking at stuff. what does that tell you about the ultimate success of twitter? >> to me it's all about finding the content that is interesting to you that you want to engage with. >> these numbers are showing people are not finding it. >> i think that is what twitter is going to be working on in terms of finding what is relevant to users.

is it about news, entertainment, finding information about different celebrities? >> the other way to look at that might be -- viewers suggested if the number of timeline views goes down for users, it means people are finding what they want and they don't have to surf all over the place to look for it. people are finding a lot of what they want and clicking on what they want. >> it's hard to know. timeline views isn't a metric that anybody else uses, other than twitter. facebook uses daily active users over monthly active users. that is how they show engagements. i assumed at that number was positive for twitter, they would share that number with us. because daily active users has not grown as monthly users, they

are giving us timeline views. >> i wonder if this is a way for them to hide the number of active daily users. i like the metric facebook uses. on my model for facebook, i run a comparison. are the monthly active users the big pool, and the daily active users growing within that showing people are actually using it constantly? do you think twitter is actually hiding this? >> what all companies do, they tend to want to share metrics that make them look good. i assume if the number made twitter look good they would share it with us, and hiding is a strong word. they want to have us look at other things. the bottom line is i still think wall street struggles to understand twitter. at a very high level for any website, either you are growing engagement or you're dying. it can be a long, slow death. they have got to turn it around. it is incredibly hard because

not only do they have to change how it works, but they have to do that in a way that it does not offend their current users. that is incredibly hard to balance. >> jeff, what do you think? for those people who use twitter, it works. it does the job of helping me do my reporting and sharing with a lot of people in an instant. that is very engaging to me. what is working for engagement on twitter? >> you broadcast and you have a following and it works for you. i think the what twitter needs to find is how to engage those users after the news, we just want a casual piece of entertainment. the company's niche has been working with twitter on putting together ads that bring internet

>> to find native ads? >> native ads is something that will be fun and entertaining that will be representing a brand which does not look like a piece of ad. i will give you a niche example. that video was run a quarter of a billion times and has something 115,000 likes and re-tweets. that was on behalf of hp. it was funny. it was a great piece of content. >> hewlett-packard? that is amazing. that to me is the thing, can they use the technology to actually show things that are relevant to the people who find them relevant? if you are showing me football, i shrug my shoulders. they should know that about me, but i don't think they do.

>> the question is, at the very beginning twitter wanted to be pure in terms of this is a platform and we show you what ever the people you thought off will post. that was the beginning. the do not want to create any interference or any friction. as soon as you evolve, they will start changing what is in your timeline and they will figure out what is the most relevant content for you the way facebook did it. when facebook changed the algorithms, there was a big ra-ra. a few months or years later, we are just used to it. twitter has to figure out this turn as opposed to saying we won't interfere, we will just give you 140 characters to send whatever you want. >> contextualizing the ads. thank you very much.

we appreciate your time. jeff, stick with me for a little bit. what company twitter might possibly purchase to help expand their reach. we will talk about their acquisition strategy next. ♪ >> welcome back to "bloomberg

west." twitter has made some big acquisitions over the past year. the company delivering mobile ads across the web and is apparently growing twitter's business quite a bit. twitter also acquiring tnips.

the question, willy's acquisitions be key to their future? jeff, is there a rhyme and reason to these acquisitions? >> sure. twitter acquired two companies. one was way before the ipo. >> is there an apostrophe in that? >> the whole point of the acquisition is they were the number one partner on the data resale. if you're a large customer of twitter, you would go and buy it from them and then twitter would get -- what they decided is that what you actually bring that business in-house. it was a very strategic acquisition.

>> that is sort of the other revenues for twitter. >> and then you had -- the question is what is next. i think there are a few things we can think about. one is new comp limitary advertising technology. it makes a ton of sense to bring those in-house where they can further engagement and figure out how users can read. second would be applications potentially the take advantage of the twitter hose. an example would be nuzzl, which takes input from twitter to figure out what is relevant. then you have a personalized feed of news every morning. >> you are kind of plugging. >> i am kind of plugging. >> the biggest regular criticism

i read or hear about is there aren't enough products tailored for the different types of use. do you think twitter might be looking at a new kind of product saying here is a product that uses our data, presented in a more usable fashion to a certain niche audience? >> to an audience that just wants to hear about relevant news. you have the information in your feed. the problem is it is hidden among everything else in terms of pictures, everything, whatever. that extracts the newsworthy information and puts it in front of you. the third is recently twitter announced a platform in the same way facebook bought [indiscernible] a couple of years ago, you could think about twitter making more acquisitions. instead of api's. >> it is hard to keep track of all these different ad technology companies and see what is different about them. jeff, i really appreciate your

time today. politicians are clashing over how to handle climate change. sometimes, whether it is even happening at all. we will look at the technology scientists are using to track global warming. while a lot of technology companies are stepping away from global warming lobbyists at the same time -- that is next. ♪ >> time now for bloomberg television to go on the markets. i'm olivia sterns. the s&p and the dow holding in record territory. this after we had a mix. gains topped 200,000 for the ninth straight month. the unemployment rate in the u.s. dropped to a six-year low. ♪ >> you are watching "bloomberg

west." we focus on innovation, technology, and the future of business. s.a.p. becoming the latest tech giant to end its affiliation with the american legislative exchange council, which focuses on state legislatures. s.a.p. says it objects to the lobbying group. google's eric schmidt famously called alec liars. yesterday when i was talking to congressman lamar smith, the

chair of the science, space and technology committee, i also asked about his thoughts on the issue. take a listen to our exchange. you're the chairman of the science, space and technology committee in the house. big report from the u n today summarizing the work of 800 scientists saying that climate change, quote, severe, pervasive, and irreversible. what is your take on that? >> this is nothing new. they always make these kinds of predictions. obviously there are some people that want to use environmental regulation to try to control the economy, try to control private property. if you look at their predictions in the past five or 10 or 15 years, most of their predictions have gone wrong. anybody who will predict what will happen in the year 2100, 85 years from now, is not going to be correct. >> it is science. it is 800 scientists. it is not some random guy making predictions. >> there are a lot of other

scientists who disagree. for example, we have now had close to 18 years of no global warming and even though carbon dioxide emissions have increased 25% over the last 18 years, nobody can explain that. let's go to the science and not just make the kind of protections as to what is going to happen 86 years from now. the only thing you know for sure about predictions that far away is that they are not going to be true. there is still no explanation and no one can tell me yet what percentage of so-called climate change is due to human activity, what percentage is due to natural trends, natural cycles. what percentage is due to sunspots. we don't know enough yet to make decisions that are going to hurt our economy or hurt the american people. let's continue to gather the facts and make sure the science is correct. don't get into these predictions, what is going to happen 86 years from now. that's not going to be true. >> the report is only 40 pages.

have you read the report yet? >> i have not. i read summaries of the report. >> how about we both go and read it and decide if it is science or not. >> let's not just read one report by individuals were clearly biased in their opinion. there are other reports that had been done that don't come to the same conclusions. let's look at both sides before we make decisions that are going to so dramatically impact our economy in a bad way. >> i have now read the report, all 40 pages of it. 22 of them were graphics. i was supposed to bring in two scientists from both sides of the debate. that model is broken and i can't explain why, any better than john oliver did on his show last week tonight explaining it the best. >> if there has to be a debate about the reality of climate change, and there doesn't, there is only one mathematically fair way to do it. in the interest of mathematical

balance, i'm going to bring out two people who agree with you climate skeptic, and bill nye, i'm going to bring out 96 other scientists. this is the only way we can have a representative discussion. please file in. >> i am going to bring two experts in to talk about a technology used to gather scientific data on the earth's climate and how this is changing, and why technology companies care about the political climate resulting from these studies. gavin schmidt joins us via skype and forecast the facts director brent olson is here with me as well. let me start with you. has the technology to monitor climate change changed a lot itself? >> over the last 30 years it has changed, and nasa and noaa and the european and japanese -- we

now have satellites that are circling the globe, bringing us back information on temperatures, clouds, changes in the ice, changes in land cover, changes in trees and the greenery of the earth, changes in water resources, in the mass of the ice sheets themselves. while keeping that going is really a problem, we are in a much better position to say what is going on, and with the increases in technology, in computing, and a better understanding of the process, we are in a much better position to say why it is changing as well. >> one of the interesting lines in that un report talks about the periods you measure can give you data.

15 years ago there was el niño. that sort of throws off the average. anyone can pick a certain period of time and say climate change isn't happening or it isn't as extreme as it appears. does all this new data change the ability to know what happened before? >> we have great data going back about 30 years. we have reasonable data going back to the 1940's, and then the data becomes a little but more partial as you go back into the 19th century and before that. we have we do have enough data to say why things are changing. we also understand the climate system itself is a very noisy system. you look out your window and you see the noise and chaos of the weather. that is relevant on all sorts of timescales. trying to pull out the climate change component to that has always been a challenge.

it's not really necessarily bad data that will help us sort that out, but a better understanding of the data we are seeing. and that is also coming. >> to what do you attribute the lasting, lingering debate over not just the science but the technology to monitor? >> we have been having a climate debate for a very long time, and i think it is always the instinct of the media in particular to feature both sides. the clip from john oliver humorously demonstrated demonstrated. there used to be a rigorous debate over whether humans are causing climate change. that debate largely has gone away. we will argue now about what are the best solutions to climate change, to what extent with a carbon tax be better versus cap and trade. in terms of basic calculation of the contribution of humans to climate change, that's very well established.

>> my question to you is the why of this. if we have got this improving technology, if we have got these reports from 800 scientists covering this thing, what is the force pulling us away from a world where technology and science are the governing forces for making decisions? >> there are a lot of vested interests in the carbon economy. oil companies, coal companies, these are some of the most lucrative businesses around. these are some of the most prolific spenders in washington, d.c. and in statehouses around the country. they have a very strong interest in keeping the status quo in place. >> we have also got companies like google, yahoo!, s.a.p. helping to fund the lobbying groups that are fighting against climate change legislation. we know it doesn't happen in washington. >> that's right. groups like alec are the place

where you have industry coming together with lawmakers to set the rules. that is really part of the problem. >> is this notion of a false debate torture for scientists such as yourself? >> torture, no. you hear a lot of the same kinds of ideas that with all due respect to the congressman, have been explained on multiple levels, the national academies talking to the various committees, to the various staffers. we are happy to talk to any congressman about the data, about our understanding of it. we would open up another invitation to discuss those things. some of the questions are not particularly scientific and some of them really relate to the political aspects of that.

we are here to do the science part and we are happy to talk about science to anybody. >> the director of nasa's goddard institute for space studies, gavin schmidt, thank you. the battle lines are drawn in the home sharing market. home away suing the city of san francisco, claiming a new law favored its rivals, airbnb. does home away have a case? we will talk to the cofounder next. ♪ >> i'm cory johnson.

this is "bloomberg west." home away has filed suit against the city of san francisco, asking it to stop a new rental law. the law legalized short-term rentals but only by residents who live in san francisco at least nine months of the year.

joining me right now is homeaway's cofounder in texas. it is a big issue all over the country as cities and communities try to figure out what to do about homeaway and airbnb. in what way does this law favor airbnb and hurt you guys? >> thanks for having us on. the effect of this law is not whether it favors airbnb or homeaway. it discriminates against owners of property in san francisco who choose to live elsewhere but own property in san francisco which they make available part time, which is the essence of the vacation rental industry. our real bite here is to have equality for the owners in san francisco.

>> is it fair to think of you as a vacation home, re-rental place? >> i think the easy shorthand way for people to consider us versus our friends at airbnb is that 95% of the properties in homeaway are dedicated second homes that are owned by individuals and made available to the public for somewhere between four and 20 weeks a year. whereas, airbnb's core customer is someone who lives in an apartment in the city, rents that apartment from a landlord and then re-sublets the apartment to the public. it is the same in the experience for a traveler with a slight twist in one in which you are staying in someone's house where there is stuff from that person and the other more maintains the individual occupied by the person who rents it. >> as a kid we would go to a cottage on a lake in western michigan. one of the nice things about it

is during the week there were not a lot of people around. a lot of the cottages were empty. that meant you could go sailing on the lake without being surrounded by water skiers or something. that was the way the community existed or even defined itself. i think the community like itself, even though that came at some expense to homeowners who might've otherwise rented other condos all the time. why can't a community decide we don't want to be a community that has a maximum usage that we want our community to have these rules, even if it means homeowners can't assert their greatest financial rights? >> i think that is a great question. at homeaway, we support communities who want to create rules and opportunities that are the same for everyone. the situation in san francisco is the only time we have taken an action like this. we usually work with cities to help them understand industry. when the city simply does not want to understand the industry and wants to regulate one

company, they can be pulled into a direction that is the wrong direction. ultimately, we believe at homeaway that communities have the right to set regulations for short-term rentals in their area. >> the other way i think about property rights is if you own a piece of property, why can't you build a 100-story skyscraper? it affects your neighbors so much. i feel that the growth in your business which is fantastic, the growth in airbnb which seems to be just as amazing is forcing these communities to make these decisions because they cannot handle the changes happening underneath their noses. >> i can see that that would be something that you might think from the outside but in the vast majority of markets, we operate in 190 countries, 19,000 different jurisdictions -- in the vast majority of those, vacation rentals are critical to the economy of those cities. you can't go to destin, florida

and stay in very many hotels. you have to stay in vacation rentals. you can't easily ski in and ski out unless you are staying in a vacation rental in colorado. where you're seeing the overlap and some noise is as this phenomenon comes into cities. the very first thing we see in cities that we deal with is what we call the nimby crowd, the folks who would like to have the right themselves but not to have their neighbors have that right. that is one of the larger and most vocal groups that are anti-short-term rentals in the country, in the different cities we operate in. they then try to say it is the hotel lobby. it really is this idea that i would like to do something that no one else can do, and that is something that we say if you are going to have vacation rentals at all, just have a rule that is fair for all and does not create winners and losers.

>> homeaway's cofounder, carl sheppard. thank you for your time. do you want to know why mark zuckerberg wears the same t-shirt all the time or what he thought about the movie "the social network"? ♪ >> welcome back to "bloomberg

west." mark zuckerberg does not speak in public often, but yesterday he answered some burning questions as he held his first public q&a session at facebook headquarters. why does he always wear that same gray t-shirt? >> i feel like i'm not doing my job if i spend any of my energy on things that are silly or frivolous about my life, and i can dedicate my energy towards building the best products and services and helping us reach our goal of helping to connect everyone in the world and giving them the ability to stay connected with the people they love and care about. >> wow. at least he changes the t-shirt. what does mark zuckerberg think about "social network"? >> they went out of their way to get interesting details correct,

but on the over arching plot, why we are building facebook to help connect the world or how we did it, they just kind of made up a bunch of stuff that i thought was kind of hurtful. >> ok, that if a more serious business. zuckerberg acknowledging that facebook has work to do when it comes to establishing trust with users. time for the bwest byte. we focus on one number that tells a whole lot. tim hagan is giving us the bite today. >> $578 million, that is the money that apple loaned a supplier to build glass that was hopefully going to go into the iphone 6 and did not happen. >> this advance story is an amazing story. we are now just learning the secret term that apple demands of at least one supplier, maybe all of its suppliers. >> this is a unique window into

the way apple does business. it is not unique to the industry, but they have a lot of clout and power and a company like gt who wasn't in the business of making sapphire really jumped at this opportunity. stocks soared the day they announced it, and a collapse the day they said they had to go but -- had to go to bankruptcy. >> apple said virtually nothing. gt, in the press release they announced they had this deal, their main business wasn't doing that great. they said we are making a big change in our business model, we have this great deal with apple, stocking up 160%. now what are we learning with the court trials? >> they put in the contract with apple. a lot of it was redacted at the time. now through court records we see they have certain milestones they needed to accomplish. those dates, they blew past them

and did not announce they had missed receiving loan payments from apple at that point. in august they were talking about how they were still expecting to get those loans and in october never mentioned we were supposed to get them in april. >> they never shared that with the shareholders. the shareholders who were buying gt stock based on the promises in the press reports did not have the information that gt insiders had. >> we don't know why, but the sec has opened an investigation into gt, into their trading activities, into their sapphire business. >> i thought it was curious. there was a lot of suspicion about it as well. thank you very much. it's a great gt story. get the latest news, headlines all the phone on your tablet, your phone, bloomberg.com and bloomberg radio. ♪

>> here's johnny. >> from the moment he stepped on stage to the day he said goodbye -- the king of late night was johnny carson. >> he went right into the homes