live from. three in san francisco, welcome to "bloomberg west," where we cover technology, innovation, and the future of business. i'm emily chang. why did president obama choose facebook to announce he will be issuing an executive order on immigration? fox news wendell goal or asked that question to the white house asked thatgoler question to the white house press secretary. >> the video reached mother 1.2 million users on facebook, and 227,000 people have viewed it

and another 12,000 have shared it. >> it is also interesting to note that none of the major market -- major broadcast networks will be carrying it live. you can see it on bloomberg. shares of283,000 twitter were sold for more than $11 million. a spokesman said the stock sales were in accordance with a trading plan to diversify stolo'ss invest -- co investments. this time, in retail its gap that is struggling to boost sales. it had a 5% drop in sales at its name stake -- namesake store, the gap. this comes as there are struggles and leadership changes. the numbers are in with alibaba's first bond offering.

the chinese e-commerce giant has race eight million dollars. earlier, it was said that alibaba had $67 billion worth of bond orders, about seven times the event that were eventually sold. to our lead, it has been a really rough ride for googler after anhis week executive reportedly suggested snooping on reporters. now it has caught the eye of lawmakers. sent a letter asking about their practices. and he said he was concerned about their god view software giving them the ability to track the drivers. her said he would respond in the coming weeks. said theyote -- uber

would respond in the coming weeks. it also wrote a blog post. i thought it asking how uber should discipline and neil michael. emil michael. >> it felt like what he was doing was trying to have a chilling effect on journalists who would write quickly about uber, and i don't think that's appropriately. -- that's appropriate. hads just wondering if uber taken any action with him or not. . guess that is up to uber >> to your point, it raises a number of issues, certainly the chilling effect being one of them. what other issues do you think this raises? >> i'm chairman of the subcommittee and judiciary committee on privacy,

technology, and law. this has a basic privacy issue tout individuals rights control who takes privacy information like geolocation -- that is what we are talking about here. that has been a lot of focus of mine, and how that information is accessed and shared. it appears they have something , wheregod view at uber employees of uber can access this geolocation information. it's not clear for what purpose it's used. they say business purposes. i asked them to define that. but they had an incident where an executive from uber had a journalist come to interview him at his office and he told her that he had been tracking her there.

and evidently, thaspeaks to a certain -- >> and he did not seem to think there was a problem with that. that's amazing. >> yes, again, that speaks to a certain cluelessness. evidentlyany that stores your geolocation , it's a little disturbing to say, hey, journalist who has come to my office, i tracked you here. it just suggests a little tone deafness. is a privateber company. how much authority do you have? if you don't get an answer that you like from them, what can you really do? exploringe have been writing laws about what companies can do with geolocation information, whether they have to seek permission to

take it or store it. and we can write legislation on whether people can opt in or opt out. there is legislation you can write to cover this whole area. we will not talk about uber specifically. but also, we can shine a light on uber. all of this has to be done within the propriety of our role in congress. wonder, is the way uber handles user information any more critical than facebook or critical -- facebook or google? because we're talking about real people getting into real cars with real drivers in the real world. >> yes, this certainly has different implications and certain other kinds of information.

but all geolocation information, we think, is a special problem. and it's very important information. who goes to the doctor and where they go to the doctor, and where you go to church, and where you pick up your kid at school -- all of that is pretty private information. you feel like the senate will have an increasing role in this privacy debate as so many more companies are gathering data and have the ability to track location and behavior in so many ways that were not even possible couple of years ago? sexy yes, my subcommittee has been shining light on that. yes, my subcommittee has been shining light on that. purpose is to look at technology, and we have this technological acceleration. at some point, someone for example, had to decide whether

tapping a phone by the government was a violation of the fourth amendment. the founding fathers did not perceive the telephone. as these new technologies exist and accelerate, we have a role in determining what is appropriate and what is protecting people's privacy. orsenator, do you use uber have you ever used it? >> i have. >> will you continue to use it? >> i'm going to wait for the answers. actually, when i use uber, it's because my wife uses uber. it's usually like, how are getting their? you are getting in a car that is coming. >> but if you don't get the answers that you like, will you continue to use it? i won'tlly have to --

rule out ever using uber. i won't do that today, right now. >> in other words, what you are saying is frannie is going to kill you if you tell her that she cannot take uber. >> that is what i'm saying. >> because they are really dominant. >> yes, and i think that might be a wake-up call for them. theexecutive that told journalist, you know, i've been tracking you on the way over here -- [laughter] -- it may wake them up a little bit and help them to understand what the proper use of the geolocation information is and what it means to people. >> what is your advice for uber at this time? >> number one, to answer my letter. and to also put in place policies that would give people confidence that their geolocation information will not be improperly shared or looked

at for the wrong reason. >> we will have more with senator al franken of bit later in the show. -- shares tank after secondary offering prices at a deep discount. we tell you what it means for everybody's favorite camera on a stick, next. ♪

>> i'm emily chang and this is "bloomberg west." had a wildly successful ipo in june with aspirations of becoming much more than a camera maker. go pro even pitched itself as a

media company. but after last night's discount a secondary offering, it's left many people to wonder if they can build an empire on the helmet straps of its users. cory johnson is back with more. what is going on? ipo, put out an limited amount of stock, and they have 100 free 5 million shares, but only 10 million in the offering. -- 140 5 million shares, but only 10 million in the offering. trade like crazy. everybody loves these videos, the shots from someone's chest or your head, the motorcycle riding, the kite boarding, the surfing. i love these videos. the stock has had a terrific run, more than doubled since the ipo. and the company is having his great success. but there are a limited number of shares out there. and the trading was frenetic.

yesterday, nearly half of the shares traded every single day among which is rare to see 50% of the flow trading in any stock. last night, they priced the secondary at a significant discount to where the stock was trading. when you out there and sell more stock, you want the stock high and higher, or you don't do the offering. he did the offering last night at $75. 80 fiveyesterday at dollars. the market sees that as a sign of weakness. >> is it a sign of weakness? >> it is a sign that they are pretty desperate to get this sale done, to raise this money. think the prospects for growth -- four go pro are right now? one analyst compares the co2 steve jobs. >> yes, alex loves go pro, and he also owns it.

he seems to put his money where his mouth is. but it's also worth noting that he is an owner of the stock when he's talking about how much more profitable it should be. the likelihood it could expand to becoming a media company? because it doesn't own the rights to its content. >> olympus doesn't own the rights to what i take pictures of with my camera. a different business that they are not in yet. they do not have revenues from media yet. they don't have a separate line item for media. >> how much of a business do they have? maybe the numbers are not there, but what strategically have they done? a channel on virgin america flights and other places. they have a youtube channel. it's interesting to watch, but not a significant source of revenues. furthermore, the secondary offering today of 10 million shares, only about 12 million shares were sold -- 12% of the

shares were sold by the company. the ceo sold 4 million shares today. and he's also got it on lockup. it imposes another lockup for the people who work at this company, and those who helped build this thing along with he and his wife. they were not able to sell shares, but the ceo was. and he took a lot of money off the table today. and he was willing to do so even with a steep discount from her the stock was trading just yesterday morning. >> where does go pro go from here? do business, but without the full state of the founder, -- stake of the founder, because he took so much money out of the business. own, no, -- oh, no, go pro. >> [laughter] little brainstorming after the show. -- we will do brainstorming

after the show. stuck waiting for ipo for months. go public echoed i speak with the ceo, aaron leavy, next. ♪

>> welcome back. i'm emily chang and this is "bloomberg west." fox has over 27 million users and is valued at over a billion dollars. -- box has over 27 million users and is valued at over a billion dollars. have an ipo.

will it ever take the plunge? he recently took on money from tbg -- tpg for sub why did you take that money? had filed to go public in march of the -- of that year and right after that, there was a trend in the tech stock base. there was quite a bit of volatility in high-growth technology companies. we decided it was not the best time to bring a new company to market. frome had amazing support some private market growth, sort of late stage investors. they were willing and interested in supporting the company as a private company. so we took that money on to allow us to continue to invest in growth, invest in the business model and building out rocks without necessarily going public. is the status with the ipo?

-- >> what is the status with the ipo? >> we are still on file, so i cannot talk too much about that. but you will definitely be one of the first people to hear about it once we share any updated thinking. >> how much have you wondered, did we make a mistake? did we file too soon? obvious is we should not have filed when we did, because we certainly dealt with a lot of distraction because of that filing. athink that whether that was lot of the unfortunate news reports and a cycle that had to to happen -- that had around the business because we brought on a filing, it was absolutely a distraction to what our core focus is and has been, which is execution and building up the business. but life is certainly too short to have any specific regrets. we have learned and we remain in full execution mode. ex i'm curious what that moment was like to you -- >> i'm

curious what that moment was like to you. you opened your books to the world. a boxrson has called it of horrors. >> he was a horrible moment. to my technology industry you have to make a pretty significant investment. in our case, we made a rest -- an investment in research and development, and in our ability to go to market and reach these customers. >> there was a criticism that you are selling -- spending more on marketing and acquiring customers then you are making. >> every dollar that we acquire in revenue is a dollar that we generate revenue annually. we just happen to view our s-1 at a point where the new investments had outpaced the revenue scale. i think we are now in a stage , we aree revenue focused on growing that, of course, and that is compounding. but we don't have as many significant new investments,

because we have built up the enterprise sales force. you are starting to see the efficiency play out over time. thoughtuch have you about selling box versus staying independent or going public? >> we want to sell our software. >> will box still become a public company? >> that is the path we are on. it's pretty likely. >> you would not say yes? >> i would say yes in the sense that it is the path we are on. >> don't miss the full interview with box ceo and cofounder, vie tonight at 8:30 p.m. eastern and pacific. we speak with, senator al franken on net neutrality. >> time now for bloomberg television on the markets.

i'm julie hyman. let's take a look at where stocks traded today. we did see records once again for the dow and s&p, even though each only gained about 0.2%. better than estimated economic data as well as some earnings drive stocks higher. energy was doing better with oil on the rise in the session. ♪ . .

>> you are watching bloomberg west, where we focus on innovation, technology, and the future of business. president obama's idea to open up the internet and net neutrality -- ted cruz has called at for the internet. democratic senator al franken has been one of the most outspoken supporters of net neutrality. toasked him how he responded senator cruz's claim. >> i think he said net neutrality is obamacare for the

internet. you just could not be more 180 degrees wrong. net neutrality is about all content being treated the same, and that has been the architecture of the internet from the very beginning. this would not represent a change, maintaining that neutrality. i guess when he is referring to is reclassifying the internet as a telecommunications service or utility. but that is for the purposes of maintaining that neutrality. that would be the purpose of that. basically, what net neutrality has been about has been allowing toryone's content to flow

the consumer at the same speed. big internet and service providers like comcast, like time warner cable and verizon have talked about charging extra for a fast lane am a so there would be a two-tiered system or multi tiered system where a content provider would have to pay more for a fast speed and this would this willry business, cost consumers more because that cost will be passed on to you. all of the innovation that has taken place on the internet has happened not just while we have had net neutrality but because we have net neutrality. i use it youtube as an example. googleas a thing called video which was not very good. over guys started youtube a pizzeria in san mateo, california. because it flowed

at the same speed. everyone was able to sample youtube, so they chose that will stop a few years later, google ended up buying youtube for $1.6 billion. the dormwas started in room. all of this innovation has happened because of net neutrality and we don't want to put everything in the hands of deep-pocketed corporations who can afford to pay out for that stifle all the innovation that would happen from the start ups and people in dorm rooms. operatingusinesses that have a website, this affects the entire economy and it is a bad idea and has first amendment implications as well. >> let's talk about those companies. do they have a moral

responsibility? >> i think they do. by theernet was created defense department, by the united states government will they cannot act as gatekeepers. they don't own it and i believe the point of the internet isn't for comcast and verizon and time warner cable to make as much money as possible. it has other purposes. >> what you are talking to is called title ii of the telecommunications act. i talked to michael powell, former chairman of the fcc, i said i would be talking to you and he said asked senator frank in which public utility he thinks the internet should emulate?

is it the power grid or our public sewers? the national highway system? which of those do you think the internet should look like? >> i think it should look like the internet. it should look like the internet has always looked. we have had net neutrality for the whole history of the internet. i would ask him doesn't he know the difference between the internet and those things? expansion ofthe broadband. we have seen all of this with net neutrality. said to preserve net neutrality, this is the only way to do it him and to invoke title ii. to creates tried rules to preserve net neutrality and has twice been struck down

by courts to say the way to do this is to invoke title ii. but this is not at all comparable to what michael powell -- this is a false comparison and i think he knows seend i think we have since the fcc under his leadership made it an information service that -- the nature of the internet has changed. people rely on it for , itvision, for phone calls is a telecommunications technology -- there is no question about that all stop >> the resident did not mention title ii specifically. should he have gone further? >> i believe from his statement that he was essentially saying it a telecommunications service or define it that way,

to reclassify it. you think the chances are the three democrats on the commission actually vote against the president? i think it is probably in the chairman's hands, but i don't know. spent lobbying dollars are enormous. comcast has spent more than any other business except for north of roman. net neutrality is positioned on title ii to, would you see it as a victory against lobbyist in washington? >> i think there is a difference in the two issues. benefitobviously would from a fast lane and profit from that, but that is not really what they have been lobbying on. what they have been lobbying on

is there acquisition of time warner cable which is automatic and a bunch of different ways. what they have been spending their lobbying on. they have been disingenuous i advertising they have that acquisition that would be pro-net neutrality because they broughtuired when they -- when they bought nbc to observe net neutrality until 2018. adshey are doing these saying if you add time warner extend that, but we have asked if they would extend it past the time they would require to buy the conditions of the acquisition of nbc and they have not responded. >> minnesota democratic senator al franken there. how would you like to feel like

you are in the middle of the movie or a location on the other side of the world? we will check out the latest in virtual reality technology, next. ♪

>> i'm emily chang and this is "bloomberg west." sam grobart of thereview technologies and innovations set to disrupt our lives next year. today, we are talking about virtual reality. is usually associated with video games, but one company is expanding vr into the movies. this is "the year ahead." >> we have had the pc, the web, mobile as a platform and we believe virtual reality will be the next big platform for entertainment experiences will stop everyone is going to be having vr experiences. it's a very natural thing. room,this small, dark

visitors are invited to try on a headset and experience the innovation -- cinematic virtual reality. ofcinematic vr is a branch virtual reality not focused on video games but focused on video per se. a cinematic vr experience, you feel like you have been transported somewhere else. you can look in any direction, to the right, to the left, you also hear sounds in a spatially situation. if you're a phone ringing to your right and you look to the ringing willone come from straight ahead. .> to create immersive video x says, he had to come up with a new kind of video camera. but the camera rig consists of the sphere of lenses, each one

pointing in a different direction and capturing a different part of the space will is different from traditional cameras in that it is a very autonomous system. you don't really have a cameraman anymore. >> this is not a totally new concept. the camera is basically the motion picture and -- motion picture version of the google street camera. what makes it unique is what they want to do with that technology. they want to put you inside a hollywood style movie. in order to make that happen, they've made a partnership with new deal studio, a major studio effects house. a virtualr is making godzilla with a man in a monster suit. >> it's completely if her and

then shooting with normal film komori have one camera looking one direction. set, 360lt a complete degrees around. i usually wear a ski mask with tiny eyeballs and that way i can hide in the shadows and still be able to direct. the vr experience is a whole new experiencing a narrative that hasn't been explored yet. there is every kind of genre out there that we can apply this technology to in a different way. >> this is a bloomberg colleague. she's watching another cinematic vr movie. this one is in the horror genre. that was terrifying.

>> he's betting we will get hooked on that kind of experience will stop an experience it's about to become accessible to 30 much everyone. >> there are a lot of exciting things that will be happening soon in the vr space. vr, being able to experience it on your smart phone. as this reaches a broader and broader audience, there are great opportunities to build out a business delivering content to consumers. technology is less than two years old and still has a ways to go, but it's going to require more than technological advances. it's still going to need a storyteller like a spielberg or cameron who can turn this into the next blockbuster entertainment platform. >> sam grobart there. be sure to tune into the "year ahead" airing saturday and

sunday morning. we will be looking at 10 innovations that will change everything you know about technology, food and medicine. first christian bale and now sony pictures -- another surprising turn for the high-profile film about the life of steve jobs. what will aaron sorkin do now? ♪

>> welcome back. i'm emily chang. sony pictures is dropping plans to reduce a film about steve jobs after a series of casting miscues. now that universal pictures is in talks to require -- to acquire the movie based on the walter isaacson the atrophy of jobs. it is being cowritten by oscar winner aaron sorkin. inning us is paul sweeney new york and cory johnson is still with me. is this movie going to get made? >> i think this movie will definitely get made. up on getting put back the shelf happens quite frequently in hollywood. you have to have all the stars aligned for a movie to get made -- unit that the studio, the writer and the director, the actors, they all have to come together at the right time. i suspect this movie will

definitely get done. it looks like it's going to be on the show for a little bit, but it is too big of a story and steve jobs is too big of a name and you have alan sorkin associated with it. >> all of the stars aligned indeed. there was an interview with aaron storck and where he talked about this is a movie unlike any other where the lead actor has to carry such a heavy load. is that the kind of thing that might make the studios examine -- all of their chips are on one number. >> that is true. what we have seen in hollywood over the last five to seven stars arehat a list less likely to carry a movie than they did in the past will can used to be that you sign up tom cruise or someone like that and it would be a guaranteed hit, but we are seeing less and less of that. hollywood is getting more conservative.

when it comes to a new story as movies,to the franchise getting an independent story out there is tougher than it has ever been and it depends on getting a top a-list star to carry the movie. >> speaking of that interview, i have a clip of how he talked about how proud he was of the script. he told me that he thinks it is his best ever. the first time i have felt that the end of the script the movie i exactly wanted to write. when i got to the end and it managed to get from my head to the piece of paper intact. >> so he is obviously pretty excited about it. but first leonardo dicaprio and now christian bale and now sony

-- how long will it take before we see this in theaters? >> i think we will see it the next couple of years. going for this movie and it just takes the right studio to put the right pieces together. this won't be something that will be on the shelf or too long . we will see if universal can get it done, if not, i'm sure some other studios will try to hit on it. has the movie industry changed so much that these kinds movieses are less action and superhero movies are having a tougher time or is it easier from certain studios? >> is much tougher to get something made these days of it's not part of an existing franchise such as a marvel franchise, or transformers or something like that. these movies have to play locally, they have to play all around the world. you have to make sure whatever you are going to green light in

hollywood has to play not only in middle america but all around the world and that makes it tougher. >> paul sweeney, thanks so much. focusest byte is where we on one number that tells a whole lot. is zero.te when president obama talks about immigration in his primetime speech, zero networks, not one of the big three networks is going to carry the speech. it is sweeps for networks, so compare this to president bush lost 2006 announcement that he was sending national guard troops to the border. speech, the white house argues, will have more impact than that. but it is sweeps week. >> immigration is a usually important issue for the tech industry in particular. zuckerberg have been lobbying congress for more

focus on immigration and especially what it means for skilled workers. veryd it's also a different place. there was a time when the networks would never do this. they would not cross the white house this way but their business model is under new threats from the netflix of the world. land thosey want to last advertising dollars and are willing to buck the white house to do it. >> should the networks be beholden to the president cost schedule question mark next to thetor franken's remarks, networks did not create the networks. the federal government haven a right to do this as part of the public service and the question is are they going away from the public service question mark this should do away with any notion of liberal bias on the networks because they are not putting this speech on. >> you can see it on bloomberg television later today. our editor-at-large, thank you for watching this edition of

"bloomberg west." we will see later. ♪