emily: we will take a look at how a potential merger between t-mobile and dish could change the landscape if it happens. i am emily chang. and this is bloomberg west. should facebook be worried if they listen to chris sacca and by twitter? is it a tech bubble or tech boom? how long the good times will last. big moves in that streaming music industry ahead of apple's announcement. how sound cloud is storing up its market share. all of that ahead on bloomberg

west. dish network in talks to buy t-mobile for years, but no indication a deal is imminent. still, recent reports of a potential tie up have sent t-mobile shares up 2.5%. the deal would put the ceo at the top of the company, but -- the purchase price is not been decided, but together these companies have market value of $64 billion. will a good a deal like this help streaming customers? joining us now, alex sherman, who has been reporting on this. we also have a senior analyst from new york. alex, you have been working the phones and you have status updates. >> the wall street journal reported this morning that the two companies are in talks which is something that we have known for a while.

no price or structure has been agreed on yet, but that is everything. can these two companies come to an agreement where t-mobile is willing to take some proportion of dish stock and cash? and condition raise enough money, and -- and can dish network raise enough money, and what's the premium going to be? is dish, a notoriously a cheap company, apologies to charlie -- he would say "frugal" or "smart," my sources indicate that there is a big disagreement on the valuation of dish stock. charlie feels like dish stock is undervalued, because the market has not taken into consideration the value of their spectrum.

really, that's always been the hold up, even if you go back all the way to last year -- can a deal get done surrounding all those questions? emily: twitter ceo john ledger deleted some tweets about this. not confirming or denying the reports, but singled out a recode article that he called a "sad story." i am not sure if he was referring to the analysis of the reporting, but it was like a -- it was referring to t-mobile and dish as the last two people at a bar. why don't they just took up? -- hook up? >> they are in an adjacent industry, playing and services that could be complementary from what we are doing, and the

-- if the customers are better served markets will find a way. emily: should it happen? well, -- >> we think that there's never been more urgency for that deal to happen, so you have got the immense consolidation in the landscape. number two, wall street needs more clarity on the potential use of dish's wireless spectrum. that is a particular sticking point -- the valuation of the shares. if you look at dish now, they have a significant amount of embedded premium resulting from the spectrum over the last several years, so we sense that that will be a major hurdle to resolve with t-mobile. having said that, i think it's not even conceivable that they are going to pull off this deal because everything put together, capital markets are still favorable, wall street is itching for some deal to come

together just to be able to realize a lot of this offset. emily: keith, what are your thoughts? >> i'm not an expert in this space. i believe we will see these attempted mergers in the future. clearly, the market is valuing growth. organic growth is difficult to come by, so in so far as regulators allow these transactions, we will see them announced every week or every month. emily: are the regulators on board with this? >> probably. this seems to be a much easier deal to go through, then say sprint-t-mobile. if deutsche telekom is set on selling t-mobile there aren't

that many dance partners left for t-mobile. comcast could bid, but would comcast want to go through the regulatory process again on a major transaction like that? probably not now. sprint might want to try again but they would have to wait for a new administration. if deutsche telekom wants to do a deal, dish is the obvious buyer. emily: what does this mean for consumers echo -- consumers? keith is a directv customer. i have comcast. what does this mean? >> it is an advancement of dish's long-term strategy of mobile video. they have sling tv, which allows you to get your package of channels over your devices so what they can do is bundle this mobile service with this other package and offer you what is called quad play. you can have mobile video wireless service, tv, and it

-- and they would be the first of its kind to offer that. emily: does this deal make strategic sense? what does it mean for netflix ? >> rarely do you see a deal with -- where the strategic motivation is equally balance, so i think this deal -- all signs are pointing to the breakup of the bundle. if they think about what slink tv is doing, i think they are coming together with t-mobile and allowing them to scale that. all signs are pointing to wireless and mobile as the future of consumer consumption and that's the way the industry has been gravitating to. emily: i know you will keep us posted as soon as you get more. thank you for joining us. keith, you are sticking with me. the music streaming world is buzzing.

is soundcloud making peace with the music industry? it has made deals with 20,000 labels. pandora is holding its shareholder meeting right now, days after it bought a local station in rapid city. it is a move for better royalty rates. over at spotify, the new plan tosses out musical gyros as it focuses on programming. and apple will announce its answers to spotify. can it stand out? the jury is still out on title -- jay-z's platform, which is fighting to gain traction. uber ceo sees one million new drivers. where does that leave lyft? the internet is flipping out for fallout 4.

the trailer was released yesterday and has already gone viral. take a look at what is in store. ♪

♪ emily: hp is in the middle of a historic split. the company is hiring 4700 positions nationally.

around 2500 in the u.s.. the company sees 65% of sales coming from overseas. miggy -- meg whitman has said there are going to be layoffs. hp was nearing a deal to buy computer sciences. until talks broke down. i had a chance to sit down with meg whitman to get her take on navigating the change the company is going through. meg whitman: it is hard. i think when ever you come into a turnaround, and i have done a couple of them, it's harder than you think. even though i was on the board you find out things that you could not see as a board member. it has been tough. because the company has been through a lot. it just takes perseverance. emily: you can catch the rest of my interview with meg whitman on studio 1.0 tonight at 7:30 p.m. eastern and pacific. uber turns five years old this week. at one of its celebrations last night, the ceo tallied up how

big the company has become. >> already, there are over 26,000 drivers in new york. 15,000 drivers drivers in london. 10,000 in paris. 42,000 in one city in china. recently, our millionth driver took his first passenger on an uber trip. in 2015 alone, we expect another million people to drive for uber. emily: so the numbers are huge, and its nearest competitor in the u.s., lyft, is still far behind. keith is with us, and early lyft investor. we have talked about this before. are your thoughts any different? do you see uber and lyft both being huge players? >> i do. the media's focus on huber versus lyft is missing the bigger story. the story is how cities are being transformed and car

ownership is changing. both are at the edge of a transformation society. when i was growing up, it was important to be able to afford and buy a car. that is starting to change radically in the united states. we are also seeing self driving cars from google and others starting to come into play. i think it is conceivable in five or 10 years that normal americans will own cars and drive them to work in the way that we grew up. that is the bigger change. transformation driven by uber, lyft, and google. that is the bigger story. emily: will that mean more drivers without benefits? how is it sustainable? >> in many ways. people will not own cars. when i own a car, i don't pay somebody to drive it for me. if nobody owns cars, there may be lots of people who are working on those cars, maintaining those cars, driving those cars, not all cars will be self driving. emily: i want to talk to you about twitter.

because that has certainly been on our minds. chris satter had an 8500 word missive. >> have you memorized it? emily: i'm working on it. he made a strong suggestion that google should buy twitter. what do you think of that? >> from a google perspective it's a no-brainer. i tweeted this 3-4 years ago. mark: but there's no -- emily: but there's no indication that that is happening. keith: i think that's a reflection of google not understanding social media. it was a no-brainer to buy instagram. you can't buy a company that doesn't want to sell. if twitter does not want to sell, it would be difficult for google to buy them. it's not clear if google hasn't tried. twitter wants to be an independent company. emily: is this going to happen? >> i think unlikely. twitter believes in its future and impact. if you think about it, the two

social networks that have really transformed society are twitter and probably read it. -- reddit. if someone made them an offer and throughout market capital, it's a difficult decision to turn that down. emily: do you think the product has evolved enough? >> i'm addicted to it. i use it all the time. i do start my morning every single day and end my day with twitter. it is the modern newspaper. when i was growing up, we would read the newspaper and glanced through it. that's what twitter is for the world. that's an important function. and it's a $30 million market capital. so it has been very successful. could it be better? possibly. can it innovate? sure. emily: i want to ask you about

the buy buttons that we have seen popping up, you worked with square, paypal, could this cut amazon out? >> i believe that people will shop where they spend time. growing up, we went to the mall for entertainment and commerce. the modern mall are pinterest, twitter, and facebook -- these platforms are where people are engaging and shopping. what empowers that? if you try to buy something on a mobile device, it's painful. there are companies like striped -- like sprint solving this problem partnering with twitter and pinterest. it can create a new commerce environment. emily: are we going to see consolidation in the industry, will we see square being bought? >> square is an independent company. i can't believe they will be acquired. it is vibrant and successful. i do think there is a shop that paypal gets acquired. probably not for 12 months after it pays because of tax

implications. emily: who should buy it? >> i think a lot of people will try. samsung, visa, google. emily: we have to throw google's name in there. i want to ask you quickly about your apple watch. i got mine today. i found on twitter that you have three of these? why? >> there are different styles and moods. my job is to test products and use products. i would probably own one of almost every apple product over the last 20 years so i think it's important to see the subtle differences, wrist sizes, etc. emily: what do you think of the peak band? >> that matches perfectly. emily: thank you for stopping by. >> we have heard reports of nuclear detonation. >> my god. emily: this is the trailer for fallout 4.

it came out yesterday and has already gone viral. we have had nothing from fallout since 2010. back then fallout three shipped 4.7 million games in its first week. the internet is so excited that sales of fallout three and fallout: new vegas have risen dramatically on amazon. some game makers just don't seem to need mobile. up next, everyone's favorite topic here in the valley. the tech bubble. we discussed that with scott sandel. as we go to break, have you ever wanted to swim with sea turtles or explore the great barrier reef? now you can virtually through google maps partnership. there are more than 40 locations to choose from. ♪

♪ emily: it is time for the daily byte. one number that tells a whole lot. today's number is 7.12%. that is the stake that paul elliott singer just took in samsung pops construction arm. -- samsung's construction arm. he spent at least $630 million to buy more than 11 million shares. here is the issue. he opposes a $9.3 billion deal that would have tightened samsung air j lee's grip on subsidiaries. it is a de facto holding company, and lee is the biggest shareholder.

with the 7.12% stake, he becomes the third largest shareholder, buying him the muscle to disrupt a family secession plan. -- family succession plan. now, to the biggest debate in silicon valley, bubble or boom? of all the newly minted unicorns we have talked about, new enterprise associates racing the biggest venture fund ever over $3 billion. is that a sign of confidence that there are still great investment opportunities? here with me, scott sandel. bubble or boom? which is it? >> i'm with mark benioff. one of our great opera -- one of our great entrepreneurs. i think it's a boom. it's not about the valuations but the fundamentals in innovation and disruption in which we believe will create companies of tremendous value and change every industry. emily: there are more unicorns than ever. how many are masquerading?

horses masquerading as unicorns. how many will go to zero? >> i don't know, but if i had to bet on a portfolio of them versus other companies, it would be a great portfolio. i expect they will turn out the way a venture fund turns out, a few companies make all the difference, and a lot that don't work out at all. and a bunch that end up in the middle. on the whole, i think we will see spectacular results. emily: a third or so? >> if you look at any decent venture fund, 30% go to zero. you have a bunch of stuff in the middle that does ok, and you invariably only have a small number of companies that make the difference. emily: if it is a boom, how is your job different now than it was in 1999? there is more money flowing into silicon valley than ever before. you are seeing private equity firms and international investment firms getting interested in tech. how do you differentiate?

>> i characterize the environment differently. just like the late 1990's, there are lots of angels, $20 billion a year. that was comparable to the whole venture capital industry. at the earliest stage of the company formation, there is tremendous activity, which feeds the ecosystem. the venture capital ecosystem is smaller than it was in 1999. there was a $100 billion raised in 1999. so i think it's a great time for venture capitalists because get to see all those things being born and hopefully fund the best of them. in the later stage, you have people from all over the place coming in, which is enabling all these companies to grow and stay private longer. emily: what about valuations. we are seeing record valuations. are these fair? do you find things are expensive?

>> there's no doubt about it. things are very expensive. if you look at the data, series a valuations have doubled. that's the big worry. emily: how are you hedging your bets? >> you want to be selective about the companies that you invest in in the later stages of your journey. we are looking for companies that can be really large and are emerging as leaders in the category. also, we go early where few people will play. emily: the ceo of hp says there is a lot of consolidation coming to tech. we are already seeing bigger -- big deals that are happening will they happen to startups quickly? >> i am sure there will be some but the difference to me between now and the late 1990's is that you don't have to merge with anybody. my favorite example in our portfolio is casper, the mattress company.

these stanford graduates -- emily: i have a casper mattress. i like it. >> they are growing like crazy. they would have gone to work for a mattress company in the late 1990's. emily: we have to leave it there. thank you for joining us. ♪

♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. charlie: elizabeth holmes is here she is the founder and ceo of theranos. it is a blood analytics company that has developed a new approach to blood testing. these tests detect dozens of medical conditions. based on blood drawn from a fingerprint. -- finger prick. her goal is to transform health care through prevention and early detection. she started the co