emily: the largest tech takeover ever. the question is, whether other tech giants will follow. i'm emily chang, and this is "bloomberg west." coming up, my exclusive interview with steve wozniak, to separate fact from fiction in the latest steve jobs movie. also, was the act talks about woz talks about his last interview with steve jobs. plus, rodeo drive meets the

facebook mobile app. the social network is planning a new shopping section. and fantasy sports sites track a record weekend with pro football fans despite the controversy. first, to our lead in the biggest tech takeover ever. dell agreeing to buy emc for $67 billion. to pull it off, dell is adding $50 billion on top of the 11 billion it is carrying. it's amid the hottest product lineup in an ever more competitive environment. for emc, the buyout will hopefully satisfy activist investors looking for growth. as part of the deal, dell will assume a stake in vmware, which will remain a publicly traded company. joining me now is a partner at greylock capital, who worked there for a decade, and alex sherman, our m&a reporter at bloomberg. lay it all out for us. what is dell trying to accomplish? alex: the idea is, dell is one of several large, legacy tech companies who, in many ways,

their best days are behind them and they are trying to figure out what is the next step forward for us. part one of that plan was to go private and refocus on the enterprise segment to get away from what we all know dell as , from a consumer pc product company to a company that services information technology at small and medium-size businesses. the idea is to marry that with emc, a large enterprise company and whose core competency is storage rather than servers. emily: do you see them getting out of the business? jerry: pcs are declining and everyone's moving to a mobile, tablet world. would youe dell, why spend more time in a low-margin pc business to pursue the higher-margin storage business? emily: what is the amount of

debt they are taking on? can they accomplish this? alex: i wish i knew the answer to that. meg whitman just put out a memo today, a sort of a memo to her own staff. take this with a grain of salt because hp and emc were deep in discussions to do a deal last year. but she turned around and said dell would need to pay off $2.5 billion each year and that would not go to research and development of getting into the cloud. that once they split the company and go forward. emily: she came out saying this is a real opportunity and they are going to have to radically reduce r&d and it will create disruption as they rationalize product for -- product portfolios, channel programs, and leadership. i feel like when people are comparing this to hp and compaq, whenever a big tech deals like this happens, it does not go well.

can this possibly go well? jerry: history would indicate that it's not going to go well. have hp, which did the largest m&a and is now splitting itself off and now dow -- dell is taking the mantle. maybe in a few years, they will realize smaller is better and split themselves off. being a private company, to retool your business will be easier than being a public company dealing with shareholders. you want to retool for the cloud and for a cloud virtualization. i think number two is consolidation. you are looking at where you markets have four or five mega buyers. dell wants to get enough size and mass and technology providers to these customers. emily: it is interesting that you see them going against the tide. hp is splitting. mark andreessen says he expects a lot of tech companies to break up.

are we expecting more big m&a or a more big tech breakup? alex: that's a great point. you can go either way. hp almost did the deal with emc. said, we are hp going to be in the split camp, that may have been plan b. i think we'll see other big companies split up, because that is a trend we have seen, symantec, ebay. when everyone speculates on is ibm. will they split up? they need to do something, so to your point, what is that something? it's either a big m&a transaction or breaking up. on a market and a customer and serve that customer end to end. what can they do to focus themselves? consumerure it -- shed

pcs and retooling themselves as consultants for large enterprises. for ibmknow what's left to financially engineer. emily: what do you think? outy: they have to figure what growing areas are surrounded by services. that will lift a bunch of i.t. services for ibm's customers. ibm will try again. i don't think they are going to buy a large company like dell emc. they have already said we are , really in the consulting business. emily: do you think they could take on aws? if that is the goal. jerry: i don't see it. of dollars andns lots of know how to retool your business to be a public provider. i was in a conference last week, amazon is so far ahead of dell and emc come i don't see them catching up. dell and emc have on premise

software and they are not used to selling per container , per transaction deals. alex: it's useful to point out is that what has save them is the $625 million acquisition of the m where, not a mega $50 billion deal. emily: it will be interesting to watch how they treat vm going forward. alex, jerry, thank you. i will be in austin speaking about this next week. we will get more to the story. the social network, the social network is trying to look more like the shopping network. facebook is adding a shopping section to its mobile app. facebook is making it -- making it possible to go to a full-screen catalog for a retailer. facebook is looking at ways to lower users into making purchases. the company says it won't be taking a cut out of revenue generated by consumer

transactions. instead, they hope to make it -- make advertising more effective in two -- by getting insight into what people buy. they have tested it over the holiday. coming up, my interview with steve wozniak. what about being played by seth rogen? ♪

emily: the movie is out, and one critical review is in. aaron sorkin's "steve jobs" is in, and

has been well received by hollywood critics. in silicon valley, a different story. steve wozniak enjoyed the film, but not because it has anything to do with reality. i sat down with him earlier in an exclusive interview. steve: this movie was top-notch professional -- the script and the words they said and how well the actors portrayed it. the cinematography, following them through holes. i was not familiar with aaron sorkin's work because i don't watch television. it was unbelievable to me. emily: and you actually spoke with aaron sorkin leading into the film. tell me about your role. steve: we talked for hours and hours, anything i could think of saying. little tiny bits that got used by him and painted in a different way and different place. emily: and you spent hou with him on the phone or in person to -- steve: in person. emily: did you argue over

anything? steve: i never once looked at the script. i did not feel it is inappropriate for me to look at the script and say, it didn't happen this way. it is his art. when you're close to something, a movie, every movie i have seen about apple, they hop -- have all these scenes, people's personalities are wrong. after a while, you realize it's the artistic freedom to make a movie that is enjoyable. emily: some have said there are a lot of things in this movie that didn't actually happen. would you say that? steve: maybe everything in the movie didn't happen but it's all based on things that did happen. everything i say, everything i am in i was not talking to steve , jobs at those events. i don't say things like that. they were based upon things, for example, there are parts of me saying, steve, pleasing knowledge the apple ii team for

15 years through the movie. like i would do that? it is based on, there was one shareholders meeting. they did not mention the apple ii. the people in the division were ready to quit. on their behalf, i was there only voice. so i called john, not steve jobs. things get built into a movie in certain ways. there are myths about me and steve jobs and our relationship. those come out in the movie more along the lines of the myth. emily: what is the myth and not -- what is the reality? steve: i was so gung ho for every project he introduced. i was there. i love tim. i love the products. i thought they were good because they came from steve jobs. one of them is like, the macintosh. he portrays it like, a bunch of people were for the apple ii and not the macintosh. we sat down, he showed me the 1984 commercial privately. he said the board voted it down. they weren't going to show it at

the super bowl. i was shocked and said part of the reason was because it cost $800,000. i said, steve, i will pay $400,000 if you pay $400,000 and we can show this ad and we should show it because it is us. i believed in the macintosh so much. even john believed in the macintosh. you have to manage a business and it was going to take three years to build the market and steve didn't understand that. these and directions come out in the movie. steve jobs was good and they didn't listen to him and messed up apple -- that's not -- the movie shows a part of it, but the movie is not about reality. the movie is about personalities. how would a discussion between steve and john scully go down? they show them meeting at a later date. steve never talked to john again in his life. emily: if as you say, everything in the movie didn't happen maybe, does it matter that this becomes the popular understanding of what did happen? steve: listen to this. in the background of what was going on, everyone knows the story of the evolution of

personal computers and the evolution of apple products. everyone knows that. this was in private meetings that are never on video. ever. how would steve interact with people on a daily basis? it shows different sides of steve. in that regard. emily: so you are saying it doesn't matter? steve: it matters that it's a great movie. this movie is a great product. if steve jobs were making movies as his product, this is the kind of quality he would want. emily: let's talk about the acting. seth rogen's portrayal of you. steve: i liked it very much. even him doing things in ways that i wouldn't do them, i liked the way he played it. i admire that character, although it said words i could never say. negative words, steve, you didn't do anything. i would never say a thing like that. i would say what he did was more important the way he says it back to me. i would never call steve an epithet.

i would never do that in life. i just can't. emily: did you ever talk to seth? steve: yes. he's one of the coolest actors in my mind. i'm glad they picked him to portray me. he went on jimmy fallon and said it is an unusual role, i do not usually play people who are smarter than me. emily: tim cook said he felt the movie was opportunistic and johnny i've later said he felt like steve's image had been hijacked. there are sons and daughters and widows who are upset. what do you make of that? steve: those comments got to me deeply and i started inking it -- thinking, it is opportunistic on someone's life, but any business is opportunistic. this is taking a person's reputation, that thing is, steve jobs has multiple sides of his personality is known for. known for greatness, thinking ahead, and great product. look at the ipod and the iphone. these movies all go back to a

former part of time that's not up to when those things happened. so it talks about, there are hundreds of cases. i know first-hand experience, with -- where steve did things, how could any human do that yet go -- emily: have you ever been asked to take a role that is ceremonial at apple? would you like to be more involved in the day-to-day? steve: steve jobs asked me questions like that near the time he was dying -- you want to come back to apple? i told him, no. i love the life i have. i get to go around and talk to highschooler's and university students and inspire them to want to have the creation of technology and make that part of their business. emily: what did he want you to do at apple? steve: maybe some little role, but i told him frankly i'm sorry, running big companies to the organization, the personal

ethics versus the is this -- the business ethics, i am not the right person to do that. emily: steve wozniak. you can catch the full interview on bloomberg.com. he had a lot more to say. this weekend, draft king's and fan dual learned the old saying is true, there is no such thing as bad publicity. record 7.1 million people entered tournaments for the nfl games leading to the guest -- the biggest weekend ever for the fantasy sports companies and generating over $43 million. this comes despite the controversy over a draft king's employee who won $350,000 on a rival site. employees are banned from entering any daily fantasy tournament. but it seems to have only brought the company more users. coming up, airbnb ceo brian chesky says weather and ipos in the future and how he feels about being compared to her. -- two over. and the husband and wife team

behind a billion dollar startup tells us about their behind-the-scenes business.

emily: a potential setback for ride hailing services in china. they would restrict business models, which uses private cars and drivers rather than registered taxis. both companies have raised billions of dollars from investors to expand in china. the airbnb ceo discussed uber's growing problems earlier today

and he described how his company is different. >> one thing many people will say is that airbnb is collaborative. cities around the world like working with us. i don't see us battling cities. we are a company that brings countries together. together every night. if a company brings people into other people's homes, you don't want to be a brand that is fighting. emily: he says he has no plans to take airbnb public in the next few years. he says he is not concerned with competition from hotels and has plans to be accessible everywhere. airbnb is one of more than 500 brands using software made by the newly minted unicorn medallion. -- medallia. they are in the business of customer experience management. they have led the vc firm to make them one of the single visit -- biggest investor meant's ever. -- investments ever. cofounders borge hald and amy

pressman join me now. this is not a household name. what do you do? airbnb is a customer. what do you do for airbnb? amy: we gather customer feedback everywhere, from media for, from surveys, and we put it together with data that a company has on customers, then we hardwire the data through an organization so everybody in the company, from the frontline to the ceo, can dramatically improve the customer experience. emily: explain how that would work in a situation with airbnb. borge: airbnb uses ratings online. that is one thing they do. the other thing they are concerned about is what the renters, the people who rent the houses think. so we capture feedback from a lot of different parties that are important and have them -- give them great analytics. the key thing is there are people within airbnb that can now specifically take action to

make sure those constituents are excited about working with us. emily: who are your competitors? who are you taking business from? amy: great question. there's not a single competitor. we meet different people in different scenarios and the reason is, we are a platform, so we have this as part of our platform, social media monitoring. we have tech analytics. we have it from in different situations. emily: the story behind your company is interesting -- you didn't take any outside funding and built this for 10 years and in sequoia was trying to chase you down. what happened? borge: you are right. we did bootstrap and it was awesome and what we realized is , as you come into the 2010 time frame, social media was changing. the whole space. the customer experience has never been more important. we could feel that in our business and we realized this would be a global category and

we would like to be able to even company to -- be the run that. and we need capital. emily: the most interesting thing about your story to me is that you guys are husband and wife. what is it like growing a billion-dollar company with your spouse? how does that impact how you run the business? borge: when we started out, we naively did not think eight or 10 years into the future, but it has been phenomenal. we are incredibly complementary with our skills and able to balance, maybe balance is exaggerated, but we do both. i'm happy with both. i don't know if you have something to add. amy: what cofounders aren't married? whether they are in the eyes of the law or not. emily: they don't go home to each other every night. how many kids do you have? amy: three.

interesting dinnertable conversations. emily: you are at a billion plus evaluation. how far are we talking about here in the whole unicorn mantra? borge: we are not super excited about focusing on valuation. we are here to build a long-term business. we want customers excited about us. we want to change the world. we want a world where customers are truly in love with the companies who serve them. specific valuation is north of a billion dollars, but that is not our objective. emily: what is next? amy: this is just the beginning of our journey. we are focusing on scale, we are working with a lot of global systems integrators, and partner echoes systems so we can get much larger. emily: amy pressman and borge hald, cofounders and husband-and-wife.

thanks for joining us. that doesn't for this edition of "bloomberg west." tomorrow, we will be talking all about intel. ♪

>> the following is a paid presentation brought to you by guthy renker. imagine having skin that looks this beautiful, this flawless, without having to wear foundation. imagine a product that covers everything but looks and feels like you are wearing nothing. imagine one product that is clinically shown to make your skin younger looking in just 10 days. and can make you look up to five years younger instantly.