♪ i'm emily chang and this is "best of bloomberg west," where we bring you the top interviews from the week in tech. carmakers are choosing sides in the right hailing wars as toyota and vw disclosed new investments. we speak to the man leading the pack in southeast asia. eric schmidt speaks out on breakthroughs ahead and technology. he -- we will have his exclusive -- interview.

peter thiel strikes back, we will bring you the full story on how he has been secretly funding hulk hogan in multiple cases against gawker. but first, this week saw new alliances forged between traditional automakers and the right hailing challengers. the news comes as a car industry braces for change, especially when it comes to the future of car ownership. by investing in the main players in the space, the world's biggest car brands are hoping to secure a place in the future. toyota tied up with uber and vw took a stake in get. we take a look across the ride-hailing space to see who is leading the pack. ♪ >> carmakers are choosing sides in the right hailing wars, this week alone volkswagen invested $300 million in get and toyota committed an undisclosed amount to uber with plans to get into the car leasing game. in january, general motors today $500 million stake in lyft and , let's not forget apple's billion dollar bet on didi.

which of the red -- which of the right halos are leading the pack? fueled by mega funding, uber make it all of the headlines, but lyft is taking on a much bigger rival, and through international partnerships with didi and grab. claims to have more than 99% of the ride-hailing market. they boost more than 300 million users to my completing 1.43 billion rides in 2015. and grab dominates in southeast asia with the presence in 30 cities across six countries, and a fast-growing motorbike service. meanwhile gett, which grew at , 300% last year, dominates in europe. startups scramble for supremacy, it is still too early to tell how the ride-hailing wars will play out. emily: now to get a sense of how the right hailing wars are shaping up in southeast asia, i

caught up with grab ceo anthony can. grab has raised $700 million from investors and has over 50% of the market share in private cars across is core region. take a listen. anthony grab is the largest 10: mobile tech platform in southeast asia, we are localized services. imagine we have taxis, cars, and motorbikes. as you know, motorbikes is, you jump on right behind and it navigates you through the traffic and you would imagine any big city would have. be basically give back to .5 many of commute time to citizens in jakarta, for example. emily: your great-grandfather drove a taxi, your grandfather brought the japanese auto market to southeast asia and you occasionally drive a grab yourself. tell me about that.

anthony: sure. cars have been in my family blood for a long time. and because of that, we felt very comfortable dealing with, for example, governments, because i follow my father working with governments before we built a factory getting the , appropriate licenses, getting the land. or us, learning from that, -- for us learning from that, , learning from how my family ran business, on how important reputation is, working with governments on a collaborative approach to basically build grab, that is how it was founded. even our very first launch of launched years ago, we with someone very senior from the government. emily: grab, didi, lyft you announced a partnership, how is that progressing and when will we see more integration? anthony: well, you will see a global roaming product, whereby,

for example, you hear san francisco you can book a car in beijing, in singapore, and you have access to the world's largest transport fleet of cars and bikes. emily: it is true that if i go to -- i can open my lyft app and get a car. anthony: exactly. there is no need to start again and reinstalling a new app, putting in a new credit card. it is the same experience you have here in san francisco. emily: when are we going to see it in full swing? anthony: soon. emily: how worried are you worried about uber's global expansion plan? anthony competition makes us all : better. fire sharpens iron. at grab, we focus on serving our customers. going back to the global roaming product, again very focused on , the customer experience. as we continue with localized relevant services, like grab bike motorbike taxis, very , unique to jakarta, very unique

all across southeast asia. we are going to add a new -- 95% ofece whereby southeast asians use credit cards -- use cash they do not , have credit history. we said, hey, how do we reinforce that message? how do we make didi relevant to customers and we are reinvesting in this payment piece to make sure our customers on grab taxi, grab car, grabbed bike, enjoy that. emily: does that mean over does -- does that mean uber does that worry you? anthony: again for , us, it is all about growing the market share and for us it is about serving our customers, winning their hearts. and continuing to be number one. grab? what about what is your latest valuation?

anthony: there is a range of valuations out there. how we think about it is, are we a good value? yes, we believe we are. and do we believe investors believe in southeast asia? southeast asia has 630 million people, and it is one of the fastest-growing internet populations in the world. google released a report on that. people believe that grab is positioned to rider the ways. emily: can you share how much you raised in the last round? anthony in total close to $700 : million. emily: will you continue to raise money to fund your expansion? anthony we are always open to : great investors and great partners all throughout the world. today, we have seen people like softbank being bullish about southeast asia and grab. emily: didi, for example, is scheduled to target and ipo next year. what about you guys?

anthony: right now, we are targeting to build more value and we have bold ambitions. we always think of how to find great partners. obviously, ipo's is just one of the many options on the table for us. emily: my interview with grab ceo, anthony tan. -- hpe sawa pe shares surge this week. what it means for business and the ceo. plus microsoft hits a deck on , the smartphone business with job cuts planned for the department. is this the right move for the company? we will discuss, next. ♪

emily: shares in hp enterprise -- y: emily: shares in hp enterprise have been riding high this week after the company said they are spinning off the troubled services business and merging it with computer science corp. in an $8.5 million deal.

it focuses on service and storage for customers. we spoke with our analyst for more details. what is your first takeaway on this deal, is this something expected? >> no, it was not expected, but it makes sense to be honest. to have one part of the entity focus on hardware, predominately networking, storage, and servers, and then finding a way to exit the services business to a company that focuses on portions of the business, it is a good strategy. it refocuses the company to a smaller piece of the pie, but the risk here is that now you have an extremely smaller pie that you are focusing on. one that is on hardware, predominately selling to corporate i.t. systems. that be the long-term revenue growth for hpe , and do we need services to bolster that? that remains to be seen. in the near term, this deal

makes sense. emily: so what does this mean for meg whitman? >> and gives her a sense of focus. the results bear itself out. it has done well. now, after the announcement of the spinoff of its services business, the stock is up, cash flow is improving. that flow will get better. these are the measurable results she has improved under her watch. she gets credit for that. emily: this unwinds and arguably bad deal done under former hp ceo mark kirk. else that you would tease out that we should be watching in the new hp? >> look, at the end of the day, this is not a company, either piecemeal, or together, will post incredibly growth rates of

my revenue standpoint. this is modest revenue growth at best, coupled with heavy cost cuts from time to time, coupled with some acquisition, some divestitures. -- fully this is the way we have to think , inc..pe and hp emily: that was our senior analyst. this week microsoft officially , cut loose their handset business, cutting more than 1800 jobs and writing down close to a billion dollars in assets. a few years ago, microspot -- microsoft spent 9.5 -- method on dollars the acquisition of nokia but the company could not compete against apple and samsung. even those companies are struggling in a maturing market. we spoke done with the director of mobile device research to ask how they see the smartphone wars playing out.

microsoft has all but given up, does this mean they have given up? >> they gave up in the actual device war. in terms of software, they have not. they mentioned a third of their customers and their fortune 500 suite.aging their mobile and they have downloaded 300 million uses of software to these alternative devices, they are non-pcs. i think the way they will target the mobile markets is a lot different than maybe the way we thought they were going to go in and that is through ongoing subscriptions that they are selling to their customers. so, i think they are taking the right approach in taking a completely different pathway which will probably be in more , profitable pathway overtime. market -- ryan, microsoft did not have a lot of markets are to begin with. who gains momentum and who loses? >> i would not say there is much left to grab, they were at a point where they were left a percentage of the market.

we are seeing big shifts and the vendors outside of apple and samsung, they are still the giants. even in the most recent quarter we saw two new chinese companies we saw two new chinese companies , enter the top five for the first time ever. oppo and vivo. two companies that have predominately done all their business domestically and china and starting to get into the 15% to 20% business internationally. we are seeing big shifts and if you look back three years or four years, we see this occur and people come and go over time. i would say, those other companies we are seeing today, i would say, if u.s. me that question next year and two years later, you will see more localized players because it will not always be the chinese. emily: for microsoft, does this means no phones or no tablets either? >> it is the refocus back on software. they are in businesses that grow and create margins, they do not want to be in businesses that have no margin.

this was a business that was a tough one. i think that was a business that steve ballmer pushed. it was his last assignment. i think if they had the full decision, they would not have made that decision. my belief is that they are cleaning up what was part of the old and this is the right team, approach and they are , repositioning the company around mobility and the cloud. so, it comes in a different form, which is these software , subscriptions, when i subscribed to office 365, i get them across any device i have. they do not care which device you have, they just want the software on it. that is been resonating with and that we speak with is why you have seen their enterprise business do so well. so, ryan, are there any other small market share players hanging on that you could see also getting out of the business? >> yes, those localized players

will come and go. which ones right now, i think time will tell as we start to see the middle east try to come onboard real strong, we are seeing localized players in india. there are couple big names that have been around that are facing challenges. we have seen a lot from htc from a hardware perspective, i would say they are at a turning point where they could go out of business. sony is in that same space. i would hate to call the demise of anyone, but there is no question these companies are struggling to make money. microsoft is not out of mobile. they are just in it any more profitable way. emily: is it nokia still licensing its name to some companies? >> you will see that brand comeback, they have made public announcements about that. they are trying to come back from how will microsoft took the brand. i think it holds a lot of weight and it comes with supply-chain agreements that will drive that section of the market under

nokia's brand. whether or not they can revive things in smart phones and android, i think i will be a lot tougher. emily: so, what is the future of microsoft in a world where there isn't as much mobile device growth? >> the high rate cloud, they are on servers and what is happening in the public cloud. so, you are seeing this as a real focus point that they are pushing towards. give up not going to the perpetual software business, but starting with cloud first. they want to meet with this solution. if you look at their business in the cloud, that is outpacing most of their peers. oracle and ibm are not doing it as well and outgoing that space. they have a number of brand-new releases server-side, i brand-new launch of their database which i think will help them in the application portfolio, they have a whole suite of new apps they focus on.

analytics, communications -- there are different ways they are going down that we think again are more back to the core of microsoft was, which was coming true enterprise software company. yes, do they care about the consumer? if they do? but they understand what they are good at and they are going back to their core, in my opinion, from wall street's view, is a good thing. they don't want to accept the operating margin decline they have seen. we are starting to see the operating margin stabilize and improve slowly on the operating margin line. we think, this will be a multiyear shift, this hybrid cloud. last quarter was one of the last quarter they had in years. you will see the weight of the perpetual cloud and they are pulling along a big business. we think they are architecting the right future, it will just take time. emily: that was ryan reese and brent of ubs. and peter thiel strikes back, we will bring you the full story on

how he has been secretly funding hulk hogan and multiple cases against gawker.

emily: this way we learned , -- this week we learned , billionaire investor and facebook board member peter thiel, secretly helped bankroll the defamation case that resulted in a $140 million verdict against gawker media. the lawsuit was filed by former progress or hulk hogan in -- by former pro wrestler hulk hogan in 2012. in the ruling, it threatened gawker's very existence. it is legal for third parties to back losses, but peter thiel's involvement highlights how it can influence the state of the media organization. "outed" peter thiel as gay. i caught up with thomas on the latest development so, knowing what you know now, do you have any regrets about writing the story? >> i have no regrets. emily: why not? >> first of all i do not believe

, i outed peter thiel. i think he did that himself to a wide variety of silicon valley. they took it upon themselves to say, this is ok for us to know, but the masses should not know such a detail about one of our own. emily: just because he told people who know him, does that mean it should be public? >> if it is an open secret, why can't you discuss it? gawker was founded to discuss open secrets. it was very much in our mission. -- emily:an, i feel as a gay man yourself. >> as a gay man myself, -- not viewed as a schoolyard taunt, but a human fact about some of that is interesting. interesting because not everyone is gay. we are a minority within the population, but it should be ok to discuss. emily: what are your thoughts? >> and it is ok not to be.

>> it is ok not to become i support your right. >> and i support yours, i think it should not matter and we are moving toward a world where it does not matter. >> but if it does not matter, why not say it? >> my issue is, shouldn't a person be entitled to whom they say it and when they say it when it is her personal business? when it is this subject or any subject good to me it is not whether it is gay or not gay but shouldn't a human being be able to determine how they want to express themselves whether you agree or i agree. that is my issue with it. emily: when you published the story did you and nick denton, publisher of gawker, discuss this, debate it or was it an automatic yes? -- the conversations with denton were typically one way. he would give me a tip and i with my investigation, my reporting my journalism to , see if there was a story there.

that is typical between any editor and their boss of the editorial chain. -- boss up the editorial chain. you get a possible story, you look into it, you determine what the story is that you want to write. and this was a story i wanted to write. emily: nick denton just released a letter to peter thiel saying "this been to give decade-long -- this addictive decade-long , campaign is out of proportion to the hurt you claim. your plaintiff lawyer has sued not just the company, but individual journalists." peter thiel told the new york times "i refuse to mean a journalism means massive privacy violations." >> i think the larger issue here is, should billionaires be able to dictate what is said about them. do we want to live in a world where the subjects of coverage get approval over every single thing a journalist writes?

if they don't like anything you write, are they going to fund a secret lawsuit, are they going to use every tool at their disposal to stop you? it is not about whether peter thiel is gay or not. it is about the successes and failures of his capital hedge fund. about his decisions as a facebook board member very early on in his life when it was a private company. all of these things were things i covered, all of these things were things that peter thiel may not have wanted us to run. does he get a veto on every single thing that a journalist does? emily: what is your thought on that because gawker went hard on bill cosby before anyone else did. hillary clinton and e-mails, tom cruise and scientology, not just this one story. cosby get to determine what be right about him? that is personal business. >> these are all fair questions. my point is this -- you can see the perspective of a journalist.

this is why they become journalists. i believe your intent as , admirable as you described it, i do not believe that is the intent of everybody and i believe there is a disparity and i believe the american public, which is evidenced by the selection, would like some consequences for journalists also. the fact that you get to write what you want whenever you want, whether it is true or not -- i am not saying you in particular, but oftentimes people put their -- people right things and put their own spin on it. people want consequences. this is an interesting question about how journalists get consequences. this is an example of a -- werence where they someone is shooting back, someone with capital. emily: should there be consequences for peter thiel? how do you think facebook should handle this? >> i think facebook is at a very tough position and i think peter thiel has been the earliest backer of the company.

he is the one who said, mark zuckerberg, i believe in you. you got something here. the first real money into that company. that said, i find it very strange from looking at silicone valley -- silicon valley for decades as i have for a venture capitalist to remain on the board this long in the company's life. he does not need to be on the board at this point and i think that has to be something -- idemily: >> a more is supposed to be a diversity of opinions. >> he certainly has that. >> it is not just a verse. >> with the newfound concern about the neutrality of facebook's news feed, and helps to have a trump delegate on the board. >> i think -- many of these are fair questions. like most people, we care about what is in our best interest. so, mark zuckerberg and the rest of the board is to determine what good corporate governance is. wall street can determine whether they support that corporate governance. >> i would point out that facebook doesn't really get a

-- i would point out that wall street does not get a vote. >> they knew that. they published that, same with google. they publish all that so you knew before you invested what they were entitled to do. >> let's not say that wall street gets a vote. emily: one last question. did you ever hear from peter thiel around that time? >> i never got anything on the record publicly, any kind of push back, any kind of dissatisfaction. emily: that was owen thomas business editor and former , gawker reporter with check ceo. chair sayingphabet andeurope is anti-american anti-entrepreneur. his exclusive interview from the breakaway summit next. ♪ ♪

♪ emily: welcome back to the best of "bloomberg west. i'm emily chang. alphabet chair eric's schmidt spoke at the bloomberg or delay conference and singled out big breakthroughs in health and technology that he sees ahead. our bloomberg editor in chief asked if the private sector was

better investing in these projects in the u.s. governments. take a listen. >> i am not willing to fall into the traditional cynicism about government. let me observe that our government spends an enormous amount of money on the wrong things. i would like a little bit of it on the things that are moon shots, enormous scale things that can benefit the country. john: you gave the example of health. what's another example? error: i will give you two examples. the health thing could be understood as analog meets digital. up until now, doctors have been living in an analog world and it's incredibly painful and complicated. we have been living in this digital world where we understand scalable systems. we have finally been able to break through with modern monitoring systems, the sequencing machines and all of that kind of stuff, so you can get proper personal medicine and really change things. there is a technology which is a

way in which you can reassemble and do gene editing. it is a very big deal. this is transported -- this is transformative not just of a , little city like new york, but of the whole globe. that is how profound this is. it is a race. there is a similar one with ai and machine learning, which google is trying to do, primarily. that's one category. in energy, the most interesting question to me is, i will say this rhetorically, can you solve climate change, which i am sorry to say is actually true? it is actually to that carbon least -- leads to these things. there's some evidence the current relative lull in warming that has slowed down a bit will actually get worse pretty soon. i can go on and on about that. there are people debating whether the solutions are sufficient to solve this problem

100 years from now. and if they are not, the most likely solution is nuclear. nuclear has a zillion problems. nuclear has never been able to be driven from the private sector alone. here is a question and i don't , know the answer -- do you need a federal program to drive safe nuclear? that is being debated now. that is an example of the kind of debate. i'm not taking a position because i'm not a physicist. john: out of the existing candidates, i know you are a supporter of hillary, in general, do you see any sign that they are thinking in these ambitious ways on the presidential trail? eric: it is important to remember that campaign seasons are a silly season. i have done enough campaigns, i don't worry too much about it. it is more of a azido of do you believe that the president and the leaders in europe understand the importance of science and so forth? there has been a problem on the republican side that there's a

group of republicans, but not all of them, who do not admit to the importance of science and i mean that specifically the technology platforms. i don't know, whatever the prejudice is, and maybe there's a similar group on the democratic side. but, it's a real problem when science is politicized. where does that matter to you? if we have not figured out how to do stem cells from blood, you might be dying from some disease because of some advanced technique now available is not available to you. this stuff matters. remember all of the debates about stem cells? emily: eric schmidt, chairman of alphabet talking with our bloomberg editor in chief john nichols late -- john nichols. coming up, the search in gene -- the search engine building a self driving car.

i'm not talking about google. the company's chief scientist's next.

emily: badoo the chinese search , engine is branching out of its core product, most notably, voice technology. it is also building and a car, ready for purchase in 2018, -- i 2018. caught up with the chief scientist and your ink. inc. believes a could change the world just like electricity did. we started by discussing how that applies to self driving cars. >> i think they have a different approach to self driving cars that most of the companies. let me explain. say you're driving along, and there is a construction worker on the road. the construction worker does that, you should stop. he does that, you should go. the behavior is totally opposite depending on the subtle hand gesture the construction worker makes. no ai system today can reliably distinguish between stop and go. we have a different perspective

which is we should make modest infrastructure changes by give construction workers the ability to clarify communication. with little changes like that, we are optimistic about getting the self driving cars very quickly. >> you're planning on testing your cars in china and i think the u.s. as well. what is the difference in how the drivers work between the two countries? what does it mean for ai and how your car works? asdrivers are not aggressive. i was in a car on the way to the airport a couple weeks ago. it was a three lane highway. five cars driving side-by-side. [laughter] not quite sure what cars are learning, but it is a more challenging environment. track to have on driverless cars on the road in two years? >> we are still on track to commercialized by 2018. >> how are you going to make this available to automakers? how will you sell the data between yourself seven car

technology and the automaker that produces the vehicle? >> we are focusing on developing technology right now. we are working with bmw. we hope that will create tons of value. emily: you have a personal assistant. what are your ambitions with that? i'm really excited about his voice-based communication. the whole world is moving to cell phones. we spend so much time typing on his tiny keywords. i think if you can talk to your cell phone rather than type on a keyboard, it will be transformative. i think that most people underestimate the difference between 95% speech recognition and 99%. it is not a 45% improvement. it is a game changer. those of you using it all the time. since the beginning of last year, we have seen a number of

voice interactions triple. so, we have definitely -- we see rapid uptake. to 99%, isn't two good enough that you can sell that to businesses and sell that speech recognition and build a business? what are your thoughts on that? >> >> one of a things we're tried to think to -- think through is how to take our ai capability is offered to other companies. one of the challenges of ai is there are so many valuable verticals to using ai. right now, it takes skilled ai people together with skilled domain expertise. those teams come together and work together. emily: there are reports that deep speech 2 can transcribe chinese language is better than a person. how is that actually possible? >> our system has five years of audio data transcribed.

this is in some ways a staggering amount of data for a system to learn from. especially with speaking quickly are accented speech, our system is better than a person at transcribing short phrases. emily: is it possible to do the same for english? chinese written languages much more complicated than the english written language. will we get to a point that machines are better than transcribing voice and humans because it still seems like that, based on the english language systems, it is a long way off. >> we are understanding the meaning behind a sentence. transcribing it were by and work, short phrases, it's easier than human. it turns out the mistakes a -- mistakes affect the meaning more whereas a human gets some , words wrong but the meaning is carried on. there is still a limit of understanding where machines are not approaching humans. but, we are working on it. i hope our english and

understanding performance is rapidly improving. emily: any plans to take on home? echo, or google >> i think speech at home is a fascinating area. i think amazon has done a nice job on the current product. it is still not clear how that plays out. the interesting things about voice technology is that it could challenge traditional business models. shaking upsee boys the way that you guys currently make money? badoo and the leading tech companies are seeing voice and put as a strategic direction that we must do well in. you know this thing transform , the whole tech industry. steve jobs invented the touchscreen. he might've been the first touchscreen. he made it very well.

the cell phone, the smartphone trans1 everything. i think speech recognition has an equal opportunity. chief that was the technology scientist of baidu. coming up, where will fitness maker pebble announce a new batch of products including its first ever non-smart watch device? the ceo with an exclusive interview next.

its everbble announced first non-smart watch device this week calling pebble core. it they took tickets carter -- they took to kickstarter to raise the money as they have done the past. raising $4.5 million in the first eight hours. the market for wearable health of a dash devices is heating up as apple and fitbit try to expand their business what is pebble offering? pebble ceo eric migicovsky join me for and waste was it introduced -- joined me for an

interview to discuss. what is new? eric: the big news is that we have created our first non-smart watch product called pebble quarter. it is a tiny clip you can clip onto your shirt or belt and you can go running without your phone. andoes spotify streaming track sure run using gps. it can even send an emergency text if something happens while you're running. emily: how is it better than a fitbit? what your phone would do without having to strap your phone on your shoulder. where fitbit does step tracking, it is tracking the money market. emily: doesn't have a heart rate monitor, but you can sync it with the watch. can you explain that? eric: your pebble has a heart rate monitor built-in and makes for a great combo. the watch has a sensor that learns more about your personal body. this track sure gps and plays music. emily: this is the newest watch. what iteration is this? eric: this is our sixth smart

watch. emily: what's new? eric: this one has a heart monitor on the back which tracks your heart rate what you work out or sleep. it has pebble health which is our new health initiative. emily: and the pebble core is coming out in january of next year. by skip the holiday season? why wait? eric: it is a completely new program -- product. it is sf as you can build it? eric: we are going out into the community. what's it is also because we are going out in the community. we built this with the benefit of 1.8 million people who have purchased it in the past. also, the developer community. we have over 50,000 developers who build that -- apps and watch races for pebble watches. this is a completely new product. we don't want to surprise people. we want to give them a chance to see what is coming up next. that is why we have been at this early and on kickstarter. emily: let's look at the numbers out there. idc says pebble captures 7% of

market share. but that will drop to 2.7% by apple has a nearly 50%. 2020. , anyone percent. what do you make of those numbers? >> i don't know that those backup in nubbers we are seeing. we shifted over 1.8 million pebbles in the last three point five years. we are a small company going up big giants -- against big giants. in the last three years, i think we are not in the quick google. the android where platform right now. we're taking a special stance. we are trying to build something that is a focused, simple, straightforward product. our motto is a great smart watch has to start with being a great watch first. that is why we have a watch with a battery life of up to 10 days. it is not something you have to charge every night when you go home. it is not like a consumer electronics product. emily: the way ibc puts it, they will enjoy modest growth in the short term, however, competitive

pressure will cause it to lose share to giants like watch os and android where. how do you respond to that? that again, i do not see in the numbers we are seeing. today, we sold 22,000 watches in the last 8.5 hours. that stacks up ready well against some of the competitors we are seeing. emily: how do you stay relevant over the long-term? eric: we see a network of devices on your body. this is the non-watch product we first have created. it won't be the last. there is an opportunity for many types of devices on your body capturing information in helping you live a better life. announce you are laying off 25% of your workforce earlier this year. what happened there? you said money is pretty tight these days. what happened there and what is the next phase? eric: restructured our company

to focus on profitability. we knew there were a couple of key things we had to do this year. the kickstarter launch was one of them. we planned for a bunch of new products on the software side as well as the hardware side and really focused in creating a great smart want to experience that has also notifications and awesome health tracking. we plan to be profitable by the end of the year. emily: you have been doing this 44 -- for four years. how would you describe the start of funding environment right now? something inot spent a lot of time worrying about. we funded the business mostly in the last four years through our kickstarter campaign and sales. in the last six months, we veered a little bit into less profitable territory. we are aiming to get back. emily: that was pebble ceo eric migicovsky. that does it for this edition of

the best of "bloomberg west." next week, we will speak to u.s. energy secretary when they come to san francisco. see you then. ♪

♪ david: coming up on "bloomberg best," the stories that shaped the week in business around the world. could the chemistry be right for the heart center merger? >> you rarely see such a family rejection. david: does deutsche bank deserve more credit for its comeback efforts? it has been in decline the past couple of corners. david: has greece turned the corner in its debt debacle? high-profile leaders said share high-level insights in the week's best interviews. >> the regulars want this to be a level playing field. >>