♪ emily: i am emily and this is the best of bloomberg technology where we bring you all of the top interviews from our week in tech. we are coming to you from the vanity fair summit in san francisco where we have heard from the most influential voices shaping our future. we will bring you highlights alibaba andews with the most outspoken venture capitalists.

first, we begin with uber board member and silicon valley heavyweight l gurley. he came in number 26. the influential investor has made big bets on uber and snapchat. he joined me and brad stone, our executive editor for a wide-ranging conversation on the state of technology. >> i am fairly optimistic that there will be multiple points of collaboration. when you think about things like autonomous cars or mapping technology or routing algorithms, it strikes me that if the companies are not directly repeating there are ways they could both get benefits from sharing. i think it will depend on obviously the devolution of the relationship. >> uber was spending heavily in

china, $1 billion or more a year . where does it redeploy that if you are a competitor in india or southeast asia, or even lyft in the united states, how worried are you? thing, think that is the the global ridesharing market is one where it has attracted a ton of capital, and most of the competitive assaults are not better features, they are discounts. so it can get sloppy fast. i happen to be aware that some of our competitors in their fundraising pitches have said, uber is going to worry about getting profitable because they are going to worry about going public and then we will discount off of their tailpipe. if that is how they think we have to take our $9 million warchest and be prepared for battle. emily: are you surprised that

snapchat is going public earlier than uber? it is a much younger company. why is now the right time for snapchat but not uber? >> i could talk for an hour about the ipo situation but i think there has been this really in silicon valley about ipo's being bad. i think it is in everyone's worst interest that that is a thing and mark zuckerberg famously saying he should of gone public two years earlier. silicon is not in the valley world, he is outside of this echo chamber and perhaps that allows him to have a more liberated view. emily: when does he start to listen to you? >> i think ridesharing is an exceptional business because of the issue we just talked about and if all of our competitors are going to say, we are going

to take advantage of them because they are going public, then we have to wait that out to figure that out. i think while those things are going on it probably does not make sense. we have had two or three ipo's recently. if you talk to the bankers, they say early 2017 has a strong pipeline coming so i am hopeful. >> this morning, the impact of softbank's $1 billion fund to invest in technology, he thought that would tilt the playing field to entrepreneurs against investors. what do you think about the saudi arabia and wealth fund? >> i think excessive amounts of capital make it harder to compete, and i think it is negative for the best entrepreneurs. because they can raise money in any environment and if money is relatively free it just leads to excessive competition and makes it harder to succeed, so i disagree with that point you at

one of the reasons why i do not think we have seen a widespread reset, we have seen a soft reset, like people have gotten a little bit smarter. you are seeing an occasional company go out of business or bankrupt that nothing wholesale. there is a tremendous amount of money still available and a lot of it is coming from russia, the middle east, and china. it wants to diversify into american assets and this is a large example of that same thing. realtorere to talk to a in woodside or atherton, you would hear the exact same story ironically. emily: what are the dangerous possibilities here? is there a reckoning coming and if so, where, in what sector and what region? >> i do think the problem of excessive capital, i wrote a this, it log post on

can cause the capital to get loaded and unloaded. the only way to deploy that is take huge burn rates. public and you open and they are limiting tons of money. they are going to be very few unicorns that look anything other than that because of this dynamic. excessive amounts of capital deployed lead to excessive losses which leads to risk and makes it harder to grow. emily: and yet shares more than doubled. --but it has already been lowtalk to any economist, level interest rates for seven years is going to lead to really wacky things. i am nodded back your economist but it causes 90 things -- i am causes economist but it

nutty things to happen. , what coulding else happen as a result of the influx of cash, the perhaps lack of very compelling ideas, or companies that should be funded? >> you could end up in situations where the last dollar standing wins. i do not know much about the softening of things. some people say it is debt. if you cannot repay it you take over the whole company. somebody could theoretically use capital in a bully way which is not something silicon valley has seen recently. >> elon musk's companies were called science-fiction problems -- projects gone awry. would you buy tesla products? there are signs on both sides

that could lead very smart people to either conclusion. if you have written in or driven a tesla, it is a remarkable piece of machinery. have integrated software in a way that no american or european auto ever has. they really, wow, understand doing things differently. at the same time you look at the losses, the missed reduction schedules, and this decision to merge with solar city, and you could take that point of view that it was presented -- >> where do you shake out? >> i do not know. i think i see both sides of it. i am not a public decision -- investor. emily: you have avoided food delivery since grubhub. why is that, is it because of uber eats? , whenhink any of these

capital gets widely available venture capitalists take on more risk when they choose businesses with more -- lower and lower gross margins. and are consumer businesses if you discount, you can attract customers. i think the press misses this a lot because they will discount customers and say, they are doing awesome, but if you are losing money on every transaction you are not doing awesome, you are giving something away. emily: benchmark capital's general partner bill gurley and brad stone. still ahead, an all-star lineup of guests from the vanity fair summit continues. my conversation with alibaba group president mike evans coming up. episodes of bloomberg are live streaming. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: alibaba's most important event of the year, single day

right around the corner. it has become a shopping extravaganza and this year the company is setting its sights abroad, teaming up with costco and macy's. i sat down with mike evans and ask about his expectations for the year. mike: the biggest shopping day of the year in china, we kicked it off last night in china with the announcement that david hill who has organized super bowl's oscars is directing it for us. katy perry is going to be our global ambassador. we have thousands of merchants, entertainment. it is going to be a wonderful oscars is directing it for us. event that all parts of china and many parts of the world will participate in. year you process $14 billion of merchandise within a single day. what kind of numbers are you expecting this year? >> 14.3 billion dollars last

year. what makes single day a success for us is a large amount of product that changes hands between merchants and consumers. if the social experience is not a great event for all the people that participate, then we really have not achieved what we want because our e-commerce platform is really a social commerce platform, so it brings people together in the way they live their life now, which is online, buying things, chat rooms, all sorts of experiences they have not had historically. single day is all about the total experience, not just the amount of gmd on the day. emily: jack ma sent a letter to investors about how alibaba needs to transform, it is not just enough to be an e-commerce company. what does that mean for your job? mike: it means that we have to think about the way retail will

change in the future. i think people may have misconstrued his letter. if the change and morphing of the retail model in the future he is talking about. emily: part of the reason you are at vanity fair is to dispel some of the untruths and misperceptions about china, and some people do not quite understand what alibaba does. it is not just the amazon of more, butis something hard for u.s. consumers to understand because there is not quite an equivalent. what is alibaba? , particularly for a u.s. consumer, is a combination of facebook, google, and amazon. what do i mean? we have a social component to our commerce program. we have a search component in everything that we do. we have an innovation and cloud theonent, which reflects totality of businesses that you see in those three companies.

we do that all in one place, so if you look at what our businesses are today, we have a core platform, digital media and entertainment platform, and services and entertainment -- education side of the business, everything from travel to ridesharing to involvement in food and food delivery and vr and all ar and the technologies of the future. those are all enabled by our cloud computing business, payment business, just ask business, and alibaba merchandise and advertising. two people on yesterday who said china is in a bubble and there is a massive collapse above us. moreanks have four times toxic assets and there are billions of square feet of real

estate that are not being used. is china in a bubble? can the economy continue? mike: china is not in a bubble. the economy is slowing, but not slow. the components of the economy are changing rapidly from investment and old industrial and manufacturing to services and consumption. there are too many points raised yesterday and i was not here to discuss them and debate them in isolation. but what i would love to do is to comeh jim and kyle to our campus and sit down and we can help them understand some of the things they do not understand about china. emily: gdp is flat or dropping yet jack ma says consumers are still spending money. where is the disconnect? mike: not understanding that when the economy slows, not all of the economy is slowing. hearts of the economy in china are slowing, particularly the

older industrial and manufacturing. at the service and consumption components are growing very rapidly. our business grew at almost 60% last quarter year on year, and that is because more people were consuming. that chinese consumer population is 423 million people with $4.3 trillion of assets, deposits in their bank accounts that are on levered that they want to consume with. emily: we will continue our coverage from the vanity fair summit ahead on the best of bloomberg technology. we will catch up with sherpa capital. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: continuing now with this special edition of the best of bloomberg technology from the vanity fair new establishment

summit in san francisco. we spoke with shervin pishevar of sherpa capital, known for airbnb, uber, and the cofounder of hyperloop one. he joins me and brad stone for this interview. announcedn friday we the former cfo of goober has just joined us full-time to help -- cfo of uber has just joined us full-time. the third largest port operator just joined their board. that is fueling our ability to hit the timeline of doing the full scale hyperloop test with 2017.in q1 of that is coming really fast. get through some

negative press surrounding a partner in the business. are you past that? cfo at uber, he is not the cfo at hyperloop. shervin: chief financial advisor. brad: do you feel like the company is passed the difficulty? shervin: absolutely. we have rob lloyd, president of guyo, josh goggle, the top at spacex. he has been leading engineering from the early days and he was number two joining the company. we have 200 people full-time, mostly engineers, and we are hitting our milestones. we will hit the big milestone, the test of hyperloop scale in the bottom of q1. we are signing deals all over the world. they just announced they want to build hyperloop one and we are

signing deals all over the world from russia, china. of theere aspects hyperloop underwater and how expensive is it to build? shervin: we have designs to build a system of the offshore ports will be able to do cargo offshore and also inland. if you look at long beach, that is $200 billion in real estate value. a lot of these port operators have to spend billions of dollars because they are at full capacity. here they do not have to do that anymore. emily: let's talk about uber because you are one of the early investors. now we are so far into the ride hailing wars. they have just shot this big deal. how do you see ridesharing market shares shaking out globally? winners, onef two of five in the world? what does this actually look

like? brad: sherpa capital investment in china, we put over $200 million into uber so no we -- so now we own that as well. we see uber as a standalone company and our analysis is you are looking at 40 billion plus growth and revenue. it is a major force in the global economy. emily: profit by 2018? brad: that is my analysis -- shervin: that is my analysis, but in terms of my believe in the company, we think it is a $200 billion plus company. i think dd within china is going to go to a hundred billion dollar company. brad: are you worried about the regulatory phase in china? shervin: as much as i would have worried about alibaba, i think they are in a good position.

brad: how well did you do in china on paper when you had the $35 billion valuation? shervin: sherpa is very happy and we think that the leaders there are incredible, and they are executing upscale. and they will, as i predicted, i think they will be a major company. emily: cofounder john zimmer was on the show yesterday. do you think lyft is a buy? do they remain number two? brad: a friend of mine called them aside shell and i agree with them. -- as a side show and i agree with him. i think they are in a week and precarious position as opposed to uber. brad: one of my colleagues has been writing about the economics in food delivery businesses and luxury.

looked at the sustainability of the business, the potential turnover of the ceo. do you stability of dust do you still believe -- do you still believe the amazon model and about half a dozen cities, do you believe in it as much as you did two years ago? shervin: absolutely. brad: and potentially the next ceo. shervin: one of the names in the ring is very talented that we are looking at. if you look at the unit economics today, they are very positive. all of the cities are contributing positively to the business. we are now doing ready to cook meal kits across the country similar to blue apron. that is nationally delivered. we are also now unlocked the

ability to deliver from the new york judge and all the way down to d.c. the same day because of our model. the: they will hold up on acela? shervin: they do. emily: this sherpa structure is very unique and i am wondering how it is holding up. have you made any investments from the fund, and have you seen the innovation to back? shervin: silicon valley is not a physical place anymore, it is an idea spread virally. the world is a startup. the opportunities to invest in incredible companies, nobody could have predicted the story on didi growing to the scale from scratch. these opportunities in china and india and around the world are here. theother thing is

valuations are in terms of the opportunities we are seeing, are much more rational these days. that is also a great opportunity. incher buck, we have great investments -- in sherpa, we have great investments. well.doing incredibly think governorou andrew cuomo does with the airbnb bill which is now on his desk which will probably govern the future of their business in new york? shervin: investors were big believers in that model. we introduced a special partner at sherpa capital to help brian and the team build up. brad: does he sign it or veto it? shervin: i cannot predict what he is going to do, but we will see. emily: that we shervin pishevar of sherpa capital and bloomberg's brad stone.

next we talked politics and the innerworkings of facebook. if you like bloomberg news, check us out on the radio. you can listen on the bloomberg radio app, or online. ♪

emily: we continue our special coverage from the van iteris -- havey fair summit where we been speaking to some of the most influential names in tech knowledge he. summits dominated at the and brad stone and i caught up with a former facebook insider. we wanted to know how his -- how trump mightort for be affecting the board. >> i think everything is at stake. your two things that will get judged on november 8. the first is a subjective thought around the future.

inclusive,a more diverse set of people are more capable of building a better off company or do we take a step back? i think that is the first thing. the second is, do we believe in a future where the substantive quality of a person that is in a point of leadership versus someone can market themselves, and can we see through those differences at the time of election day? i think those issues frankly pastcend class 2016 -- 2016. brad: peter thiel contributed more than a million dollars to the donald trump campaign. what do you think the impact will be for peter, considering this is an unpopular view to hold right now in silicon valley? >> i have known him for a long time and he is an extremely confident individual. he thinks through issues quite

thoroughly. quite i'm not sure how he has gotten to the point of view that he has, so hopefully he has a broader mandate an agenda, maybe hoping to see the rise of a third political party. personally for me, i find it really troublesome and my morals and ethics, but i find it -- but it is his opportunity to choose. emily: there have been questions whether facebook should take him off the board. which of these companies do? >> i think they have to follow their moral and ethical framework of how they want to run those organizations. i cannot speak to what facebook should do because i do not work there and i'm not a main face -- shareholder. we are going to spend the time to try to create more quality for everybody and a more bottoms up world. i think that is about a positive

view of inclusion is him. i cannot think -- stand to work with people who would have used that have transcended politics and have now entered this gray area ordering on hate. i would have a difficult issue with it. emily: you would kick him off? >> for social capital, i think so. if it was romney versus obama, that is politics. i am not so sure this is politics anymore so i would have a moral and ethical issue. brad: you know facebook board members. do you think this is a divisive issue? be a must be and it must difficult issue because i think they want to create a semblance of fairness and the ability to have choices because at the end of the day, this is a person who has been legitimized by tens of millions of people so we need to step back, where is the legitimacy and the movement?

these are things we need to fix for everybody, and that is probably what causes organizations like facebook to be in a bit of a quandary. emily: peter thiel represents an extreme end of the set -- spectrum. is that of any value to facebook or is that a detriment? >> i think it is valuable. the solution is not to shut yourself off and listen to people who only think the same thing you do. i think you have to have people around the table. in what context are they around the table? should he have a voice? absolutely. does he have a right to do this? absolutely. that is different than what role they should play in management and governance and those come down to the people in those organizations. brad: the topic of twitter came up. are you surprised that disney and salesforce appeared to come

to an acquisition but then it slipped away? >> there is no industrial logic for any of those companies to buy twitter. twitter is best left in the hands of a group of investors who can take it private, rationalize the infrastructure, clean up a lot of the abuse and spam, fixed the employee morale problems, and then take it back out because i think it is an emergency -- an emerging pillar of social media and should exist as an independent company. right now it is in such a point of disrepair when need to take a step back to fix it. emily: you have a hedge fund that is outperforming the average hedge fund. you are long on amazon and you have been positive about jeff bezos. when you look at amazon versus versusk versus google apple, do you see a circumstance where amazon is head and shoulders above the rest? >> absolutely. emily: that says a lot given

your history with facebook. >> fastow is about creating consumer intent and behavior but the problem is those ab and flow -- ebb and flow. amazon is not a fundamentally different business where it's functional utility, and they do such a good job there is no emotional reconsideration that happened. at no point do i think the prime subscribers think to themselves, i'm going to drive to target because it makes me feel better. i do that is a very different set of problems so was long as amazon can continue to invest in the customer experience they will win. facebook unfortunately will be in an evolving arms race with a will have to constantly see what are the emerging behaviors that we do not understand and own, and build or buy those. it is a much harder problem to solve. emily: that was the social capital founder.

paypal cofounder and facebook board member peter thiel will give a speech in washington on october 31 to address the presidential election, according to his spokesperson. he has become one of the most divisive figures in silicon valley for his endorsement of donald trump and his plan to donate more than a million dollars to the campaign. , hisfor example jeff bezos reaction on stage at the vanity fair summit. .> peter thiel is a contrarian first and foremost he is a contrarian. you have to remember that contrarian's are usually wrong. [laughter] emily: we will hear from the ge vice chair of business on their push to become a digital industrial company. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: this is the best of

bloomberg technology. i am emily chang. we continue our coverage from the vanity fair new establishments summit in san francisco. ge as made a big push to position itself as an industrial company which is caused people to question if it can hold its own in silicon valley. in antone joined me interview with beth comstock. we started off asking what surprised her most in this 13 months she has held the role. beth: i think the fact that we are at this very interesting time in the company and innovation is happening in so many dimensions. we are trying to keep pace with everything. the fact that we are focused on it is a great thing. brad: emily mentioned the pitch of ge as a digital industrial company. how well are you doing in silicon valley and in the market? beth: it is early days.

we have been at this for six years and declared the industrial internet as part of our future. i think it is the intersection of the physical and digital, the hardware and the software so we need to continue to throw the hardware-based as we recruit software people. .e are hiring great talent i think it is a different kind of challenge and people have been hiding for in silicon valley and the bay area so that creates its own momentum, huge data sets, big challenges with health care, energy, transportation. i think with that comes a different mission for some people who are looking for what's next in the software space. we aresome people feel in a period of technical stagnation and we are also seeing rockets and self driving cars. how do you balance out the big corporation innovating from

within and acquiring? you probably have to do all of those things and in the past decade or so you would see us evolve our model were rare are continuing to do core innovation. often it does not get enough attention. you have to keep innovating the court to keep going. we have done quite a bit at going into new spaces with wind energy and digital, and doing a lot more partnerships. partnering with startups has brought us to silicon valley, creating businesses with startups and partnering so i think you are getting more big companies realizing you have to have a portfolio. brad: tell us what your predict operating system is. beth: it is the operating system for our part of the industrial internet, and it has to be built for industrial scale data, the ability to crunch large data

sets, analyze all the data analytics, all the storage that has to happen. not everything is in the cloud. there are unique challenges that industrial data brings about. microsoft, we announced a partnership with them and we have a lot of great partners. i think that is something you are seeing a lot, you cannot do it all yourself. bit aboutk a little ge ventures and how it relates to the rest of the company. area is this more specific and people in silicon valley are very curious. beth: we have had our ge ventures team for about four years and we were able to attract some very amazing venture capitalists, entrepreneurs, and residents. it has created really great momentum and so ventures, not only do we invest in startups but more and more we are partnering with them for

commercial applications like creating a drone as a service, is an opportunity we are developing in silicon valley to work with railroad customers. we are also incubating new businesses. one we are excited about, so playpy, immunotherapy data . i think you are seeing more of those models coming from us. we are able to draw from really great entrepreneurs who want to take on these kinds of challenges. brad: you moved the headquarters to boston. why? beth: we are integrating in a big way with the local startup community. i think there is a new model for ge. i think this understanding of the ecosystem, we all throw that word around, but it is about partnerships. it made sense to have our headquarters where we could be part of academic ecosystems,

startups, life sciences, advanced manufacturing and robotics in boston. brad: are you required to be a red sox fan now? beth: i am not sure i'm ready to go there but i think there are a few ge red sox fan. emily: potentially there could be political disruption that could lead to change, the rise of ai and other technologies. given that we are three weeks away from a big election, how much is at stake when it comes to innovation and entrepreneurship? beth: i think a lot is at stake around the world. in a great education systems, the right infrastructure technology, hardware and software, and lest bureaucracy. you need to incentivize them to go forward. i think whatever happens this election, you want to hope that those things are put in place

and i say a vision really helps to bank. -- too. emily: that was beth comstock and brad stone. two discovery communications, the company looking to move beyond its linear television business. we caught up with the discovery ceo at the vanity fair summit. take a listen. >> we are working on our i.t., just for tv but with sports and europe. we have euro sports so we are the leader in sports on europe and we have been aggregating i.t. we have the olympics for the next decade in europe. , we are thegate number one sports provider in europe and we have just launched in the last year a product called the eurosport player, that it is really sports netflix.

for eight dollars you get all of our sports a.p. on every one of your devices. speculatingd been as an acquisition target. a re-going to see high-level media consolidation? -- are we going to see high-level media consolidation? do you see disney getting acquisitive? >> i think netflix is a great company and we love their model and that is one of the reasons we are imitating it. about $6tflix spends billion a year on their platform to get subscribers to pay eight dollars or $10 a month. with our sports platform in billionwe have 6 dollars or $7 billion of sport ip over the years and we offer a direct to the consumer. t of content is zero. we have looked at what netflix

has done. we think not only is it appealing, but the market gives it such a great multiple that if we could take our ip, it starts with sports, but all the ip we have whether it is science, discovery, all that gets paid for when we get a significant margin on that business. if you could aggregate that ip, we are looking at direct to consumer across the board. to your point of consolidation, so far we think we are big enough but we did feel the need to really over the last four to five years drive ourselves into a sports position. h now thea now -- opra number one african-american provider. you have to be really dominant in the super fan groups whether it is sports, kids. for us also nonfiction.

i think you are going to keep your eye on the kind of ip that people feel they need to have and that is what we will continue to try to gravitate in. was the ceo of discovery communications along with our executive editor brad stone. more from the vanity fair summit. we will ask the inventor of the google self driving car about tesla's push into autonomous driving. ♪

emily: you are watching the best of bloomberg technology from the vanity fair new establishment summit in san francisco. elon musk is accelerating plans to roll out self driving cars. he said that all upcoming model three sedans will be equipped with fully autonomous technology, but teslas existing

software has been under increased scrutiny since a fatal accident in may. we spoke with the inventor of the google self driving car and asked about the state of the self driving car revolution. obviously he wanted to build completely self driving cars and his autopilot is not quite good enough that you cannot pay attention. emily: does this mean any cars should be semi-autonomous or is that dangerous? >> i do not think it is dangerous if you know what it is doing. autopilot devices do not replace pilot, they merely assist pilots to be better. i keep my eyes on the road all the time. once technology is ready to be completely self driving -- emily: musk is putting some aggressive deadlines on himself. do you think you can deliver by 2018 with fully autonomous cars?

>> i hope he can deliver. years itn two to three should be possible. emily: talk to me a little bit about google, you worked there for many years and we have seen some people leave. why don't they have a car on the road? >> google is driving cars every day that are completely autonomous, and they are at the brink of the point where they can but the cars drive alone. i think they have by far the best technology. emily: why has it taken so long? it is this crazy thing that happens once every five years that takes you out, and there is still enough of those that we are not quite there yet but almost there. emily: apple has scaled back their own car plan that we understand they are focusing more on a platform not making an actual car.

this project has struggled. what do you make of that? applewould be sad because is such a phenomenal design company. in a car there are so many knobs and complexity and i would love for them to do it. it is such a great opportunity. emily: that is so interesting because building a car is as you know, incredibly complicated. >> i think elon musk has proven to the world that a silicon valley company can build a great car. a tesla is a great car. there is almost no buttons. -- autopilotpart mode and the car drives itself. and as haters do not come from the establishment, they come from new companies. emily: how about uber who now has self driving cars on the

road. what do you make of them being so aggressive? >> they have been very vocal about the fact that the self driving car came and came in a way that it could be used from one customer to the next and it is a threat to his business. offer the same services for less money he would be in trouble. emily: elon musk has this idea that he will start a ridesharing network but it will be based on ownership, so owners will actually lease their cars or land their cars to these networks whereas with uber, it is sort of unclear who actually owns the car. >> if you are in the business of selling cars, if you like the idea of ownership, if you are in the business of giving people rides, you do not like the idea of ownership. a car picks you up, delivers you, and disappears, is in the end of the day a bad idea -- a

better idea. think it is the winning idea so the question is who will be their first. emily: let's say five to 10 years from now, paint the picture of ownership and ridesharing for me. >> most of us want to get from a to b. ridesharing will be cheaper than ownership so for most of us, ridesharing will be the better alternative. we do not have to look for parking, we can drop ourselves off at the front of our office door, or even be written around drunk. inc.'s like this happen first in the big cities -- things like this first happened in the big cities. emily: who wins? >> i wish i knew. car driving very

successfully and we hope within a year we will have the same capability as uber. emily: -- >> if you want a job in the industry, come to us. we have 13,000 people applying for admission in our self driving car. emily: where do they want to work and who is recording them? >> i can tell you the value is currently desperate for hiring people. many firms are looking to build up their self driving car teams. the skills we acquired is not represented through any university, but we have the best of the best. many companies teaching our students. emily: we just need to clone you. >> we can do better, you can me.t higher than

emily: me. emily: that does it for this edition of the best of bloomberg technology. tune in 6:00 p.m. eastern, 6:00 p.m. -- 3:00 p.m. pacific. do not miss the instagram founder on studio 1.0. ♪

david: welcome to "bloomberg businessweek." carol: we are inside the magazine's headquarters right here in new york city. the year ahead 2017. david: taking a close look at the companies come economies -- >> products and innovators that will matter in 2017. david: we have a list of the 50 companies to watch in 2017. carol: we will talk about all of it. let's get started. we are here with the magazine's editor.