♪ 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 with interviews with alibaba and the most outspoken venture capitalists. but first, we begin with uber board member and silicon valley

heavyweight bill 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. bill: 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. brad: uber was spending heavily in china, $1 billion or more a year. where does it redeploy that capital? if you are a competitor in india or southeast asia, or even lyft in the united states, how worried are you? bill: i do think that is the thing, 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.ch?

bill: i could talk forn ur about the ipo situation but i think there has been this really bad meme 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. and then is not in the silicon 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? bill: 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. brad: 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? bill: 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. if you were to talk to a realtor 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? bill: i do think the problem of excessive capital, i wrote a very long log post on this, it can cause the capital to get loaded and unloaded. the only way to deploy that is take huge burn rates. so they go 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. bill: but it has already been -- you talk to any economist, low level interest rates for seven years is going to lead to really wacky things. i am not an economist but it causes nutty things to happen. emily: anything else, what could happen as a result of the influx of cash, the perhaps lack of very compelling ideas, or companies that should be funded? bill: 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 before. brad: elon musk's companies were called science-fiction projects gone awry. would you buy tesla products? bill: there are signs on both sides that could lead very smart people to either conclusion. if you have ridden in or driven a tesla -- my wife has one -- it is a remarkable piece of machinery.

they have integrated software in a way that no american or european auto ever has. you are like, wow, they really understand doing things differently. at the same time you look at the losses, the missed production schedules, and this decision to merge with solar city, and you could take that point of view that was presented here at the conference. brad: where do you shake out? bill: i do not know. i think i see both sides of it. i am not a public investor. emily: you have avoided food delivery since grubhub. why is that, is it because of uber eats? bill: i think any of these, when capital gets widely available venture capitalists take on more risk when they choose businesses with lower and lower gross margins. most are consumer businesses and 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 singles day is 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 and the 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 event that all parts of china and many parts of the world will participate in. emily: i was there last year, last year you processed $14 billion of merchandise within a single day. what kind of numbers are you expecting this year? mike: 14.3 billion dollars last year. what really makes singles 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. so singles day and the global shopping festival 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 china, it is something more, but hard for u.s. consumers to understand because there is not quite an equivalent. what is alibaba? mike: 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 component, which reflects the 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 education side of the business, everything from travel to ridesharing to involvement in food and food delivery and health, and ar and vr and all the technologies of the future. those are all enabled by our cloud computing business, payment business, just ask business, and alibaba merchandise and advertising. emily: we had two people on yesterday who said china is in a bubble and there is a massive collapse ahead of us. the banks have four times more 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 get both jim and kyle to come 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. parts 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 unlevered 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 shervin pishevar of 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. take a listen. shervin: on friday we announced the former 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 cargo in q1 of 2017. that is coming really fast. brad: you did 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 cisco, josh giegel, the top guy 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. brad: were aspects of the 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 struck this big deal.

how do you see ridesharing market shares shaking out globally? is uber one of two winners, one 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 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? shervin: that is my analysis, but in terms of my belief in the company, we think it is a $200 billion plus company. i think didi 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? shervin: a friend of mine called them a sideshow and i agree with him. k they are in a weak and precarious position as opposed to uber. brad: one of my colleagues has been writing about the economics in food delivery businesses and luxury. he looked at the sustainability of the business, the potential turnover of the ceo. 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 from one kitchen 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 chilled model.

brad: they will hold up on the 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. the other thing is the valuations are in terms of the

opportunities we are seeing, are much more rational these days. that is also a great opportunity. in sherpa, we have great investments. it is doing incredibly well. brad: what do you think governor 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 was 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. ♪

when you're on hold, your business is on hold. that's why comcast business doesn't leave you there. when you call, a small business expert will answer you in about 30 seconds. no annoying hold music. just a real person, real fast. whenever you need them. great, that's what i said. so your business can get back to business.

sounds like my ride's ready. don't get stuck on hold. reach an expert fast. comcast business. built for business. emily: we continue our special coverage from the vanity fair new establishment summit where we have been speaking to some of the most influential names in technology. politics dominated at the summit and brad stone and i caught up with a former facebook insider. we wanted to know how thiel's support for trump might be affecting the board. i started by asking him what's at stake on election day. >> 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. we believe a more inclusive, 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 qualy 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 transcend past 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. 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 it doesn't map to my morals and ethics, 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 shareholder. nor can i speak to y-combinator. i can speak to social capital and 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 stand to work with

people who would have used that have transcended politics and have now entered this gray area bordering 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? >> it must be and it must be a 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? what does he represent that we can actually take away and say, "these are things we need to fix for everybody."

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 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? so, you know, i think we have to unpack "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, who can fix the employee morale problems, and then take it back out because i think it is an emerging pillar of social media and should exist as an independent company. right now it is in such a point of disrepair that i think we 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 facebook versus google versus 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 ebb and

flow. we know that. so, 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. take for example jeff bezos, his reaction on stage at the vanity fair summit. jeff bezos: peter thiel is a contrarian. first and foremost he is a contrarian. you have to remember that contrarians 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. our executive editor for bloomberg technology, brad stone, joined me in an interview with beth comstock. we started off asking what surprised her most in the 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. we are hiring great talent. i think it is a different kind of challenge and people have been hiring 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. emily: some people feel we are in a period of technological stagnation and we are also seeing rockets and self driving cars. how do you balance out the big corporation innovating from within and acquiring? beth: i think you probably have to do all of those things and in the past decade or so you would see us evolve our model were -- where we 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 partnerips. partnering with startups has brought us to silicon valley, creating busesses with startups and partnering so i think you are getting more big companies realizing you have to have a portfolio. brad: you also had a meeting with microsoft over the summer about predicts operating system. 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. emily: talk a little bit about ge ventures and how it relates to the rest of the company. there is this more specific area and people in silicon valley are very curious. beth: we have had our ge ventures team for about four years here in menlo park 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 very excited about called vitruvian which is cell therapy, immunotherapy therapy. 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. which made it good for ge's next steps. 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 fans. 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. what do you need for innovation? you need 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 too. where are we trying to go and how do we get everybody focused? 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 ip, 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 ip. we have the olympics for the next decade in europe. in the aggregate, we are the 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 ip on every one of your devices. emily: netflix has been speculating as an acquisition

target. are we going to see high-level media consolidation? do you see disney getting acquisitive? if one domino falls, what happens to the rest? >> i think netflix is a great company and we love their model and that is one of the reasons we are imitating it. the is netflix spends about $6 billion a year on their platform to get subscribers to pay eight dollars or $10 a month. with our sports platform in europe, we have $6 billion or $7

billion of sport ip over the years and we offer a direct to the consumer. the cost 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, animals, 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. with oprah now the number one

network for african-americans in the u.s. 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. emily: that 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. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ 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. i think in two to three years it 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? >> it would be sad because apple 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. i would encourage tim cook to do it because 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. you hit autopilot mode and the car drives itself. often innovators don't come from established companies, 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. if someone can 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 lend 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 better idea. because we don't have to own

cars, park cars -- ultimately i 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 ridden around drunk. things like this first happened in the big cities. emily: who wins? >> i wish i knew. i wish i had a crystal ball. we now have a car driving very successfully and we hope within a year we will have the same capability as uber. emily: -- and you are offering nanodegrees. >> 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. we have about 14 different hiring teams. 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 shoot higher than me. emily: that does it r this edition of the best of bloomberg

technology. we will bring you all the best in technology throughout the week. tune in 6:00 p.m. eastern, 3:00 p.m. pacific. do not miss instagram founder kevin systrom on studio 1.0. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ >> what does her family fake? david: do they think it was something wrong with us men wanting to do computers? did you ever think your wife would be better off getting a harvard degree? mr. gates: i am a weird dropout. david: as far as your relationship with steve jobs -- you were the wealthiest man for 20 years more, is that more of a burden than a pleasure? >> would you fix your time, please? david: let me move it this way. ok. ♪ david: i do not consider myself a journalist. nobody else would consider myself a journalist. i begiki