for a peace deal, it comes after -- a united nations resolution last week, which secretary kerry said was in accordance with u.s. values. israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu assessed the speech was skewed against israel. president-elect donald trump also took aim at u.s. policy toward israel, tweeting, "we cannot continue to let israel be treated with such total disdain .nd disrespect stay strong, israel, january 20 is coming." roof has no plans to try to convince a jury to spare his after killing nine black churchgoers. house speaker paul ryan's crackdown raising questions over its constitutionality according to politico. month plans to

approve a package restricting video on the house floor. this is bloomberg. "bloomberg technology" is next. ♪ carolyn: this is "bloomberg technology." coming up, the short-sellers warning that rattles nvidia. 2015 -- 2016's best growth stories become a 2017 cautionary tale? and we look at if humans and ai can peacefully coexist in american officers. -- offices. mike.an parker drops the

our lead -- after steadily marching higher the past few sessions, stocks fall back today. tech shares were among the biggest laggards. the nasdaq turning in its worst performance since december 1. with two key standouts in the session -- nvidia falling the most in months. qualcomm fell 2% after it violated antitrust laws, raising new questions about the profitability of its business. here to break it down, editor at large cory johnson. it seems to have been on a for nvidia.

have been of risks pointed out for some time. he is not really breaking new ground. he is saying this is a company that has done well in gaming. a lot of the girls it has put up has been in gaming. all these new markets are fine but are relatively limited at this point. he is pointing out that a lot of the new news story has not really manifested. caroline: we are coming back down after the slum. is the call,90 that is still some 18% to go. how much should we be listening to these calls? cory: he's a genius, but maybe not in this case. : he really got his name in pharmaceuticals, right? he has made some good

calls. he does really good research, but it tends to be in more obscure names and smaller cap stuff. when it comes to big names that he has called overvalued, i do not think that is his very best suit. nvidia, facebook, for example. i think these are companies not sois research is unique out there on its own. again, i think he does really terrific work on smaller names, but in this case, it's not his best work. it's a holiday week, so we will give andy a break. : we have to dig into other chipmakers. qualcomm. how worrying is this when we look at u.s. and europe? : $18 million to somebody

like qualcomm is nothing. people are much more concerned about the business model, which 70% of that profit comes from licensing revenue. anything that potentially affect how they are able to levy licenses, that is a big deal, and that is the cumulative concern that has always been there and looks like it is manifesting itself. it seems like it also gets to the core of what qualcomm is. not just because it relies so toh on licensing as opposed selling the physical chips they make, but also because they have with that business model achieved market dominance, so that their licenses, their technologies are written into the very code that makes mobile telephony work. you cannot really make mobile telephony without qualcomm chips. precisely their

argument. "without us, you are nothing. the modern world would not work." you have to remember they have been battling in and out of the courts everywhere around the world about the various fundamentals that south korea found them guilty of transgressing yesterday for years. literally, more than a decade. what happens is they tend to win. : but in china, they have had to potentially reorient the way they price their product. ian: that is one way to look at it. the stock market has looked at it as they were not actually led to do business in china at all. cory: that seemed very much like . glass half full reaction fundamentally, china said you cannot do your business here at all, but they have to do it at such a lower rate. i'm curious also what you think of the korean argument that says

they cannot or should not be thewed to bill against entire handset. how could that differ in their regime of structure? ian: that is an absolutely huge deal. this is something they have had to fight around the world. handset, 700,rs, $800. 3% of $30 is a lot less than what they are getting right now. caroline: how much could this impact rmb going forward? their argument is the fact that their patenting, the licensing, helps them refueled the ecosystem, but also, it helps them and gives them a leading edge. continue to see these concerns and if we do see the share price continue to drop, who is the beneficiary? ian: the beneficiary would .nitially be the handset makers they will be paying a lower rate, and for them, that helps

their margins. some angerhere was toward qualcomm and years gone by, that perhaps they undercut the market to drive out competition. ian: the argument has been that they built this market position from technologies at one point. nvidia failed in mobile because they underestimated the power of the modem. it was nothing to do with power.m's actual there were other companies that were a lot stronger than qualcomm. qualcomm bet on the right technology at the right time. that gave them this initial lead. there were arguments about what they have done with this power, but the technology decisions and bets that were made back at the beginning of digital were won by qualcomm. in terms of the news stories we will be getting, i want to focus on breaking news in terms of donald trump at the

moment. we knew he would be coming out with a statement on the economy. he is currently speaking to reporters and florida saying that it says sprint will back to the united states. he says the united nations is not living up to its potential. he is averaging away from just the economy into political rounds now, but he spoke to he says, today, in a nice conversation. there seems to have been a twitter battle going on, conversing with the population, saying that perhaps obama had been adding some roadblocks, is what he claimed, but this seems to be a business announcement. bringsays sprint will 5000 jobs back to the united states, speaking to reporters in florida. coming up, man versus machine. we take a deep dive into what a more automated world means for your job prospects in the coming year. my deepest thanks to cory

johnson, bloomberg editor at with, and ian king bloomberg technology. this is bloomberg. ♪

caroline: breaking news for you coming from president-elect donald trump, talking about the economy in florida. he says more jobs will be coming through sprint. the company will be bringing 5000 jobs back to the united states. web willaid that one be receiving money from softbank and it said it will be creating 3000 new jobs in the united states. breaking news coming from

president-elect donald trump speaking in florida with reporters. they did float that this would be about to happen, saying it would be very positive news for u.s. workers. once again, this playing into what was the buildup to the election saying "bring jobs back to the united states p are co--- to the united states." seems to be getting technology and phone companies to play in. trade has been to blame for the widespread loss of jobs in the united states, but some are pointing to a different culprit -- robots. ts areless cars and chatbo doing things that people used to do. how can the american workforce stem the tide? joining me to talk about this, dennis yang, ceo of an online platform aimed at adults.

we're getting this breaking news with donald trump promising more jobs, largely from phone companies in the u.s. and technology giants, but there is not just impediments to mobilization, perhaps limited trade, forcing companies to rehire back in the u.s., but what about the robot element? this is something silicon valley is really talking about but maybe not the rest of the population. especially in 2016, we have heard a lot of the conversation around mobilization and immigration, but in reality, comes fromblessness technology automation. take u.s. manufacturing as an example. if you look at the total output volume, manufacturing is near its all-time high over the last few decades. the people the industry has employed is down over 7 million jobs. the vast majority is due to automation, not globalization. caroline: productivity seems to

be on the up thanks to robotics. one story actually settle must half of u.s. jobs are at risk due to machines. are we going through perhaps a bit of a bill gates situation what it is underestimating might happen in the longer-term? could it be more than half the jobs? what do you think of the numbers? technology asink a general trend tends to accelerate, differently from immigration policy where you can create public policies to stem or changer, whereas in technology, it you think about it, not only does it accelerate faster, you cannot un-invent things. they will always appear a little bit faster than we expect them to. caroline: you think it will be sooner than the next decade or two? it definitely could

be. one of the things we discussed was autonomous vehicles. that will have a huge impact on the trucking industry, which is one of the biggest employers in the u.s., and the other is andnd self-serve kiosks also it's a quick serve restaurants. between those, we are talking about millions of jobs affected. you have to think it will be able to displace more high-end jobs as well. caroline: udemy is helping upscale workers. does the government plan on trump coming in in less than a month with a focus on rescaling -- re-skilling? retraining has to be part of the education and that is what we do. if you think about it, there are two do things we think about. the first is this notion of lifelong learning. people are working in little bit longer and a lot of the conversation around education is

really only in the early stages of an individual's life, but because the world of work is changing quickly, people need to constantly learn new skills. the second piece is the most important and valuable skill and individual can have going forward is the ability to learn something new because it will be really difficult to predict the future world of work. caroline: i want to know how some of the fighting back of disruptive industries who have seen the effects worldwide not just in the united states, but in germany and the united kingdom, taxi companies fighting off the likes of uber, but change is coming. do startups and the companies that are doing the disrupting need to talk more about this and talk about the ways in which people can be helped who might indeed lose their jobs? mr. yang: absolutely. that needs to be part of the broader conversation. it is different educations than point insofar as lifelong learning is really a new segment

of education. in the past, most people think of education in the early years, if it's k-12, traditional hire education. if you are lucky enough to have a degree or diploma. they really did not consider what happens afterward. re-skillto constantly upskill is important. caroline: some companies are already tackling this. at&t, for example, tends to try to reinvest in their people, but their tends to be a mutual agreement, that they will keep you on as long as they agree that they will keep on re -skilling and work in areas they need developing. mr. yang: i think that is a great new contract between employer and employee. this relationship where in the

past, you can argue with companies were doing a great job in terms of keeping employees up to date and a two speed in terms of being able to be productive, but i think it is the responsibility of both parties. if an individual employee takes it upon themselves to learn new skills and be relevant, certainly from an employer standpoint, they are incentivized to keep them as long as possible. you.ine: great to have seeing the ongoing technology that will continue to be unveiled i'm sure will make discussions throughout 2017. dennis yang, thank you so much. udemy's ceo joining us. another tech company filing for an ipo. the san francisco-based company helps businesses track how well their apps are running so they can respond swiftly to slowdowns

or crashes. facebook nabbed the number one more than 126 million average new users per month over the last year. not to be outdone, the company known for the world's most ocular search engine, grabbed the most spots on the list. up, we will continue our focus on the tech breakthroughs reusableooking at rockets. the hits and misses next on bloomberg. ♪

caroline: on today's funding board, rent the runway confirmed

it raised $60 million, led by .idelity investments this comes after a strong year for the fashion tech startup. rent the runway has surpassed $100 million in revenue and unveiled its limited subscription plan, and launched neiman marcus within stores. 2016 was dramatic for the commercial space industry, and that cutting the cost of spaceflight. the notion that reusable rockets are key to cutting the cost, but not all the launches were out of this world. falcon ninef the rockets. >> 2016 proved there's a new .indrace under way reusable rockets can dramatically cut the cost of a launch. spacex already leads the at $61.2on cost

launch.for a falcon 9 its rival says it cannot get the price under $100 million before 2015. -- before 2019. after four failed attempts to land a first stage rocket on a floating barge, spacex made history in april, sticking a controlled landing on a moving target and went on to record three more ocean landings this year and two on land. you manyld cost hundreds of millions of dollars to fly anywhere. if you could reuse the rocket, it would be like air flight and as inexpensive as their flight to go around the world and land again. ist's exactly what spacex doing. >> and it's not the only one. blue origin, run by amazon's jeff bezos, is doing this as well but for suborbital flight.

but it ended roughly on september 1. an accident while fueling led to an explosion on the launchpad. liquids fueled with oxygen and kerosene, so it's obviously highly flammable. it does not take much to cause an explosion of this magnitude. >> three months later, the accident has had a domino effect on the company's launched schedule. spacex remains grounded and plans to resume flight in december were pushed to january. it's even more ambitious plan for a manned mission has been pushed from 2017 to may 2018, but experts are not worried about the impact on the industry as a whole. >> in five short years, this company has become the establishment tech player, and to come so far in such a short amount of time and have as few problems as they have had is amazing. >> spacex still has a backlog of

more than 70 missions worth more than $10 billion. caroline: make sure you stay with bloomberg television thursday. you can catch that interview 9:00 am eastern, 2:00 p.m. in london. that does it for this edition of "bloomberg technology." coming up, we bring you the very est of "studio 1.0." our exclusive conversation with the parker, who discusses declines in the music industry. this is bloomberg. ♪

bloomberg watching technology. let's begin with a check of your first word news. president-elect donald trump says a potential deal will bring thousands of jobs back into the u.s. economy. he spoke today at his estate in

mar-a-lago florida. i was just called by the head people at sprint, and they're going to be bringing 5000 jobs back to the united states. they are pretty hectic the that they arearea bringing them back to the united states. he has pledged to invest a few billion dollars in the u.s. economy. sectors that john kerry has now outlined a plan for the israeli-palestinian conflict. it comes after the u.s. anchored the desk angered the israelis at the u.n. >> the two state solution is the only way to achieve a just and lasting these between israelis and palestinians. it is the only way to ensure israel's future as a jewish and democratic state. living in peace and security

with its neighbors. >> israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu denounced the policy speech, saying it was skewed against israel and effectively focused on israel he settlements. senator john mccain says dump trucks chased to be sectors state -- with the choice for sector of defense. i have questions and concerns about his nominee for secretary of state. obligation under the constitution of the united states, which is to represent the people of arizona who just reelected me and do the right thing for them and for america. both republicans and democrats have questioned his ties to russia and vladimir putin. prosecutors have until the market determine whether the

accomplice inhe the christmas market attack is strong enough for a warrant. they also are trying to determine how the main suspect got to my lawn, where he was killed. lan, where he was killed. the guardian -- may says she will trickle -- studio 1.0 with emily chang is up next. ♪ emily: he revolutionized the way we listen to music, even if it wasn't entirely legal.

sean parker co-founded napster in 1999, then went on to become founding president of facebook. ringleader of founding tech and celebrities like mark zuckerberg, snoop dogg and others. justin timberlake famously portrayed him in the movie "the social network" as tech's bad boy. he has since settled down, married, and devoted his career to political activism and philanthropy, donating millions to support life sciences, global health, and more. joining me today on "studio 1.0," napster cofounder, facebook founding president, and chairman of the parker foundation, sean parker. thank you for having us at your pad in l.a. sean: thanks for having me. emily: we want to talk a little about who you are and how you got here. you started coding when you were seven years old. what kind of a kid were you? sean: i think i was generally a good kid up until a certain point. things went a little bit off the rails. emily: what point was that? sean: we call it hacking now.

which has th positive and negative connotations. but this was the computer underground in the late 1990's. it was, it was a breeding ground for people who went on to be successful entrepreneurs. but at the time we were really interested in computer security. it had a way of sucking you in. because there was an element of danger. there was an element of -- there was an intellectual challenge associated with it. and as i became more involved in that world, i became less involved in, you know, my day-to-day life. everything was probably going fine up until about the age of 14. when i discovered this world that, you know, and thank goodness i did, because i would not have learned to code. i wouldn't have learned about the early internet. i would not have built napster. i owe a great debt to that small cabal of people who were essentially, you know, an

underground community of cyber criminals. and at the same time, my parents -- it drove my parents crazy. emily: when you were 16, you met another hacker, sean fanning, online. you didn't go to college. you moved to silicon valley and you guys built napster together. sean: it was a great experience for us. we had nothing to lose. little did we know, we, we -- there was criminal liability associated with enabling what they called contributory and vicarious copyright infringement on what was realistically an unprecedented scale. i perhaps blame myself only in that i was not a better negotiator and i could not help them save themselves. it is sad to watch the decline of this industry. it didn't necessarily need to happen that way. and that is a -- emily: why not? sean: consumers turn to piracy by and large when they can't get the product through legitimate channels. so there needed to be a legitimate market offering

coming from the record labels, and they couldn't get their act together for years to put that in the market. it was frustrating to watch this long, deleterious collapse of an industry that was producing something that i loved so much. that was never our intention. we never wanted to see that happen. emily: music sales peaked in 1999. and since then, it has been years of decline. you're on the board at spotify. do you think that streaming services can end the years of decline the music industry has been facing? sean: i think we have now turned the corner and are getting back into growth, based on what i have seen at spotify, based on what i have seen coming out of apple. it looks like it bottomed out. in terms of -- for a while, spotify could replace cd sales, the decline in cd sales, and the decline in downloads, but not both. emily: how do you convince people to pay for services when

there is so much available for free online, whether it is youtube or elsewhere? sean: this question of free versus paid has plagued the industry all the way back to, you know, radio. i would say that the services like spotify that monetize at a really great rate where we see, you know, users coming in to a free channel, we see at least 1/3 of those users over time becoming paid customers. there is obviously added value. and that added value is convenience. it is the ability to make a playlist, share a playlist with the outside world, organize your music library, it's all of the things that help to surface music that you would not have known about.

>> you are known as the guy who dropped the from facebook. i know you and mark were very close. give me a status update with your relationship with mark. how often do you stil talk? sean: mark and i don't talk nearly as much as we used to. there was a period where we continued to consult every day. but yeah, generally speaking, it's a good relationship. emily: there's a scene in "the social network," where you and mark zuckerberg meet for the first time. and what some people may not know is after that, i believe, you go and hang out with travis kalanick who is now the ceo of uber. is that true? you actually met up at a club or something? sean: i don't know that i went to a club. mark, i think, went out to a club. emily: tell us about that.

sean: travis hasn't really changed at all. he is sort of, in some ways, the perfect ceo of this company because he enjoys the -- he enjoys -- he feeds off of the conflict and the controversy. he -- he is very good at dealing with complex situations where he -- you know, he's being attacked from all sides. i think there is, i think he would thrive as a, you know, wartime leader. i mean, he is very good -- emily: really? general kalanick. sean: he is very good under those circumstances. i think there are a lot of companies that would have been way too boring for travis. emily: how impressed are you with what uber has accomplished? do you think it is worth $62.5 billion? sean: do i think any of these companies are worth their

private market valuations? it's hard to say. there is a disconnect between private company and public company valuations. and companies wait too long to go public, and then they don't do so well in the public markets. and you are seeing the fidelity write down for instance. there have been a lot of high-profile write-downs. emily: snapchat, dropbox. sean: it's not clear what any of these things are worth until the market, the public market values them. because in these close-knit private markets, you can do various things to engineer the valuation. emily: do you think a company like uber or airbnb, should they be going public sooner? sean: the traditional path would have been to go public sooner. something happened post facebook, and i may have inadvertently played a role in this occurring, which was the development of this robust secondary market where suddenly hedge funds and private wealth managers and various sovereign wealth funds and so forth began

to invest very heavily in private companies. emily: you started that? you started secondary markets? sean: i certainly didn't start everything. i didn't start secondary markets. but we encouraged at facebook a robust secondary market. we were much more open to having a secondary market. being in part because we had a longer-term vision, and you need to give people an opportunity to take liquidity along the way. emily: what do you think is the biggest threat to facebook's business? sean: you know, i think facebook's business has so much growth left in it. that in some ways -- it is really value extraction. it is value that has been stored for a long time. and there are smart people trying to figure out how do we unlock that value. that process is, you know, another 10-20 years before we start to see what that looks like. emily: how big of a threat do you think snapchat is to facebook? sean: there has never been one

communication network that has dominated everything. they all serve slightly different purposes to people. i think mark zuckerberg has done a wonderful job and i applaud his ability to understand which companies genuinely posed a threat and an opportunity, you know, to -- to facebook. the interesting question is how does snapchat iterate into becoming more of a communication platform that enables, you know, communication that is not necessarily ephemeral. emily: so you think they should work on non-ephemeral communication. sean: there is an indication that they are going in that direction. i'm not, you know, i don't spend that much time thinking about it. emily: so whether it's instagram or oculus or whatsapp or internet.org, which do you see as having the most potential to become the next huge business for facebook? sean: the interesting question

for facebook is, you know, is that next big thing somewhere else entirely? you know, is it google x and life sciences and, you know, contact lenses that measure glucose? is it self driving cars or is it going to be something that is very close to the home? the core of what facebook is. emily: do you think facebook should move beyond the core? sean: i think that communication is the biggest market in the world. communication cannot be undervalued. so are there a lot of other communication paradigms and are there other ways of communicating that facebook could enable? does it make sense for facebook to buy something like snapchat? does it make sense for facebook to expand more into real-time communication, so not just broadcast-based where you are sharing with the group and it's essentially public? facebook messenger is really no different from instant messaging, which we have had since the mid-1990's, going back

to irc and the early internet. facebook is very good at understanding the core communication network apps that they should own and are there more of those out there? absolutely. there are enormous opportunities left in communication. emily: you mean enormous opportunities left in terms of what facebook could buy? sean: in terms of what facebook could build or buy. >> do you think twitter survives? sean: i think twitter is a victim of their own success in so many ways. they are a company that, had it not been for the media's infatuation with twitter, twitter never would have built an enormous user base. but that came at a cost. and the cost was the lack of deep, you know, close knit community between its users.

emily: really? so how does that play out? i mean, does twitter survive the next wave of innovation in social networking? sean: the question of does it survive is maybe too dramatic of a question. i -- it's a question of do they prosper and do they become, you know, a much larger company, or do they remain roughly the same size and they become, you know, a part of our lives in a fairly narrow way? you know, i don't think that twitter goes on to take market share from other players. and i think that -- but i do think they will continue to exist. emily: there is a huge debate between privacy versus security. should the tech industry be more accommodating to the government? ♪

emily: there is a huge debate between privacy and security and

how much silicon valley can help with that. and mark zuckerberg and tim cook have really put a stake in the ground in saying we are not going to help the government spy on our users. should the tech community be more accommodating to the government? sean: the reality of the relationship between large industry and government, you know, should not be underestimated. of course there is collaboration. to think that communication companies, network providers, social media companies aren't, you know, cooperating with the federal government in various ways i think is naive. we are living in a world where enormous economic value comes from finding connections. like, i never would have met mark zuckerberg if it hadn't been for the internet. i never would have met shawn fanning.

we met in an underground chat room. we met in a place that would probably be monitored right now by the government because they are very suspicious of hackers. but had it not been the freedom to communicate, none of this would have happened. we would not be having this conversation. i think that, you know, by that same token, the more accessible and available these communication technologies are and the more accessible and available encryption technologies are, these tools are going to be used to foment necessary revolutions against dictators and they be used by terrorists and the nine crazies who otherwise never would have met to organize homegrown terrorist cell. every major technological platform and every major shift that happens in the way we communicate is a double-edged sword. emily: what is your current act?

what are you spending most of your time on right now? sean: it's 50% venture investing, startups, many that -- many of which have been ongoing for several years, and 50% philanthropic endeavors, most of which is life sciences related. emily: what did you think about the chan-zuckerberg initiative? it's been unexpectedly controversial. criticized for not giving to charity. characterizing it as an llc. is that unfair? sean: i don't think anything mark does should -- we should not expect it to be anything other than controversial. his intentions are entirely altruistic. it's very hard to criticize somebody who is saying they are going to give away the vast, vast majority, 99%, of their -- of their fortune. i think that the goal of saying

it the way he said it and laying it out the way he explained it was to spark controversy. the media cycle is dominated by donald trump and terrorism and, you know, a lot of really scary things. i think mark felt an obligation to create a conversation around the role of someone who has vast resources to try to reshape the world. and i think he has succeeded in doing that. emily: you founded the parker foundation. you are giving away $600 million to life sciences, global health, civic engagement. how has your own strategy evolved? sean: the parker foundation is doing things that we feel extremely passionate about. that we feel need to get done in the world. and the reason you are seeing so much of this kind of, you know, new hacker-style philanthropy is

because this group of people who, you know, they made their money by being disruptive. they made their money by being unconventional. there is a desire, you know, to see the same type of impact that they had in their business career, which has been, you know, if you look at uber, for instance, it has been massively disruptive -- how does one find opportunities that are equally disruptive in the philanthropic world, but they are, you know -- the type of disruption that has to happen if these entrenched social problems are going to be addressed. emily: so you are giving money to advanced science. you are focusing on allergies, cancer. what do you think that you can do differently than traditional venture capitalists? sean: i think philanthropy can get ahead of venture capital. so, venture capital when it is

done correctly happens at a time when a business is ready for commercialization. it's not there to fund basic science. and i think there is this middle ground where, for instance, cancer immunotherapy. if you are going to fund immunotherapy, you are going to be taking money away from existing labs and researchers that have been built up over time. there is a hesitation there. the breakthroughs that happen quickly have been driven by private philanthropy because governments have been too slow to recognize that a technology is ready for, you know, investment. and whether that is a philanthropic investment or venture investment. emily: so what is next for sean parker? sean: i think life sciences is the single most interesting area of exploration. it is to the world today what social media was to me in 2002, 2003, and 2004. the ability to, you know, get to a lab where a grad student to do

something that someone would have spent 30 years of their life trying to do previously. but i do think that cost reductions, because of new technology leading to faster and faster progress, there are enormous opportunities. i think the fundamental question of the 21st century is, how do we make sure that the technological innovations coming out of life sciences are available to everyone? emily: sean parker, thank you so much for joining us today on "studio 1.0." thank you for having us at your fabulous house. it has been great to have you. sean: thank you. ♪

>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: bono is here. the 40th anniversary of the rock band u2. it has sold more than 157 million records and 122 emmys. he is also known for his rockstar status and for his philanthropic work around the globe. celebrating its 10th anniversary. over the weekend, it made $100 million to fight aids and malaria. he