♪ emily: hi, i'm emily chang and this is the "best of bloomberg technology." coming up, an important stop on the zuckerberg apology toward. -- tour. the ceo's note the u.k. parliament but decides to testify on capitol hill. plus, uber agrees to sell its operations in southeast asia to a local rival. we will talk about what uber will get in return. and tesla tumbles the most in two years as questions swirl

around a fatal accident. first, to our lead. mark zuckerberg has decided it is time to face the congressional music. the facebook ceo will appear before the u.s. house and energy committee to answer questions about the cambridge analytica scandal. this according to a congressional official familiar with the plan. zuckerberg has been the subject of criticism from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. he will not appear before a u.k. parliamentary committee. we spoke with sarah frier who covers the social network for bloomberg on tuesday after the news broke as well as caroline , hyde who joins us live from london with reaction from europe. >> zuckerberg has come to terms with the fact that he will do this. he said last week if i am the right person to answer these questions i will do it but i , have to be the right person. congress can back and said you are the right person. we want to hear from you. zuckerberg has come to terms with that. and in front of congress, there are going to be so many questions that facebook cannot answer.

a lot of questions in particular about where this data has gone that was shared with third party developers back before 2014. facebook does not know. they will do some audits. they do not have currently the answers to where are these 50 million user profiles. when did cambridge analytica delete them? they relied on cambridge analytica to tell them that it was gone. until the reporting from the new york times and observer last week, we did not realize that was not the case. emily: what is the reaction in the u.k. where he said i'm going , to send my deputy instead? caroline: anger. came back fighting. the head of the committee that is investigating how fake news may have played a role particularly in the brexit vote in the u.k., david collins has come back very strongly to

the news that it will just be the cto or chief product officer that will come instead. he said it is absolutely astonishing that mark zuckerberg is not prepared to submit himself to questioning. he urged him to think again if he has any care for people that use his company cozies services. in a letter that damien collins wrote on march 20, he said a senior facebook executive who they hoped would be mark zuckerberg. mark zuckerberg feels he is not the right person in this case. the letter that facebook sent back to damien collins said they are among the longest-serving executives, they have extensive background and are well-placed to answer the committee. there's also the statement. they say, look the u.k. and the , eu should not matter to you. around 1% of the global downloads of the app that came from users in the eu and the

u.k. app was designed by alexander kogan and passed on to cambridge analytica and gave them 50 million users. usersse 50 million facebook says hardly any of them , are from the eu or the u.k. 90 that is like mark zuckerberg feels he does not need to come in front of parliament here. emily: facebook is getting its ducks in a row to lobby lawmakers. they are hiring for 11 different positions on capitol hill. talk to us about the extent of facebook's lobbying efforts how that compares to other tech companies in what they are trying to change. >> i think the first thing we have to note is that facebook's budget spent on lobbying in d.c. is so much smaller than these companies that have been doing it for years. googles and apples of the world. facebook is pretty slow to join the party. in the past, they did not have a contentious relationship with washington. they grew up in barack obama's presidency.

now they are sort of realizing that they need to make nice and they need to figure out how to get in on these issues before they come to a head. most of all how ,to explain -- most of all, how to explain their products to congress, lawmakers. a lot of them do not understand some of the fundamental ways it works. like the fact that most ads are not purchased through human salespeople. they are purchased through this automatic system. this has become clearer in the last few months. i think, just like the general public congress has a lot they , want to educate. emily: we are learning new players -- layers to the broader cambridge analytica story. there is a whistleblower who worked as a contractor at cambridge analytica who has told parliament basically that brexit could have gone the other way if they had not been what he calls

cheating. give us more background on what we learned here. caroline: this is the pink-haired christopher wylie, the whistleblower. he came in front of the mp's in the u.k. and notably he said the brexit could have gone differently if perhaps some of these related entities to cambridge analytica, which is what cambridge analytica disputes but christopher wylie , is saying that cambridge analytica's related entities were mixed up in the brexit vote and in fact were paid significant amounts and could have helped swing that. he also says that 50 million people could have been affected by the cambridge analytica data overall. notably, he talked about palantir. this is the company peter teal is on the board of, and is on the board of facebook himself. pelletier could've been wrapped up in all of this emily.

, emily: as the fallout continues in the wake of the exploitation of data on million of facebook users, we catch up with former twitter ceo dick costolo and asked him to weigh in on this controversy. dick costolo one of the : questions i have is the impact it will have on the way people think about api's and access to data in the future. obviously, facebook had built out this platform approach that enabled third parties to access this data and used them to interact with and engage with people on facebook. then they turned that off some years ago and are now sort of seeing the consequences of some of that. i do think it will have an impact on the way technologists and company founders and ceos going forward think about how that data will be used, how they can audit how that data is disposed of, etc. emily: how does facebook use data in a way that is different from the way twitter handles data? i understand that twitter is more protective of data.

though twitter has its own issues which we can talk about. do you think facebook has been too permissive and too careless about user data? dick: not to be an apologist for what has been going on but none of the api's where public. people did not know what they were capable of. they have been long disabled. the big difference between twitter and facebook is that on facebook there is a lot of personally identifiable information and demographic information which turns out to be particularly helpful to advertisers. advertisers want to be able to demographically target. twitter does not have that information. to just go back a few years when i was running twitter, that was thought of as a disadvantage. twitter does not know enough

about its user so i cannot target my advertisement as accurately as i can on facebook. there are two sides to the coin. in some instances, it is a real benefit to the platform or -- platform's business, but in other situations, it can come back to haunt you. emily: we are seeing former facebookers increasingly speaking out about this. do you think "delete facebook" will take off? do you think this will have a users'cant impact desirability to use the platform? emily: i am sure they will be returning their ill-gotten gains any moment now. i do not think -- these things happen. they come up every now and then when there is a big news event

around these platforms. facebook is such an important part of a lot of people's lives. it may be the case that a certain number of people inside the bubble, here in silicon valley, will delete it. i do not think it will be a big movement. it is too important a part of too many people's lives around the world. emily: is this disingenuous on the part of people who make money on facebook? dick: i are at a made a joke about that. it is easy when you are not a part of the company anymore to sit back and lob in molotov cocktails. there are people working extremely hard inside this -- these companies to do the right thing. twitter has been talking a lot about the issues. there are people inside the companies trying to do the right thing and i tend to not love it

when people can sit on the sidelines and lob in criticism. emily: mark zuckerberg in an interview said that perhaps tech should be regulated. it is not a question of if but how. should be regulated? do you think techshould be regulated? if so, how? dick: i think there will end up being regulations here. it seems like that tide is heading in our direction, incoming if you will. the challenge, particularly in areas of technology is it tends to be frequently areas and concepts and details that are difficult to understand which make them very susceptible to lobbying. and there are lobbyists on all sides of the equations. and finally, i worry that in most cases, the regulations start to fight the last war. in the past, this happen so let us prevent that from happening again. the technologies are changing so quickly they do not anticipate the next issue or challenge

coming up. they cause these companies work and maybe are not addressing what the companies have to deal with and what society has to deal with next. emily: zuch said he is sure that version two of aggression russian meddling is happening on the platform. if it is happening on facebook it will be happening on twitter as well. can facebook and twitter stay ahead of this? can they really keep up? dick: it is an arms race like spam was in the past. like phishing and these other kind of challenges. the difference now is that there are state actors involved on the other side. not just a few people trying to hack into an account. when you've got state actors that have enormous amounts of resources, it will be a real battle keeping up with them and going after their new attack vectors. they will never attack in the same way the way they have attacked in the past. keeping up with that will be a real challenge for these platforms.

emily: some of my conversation with dick costolo. google could owe oracle for using its java programming code. the court said it violated oracle's copyrights. the case was first filed in 2010 and then remanded to a federal court in california to determine how much the alphabet unit should pay. google said it is considering all of the next steps in this case. coming up, apple announces a new lower-cost ipad as it aims to go head to head with google's chromebook in the education market. details next. if you like bloomberg news, check us out on the radio app, bloomberg.com, and in the u.s. on sirius xm. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ emily: apple is making a new push to go head-to-head with google in education. it is a market that apple helped pioneer but haslett languish in

the last few years. on the tech giant has unveiled a new education service called schoolwork to be with google's classroom software. >> when apple was founded 40 years ago, decades ago and for decades after that, it was really synonymous with creative uses, internet users and education users. i remember growing up we had e -macs, education macs. that has languished in the last few years. the latest market share data showed it had 70% of k-12 shipments, where google had 60%. microsoft had 22% of the market. clearly there was a problem and apple needed to address it. they decided to go back to an ipad that they released last year. it was a $329 lower caste 9.7 inch ipad without many of the bells and whistles, but it was

good enough for education users. this year, they are updating it with a slightly faster processor. the chip from the iphone 7 released a couple of years ago. support for the apple pencil. a few other small bells and whistles with the camera and lcd screens and slapping education level -- labeled by putting it in this new education marketing push. a also have new software. and an update for the class app for teachers and students. for students to submit their work. they have new curriculums to develop ar apps for their swift programming app for students. a lot of new education software to go with the hardware. the bigger picture news is the push around it. nothing here they announced today is very novel but they are refocusing and renewing the marketing strategy around students, teachers, and in general education. emily: mark gurman, our bloomberg tech reporter in chicago. thank you so much. i want to continue the

discussion now with our reporter in new york. shira, you are quite strong in saying that apple may not be able to reverse its fortunes in this market. why not? shira: mark talked about the market share losses apple has had in the education market , mostly because of google. it is honestly one of the otter told stories in technology for the last five years, the way google has managed to sweep into u.s. schools and take over the computing market there. i think apple's weakness, and they know this, they talked about it today, was the software. the big selling point of chrome books is not just the low-cost devices, but this ecosystem, this bundle of devices plus all of the software that kids, teachers, and administrators need to both manage those devices and to have kids email,

write papers, get assignments from teachers and things like that. apple made some of those promises today, but the question is can they deliver? can a company whose software history is a little checkered if you think about some of the failings of software including icloud. of itunes. does apple have the software chops to go head-to-head with google in education. emily: apple was not first to market and and they came to dominate both markets. why couldn't something like that happen in education as well? shira: it has been a seesaw market in education for decades. apple had a turn as the market leader. microsoft had a turn and google was more recently having a turn. apple absolutely could rebound from some of its earlier losses in the education market. it is not impossible. again, there are some weaknesses there that google exploited on

in talkinge side and to teachers, using teachers as evangelists in the education market. if apple is focused on the education market, i think they absolutely can rebound. i'm just not sure they have the technical chops are the focus on education they need to really make a go of it. emily: still ahead, tesla falls the most in two years as investors question the ability of the company to keep up with production demand and its driverless ambitions. that story is next. a reminder that all of our episodes are live streaming on twitter. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ emily: waymo and jaguar are teaming up on 20,000 autonomous

car is. the deal will integrate alphabets self driving system with jaguar's suv's with protests -- road tests beginning this year. the suv's will become part of the ride-hailing service in 2020. alphabet is investing $1.3 billion in this venture. the path forward for driverless cars is still unclear, especially after two fatal crashes. one involving an uber autonomous car in arizona, and the other last friday involving a tesla model x in california. tesla's stock tanked this week. they are working to retrieve the vehicle's logs. the crash killed the driver of the car adding to elon musk's challenges. including concerns the carmaker will not reach its reduction target for the all important model 3 sedan. max: there was a very significant accident and tesla is saying it is the most damage they have seen to one of their

model x suv's. the reason this is a problem for tesla is they also have this huge production sprint going on. trying to get as many model 3's produced this year as possible. to the extent that they are not able to hit those numbers and you have something like this that calls into question the company's long-term prospects, that could be a toxic mess for a company like tesla. emily: combine that with the general news about production delays. how much does this set tesla back? max: bloomberg has a model that is very impressive. we do not know how close it is. the model has been showing that tesla's production is likely ramping up towards the end of the quarter. it is possible that even though the numbers have not looked super good, elon musk is likely to, and say we knocked it out of the ballpark because they were

able to do a last-second sprint. this is more than a sprint. they have to get to hundreds of thousands of cars a year which is something they have not done. no one has done it with an electric car. investors are going to be reading the tea leaves. again whatever happens in the next quarter, they will have to continue growing production on a huge scale for the coming year basically. emily: we do have a chart that maps real-time news sentiment. 927. the red is negative. the green is positive. and they have been getting a lot of bad news lately. not surprising the way the chart looks. what do you make of tesla's response and the fact that even they have said they have never seen a crash like this before? they are working with government agencies. is that standard? max: i think what tesla -- the

line they are trying to walk is they want to take this seriously. we are seeing it with uber as well. they want to see this taken seriously but they also want to , leave open the possibility that yes even though there may , have been a bad crash, maybe even one in which the car did not perform as they had hoped that their autopilot could still , be better on average than a human behind the wheel. that was kind of the argument made in the wake of the crash last year where a person was tragically killed. i think it is sort of the general tension around autonomous driving in general. everyone -- even people who believe in this industry know they will be bad things that will happen and they just hope that the number of bad things is less than what happens today with humans behind the wheel. emily we hear the that uber is : not going to renew its license to test cars in california. arizona has taken the cars off the road. if this is going to take a lot

longer than some would have hoped to get self driving cars out on the road en masse, in a , way that is surely safer than the roads as they are today. max: i think that is like you are seeing tesla stock take a hit. remember, elon musk has said that the cars on the road today could be self driving cars with some updates. part of the bet on tesla is betting that self driving will come sooner than people think. that is how tesla will be able to dominate the auto industry. if it takes longer because the tech is not there or because regulators cannot get their heads around it and we as a society cannot come to terms with whatever compromise needs to be made, that will slow tesla down. neville hurt companies like tesla that are betting on it. likeat will hurt companies tesla that are betting on it. emily: still ahead, the trump administration zeroes in on high tech industries in its push to rebalance global trade. which industries will be most impacted. that is next.

plus more on our coverage from , the fallout from facebook's data scandal. will it send advertisers running? or can the social networking them on board? this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ emily: welcome back to "best of bloomberg technology." i am emily chang. president trump is pushing to rebalance global trade in america's favor and the global tech industry is preparing for a huge impact. white house advisor peter navarro said the administration's tariffs on china will focus on high tech industries where beijing wants to lead. the focus of theu : tariffs is on the china 2025 industries. china, in my view brazenly has , released its china 2025 plan that basically told the rest of the world we are going to dominate every single emerging industry of the future and there -- there for -- therefore your

economies are not going to have a future. emily: we spoke with adam siegel on wednesday as the story was still unfolding. adam siegel when they named the : specific sectors they were going to try to penalize, we are going to see a lot of people trying to lobby to be left out of the tariffs and we will have a good sense on where you might fit on the supply chain and how you might be punished. emily: you know, again, who do you think the winners and the losers could be, essentially? adam: well, they have been fairly clear that they want to punish china in high-tech. so, in iot, internet of thing devices, in automation, in robotics. the made in china 2025 plan is basically an attempt to move china up the value chain from just labor-intensive production to internet-based 3-d design. if you are into any of those

areas, it is possible that you will be caught up in the tariffs. artificial intelligence. robotics. automation. those are areas that will likely be targeted. emily: i wanted to ask you about artificial intelligence. there is a lot of talk about how win in the could race for the most sophisticated artificial intelligence. how advanced are china's efforts compared to the united states? adam the chinese have three : advantages. the first is the size of the data and the market. 750 chinese web users and that data is available to the big players, tencent, baidu, alibaba. the other is an ability to use the data. chinese privacy concerns are not as high in the u.s. as they are

in europe. and third, a government strategy. it very big push from the top for china to be a competitor in this space. the chinese firms are still not as competitive as u.s. firms. most of the important research is being done in the u.s. china lacks on the talent side but they are a fast competitive -- competitor to the u.s. in the space. emily: breaking news. veteran affairs secretary david shulkin is being replaced by president trump. the president will nominate his personal physician, ronnie jackson, to succeed him. the turnover in the white house, adam, continuous and leads to a pretty good question on these issues. on the tariffs. given the uncertainty of who is in these jobs, how do you think that will affect how the policy actually plays out?

adam: it has certainly affected the chinese. they have been scrambling to figure out who they should talk to and who they should negotiate with. i think -- the president has been consistent with saying he wants to reduce the trade deficit with china. i suspect the matter who was in the position, we will see consistency there. peter navarro seems to have positioned himself to take the lead on these issues. and with the 301 report is out i think there will be consistency in policy even if there is some more moving around of the deck chairs. emily: the administration is also reportedly considering trying to penalize or influence chinese investment in u.s. tech sectors, specifically they had been talking about semiconductors and 5g. how do you expect that to play out?

adam: we have already seen that. the president blocked the broadcom acquisition of qualcomm. we have seen leaks of documents that supposedly the government was thinking about nationalizing nationalizing the 5g networks. the most likely reform is a reform of the process. the committee on foreign investment in the united states. there has been concern that some of the ways that china has been acquiring technology -- they have been either using minority positions or going after companies that are bankrupt or trying to buy ip. i think that process will be reformed with a bill that has bipartisan support and that will make it harder for the chinese to invest in critical and sensitive technologies. emily: that was adam siegel. now, back to our continued coverage of the fallout from facebook's data scandal. an analyst is warning of a potential halted some advertising campaigns on the

social network. facebook ceo mark zuckerberg took out full-page ads in newspapers in the u.s. and u.k. to apologize for facebook not doing enough to safeguard user data. is that enough to keep advertisers happy? we spoke with debbie williamson on monday. debbie advertisers are thinking : about a couple of important issues. the first one is -- what our users doing? are a lot of them doing #delete facebook? or are they keeping their account but using facebook less? does that then leave fewer people or fewer hours of time spent on facebook and less room for my advertising? they are also concerned about any sort of regulatory impact on the data they have access to. with regards to targeting advertising. if there were any sort of regulation that would involve reducing their ability to target advertising, that is going to impact their ability to use

facebook going forward. i think that is weighing on the minds of advertisers as well. emily: let us talk about what we are seeing with engagement. i have a chart here. 5751. it shows you daily active users versus monthly active users an , interesting way to examine engagement. how many facebook users are going to the app every single day. we have seen it plateau. how much of a concern is that? debbie: i think obviously facebook does want to continue to see growth in daily active users. not only that, they want to see growth in engagement. not just people absentmindedly scrolling through their feed but interacting and talking to people. engaging with their friends and family. that is what you saw facebook a couple of months ago redo its algorithm to favor the content from friends and family. they need people to spend more active time on facebook.

not just logging and perhaps want today to randomly look at what is there. emily: talking about advertising, in particular, there are a lot of questions as to how facebook will potentially evolve the way that it uses data in order to target users, in order to target advertising. i have another chart. 3831. it shows as the prices of bats have grown, growth has actually -- ads have grown. growth has actually slowed. i am curious what you think advertisers are going to do here. our advertisers going to wait this out? will they keep pouring money into facebook because it is still one of the best ways to user? reach a very specific user? or are they going to leave? debbie those are conversations : we are having right now with emarketer subscriber base. i can tell you preliminarily, facebook is still one of the largest platforms around.

in order to reach a mass audience of people. you have to remember at the end of the day, a lot of major brand advertisers still want to reach a lot of people. that is one side of it. i think targeting is another issue. certainly the ability to very finely and precisely target people on facebook is something advertisers love about facebook. once again, if there is any limitation to that going forward, that will give them some pause. for now, the advertisers looking for branding goals or the massive reach will continue to use facebook and will continue to want to spend time and spent dollars there. then watch what happens in the next couple of weeks or months with regard to usage. emily: great to have you on the show. thank you, debbie. i want to continue to look at what this means for facebook and advertisers with michael wolff. he was president and ceo of into

the network and a yahoo! board member. he joins me now from new york. michael, i am curious, speaking with debbie earlier about the power facebook still has and the fact that crises like these, facebook has weathered before. how big a deal is what facebook is going through right now? how much of an impact will this actually have on facebook from a reputational and business perspective? michael: stepping back and looking at the big picture, facebook is an integral part of marketers campaigns today. there are advertisers that are looking for facebook to help drive their sales. if you think about it, the segment advertisers. there are advertisers that look at branding and their advertisers that use google and facebook for when you call performance to drive specific , sales. apart from google and facebook, those are two of the most important ways in which advertisers are not only driving

sales online but driving visits into an automotive dealership. and coupons. it will be an important part of what advertisers do and will continue to be. the bigger issue -- go ahead. emily: i want to ask you from a reputational perspective. just in terms of trust of users. they might say -- users opt into this but even when users opt in, or check a box they don't understand how the data is being used and facebook has not been a good job of being clear about how their data is being used. will this fundamentally undermine trust in facebook and thus impact engagement? michael: yes it will undermine , trust. but i facebook there is a lot of facebook they can do to reestablish that trust. first of all it is less about privacy and more about control. facebook needs to be explicit in allowing people to have control. second of all, facebook needs to be clear to its users what

information they have and how the information is being used. in the last couple of days, there has been news that facebook was using data from conversations on whatsapp for advertising targeting. facebook needs to make it clear to users how they are using their data. and if users feel they can have control, they will not delete facebook. emily: coming up, the ai that controls your phones is great, but did you know it could be hiding an inherent bias? that is next. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ emily: twitter is banning ads for initial coin offerings and token sales on their site. twitter said they know this content is often associated with deception and fraud. this decision comes after facebook dropped cryptocurrency. google said it would ban these

ads starting in june. artificial intelligence is supposed to make our lives easier. from robots taking over monday and tasks to technology that unlocks your smartphone by scanning your face. but is that tech really colorblind gender blind? , a study from researchers at m.i.t. say that the gender of darker skinned women was incorrectly identified 35% of the time. so, just how do we unbias ai? we spoke with a postdoctoral researcher at microsoft to his starting systems. >> i do not know if we can unbias it but we can medicate the effect of the bias. i think the first thing when he to do and what i am working on , now is to give people a guideline as to how and where it -- a particular data set can be used, a particular api can be used.

--ly: some of your most research shows facial recognition software is far less accurate for women and particularly for women of color. that it is essentially sexist and racist. can you explain? work with the commercial gender classification systems. they look at a picture of a face and they tell you whether the picture in it is that of a man or a woman. male or female. binary classification. they don't handle any other types of identities. even in this case, look at the accuracies and break them down by the intersection of race and gender -- i don't even want to say race. race is not a very well-defined thing. we looked at skin types. we look at skin tone. a dermatologist approved way of looking at skin types.

as the skin type gets darker and darker, for women, darker skinned women, the gender classification approaches random chance. an answer to your earlier question, one way to mitigate the bias is to try to gather more diverse training sets and also test our algorithms on different subpopulations. instead of having one single member saying that this algorithm has a particular accuracy, when you break it down by subpopulations, it might work much better for some populations than others. emily: is this something apple's race id has a problem with western mark >> i have not done a systematic study of apple's face id but there was a highly publicized article of a chinese woman who said that the id did not work well on her. i am pretty sure this is a problem that happens across the board.

in most industries. not just across face recognition but other algorithms as well. emily: facial recognition is just one example. what are the consequences of this on a broader scale if we do not start retraining these out the rhythms or rewriting them and get new data to fix this ? >> one thing people do not understand is that ai components are being used everywhere by everyone. everywhere, everyone is an exaggeration but it's an many places and in many high-stakes scenarios. for example, if you look at face recognition algorithms, they are being used to identify what people think are criminals. they are being used for surveillance. whether or not face recognition should be used for surveillance is one of the people should have any right. -- one debate people should have anyway. even if it were to be used for surveillance, we would have to make people understand that these face recognition algorithms are not accurate enough to be used for surveillance.

emily: you say women are at a bigger risk of losing jobs because of this. how so? >> i am not sure women are unilaterally at a bigger risk of losing jobs because of ai but i do think that anyone who is marginalized in this moment in our society is at a higher risk of losing jobs because of ai. this is because many of the lower paying jobs that are more easily automatable are being done by people who are from lower income, or people that have been historically marginalized. -- anybodybody -- that our society has marginalized is more likely to lose jobs. emily: how much of this would be solved by getting more women and people of color into ai and machine learning? how much of this can we not solve because it is already done? >> i think a lot of issues of bias can be mitigated by not

only having more people from historically marginalized communities in ai but also just interacting with these people. it is not a coincidence that the two authors of the paper you were just describing on gender classification systems and how bias they are our black women. if you are not interfacing with people who are negatively affected by bias in ai, you are less likely to think this problem is a big problem. emily: do you think companies like microsoft or google are doing enough to build diverse teams and try to make sure that the bias does not get rewritten over and over again? >> no, i do not think companies are doing enough to build diverse teams. i absolutely don't. i would say that is in unilaterally across tech companies. there is a lot more talking about diversity than action. sure, there is some action going on but it is not a priority.

up, uber exits southeast asia, selling their operations to grab. we will talk about that coming up next. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: samsung vice chair jay -- is visiting europe in his first business trip since getting out of jail. it signals and eagerness to getting back to managing the global giant. the de facto chief met with global investors. a newspaper announced that he departed one day before the annual shareholders meeting. uber has agreed to sell at southeast asia operations to grab, withdrawing from another fast-growing region. grab will acquire all of uber's

operations in a region of 620 million people, including uber geeks. -- uber eats. in return, the u.s. ride-hailing service will take a 27.5% stake. and the ceo will join the board of grab. he is one of grab's earliest investors and they were also involved in the deal in china. >> the competition has definitely vote happened in china and southeast asia has required a lot of investments and in some ways there is a lot of wastage in the process. the consolidation does make a lot of sense for both grab and uber in southeast asia. -- what chinareat withn china with both dd

-- and now in southeast asia are good deals for both companies. emily: uber also got a huge investment from softbank which of course has its hand in other ridesharing companies around the world and uber's competitors. how much you think that is playing a role in the decisions being made about strategic partnerships? i think masi is a very influential man. he has his stake in didi and in uber and in grab. from his perspective, obviously, this consolidation makes a lot of sense. he definitely has a hand in it. i do think that the local services will be going beyond just the ridesharing. if you look at what is happening in china, didi, despite

consolidation will face competition. from the bike sharing services. the competition is not over yet. i think the consolidation is a step forward for grab and uber to have a stronger landing in the local services. emily: if that is the case then, what would be your message to the new ceo of uber about latin america, about india? are these markets similarly they should wave the white flag in? jixun: i do not know enough about these other markets to provide good advice but certainly i think in what we are seeing in southeast asia is the ridesharing service is a very local business. and i think it has to extend beyond just rides per se.

you have to offer multiple services on your platform and that requires including food delivery service with high density cities like beijing, shanghai, and other cities in southeast asia like bangkok. the bike sharing, and including jakarta, like sharing -- bike sharing can be a strong contender to the local services as well. you have to have this comprehensive service on the ground. these other markets like india, i do not know enough about them to make those comments. as of now. emily: jixun foo, managing partner at tgv capital. that does it for this addition of "best of bloomberg technology." we will bring you all of the latest on technology throughout the week. tune in every day at 5:00 p.m.

in new york. remember, our stories on bloomberg tech are livestreaming on twitter. check us out. that is all for now. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ announcer: "brilliant ideas," powered by hyundai motor. ♪ >> ♪ i-d-e-a, ideas ♪ ♪ mark: when i discover something new, when a person buys a pair of shoes, some people in the store put them on. that is totally me. i want to put them on right now and i want to put them in a box and take them home. that's how i am in the studio. >> you are suddenly introduced to being a part of something bigger than yourself, that sense