emily: i'm emily chang in san francisco, and this is "bloomberg technology." a new data scandal brewing at facebook after the company revealed that shared user data with four chinese companies, including lenovo. we will get reaction in washington with congressman greg walden of oregon. tesla ceo elon musk gave a reasonably upbeat assessment and investors rejected proposals to

reshuffle the board. is it a turning point for tesla? alphabet shareholders voted down a staff proposal to tie executive pay to progress on workplace diversity at its annual meeting. will it backfire? first, our top story, another day, another round of outraged at facebook's handling of user data. this time it's not about a consulting firm with ties to president trump or apple, it is four chinese consumer device makers, huawei, lenovo, and others. huawei was one of the few companies barred from having its products sold to the pentagon. facebook is in a familiar spotlight, having to answer concerns that it is failing to be transparent in how its user data is handled by third parties. joining us now to discuss, eric prior, who covers facebook for

bloomberg. four of these are chinese companies, which the united states has talked about being possible security risks. how much fuel does this add to the fire? >> it adds a lot of fuel to the fire, but i want to be clear that huawei and facebook have both said no data was ever stored on huawei's servers. the problem with that statement is we don't trust facebook anymore, after all the revelations and apologies of the last few years. lawmakers are not really taking that as a response to this concern. they want to know why zuckerberg didn't mention this when he had 10 hours of congressional testimony and he was talking about third-party relationships. why not bring up these relationships, too? so, there are a lot of angry people on the hill today about facebook. emily: senator mark warner saying, "we need answers from facebook, the whole story now, not six months from now."

senator marco rubio, "why didn't facebook reveal this data sharing deal with huawei months ago?" what do we know about the nature of this data? sarah: what facebook was allowing these device makers to do is build facebook app experiences into their phones. these are legacy partnerships from before the app store even existed on these phones. some people are still using these devices that have these old versions of facebook apps, so they have not unwound these partnerships. facebook said in april that it was planning to. remember, they did this big review of all of their different relationships to try to find potential privacy holes and they themselves noted that this was one potential harmful relationship that they should

end. they said that in april. the blog post was full of jargon that was difficult for a regular user to understand, that this is your information flowing through a device in a way that you didn't necessarily expect. emily: i want to go back to that memo the executive sent to the company, where he mentions china and talks about the lengths facebook will go to to achieve growth. "that's why all the work we do in growth is justified. all of the questionable practices, all the subtle language, all the work we do to bring more communication in, the work we will likely have to do in china someday, all of it." it certainly is not a good look. sarah: it's a terrible look. the huawei phones are used all over the world, including in the united states. what facebook is arguing is that they need to have their app on

one of the most important phone manufacturers around the world. and so, that's kind of the way that they are saving this, that other companies including google and twitter have their services on why huawei's phones, too. yet to be seen if there is any harm that has come out of this deal that we have not seen yet in the report. emily: in the meantime, facebook says it is going through a long auditing process. take a listen to what mark zuckerberg said when he testified on the hill. mark: it will take many months to do this full process. it's going to be an expensive process with a lot of auditors, but we think this is the right thing to do at this point. before, we thought that when developers told us that they were not going to sell data, that that was a good representation, but one of the big lessons we have learned here is that, clearly, we cannot just take developers' word for it. we need to go and enforce that. emily: explain to us what

facebook is doing right now, and are we going to see more of this? every week, every day -- a new skeleton coming out of the closet. sarah: that's the problem. it is this constant trickle. we don't know what else is out there. the issue with this auditing process is that facebook does not necessarily have visibility into where the data has gone once it ends up on a third-party server. they can sell it to a consulting firm, do whatever they want with it. these audits may not be super effective. facebook did suspend 200 different apps that it just may have been in violation of their rules, but they don't know yet. they are still looking into it. in this huawei situation, facebook said it actually had people that were managing this relationship and trying to make sure that the way the app on their phones was built would not send information back to huawei servers. this kind of stuff is much more closely monitored by the

company, because they don't -- emily: how do they know what's going back to huawei servers or not? sarah: they don't. the u.s. government has warned about these phones. there are many other apps on these phones, too. we get into hypotheticals here. what's different about this and cambridge analytica, we know that data was from consumers who had not given permission for that transfer. whether there was any harm in transfer of this data beyond users' expectations, we don't know that yet and that's what we are hoping to find out. emily: sarah frier, "bloomberg tech." we will come back with this story with one of the congressmen who questioned mark zuckerberg back in april, greg walden. we will be asking for his

thoughts. twitter is celebrating its entry into the s&p 500 by selling $1 billion in bonds. twitter's second ever debt offering comes a day before it becomes part of the index. shares have doubled since last year's low as twitter has boosted its appeal among users and advertisers and posted earnings -- positive earnings in back-to-back quarters. elon musk gave an upbeat outlook for tesla, but did investors buy it? check us out on the radio, listen on the bloomberg app, and in the u.s. on sirius xm. this is bloomberg. ♪ emily: tesla shareholders sided

with the company board at its annual meeting, reelecting three directors. ceo elon musk gave an optimistic outlook, saying he expects to meet the production goal for the crucial model 3 sedan by the end of this month. >> i think we can probably get to 5000 a week with the current two general assembly lines, but with the third one, i am highly confident we can exceed 5000 vehicles per week. emily: for more reaction to this meeting, we are joined by an analyst at ark investment, which holds tesla stock. max, i want to start with you. talk about what stood out at this meeting, given all the drama leading up to it. max: the clip you just played, the 5000 figure -- if they are

able to hit that, that will be huge. the stock opened the morning after the meeting really strongly, and i think that is what investors are reacting to. for the last few months, it has been all about how many of these model 3's can they get out the door. the demand is there. the question is, is tesla able to get through this, quote-unquote, "production hell." emily: he says they can get to 5000 cars per week. production goals have been pushed back and pushed back. do you believe him this time? >> i'm optimistic. elon musk is capable of great things. even if he were to miss the goal by a week or two, even a month, we are long-term investors. we have high confidence in tesla. it is one of the top positions in a few of our funds. we are looking to the long-term here.

it goes past the production numbers. we think this is an autonomous electric vehicle story. it is a $10 trillion market globally. we are excited that musk has realized that opportunity. it seems like he is on track to get there. emily: tesla is turning its attention to expanding its manufacturing capacity, talking about opening another plant, which will produce cars, battery packs, and power trains in shanghai. take a listen. >> we are incredibly excited to build our first tesla factory outside of the u.s. in china, specifically in shanghai. we have been holding discussions with the various governments in china, really great discussions,

great partners. we really look forward to working with them in the years to come. emily: max, are there any concerns that tesla is moving ahead too quickly with its global operations, given that it cannot move fast enough here at home? max: it depends on your point of view. when you talk about the tesla optimists, what they are looking at is this future story. for the future story, china is huge. china has this enormous market, even today. people don't realize this, but many of the best-selling electric cars are being sold in china. the country just changed the ownership rules for factories, allowing tesla to open this factory without doing a joint venture. there's a lot of opportunity there. if you are taking the long view, yes, absolutely. it's a great time.

there are these questions of distraction. the threat to tesla is if they are not able to make these cars quickly enough, you start to see other competing automakers with better and better offering. maybe customers put down huge reservations in huge numbers. they start to get skeptical. if you are an investor in tesla, the china investment is a big deal. emily: let's talk a little bit about cash burn. if you look at other automakers like fiat chrysler, gm, these companies have a lot of cash, which tesla does not. how concerning is that? >> we think of tesla as a technology company. it is built from the ground up as a software company. that's where their competitive advantage lies, and other automakers are still catching up to get there. we are looking for the future. once elon musk is able to turn these vehicles autonomous, the business model changes.

it's no longer a one-off sale of a vehicle, it's a recurring revenue model, because they will get revenues from the per mile rates of an uber-like service. those will have really good margins, better margins than the car business. we think that opportunity should be valued at trillions of dollars in the equity markets. it is basically not accounted for at all. cash burn will not be a question in the future. we are really looking ahead to the long-term there. emily: but other tech companies like alphabet have giant piles of cash, and they are also working on cars. tasha: that's true. on the call, elon musk said he thinks their competitive advantage will really lie in the expertise. we think of tesla as a start up. compared to these technology companies competing for autonomous, they have much more scale. they have thousands of cars on

the road, actually collecting data, billions of miles of data, compared to just millions of miles at waymo, google's alphabet, or even gm's operation, and they are the only automaker who can do that because they have this over the air update capability and they have a direct link to the car that no other automaker has been able to accomplish so far. emily: shareholders voted to reappoint the directors who were in dispute and to not split up musk's roles. do you expect there will continue to be a push from some shareholders to break up the power structure here? max: definitely. if elon musk or somehow pushed out of tesla or his role were reduced in some way, that would hurt the value of tesla. you are hearing it from tasha now. a lot of what investors are doing is betting on this guy and that he has enough energy to focus on rockets and building cars and god knows what else. so, i think this idea that tesla

should have more conventional corporate governance, while it makes sense on a broad level, philosophical level, for this company, in terms of where the investors are, where everybody who is buying the company is, they are buying elon musk, to some extent. it is hard to imagine him having his role reduced. emily: digging tunnels, april fools jokes, the list goes on. max chafkin, tasha keeney, thank you both. coming up, one of the biggest fintech startups in europe. we will hear from the ceo next. this is bloomberg. ♪ emily: the fintech scene in

europe is getting hotter. a processing firm is valued at more than $8 billion, planning an ipo. meantime, paypal -- for more, bloomberg's caroline hyde in london, take it away. caroline: it was such a last-minute deal. they were hoping to see another swedish tech company after spotify's listing. i got to speak with the cofounder about the sudden decision to sell and why paypal is a good place to grow in this competitive landscape. >> we spent almost a year preparing for the ipo. that was clearly where we were heading. very close to listing, paypal initiated discussions with the company. it was very clear for us that we

shared the same kind of vision when it comes to addressing the needs of the small businesses of the world. looking at the size prior to the ipo, we had somewhere in the range of 500,000 merchants using our services across 12 different markets. paypal has in the area of 20 million small businesses that can leverage from what we have built over the last couple of years, effectively through a commerce platform for small businesses to start, run, and grow their businesses. with us, we came to the conclusion that the visions were very aligned. paypal gave us an opportunity to pursue the vision and reach our ambitions and targets quicker

with paypal. working together with them, across their 200 current markets. caroline: what are those ambitions and targets? jacob: effectively, looking at what we've been doing over the last couple of years, the reason why we started the company was small businesses in general are completely underserved in every possible aspect of financial service. the vision for izettle was to provide small businesses with the tools to help them grow and compete with the giants out there. no matter whether it is taking payments or taking e-commerce payments or having access to tools so they can sell online or work with inventory online and off-line, etc., they are underserved in every capacity. the vision for us is to get out there and help all small businesses out in the different markets to grow faster.

on average, 96% of all companies or are small businesses. they account for 40% of the gdp in any given market. historically, nobody has really cared about them, neither politicians nor financial service providers. we think it is time that someone takes the lead and helps them build a backbone to the economies around the world. caroline: how will you integrate your technologies with that of paypal? whose technologies will win out? jacob: i guess the reason why paypal saw this as a good opportunity is that we have built a fantastic commerce platform for small businesses out there. it is apparently something that paypal was missing out on in their own offering. given the fact that they currently have the 20 million merchants already on board across their 200 markets, i

think they are the low hanging fruit in terms of integration, cross-selling what we have been building over the years to their current merchant base. but i think it is still too early to say. the deal has been signed, but it is still subject to approval. we will work together with paypal to see how we best move forward. caroline: who is the key competition now? is it all about taking on square? jacob: time will tell. from our perspective, square is from our perspective, square is one of them. one of the stronger players in the world. they will definitely be part of the competition moving forward. caroline: there are plenty of them, as you say. there seemed to be more and more

payment companies being born every year. jacob: i think the payments landscape is extremely scattered and fragmented. i think what we have been doing over the last couple of years is to create one platform that ties all the different types of services that small businesses need to grow their business in a good and cohesive way. i think there will be more payment companies. i think there are very few platforms offering the kind of solutions that we tend to do to platforms offering the kind of solutions that we tend to do to this merchant segment in a good and comprehensive way. caroline: plenty of opportunities. jacob de geer, izettle ceo. emily? emily: thank you, caroline. coming up, more on facebook's latest eta controversy. we will get the view from greg walden next.

check us out, us out @technology. this is bloomberg. ♪ emily: this is "bloomberg

technology." i'm emily chang. continuing revelations over facebook's data sharing policies. was sharing user data with four chinese electronic makers, including one company that came up in national security discussions, and that was huawei. congress is demanding the company come clean again. "this is yet another example of questionable business practices by facebook that could undermine basic consumer privacy. it's hard to know what is true anymore." congressman greg walden joins us now. he represents oregon's second

congressional district and is the chair of the house energy and commerce committee, which questioned mark zuckerberg in april. representative walden, how concerning is this? greg: it's concerning. silicon valley has an issue about trust and communication between silicon valley and washington, d.c., and lawmakers and silicon valley and trust and communication with their users. you have to have clarity in the conversation. you have to have full disclosure in the conversation, whether that is at a witness table before congress or in agreement with your customers. that is why users are frustrated and why members of congress as their representatives are frustrated. we have a lot more work to do here. emily: do you think mark zuckerberg was truthful in his testimony? was he misleading? greg: i don't know about either of those things. i think he was truthful.

there was more they found out along the way, some they may have nuanced. in situations like this, you are much better to get it out on the table early on and especially when you're dealing with congress. we are try to figure out what happened, where did it happen, with whom did it happen, and what kind of exposure did user'' data have and to whom, and what control should they have over it. that's what gets back to this trust and communication issue that is so important, whether it is with us in congress or with users. emily: other lawmakers are incensed. senator mark warner tweeting, "we need answers from facebook, the whole story now, not six months from now." senator rubio saying, "why didn't facebook group reveal this months ago?" what is more concerning about the fact that these are chinese telecom companies that are already under scrutiny by the

u.s. government? greg: i think that's the heart of the matter here, specifically. it's twofold. one is the alleged past practices or current practices of some of these companies is troubling. that's why there are these discussions in national security settings. beyond that, why wouldn't you tell us? it's a pretty big question, but a pretty easy question. why wouldn't you fully disclose? they should have. this gets back to why i think silicon valley would be well served by ceo's, other than when they are in a crisis situation like facebook is now, to come and share with us in congress what their strategies are, what their agreements are, what their recommendations are. that's why i've invited them to do that before my committee, and so far we don't have any takers voluntarily, but we benefit from their presence. emily: are you going to demand that mark zuckerberg come back? greg: first of all, we will

follow-up on our demand that he answer the questions we have submitted. for the record, there are some 3000 questions that came from congress to facebook, so i realize they have to sort through all that and give us a simple disclosure and communication back. clearly, with each one of these revelations, it starts a whole other cycle of what did you know and when did you know it and did you know it in time to have disclosed it, but didn't. that's not good for facebook. facebook is a great american company. it's a great innovator. they have gotten to a place where they are under intense scrutiny now, and they have to get it right and they have to be fully transparent and improve their communications and their disclosures. emily: facebook's spokesperson said the relationships didn't need to be disclosed because they were already public, announced by huawei at least twice in 2011. facebook mentioned huawei as one of its partners in a 2012 blog

post, and said other companies had similar arrangements. what's your response? greg: sounds like it was written by a technical lawyer. i don't know that we were going back and looking at every blog post ever posted. this gets to the point about trust and communication, whether it is a relationship in your family or with congress. you have to realize and understand what's fair and what is fully disclosing. we will look at questions that our members asked and the answers we were given in much greater scrutiny of the detail, because if we are going to lawyer this up, then things get pretty technical pretty quickly, and that's not good for facebook or other companies. but if that's what we have to do, i guess that's the path we have to go down. emily: you have been pushing other silicon valley ceos to testify. you recently met with twitter ceo jack dorsey. are you concerned that other

tech companies like twitter, google, have similar relationships with the chinese government or chinese companies in a market they have been trying to court for a very long time? greg: let's face it, we don't know the answer to that fully. when we had mr. zuckerberg for the committee for five hours, this was not disclosed. they felt they had disclosed it in the past. we don't know. we should know. the american people have a right to know more than some legalese in a disclosure agreement that, frankly, nobody reads or understands. they are just ignored. you hit click and agree and off you go. who knows what is behind it? that's what really troubles consumers. they are not sure they can trust now some of these agreements and how their data are used or not and with whom or not and what has been scraped or not. and i think they are saying in

this information age, something needs to change here. my preference is that the tech companies would realize this and come to terms with it on their own. otherwise, they're going to end up in a regulatory scheme that may not be what's good for them or, frankly, the country. frequently, congress tends to overreact, and we don't need to do that if we can get the answers and trust in those answers and improve that communication. the invitation is wide open for the ceo's to come, and i hope they will, because different companies manage this differently. they ought to make their case before the representatives of the people, much like they do at conferences all around the world. emily: i want to ask you about zte. if the trump administration does do this deal to save zte, are the national security risks that the u.s. government has associated with this company -- are they still valid?

is zte as much of a national security risk as it once was? greg: you know, i have gotten more into this discussion with the administration as late as last night, because i was concerned and have been about zte and these other companies or any foreign company and their role in the u.s. and what they do and how they do it. based on what i have learned, i'm a little more at ease that they would put in place requirements and audits and things that would make sure independently of what these devices do or do not do. if that's the case, it fixes it a bit, but i think we have to be on guard. we know the kind of cyber attacks our country faces from bad actors all around the world, whether it is china or north korea or iran or you name it. we have to be vigilant. they are playing for keeps in these other countries. often this is state-sponsored. we have to understand the repercussions for national security, intellectual property theft. it is just out of control.

so, we have to be very careful. but i will tell you what, i think the president gets it. he is putting america first in these debates. so, i'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt right now as we dig into it. emily: senators rubio and warner have talked about super majorities that could override a trump administration deal with zte. do you think the house would also nullify it? greg: people need to get educated on what that zte of the future would look like and what kind of controls and safeguards are there to prevent bad actors from doing bad things to the american public. first of all, i think we have to start with that. i don't think most members have been briefed on this yet. i'm not saying anything about senators, some on the intelligence committee. i'm not. i've had a number of briefings. if they get it right, then i think president trump should be given the benefit of the doubt here. i believe he is standing up for the best interests of our country when he is going down

these paths. emily: all right. representative greg walden of oregon, thank you so much for weighing in. switching gears now to ride-hailing. last month, a european ridesharing company surpassed a $1 billion valuation. caroline hyde caught up with the ceo earlier and asked what they plan to do with the money. >> we are investing heavily into the technology in the ride-hailing space. without investing years of engineering efforts, you won't be able to compete. just a few areas where we are investing is real-time pricing, estimating arrival times, pooling multiple passengers in one car, etc. emily: he also went into taxify's international expansion plans. >> we are looking at a few other countries. we are in the early phases in

mexico and australia. we continue to invest in both markets. there are many more countries in the world where there is a monopoly in place. it is becoming clear for everybody that ride-hailing will -- so, we are currently looking at all of the markets globally where there is still room for expansion. emily: what do digital currencies and uber have in common? we will talk to mike novogratz next. this is bloomberg. ♪ emily: mike novogratz says

institutional investors are coming to the digital currency space eventually. he spoke to erik schatzker on tuesday and also noted that crypto regulators were caught left-footed last year. take a listen. mike: the regulators had to get involved, so they are getting involved and doing what they are supposed to be doing. let's calm things down. let's go after fraud and market manipulation. the first things regulators are going for is fraud and market manipulation. the department of justice talked about market manipulation with indices inflating their volume numbers. it's all true, so we are going to knock out some of the crap from the system. i actually think it's healthy, but there are bigger decisions to make. bitcoin has already had -- in ethereum, they have not ruled yet. they are stuck.

because they were not ahead, there is this group of tokens that were issued, probably 2500 total, but probably 200 that matter that are in this kind of regulatory no man's land. they have to figure out how to deal with that. my gut feeling is they will take out a law firm, take out a token, take out some of the promoters of these things, just to say, you have to play by the rules. when we talk about going forward in the future, they want to see this new innovative way of financing companies, bringing liquidity and access to markets to the general population that they never had. erik: you have made pretty clear that you are, and i have accused you of being, a true believer, and you are. at the same time, you trade this

stuff. so, how do you reconcile those two halves of your brain, on the one hand the part of mike novogratz that says i believe in this stuff, it will change the world, and the other part of you that is screaming short? mike: gravity is still gravity. market rules still work. when you see things that, overnight, go from an idea to a $1.5 billion market cap, these guys have only hired three people, that doesn't make sense to me. it probably doesn't make sense. it is using the same rules and understanding of market psychology that i've learned over 30 years and applying them to this new market. erik: the ballet of the charts? mike: it's also just being disciplined. listen, sometimes you make mistakes.

i owned a lot of ethereum. it started rallying a lot. i started selling, maybe too early, but, broadly, it has benefited me and our organization. to do work on which companies -- they are not even companies, they are ecosystems. which ecosystems do we believe have a shot of really growing and sucking people into them? emily: mike novogratz also made mention that, like uber, there will be regulation. he just doesn't see it coming for another two years to three years. coming up, alphabet's annual meeting was turned on its head when google employees took to the stage to criticize their boss' pay. we will have the details on how shareholders voted down a proposal on diversity pay next. this is bloomberg. ♪ emily: alphabet shareholders

have voted down a proposal to tie executive pay to progress on workplace diversity. employees of alphabet's google teamed up with investors in a push to close the current gender pay gap. google employees have criticized the company for not doing enough to address workplace harassment and backed a petition to create better policies and procedures. mike is here to discuss. also with us, mark bergen, who covers all things alphabet. talk about how this vote went down. >> this is rare to have google employees stand before the executives at the shareholder meeting. typically you have activist investors who stand up. the investors will submit proposals, and they are often voted down.

there always voted down. because the company is tightly controlled by the founders. this morning, the employees put forward their proposal about tying management and executive pay to diversity metrics. they also, as you mentioned, raised concerns about harassment. that proposal was voted down. emily: the department of labor has an ongoing investigation into google pay, correct? what is the status of that? mark: that is still pending. google has been hit on all sides. there is a former female employee who brought a case around gender and pay. there is the case the former engineer brought about the opposite, that google was discriminating against white men. the next question this morning after the employees spoke was a shareholder proposal about that, that google is biased against conservatives. emily: mike, shareholders often vote down proposals at shareholder meetings, yet you have other companies like intel, microsoft, qualcomm, ibm that

are doing much more to tie gender pay to executive performance, executive compensation. what do you make of this? mike: it's clearly a very topical issue across the board. this is something that, i think it's great that these organizations are being proactive about. i think the vote with google's board shows how important this was. this was an employee driven initiative to get this in front of the organization, and i think it's wonderful to see that. emily: but they voted it down. this is where the founders, larry and sergei, have a lot of voting power. do you think the founder control at technology companies in particular is a problem? mike: it's hard for me to comment about google's structure

specifically. as mark pointed out, google is getting lawsuits on both sides of this issue. i'm sure the board is taking that into consideration, really trying to do the right thing for their organization. emily: mark, what is google saying about how they might address this otherwise? mark: they said this morning they will certainly take into consideration. they talked about how their board is not that diverse and how they will work on certain metrics to diversify their workforce and the board. i think typically with these measures, google likes to do things on their own terms rather than dictated by what they see as activist shareholders or a proposal outside the company. emily: interestingly, there was a proposal that amazon be required to interview a diverse slate of directors when choosing new board members. amazon rejected it. employees protested. amazon a few days later said, ok, we will do it. what sort of data are you seeing about the gender pay gap in silicon valley? i've seen data that it is five times the national average in silicon valley.

mike: it is clearly pronounced. they have looked at the gaps, not just in terms of wage gaps, but just representation gaps. women in tech roles are underrepresented. you have seen that diminished as seniority in those types of roles increases. this backs up why this is such an important topic for companies to address at every level in the organization. emily: you have other executives like salesforce's marc benioff. talk to us about the other significant point at this shareholder meeting. a lot of issues came up.

mark: the biggest issue right now for the company didn't come up at the shareholder meeting at all. last week they said they are not going to renew a cloud contract they have with the pentagon after some pretty sizable employee protests. google is putting out an ethical ai charter this week they hope will address that. i've never seen so many employees very vocal about concerns. they are saying they don't want their technology used in military applications. they are saying they feel harassed. the engineer brought up the issue that this is detracting from productivity. they said these issues are keeping us from being the best performing workers that we are. emily: meantime, new story in the ft saying that the eu is poised to give alphabet/google a hefty fine as the result of its android investigation.

tell us more. mike: they are being hit on all sides today. this is the second of three existing investigations around google for antitrust dominance. google is most concerned about this, even more than the case they were fined for last summer. this is the crux of what makes them very successful on mobile. google search, maps, all of its services -- the biggest concern for investors is less the fine, which google can handle, and some sort of structural changes to how they operate android. emily: all right. mark bergen and mike triggs, thank you both. that does it for this edition of "bloomberg technology." from san francisco, i'm emily chang. this is bloomberg. ♪

announcer: the following is a paid presentation for theraworx relief with dr. drew pinsky. ♪ dr. drew: if you are one of the millions of americans who suffer from muscle cramps in your legs or feet, relief is finally in sight. hi, i am dr. drew pinsky. and today i am here to share some news that got me excited when i first heard about it. it is called theraworx relief. this life-changing product is clinically proven to quickly relieve the discomfort of muscle cramps and also prevent muscle cramps before they start.