emily: this is "bloomberg technology." coming up in the next hour, president trump tweets tariffs are the greatest and dozens of business leaders traveled to washington to argue that policy is forcing them to raise prices. plus, big tech slides past the high bar. google delivering a monster quarter, and sales beating estimates. the one investor turning their back on tech and we will tell

you why. an update on the fortnite phenomenon, how one person struck it rich thanks to begin the has been played by 125 million people. it is no secret trump loves the first, idea of a trade war. the president made it apparent tuesday, saying everybody is talking. we are the piggy bank being robbed, he says. not everyone agrees. including the semiconductor industry. qualcomm and intel, submitted a statement that trump's tariffs will undermine u.s. technological leadership, cost jobs, and adversely impact consumers of semiconductor products and producers. joining us to discuss is the

chief content officer, and bloomberg's asia tech managing editor. great to have you in studio. what do you make of this from the folks in the chip industry saying these tariffs will backfire? >> the technology industry is nervous because the supply chain for tech stretches between the united states and china in particular. especially for the chips embassies. shipping a lot of product into china, being assembled into finished products and shipped back across the ocean. they are straddling this industry and they are nervous that if the trade war gets out of hand, it could raise prices and cause other kind of disruption to the supply chain that is so essential to their business. emily: in the meantime the trump , administration plans to shield farmers from the impact of this trade war. we can assume farmers are a larger part of his voting base. walk us through this.

>> donald trump thinks the tariffs are great strategies to repair the damage of globalization. there is a lot of people upset about it. it is true he is going to try to shield some of the farmers from the damage and is asking for patients. obviously, the semiconductor industry is not a hotbed of trumps of art. i doubt you will see aid to the semiconductor makers or tech in general. this speaks to trump's real view that tariffs are the way to go to get people to come to the table and strike better deals. emily: the tariffs have been limited so far, $34 billion worth of imported products and they are talking about another $60 billion today, the president is willing to go all $500 billion worth of products coming from china. what are the implications here? >> it would be a big issue for

tech, and will be on the industry at that at the current point. level of tariffs, it is an opening skirmish. if you talk about tariffs on $500 billion worth of products, that is everything that comes out of china into the united states. that includes apple iphones. california,igned in but assembled in mainland china and shipped over here. if they were to levy tariffs on those kinds of products, that's would cause damage on both sides. emily: marty, it sounds like he is not just talking about china. he is also talking about any country. what are the broader implications of this? could this expand? marty: it very well could. we have a representative from europe trying to diffuse the situation tomorrow to talk to trump. watch for the results of those discussions. the longer-term issues as peter explained, are the supply chain issues. you have to think about whether you need to permanently disrupt your supply chain as a company,

if this becomes a protracted trade war. emily: several companies said they might have to move out to the united states. peter, you're based in tokyo, what is your view in tokyo, china, and from the chinese government? -- the view on this in tokyo, china, and from the chinese government? peter: generally they are nervous that this could disrupt a business that has been successful with them. they have grown into the manufacturing hub for so much of the industry. emily: but what about the united states? peter: that is what trump is calling them out on. they are nervous this could go south. emily: how could they retaliate? we have already seen some retaliatory measures, but we have not seen them go the whole talk. peter: the disconnect is that they can impose tariffs coming out of the u.s., but it is not nearly as much. they have other with of leverage, take apple, for example. china is an important market for them.

it is the second-largest market for them. they need to be able to sell their phones. they lost ground for domestic competitors and run the apple stores within china. that could be a point of contention. many other companies are depending on china for growth opportunities from starbucks to ibm and apple as we mentioned. emily: marty, this is an unpredictable administration, is there any sense of which direction this will go in? will it get worse before better, or if it ever gets better? is china at risk of the $500 billion of goods ultimately being taxed? marty: ultimately, donald likes to rescue situations that he sets up himself. i contended that in the last minute, there may be some conversations on a personal level between trump and world

leaders. china, for instance -- to try to resolve the situation. i think it will get worse before it gets better. it will have to be the markets and the economy that will force these issues onto the table. emily: similar to what happened, peter, in zte, where trump said no dice and said actually i will save you. peter: his own commerce secretary is the one who imposed the seven-year ban on buying american components including the chips and optical components essential for the survival. then, he personally negotiated. trump likes to be seen as the savior in situations, even if he ends up initiating the trouble that emily: and sets up a first. situation where they feel like they own the united states thing. marty, i have to ask you about the most recent tweet from the president. i'm concerned russia will be fighting hard to have an impact on the upcoming election. based on the fact that no president has been tougher on russia than me, they will be pushing hard for the democrats. they don't want trump.

this is after a year and a half of trump ceasing to admit that the russians meddle in our elections? marty: if you are trying to find logic and his tweeting pattern, -- find logic in his tweeting pattern, you should stop doing that. he wants to change the narrative, and some of his tweets are rather humorous. i thought this one was. he is trying to basically take the approach that it is the russians who would want him out, as opposed to helping him as the , mueller probe is trucking along. he is just trying to change the narrative. don't think much more than that. emily: we discussed with farmers earlier, there are people that will take him at his word. marty: yes they will. he is trying to appeal his base. frankly, it is working. his poll numbers are at the high of his presidency.

-- his poll numbers are at the hyatt his presidency among his base. this is just the feedback loop that emboldened him to continue tweeting and continue dominating the narrative. emily: we are all waiting for the next one. margie, and peter, thank you both. the battle to be china's premier meal delivery service is heating up. the platform of alibaba will dollars toillion control the chinese food delivery market. one company has a 59% market share. said to be planning an ipo this year, a $60 billion valuation. coming up tech stocks may be but oneng at records,

investor is pulling back from technology saying the industry , needs to be held accountable. we will talk to him next. if you like bloomberg news, check us out on the radio. you can check us also out on bloomberg.com and in the u.s., on sirius xm. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: verizon wants to partner with google or apple when it rolls out the first of its 5g service in california this year. bloomberg learned horizon once one of the companies to provide television when the service is offered in l.a. and sacramento. they came up short in developing its own tv service. as earnings get to full swing, tech stocks have been surging and hovering at record levels.

the sector dominates the broader market and you can see from the chart that tech companies now make up a quarter of the s&p 500 value. my next guest has a warning about the market euphoria saying tech companies have the mass power not seen since the gilded age. our guest joins us from seattle. this is not a popular opinion. you believe that the financial euphoria could permanently damage investors long-term success, why? >> even my friends are avoiding me now. the first thing to understand is that there is a three-part facet to all of this. the one you mentioned already is that no one at amazon and no one at netflix can consider themselves a consumer company, they all think they work at a tech company. if you at amazon and netflix

into the tech component of the s&p 500, it is now 30% of the s&p 500 index. 30% is where pete at the end of -- is a repeat of where we were at the end of 1999 to give you some flavor. the second thing is that the valuations of a lot of these things from a historical perspective show you that it is very maniacal. lately, if you watch a show for two or three days in a row, i would love to get five dollars every time someone tells you about the total addressable market in groceries or the total addressable market in the pharmacy business. what that means is people are putting a lot of capital behind the potential. in a story you folks just ran, you talked about getting a big percentage of the grocery delivery. grocery delivery is only 2% of the groceries purchased in the united states of america. if you explode and triple that over the course of the next five years, you will go all the way to 6% of the business.

no one has proven an ability to make money. it is a combination of a mania in terms of price-to-earnings ratios and popularity. it is a mania in concentration. these are monopolies. we deal with 3, 4, 5 major monopolistic companies, and it would be remarkable from a historical standpoint if the united states government is willing to concede control to a -- seed control to the united states of america to a for-profit business. emily: tech accounts for about 25% of the s&p 500 now, and it is certainly much more than it has accounted for in the last 18 years. but it is no compared to the dot-com bubble phase. are we in that territory? >> history never repeats itself, but it rhymes. you have to hear the rhyme.

in the dot-com bubble, we had e-toys with a $10 billion market cap. it is not that kind of nutty. it is not an ipo coming out everything will day for a year the doubles the first day and being a financial advisor and all of your neighbors think there is something wrong with you because you're not giving them shares of the new ipos. this is not what this is. if you own the entire netflix corporation, so far this year through the first half of this year, you would've had to write billion,r about $2.8 because that is what their negative free cash flow is. the last time i checked, the purpose of owning a business is generating positive free cash flow. in other words, there is money you could use to your own benefit at the end of the year. again, it is a different kind of mania. this is a large, large, mega

large-cap mania. it is not an ipo mania like we saw in 1999. i have another chart that and google are lagging behind netflix and amazon when it comes to your to date gains. we see amazon vying for the trillion dollar market cap. do you think anyone of these companies is better off than the others? bill: it is certainly a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. apple has already found over many years and ability to make billions and billions of dollars. it is a highly profitable business with massive hash flow. if anyone wanted to pick on us as portfolio managers at smead capital management, that is the one they would want to pick on us about not owning.

if it's the parameters we look for in a common stock. i do not spend many sleepless nights worrying about whether i own a stock at -- stock trading at $150 earnings, because the five-year or tenure success of that company is so terrible from a mathematical probability standpoint, that it would be a suicide mission from a historical perspective. it might be different at time, but those are the most damning words in investing. emily: if it is coming, when is a correction coming? we saw with the data scandals and controversies surrounding facebook, we thought that we would see some sort of correction. there was tech volatility early in the year and it, in essence, disappeared. we saw strong earnings from alphabet this week. if the bottom falls out, when? bill: first of all, that is one

of the great challenges of ignorance avoidance. we try to practice ignorance avoidance. we have eight criteria for common stock selection so we picked the stocks we buy from companies that fit our a criteria and are available at bargain prices. on the other hand, we avoid getting caught up in popular manias. the answer to your question, a really strong positive market dies because it runs out of buyers, not because some horrendous bad news causes sellers to show up. you die at the top because you get to the last buyer. margin balances are at absolutely legendary levels in the united states right now. people are borrowing money to buy stock and people are trading at discount brokers up 50% year-to-year. a lot of people are trading these very successful momentum stocks. at the bottom of a market, you

get to the last seller. margin calls happen at the bottom. somebody that would like to buy the stock is forced to sell, and at the top, the short sellers are up there. the last buyer is the short-sellers clearing their positions out. you can't hold your breath until this is over. about amazon, i have no idea where that stock will peak. but, where it ends up when it does correct after that is probably not going to be different regardless of where it peaks. if it peaks at 2000, it will bottom at a dramatically lower price. if it is peaking at 2500, it will automatically same price -- bottom of the automatic same price even though it had not go up there. emily: bill smead lost a few more friends as a part of that segment, but we are happy to have you back as a part of this debate anytime. thank you so much. coming up, the video game that

made over $1 billion in eight months and caught the attention of the world cup winning french national team. we dig into the brain behind it. this is bloomberg. ♪ emily: smash hit video games

like fortnite are not uncommon, but revenues are. in the first eight months, it generated $1.2 billion in revenue. it makes the parent company with -- worth $8 billion. $5 billion- fortnite rose to success through its free model and popularity among celebrities like drake. he hit an all-time record on twitch, attracting more than half a million streamers. reporter, whoour just wrote a story on the success of the game. theunique is its success in broader scheme of gaming? >> it is not that unique.

but a financial success is. it has among the highest revenue per user in the industry. that is because of how much the players are spending in their online shop. because, you mentioned it is free. emily: do we expect the game to have more saying power than let's say a pokemon go? it has lasted longer than that that lasted. but can this go long-term? >> it is already proving it has legs. most games have an explosion of users in the first six weeks and this dies off. fortnite is having the opposite phenomenon. that is partly because it is easy to play but hard to master. it is getting people hooked. emily: what is next? they have is $100 million funding of winners in this prize pool. when will it happen? >> it will happen later this year. we don't know how they will

split the $100 million among different competitions, but one thing epic has said is they would like this to be more accessible, broader as a pool of players. this is a way to get even more users engaged in the game, too attractive and more people and spread the wealth. emily: how do they expect to do that? >> word-of-mouth. it will have more people paying attention. $100 million is a huge deal. they will be promoting it extensively and you see a lot of celebrities like drake as you mentioned, so they stage big competitions and it is you don't social media. people are talking about it constantly. it looks like it will be around for a while, yes. emily: what is their biggest competition? devon: their biggest competition

is a game called player unknowns battlegrounds. pubg, as it is called, pioneered this gaming model. deaths.r fight to the when epic developers were building fortnite, they had a different version originally, but they saw the popularity of pubg and turned fortnight into a -- fornite into a battle royale competition. emily: we will continue to cover the phenomenon and see how long it lasts. devon pendleton, thank you so much for joining us. coming up alphabet hits a home , run in its second-quarter bringing in market dollars despite regulatory troubles in europe. we discussed the impact of the eu's action against google. and later, facebook's tech problems. but there is also a bright spot with instagram. we will discuss later on. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: this is bloomberg "technology." executives at google are giving in sign that a costly regulatory crackdown in europe will help sales. parent company alphabet posted second-quarter results at smashed wall street expectations. on the earnings call it was suggested the company would not alter its strategy. >> we will always take the constructive approach. leier looking forward to finding a solution that preserves the enormous benefits of android users and so on. there's more work to be done and

i think it will become clear as we go along. i'm confident we will find a way to make sure android is available to use everywhere. emily: what does it mean for the tech industry as a whole? we have caroline hyde in ondon. your column yesterday was google gives people a reason for short memories. is that a good thing? >> we will see, the fine was just a week ago, and as i noted this morning, it was literally a footnote in my column yesterday. that's how immaterial it was too -- to the result of the company, at least financially. the other thing is the issue that had been freaking out alphabet investors are the last few months was it spending, it

makes revenue-sharing payments to his partners like apple and others, and the pace of growth of those payments moderated in the second quarter, that's the way they put it. that gave investors in alphabet some relief, although will see how long that lasts. emily: google is appealing the ruling but it hasn't been approved yet. they still face a $5 billion fine which they will accrue over the second quarter. the bigger question is, will handset makers now start charging google to preinstall these apps that are in contention? are investors correcting shrugging off these regulatory concerns? caroline: that's a great question. rbc is saying the size of the fine was the great unknown and maybe the key regulatory issues are in the back mirror, but $5 billion, put that to one side. it's interesting as to whether andt we will see alphabet

google having to start to bid for the real estate in might have to forgo if they don't manage to appeal successfully. they got just over two months to put in their appeal to the e.u. and if they do have to change their business model, they can not automatically put google search into a android devices, ready to have to start to bid to win that real estate against the app makers. as many have been noting, they still have the deepest pockets around. $3 billion is net income they manage to make despite a $5 billion fine. overall it's a company that can flash the cash to ensure that google searches where needs to be and draw in the key advertisers. emily: we spoke to bill snead, an investor who is warning that participating in this tech euphoria is incredibly dangerous

and will permanently damage long-term investor success. this as google reports 25% revenue growth. what about the bears here? does he have an argument? >> i think he does. it depends a little bit on the company. there's a difference in the euphoria between a company like netflix or amazon whose stock prices have grown by leaps and bounds, are trading at valuation multiples that are not normal, and then a company like facebook or or google or apple, which are trading it relatively modest valuation multiples for companies of their size and growth rates and profits. that's a little bit of the difficulty of making broadbrush arguments about big tech, that there's a pretty big distinction between the unsustainable valuations of companies like netflix and amazon and the valuations of companies like alphabet and apple.

emily: what's interesting is the cover e.u. privacy laws have so far seemed to help rather than hurt google and they've hurt small r players that have had trouble becoming gdp are compliant. i asked the olivet ceo about this in a phone call before the conference call, and she said it's too early to tell what the impact will be, but from the outside, what does it appear -- how does it appear these new regulations will actually impact these companies one way or another? caroline: it seems to be the effect e.u. did not realize it was going to have, when it major that key companies, when they do specific advertising that they get an agreement that allow them to be targeted in such a way. suddenly the unknown consequence

is that it reinforces duopoly such as facebook and google. they have the cash ready to be able to invest to make sure i had game they're asking the user base if they did want to receive such targeted ads. they are looking for the trust of those to see if there compliant with gdpr. they trust them and ensure they will not get any fines coming from the e.u.. it looks like it's been a benefit to googles bottom line rather than undermining control of the market, which is exactly what the e.u. generally wants to do. it doesn't want to reinforce duopoly's, it wants to ensure that competition is wide and varied. emily: let's not have short memories ourselves, let's remember that netflix earnings results were not great, and we are still waiting for facebook, amazon, apple. could we have any unwelcome surprises? >> definitely.

all these companies, particularly amazon and facebook, they live or die based on the rates of revenue growth. there's lots of concerns about facebook, a company that's been basically in a pr crisis for two years. the question is, to what extent does that begin to hurt its advertising sales, if ever. investors are really anxious to see whether facebook can continue to shrug off a two-year pr crisis in every corner of the globe. i think that is an open question, at least on the user ront, starting to see some slowing growth rates in terms of monthly active users, which is a cause of some concern, at least to me. and amazon and apple, they have real questions about whether those companies can sustain their rates of growth and what they will have to spent in order to keep up the growth rates that investors are used to. so yes, there is risk in all of

those big tech names. emily: we're anxious to see the answers to all those questions as well. thank you both. sticking with earnings, facebook has problems. the company has been in facing -- been facing increased scrutiny around privacy but these steps may be expensive, both could weigh on user growth in second quarter results on wednesday. but there is a bright spot. >> 2018 should've been the year of reckoning for facebook. after last year's concerns around fake news and russian election meddling, the social networks problems continue to pile up. it's been embroiled in a data privacy scandal. ceo mark zuckerberg had to testify in hearings, and there there is a constant controversy over how the company polices

content on its site. facebook has seen a slowdown in user growth, particularly in its most lucrative market, north america. there is a beacon of hope for facebook. instagram, the photo sharing platform has grown tremendously, with the $100 billion valuation and one billion monthly users. that's more users than facebook had when it bought instagram for just $715 million in 2012. users seem to like what they see. an une, instagram has spent 53 million minutes a day. instagram a strong in new younger users and is a big hit in new markets like asia and latin america. it's no longer just about sharing photos. video is also now in the mix, and the platform launched tv, allowing anyone to produce and post longform videos.

the company hopes it will boost instagram's well-established relationships with influencers and celebrities it used to rely on facebook for its success. now facebook may depend on instagram for its own future growth. ed ludlow, bloomberg news, san francisco. emily: coming up, ride-hailing, bike sharing, scooters. they are changing the way drivers get insured. we will discuss, next. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily:ed a more people move to cities and change the way they commute, they are also changing the insurance industry. the advent of services like ride-hailing and bike sharing have created a new opportunity, but to insurance giants are betting heavily on it. they are leading a $90 million investment in metro miles, the allure, payly the mile auto insurance for people are driving less. we have the ceo and new york, a reporter has been covering this startup and the insurance tech ndustry. how many people drive just a little? >> about 65% of people drive less than average. it's true inside and outside of cities. it is because people take alternative forms of transit. emily: how much are uber and lyft and scooter sharing the impetus for this? >> it is part of it but i think it has always been true that there have been low and high mileage drivers. we are seeing that is starting to change.

people who used to drive a lot more are now driving is because they're taking scooters are taking uber. emily: how does it impact the insurance business and your business? dan: is moving people around in different products. people used to drive more are now driving less oh they are ultimately paying a lot more than they should be paying for heir auto insurance. per mileage insurance allows you to pay less for the amount of insurance you are actually using, and ultimately pay less if you're really -- if you some of these alternative forms. emily: was it really hot and then it kind of cooled off? >> in the first quarter of this year it was one of the first quarters for fundraising overall and then you saw a little bit of a dip. it fell 29%. you have seen a lot of fundraising, largely a lot of term life insurance companies. metro miles is one of the only ones that does the insuring on a per mile basis. it is one you haven't seen too much competition to rise into yet, but overall funding is

still pretty strong. it just took a dip from that first quarter which was really hot for the sector. emily: you are competing with traditional incumbents and often they can be clunky and not necessarily so tech savvy. what is your value proposition and how do you compete in a market that has a lot of old rules? dan: per mile insurance was a tarting point. the change ultimately with that these devices we use to track the number of miles became possible to use in the insurance product. the challenge for a large insurance companies that because the low mileage customers are basically subsidizing high mileage customers, it's impossible to included in an in existing insurance company. emily: what are some of the other players are getting attention? julie: like i mentioned, term life is getting a lot of attention. you have ethos.

fabric. lemonade is a hot renters and homeowners insurance company out there that has raise money from big names in space. you've seen a lot of the incumbents start platforms that will invest in companies like metro mile or lemonade or other ones out there to sort of try to form partnerships and get a taste of what is going on. like dan mentioned, it's really hard to rebuild something that has been around 50 to 100 years, just taking out a legacy system and building something new is a lot easier than it sounds. that's an advantage that a lot of the startups like metro mile have. emily: dan, you say nationwide expansion is a big goal for you. when should we expect that? dan: you will see a lot of it over the coming year. we launched in arizona earlier this year. we are excited about the potential. emily: what has made it hard to expand nationally so far?

dan: we've been rolling out in a number of states until we decide to become a full insurance company. for a long time we were a provider but we had an insurance carrier that supported us. the big transition was a couple of years ago when we decided the biggest friction point for the customer was the claims experience. we had an advantage in the way we delivered our experience through the use of the device. in order to make all of that possible, we had to ultimately become the full insurance company. the big transition happened about two years ago and we been making that transition happened over the last couple of years. as of six months ago, that's been complete so we are back on track launching in the states. emily: dan preston, we will follow your continued expansion. julie, thank you as always. coming up, we all know names like zuckerberg and gates. will look at a quiet launch of some of tech's names.

this is bloomberg. ♪ ♪

emily: airbnb received one of its biggest blows in its history last week. new york city council voted to require the company to hand over names and addresses in the city. sources say the legislation could potentially cut new york city bookings in half, raising questions about come these growth and cities crackdown restrictions. airbnb has said the bill is in violation of user privacy as it prepares for its $140 million in gross bookings to drop by at least half when the legislation goes into effect in january. a set of twins has been quietly stirring up silicon valley. born in iran, they got their start in microsoft bought out their respective companies. today the brothers have possibly the most impressive list of

angel investments of anyone ncluding facebook, airbnb, ber, dropbox and zappos. recently they had expanded to philanthropy with a goal to teach all kids across the u.s. how to code. i sat down with them to talk about these early investments, working with mark zuckerberg, and what went wrong with uber. >> i think investing in good people is the most important thing. every investor talks about investing with good people. we take it a lot more seriously, and the way i mean that is we will invest in something we think is a bad idea if we like the person. emily: you also invested with mark zuckerberg. how did that happen? >> we were lucky to get introduced when facebook was still eight or nine people, and that was in unbelievable thing to get to see that company at that early stage. a lot of people were at that time were saying, why are you involved in this company? i remember my wife saying at the

time, are you trying to get into fraternity parties or something? facebook at that time was just about 100 colleges and it was a way for college students to meet each other and flirt. and i met mark, my immediate reaction was, this guy is more like bill gates and anyone i've ever met. he reminded me of every time i've interacted with bill at microsoft, he had a level of vision and where he wanted to take it was so much more than the fraternity angle. >> the dropbox story is my favorite, because it captures several parts of what we brought together to investing. there was a senior at m.i.t. that hadi already knew from having him as an intern. we were trying to recruit him to a small startup, and he had his eyes set on a bigger company because he was just graduating from college. we refer him to go to facebook

which by then was maybe 200 people or so. hadi asked him who were the smartest people in his class. it was a two-person company, at this point we had them fly out to the west coast and gave them coding tests to assess how good of computer programs that ctually are. it's part of our routine for all investments, basically. if we are investing in a company, we won't do it unless the technical founder and past a rigorous technical interview. based on evaluating drew's coding skills, we decided to invest in dropbox. we spent the next several years, even until quite recently, helping dropbox recruit engineers. emily: what about uber? >> uber, we were not as early.

i wish we had been earlier investors in uber. getting into a later stage investment, not everyone has access and part of what enabled us to have access to investments like that, it's not just based on who we know, it's because we've developed a reputation for helping companies like facebook r dropbox with recruiting. emily: watching from the outside at uber, what do you think went wrong there? >> is very hard to manage hypergrowth. there was a culture of no holds barred approach to competitiveness. there are some holds that you should bar. there are some lines that you should not cross. it's hard for a company to know which laws you are ok breaking and who gets to decide that. it's a cultural situation where anything goes. i think things got a little bit out of control. emily: do you think at this late stage that your cousin can turn things around?

>> i do. it is still an incredibly healthy business at its core. considering the item ultimate that happened, -- tim ultimate that happened, and it happened where the entire senior staff was axed, yet did anyone miss a ride? did we hear reports about cars stopping, drivers not picking up their passengers? he is a prince among men. he is summoned who inherently, just because of the humility and incredible respect his personal character brings, people want to see him succeed. the sheer goodness of his character is enough to change some of the things. starting the changing the culture and the way other people interact with the company. emily: you can watch that full interview on bloomberg studio 1.0. wednesday 6:30 p.m. pacific. 9:30 p.m. eastern. it was a fascinating one, do not miss it. that does it for this edition of

bloomberg technology. tomorrow we will have full coverage of facebook's second quarter results with analysts and investors. join us on the show. tech earnings are in full swing. that's all for now. i'm emily chang. this is bloomberg. ♪ >> the following is a great

program and does not reflect the views of bloomberg lp. >> this is a paid advertisement for viviscal. the clinically proven solution for thicker, healthy looking hair. >> women never expect to have to worry about losing our hair. the truth is, eight out of 10 women will experience hair thinning and loss. hair problems can happen at any stage in a woman's life, in your 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's.