emily: i'm emily chang and this is "best of bloomberg technology," where we bring you our top interviews from tech. coming up, our interview with microsoft's ceo. satya nadella. his take on security and competition with amazon in the cloud. plus, the red cyber threat. a new report reveals targeted protrusions by chinese hackers are on the rise. crowdstrike's chief technology outlines the sectors under attack. snap, turning to television to keep teens hooked.

we talk about the push into original programming and whether it will pay off. first to our top story and exclusive sitdown with microsoft's ceo satya nadella. this week, microsoft boasted it will obtain security authorizations early next year, bolstering the company's position in the pentagon's winner take all competition for a multibillion-dollar cloud computing deal. nadella sat down with caroline hyde for an extended interview wednesday. they spoke about the race for the pentagon deal, artificial intelligence, and a topic on everyone's mind, data privacy. satya: microsoft, all of our existence, we have had the department of defense as a customer and many other federal agencies. tomorrow, we have our government summit. we will talk about everything we are doing from the department of labor to the department of agriculture, fema, and veteran affairs and so on.

we are investing in bringing cloud technology and our edge technology, which is more and more relevant and more taxpayer dollars being spent well so that we can get more efficiency out of the i.t. infrastructure and -- that needs to power these institutions. we are very focused on making sure we bring the best technology and compete in these contracts that get put out for competitive bids. caroline: with a focus on security, which must be front of mind when you are serving anything federally, serving the government, how much do you think there is a focus at the moment on security and you as a company have managed to find midterm election potential attacks coming from the likes of russia. how are you looking at

cybersecurity? how are you ensuring you are at the cutting edge and is it tackleable at the moment? satya: some of the best work we are doing when it comes to even ai is to help with the cybersecurity posture. in fact, i always say this. the most important thing we can do as a company and have as an asset is our cybersecurity, operational security posture. we have something like 6.5 trillion security, 450 billion logins a month across our properties, 1.2 billion devices we scan maybe a couple billion malware inspections. all of that has to be converted into operational security and operational security help for our customers. a good example of that is what happened with strontium, that attack group was attacking folks in the senate and groups

in the republican party with phishing attacks. we realized we need to get a hold of those domains and this is where it is not just about the technology, but even the policy work we did, and working with the legal infrastructure in to be able to transfer those domains. another example is nowadays, cyber criminals are targeting small businesses, that is a big issue because consumers and small businesses suffer the most from cyberattacks. it was attacking small businesses in johnson city, tennessee. we were able to detect this and get rid of it on first sight, which is really one of the big challenges of ai. and so we are doing work there. the next big security attacks are not going to come from conventional email being compromised, it will come from the hvac system.

9 billion microcontrollers are shipped in the world. silica and design as well as a secure operating system to help us ensure that all microcontrollers going forward can be secured. caroline: talking now about software issues and hardware issues and safety. you have of course seen the "bloomberg businessweek" piece about concerns of supply chain strength. is this something you think is fully secure when you look at microsoft and can be going forward, when you have such strength? satya: when it comes to operational security, including silicon supply chain or software supply chain, it is all about every day being in the gym and practicing. in our case, we are very confident we have no exposure, but we are constantly -- we have a lot of people dedicated to it, a lot of technology, a lot of

rigor and process dedicated to ensuring our supply chain to be secure. is the ideaapped up of privacy. do you think the legislative agenda is where it should be, regulation is where it needs to be, when it comes to privacy of individuals' data and the security of company data? satya: these are great questions, but we are already living in a world where the secular movement around individual data is you should think of privacy as a human right and gdpr already legislates that. we have done a lot of work implementing that in our products. we have taken some of the rights from gdpr and made it global. i think this is something the united states will look at. i know california has looked at it, we hope for more of a national privacy law because we don't want increased transaction costs.

in fact, that will harm more small businesses than large companies like microsoft. if you really want a level playing field, having the legislative framework that reduces transactional costs and causes new entrepreneurs to be able to adopt it is a very important thing. the other one i would say is clout act. i think the united states is pleased to see us because we have had to go to the supreme court and fight our own government several times. we worked with legislative bodies to get the act passed. i think that creates a new equilibrium of how nations can balance their need for privacy on one end and national security on the other end and this is something i hope will be in bilateral deals between the united states and united kingdom and other governments. caroline: you helm a fascinating company. it is more than 40 years old.

it has been through its education process. it has looked at regulators over the years. it has evolved. it has ensured it is now one of the most valuable companies in the world. how do you look at some of the other big technology giants that have grown in the u.s. and seeing them have to evolve and catch up in some ways to the charges and arguments and resolutions you have had to find? what experiences can you give them? do you think they are dealing with it in the right way as they of all? evolve? satya: i can only speak for our own experience and what we are trying to do and i think we as a tech industry -- i don't see -- i don't say this as some sort of terminal competition between us. when i look back in our own history from 1975 till now, technology and its importance in our societies and economies has gone through change. the tech industry itself is just 5% of gdp. and yet its influence on the

rest of the 95% is far greater than it ever has been in our history. i think all of us including microsoft and starting with us, is to be comfortable knowing that we will be held to a different standard and that is what i think about at microsoft and how everything from our operational security posture to ethics, how are we going to in some sense even go and ask for regulation where i think you create a rule of law and a framework for us to make progress, especially in liberal democracies. i think that these are the places where there needs to be a level of maturity way beyond day-to-day competition. emily: microsoft's ceo satya nadella speaking exclusively with bloomberg's caroline hyde. still ahead, fresh evidence in bloomberg's china hacking scoop. spy hardware discovered on the servers at a major u.s. telecom

company. those servers were removed just a month ago. details next. if you like bloomberg news, check us out on the radio. listen on the bloomberg app, bloomberg.com, and in the u.s. on sirius xm. this is bloomberg. ♪ emily: on tuesday, evidence

revealed a major u.s. telecommunications company was the latest caught up in the chinese computer hack revealed by "bloomberg businessweek." the company discovered the manipulated hardware from supermicro equipment and removed it in august. bloomberg tech editor thomas giles explains. thomas: the supply chain remains under threat. the chinese have ways of getting at the components that end up in our data centers, u.s. data centers. in this instance, researchers working on behalf of this telecom company found -- it is a slightly different type of

manipulation, but hardware was manipulated, hardware that originated in china, made its way into the u.s. supply chain, had been manipulated, had its origin in china and it was found out and has been removed. so what it does is indicates that, again, parts of the supply chain do remain vulnerable. emily: you have a researcher who has come forward, named in the story and talked about -- tom: putting his reputation on the line here. he talked about what they found, how they reached the conclusion they came to. we have seen the documents, run them by other people who do security who understand how this works, and they have indicated to us his approach makes sense. emily: now, what was different in terms of how this hardware was compromised from the previous report?

tom: previously -- this has to do with ethernet connections, so this is what we use to connect telecommunications networks. that is what is different in this case. but what is similar is its supply chain originates in china and in -- it has to do with hardware. supermicro again is the company at the heart. the researcher said supermicro was a victim here and it is not the only one used as a conduit, so we are pursuing all those angles. emily: supermicro continues to deny even this latest story, saying the security of our customers and integrity of our products are core to our business and company values. we take sure to secure our products and supply chain security is an important topic of discussion for our industry. we have no knowledge of any unauthorized components. we have not been informed by any customer that such components

have been found. you have apple and amazon continuing to deny the original story. you have u.s. and u.k. government officials weighing in and saying there is no reason to doubt the company's denial. how do we square that? tom: companies have talked about their involvement. they said we didn't discover these chips in our networks. again we had to weigh that , against what we have been told by a multitude of sources. emily: 17 sources. tom: he is not talking directly about amazon and apple, to be clear. they have stuck to their denials. they are detailed and we take them seriously. dhs has come out. also as we said in our stories, it is possible they aren't involved and don't have oversight over those agencies that are involved in the investigation we talked about, that we have written about. emily: why has the telecom industry been targeted and what could be the consequences? tom: it is the telecommunications industry. these are the networks over

which all of our communications, our emails, our phone calls are traveling. it would seem to me a logical target of someone who wanted to understand sensitive communications or wanted to eavesdrop on i.t. we are not clear the exact intent here. we are less clear than we were before, which was very much i.p. and communication over networks. less clear in this instance what the motivations would have been, but the telecommunications network that is pretty central to all of the communications that were traveling over our networks. emily: you and your team are continuing to report out this story. we are staying tuned. we should note bloomberg lp has been a supermicro customer, but has found no evidence to suggest bloomberg was affected by the hardware issues raised in the article. a new report from cybersecurity firm crowd strike says china

poses the largest cyber threat over the past six months. the report reveals chinese adversaries have made targeted and persistent intrusion attempts at multiple sectors of the economy from biotech and defense to pharma and transportation. i spoke to the chief technology officer and asked him about both pressing matters. dmitri: the big headline from the report is china is back. when you look at the last couple of years, we saw decline in chinese nation state-sponsored intrusion against the commercial sector in 2016 after the obama administration's struck that agreement with president xi both companies would stop conducting industrial espionage against each other. the chinese largely abided by that agreement for the time but in the last year-and-a-half, we started to see pickup in activity and we are seeing intrusions in biotech, pharmaceutical, professional

services, hospitality, insurance, mining, all kinds of sectors where the chinese are breaking in and stealing intellectual property. and now, it is mostly state security, civilian intelligence arm is doing most of the activity versus the liberation army, the military that was doing a lot of the activity before 2015. emily: bloomberg has published an extensive investigation that found the chinese implanted spy chips on the motherboards of supermicro servers that ended up at some 30 u.s. companies and the u.k. and u.s. governments. what is your reaction to this report? we also have a new story out today that a similar one was found at a u.s. telecom. dmitri: supply chain has always been a concern and we are seeing china, russia, and others leveraging their software supply chain in attacks where they are compromising software and

leveraging the updates to introduce malicious code. we have not personally seen any hardware attack like the ones the stories are talking about. hardware is physical, someone can physically verify whether there is an implant on their systems. there is a lot more to learn still as this story is unfolding. emily: i should mention the companies involved have denied this. the u.k. and u.s. government officials have said there is no reason to doubt the denial, but that said, is this in the scope of something the chinese are capable of? dmitri: it is certainly possible. this seems like a very expensive and very difficult effort to go through to achieve that objective knowing they are able to do that through compromised software supply chains or direct intrusions into companies like what we see now. it is not out of the realm of possibilities, but there are a

lot of questions to be answered. emily: based on your reporting, what are you most concerned about? you talk about the relationship between nationstates, government arms, and their criminal counterparts within those nationstates and you are continuing to see a blurring of these lines. dmitri: we are seeing increasing the criminal groups adopting nationstate techniques, nation-state tools and tradecraft, to break into orientations. -- organizations. increasingly, as nationstates are coming out with innovations, new exploits and discovering new vulnerabilities, very quickly that dissipates into the criminal underground and those criminals are using those techniques to break into companies. the biggest route to companies -- threat to companies is destructive attacks like the wannacry attacks and those types of attacks can take down organizations for weeks at a time. we have worked on a number of

cases around those attacks last year and companies have suffered literally tens of millions of dollars, some hundreds of millions of in damage because of dollars them. emily: we have a midterm election coming up, how concerned are you about the security and integrity of those elections? dmitri: in general, election systems remain vulnerable. candidates in particular are still not focusing as much as they should be on security and the security of their campaigns. it is a very difficult problem given the nature of the campaigns and they have volunteers working on personal devices. we are not seeing any major interference efforts in this election cycle, in the midterms, but it is always a concern. emily: what is the best defense at this point? dmitri: especially because the u.s. government, the white house has come out with their cyber strategy in the last couple of weeks that outlines the fact that deterrence needs to be a big focus going forward.

deterring nationstates like russia, china, north korea, iran from conducting these activities in the first place. we cannot just focus on defense. we need to find pressure points against those nationstates. they do not have to be cyber. they can be economic, diplomatic, leveraging the full toolkit of u.s. power with allies to pressure nationstates to stop orchestrating these attacks against us. emily: you also document increased targeting of the biotech industry. how successful have those attacks been and what are the consequences? dmitri: this has been a big focus for china in the last year and a half. we are seeing a lot of intrusions into biotech startups and more established companies, and this is part of the chinese made in china 2025 plan they are working toward, where they want to see china being a major competitor on the global stage in this sector as well as other sectors. they want domestic industry to

thrive in those sectors and they are doing that in part by stealing intellectual property. understanding what mistakes not to make and where to place their bets. emily: it is clear china has these ambitions. it is clear china is a threat, as you well detailed. do you think the response from u.s. companies and u.s. and u.k. governments should be to move the supply chain or to sort of divert some of these products that are being made in china to other countries? dmitri: there is no question that if you are operating in china, manufacturing in china, developing in china, you have to worry about the compromise of your supply chain, intrusions from chinese competitors and sometimes even chinese partners into your networks that are stealing intellectual property. there needs to be done more to confront the chinese government on these issues. the trump administration has started toward that with a report that the trade administration released in

this spring outlining in almost 300 pages the things chinese are doing to steal intellectual property and that is something that needs to be continued focus going forward. we cannot allow them to take our intellectual property. the richness of this country the drives innovation and steal that wholesale. emily: crowdstrike's dmitri alperovitch. coming up, tesla shares soared after -- the company is on track to reach profitability. is it time to talk about a tesla turnaround? this is bloomberg. ♪ emily: facebook is going

head-to-head with amazon and google with a smart speaker, and it comes with a display for optimize video chat. it's designed to simplify video chatting and it can track and

follow your movements. if you move so does the camera. rather than constantly adjusting the phone, it automatically identifies people in the room. people have brought similar -- devices like the amazon echo show. the vice president of portal joined us. >> it's a great speaker, a great video playing device, and it's a general home assistant. it's obviously a device where privacy is paramount and important. we try to tackle privacy from the ground up. we had to create the hardware and software to change the way people communicate and put every layer of privacy in. >> facebook vice president there. up next, another bullish call from tesla. we will talk tesla turnaround just ahead.

you can check us out at technology and follow our global breaking news network at tictoc on twitter. this is bloomberg. ♪ emily: welcome back to the

"best of bloomberg technology." tesla shares soared after macquarie joined the bulls, saying the company is on track to reach profitability. is it time to talk about a tesla turnaround? an analyst joined us to explain his call. >> the most important thing is that elon musk is focused. anything that gets the focus down to that is a positive thing. if murdoch is the one who can rein him in and prevent some of the tweets going out, the focus really comes back to the deliveries, the fundamentals of the business i think it will be

positive for the company. emily: the question is can james murdoch rein him in? he has been on the board and elon musk's behavior has been as it has been. max: i think the reigning in will have to come from elon himself. because of his larger-than-life profile and the extent to which his personality has defined tesla, if you believe in his company, you hope elon will see the light. not the sec or a board member is going to do that for him. if we have seen or learned anything over the last few months it is that elon, even when tesla has been dinged for various reasons, he is willing to be his own person. i think the chairmanship is important and an important milestone for the company but i do not think that alone will bring much change.

emily: talk to us about how you came to your conclusion that this is a buy and in the face of some staunch opposition from the bears that mentioned early analysts who believed tesla shares will go in the opposite direction? maynard: my big call is that we are taking an angle of looking at the sector from a disruptive perspective and a technology angle. which i have covered for the past 20 years. a lot of people will talk about electric and autonomous as being the disruptors. we look at it as the enabler. this is going to enable a platform ecosystem. think about developers building applications directly on top of the car and turning that car into an application. you download something, press a button, and you turn the vehicle into a ridesharing vehicle, or download a different app and turn it into a delivery vehicle. alternately the reason why we , the reason why we are so bullish on tesla is that if you look at the commercial technology already built in the car, a lot of the platform ecosystem technology is already there. that is what makes this positive

long-term for tesla. emily: we know production numbers over the last several weeks have looked good. we don't know if they can sustain the level over the next few weeks. you are optimistic and believe production numbers will look good and believe tesla will reach profitability. what has to happen for that to happen in your view? maynard: you are right. the outperformance is predicated on the near term and being able to generate cash. we have done a lot of work on zero emission vehicle credits. we think, in the back half of this year, they can generate around $500 million. there is no cost associated with this so this is pure cash flow which helps in addition to the free cash flow generations they will get into the fourth quarter. i also think they have unused debt commitments they can tap which will be more than enough to cover the debt commitments coming up over the next three quarters. emily: max, we are getting new information tesla is closing in on $145 million plot. for its china factory, obviously.

china is a huge portion of the potential. what does this mean? max: the chinese market for electric cars is massive. tesla has not made much progress there at all. if tesla is able to get into the market and sell cars, that will go a long way to improving their bottom line and generating huge amount of revenue. china, especially in the donald trump era, there are regulatory hurdles. being able to find a location for the factory is important as a first step. emily: up next, putting tv in your pocket with a slew of new original productions. we look at the strategy in just a moment. and the un's latest climate report paints a grim picture. can tech play a role in saving the planet?

that is ahead. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: snap will release a dozen original series. as they announce a new lineup to maintain a grip on teen users and get an edge over instagram. we discussed whether the play will be a success.

>> this is a completely new slate of programming. for a while, they have encouraged outside content partners to make media, have them build their brands on separate channels. now they are doing it themselves in-house. i think they really want to demonstrate that they can do a show that is mobile and goes to the younger audience that snap is known for reaching. the question is if it will attract users in growth down the line. emily: all of the shows are shot vertically. one of them is called endless summer. a successor to mtv's laguna beach. is this the sneak secret to snap's future? >> that is going to be a big question. so far, snap has had limited traction with content offerings. if you look at the discover site

most of the time spent on snap , has been with the messaging part of the app, and that continues to be the place. the problem is that it is not monetized well. to monetize, they have to do things like the discover side with original content and programming. that's the big question, and snap is not the only one to go after this. you have facebook, instagram, netflix, amazon prime. a lot of fragmentation on the content side. for snap to do well, they will have to show more traction on these types of offerings. emily: and sarah, snap executives have come out saying these shows have been a success and they have millions of viewers. how many people are watching? >> what matters is not how many people are watching individual shows, but whether that number grows. snap last quarter announced a decline in daily users for the first time. that has caused a shockwave through the market thinking

maybe this company will not get to a size big enough to compete with facebook and google for advertising dollars. what they have to do is prove that the media aspect side can that the media aspect side can be a big moneymaker down the line. there isn't enough public information on how the shows are doing to instill confidence. and certainly, wall street is not too excited about the shows. the stock is down today, hovering below seven dollars for the first time. >> original content aside, how optimistic are you that snap can continue to grow? they are losing executives. the redesign has been a bust. some have said they have to get back to their roots, which is about communicating quickly. is this all enough to get back to growth? >> that is a good question. we have not seen it yet. we are still cautious on snap overall.

while getting back to the roots of communication, fast messaging, fast sharing of photos is important, it does not generate revenue like newsfeeds do with facebook. that is a problem they are trying to solve. you cannot have it both ways. you cannot be a good messaging app and make a lot of money on advertising. we like to see more product innovation. i think originals could help. there was a stat that only 25% of users go to be discovering side of the app on a daily basis. that is a low percentage. emily: a memo was recently released to employees were he -- where he talked about how the company has lost focus and wants to get back to its roots. some were making fun of his use of the word cheetah, the codename for this redesign. he did not back away entirely, but said it was not working so far, but everyone, as a consolation prize, would be

getting a cheetah themed sweatshirt. what do investors think of this memo? >> i spent a lot of time with evan spiegel earlier this year. the memo echoes a lot of the same things he was trying to get across to me then which is that the company sees itself differently than the other social media platforms. they don't see themselves as a social media company rather a messaging company with a media component and that they want to allow people to experience the world differently. while he is trying to communicate more directly to his employees and address some issues with clarity around the company's direction, a 15 page memo is not always the best way to get that across. certainly, while some people thought this was a good eye into how he thinks, others thought it was a little rambling and a little concerning.

he is still in that place where he has to prove that he is the visionary leader for the next era of snap. otherwise, an analyst yesterday said they may have to raise money. the next quarter is going to be so crucial for the company's future. emily: i'm sure many of these tech ceos don't love speaking to the press. but now they do. we have seen mark zuckerberg mature. in his memo, evan spiegel says he feels awkward walking around and even talking to employees. he does not love talking to the press. this many years into being a public company, do you think he has to grow up? do think he is still the right person to be leading this company? >> that is a good question. it is more about company execution. if you look at the shareholders letter, you talk about competitive modes,

but at the same time, they are losing a lot of users to instagram. they say their competitive mode is speed of delivery. you have never heard users complain on instagram or facebook that they are not getting pictures or whatever fast enough, so it the letter was a little confusing. that's why stocks did not rally off of the letter. emily: coming up, the u.n. gives the world just one a decade to get a handle on global warming. we look at how tech could be part of the solution next. this is bloomberg. ♪ emily: the latest climate

report from the united nations paints a grim picture. the world is teetering on the edge of failure when it comes to containing global warming and of the solution comes at a cost. the intergovernmental panel of climate change says the world must invest $2.4 trillion into clean energy every year through 2035, and could cut the use of coal fired power by 2050 to avoid catastrophic damage from climate change. the atmosphere is already one degrees celsius warmer than it was at the start of the industrial revolution, in the end it predicts it will rise by three degrees by 2100. and that is double the pace targeted in the 2015 paris accord. so, will technology be able to save the planet? on monday, we spoke to our sustainability editor and an expert in climate adaptation and

resilience, and the founder and ceo of 427, a provider of market intelligence on climate change. >> this is the report that was commissioned by the u.n. two years ago after the paris accords. it does not deliver great news. it presents a strict timeline that we have to reduce global emissions before 2030. they suggest that on something of the order of 55% or 60% cuts in global emissions below last year's levels by 2030, then zeroing out emissions by 2050. so that is a huge challenge. and it represents ambition we have not yet seen, even from the nations that were so supportive of the paris agreement three years ago. emily: what is your take on these numbers?

>> the technology is there, but we have not been deploying it at scale or investing enough. and what the report points out as well is to keep emissions under a level that would limit the effects of climate change, we need to capture a lot of carbon emissions, and this is technology that is not ready. emily: talk to us about how we get there, what will it take for the technology to be ready? >> for it to be useful, somebody needs to turn it on. nobody has turned on the technology to the scale that we need it. we do not have the political will in the u.s. and in other countries it is not moving fast enough. we do not have the investments to follow suit. the technology is there for carbon free energy, for reducing emissions across a number of activities, and adapting to climate change, but we are not using it right now. emily: who needs to turn it on? who are the people who can make this happen, the companies that can make it happen?

>> governments may not be there yet. there is a lot going on in the private sector and there has been mobilization from investors and corporations to invest. that needs to come with a regulatory move, it cannot just be one. the companies that are pushing this effort are still a minority compared to the broader set of corporations. emily: what is the likelihood that big tech or big business could do some of this on their own? eric: we already say really -- see really hopeful stories from around the world of enormous investment in technologies that have matured, in some ways, faster than even close watchers of the space would have believed, particularly in solar, wind power, and electrification of automobiles. i would like to echo the point about the carbon technologies. these are interesting projects that are getting a lot of attention and some money, but one thing that is worth

considering, we also saw today the awarding of the 2018 nobel prize in economics to william nordhouse of yale and he spent most of the last three or four decades trying to understand the relationship between what cost of pollution is, what is the appropriate price for a ton of emissions, with the consequent reduction in emissions. so, many economists will tell you that people respond to prices, people respond to incentives. and having a price on carbon, the economists will tell you and there are many experiments around the world, may be needed to get these technologies up and running in time to meet the challenges outlined today in the report. emily: what are the consequences if this stuff does not happen?

what is the difference between one degree celsius and three degrees celsius? emily: we are already seeing the consequences of not having done our homework before. we are seeing it today, we see it with extreme weather events, hurricanes in florida, japan just had nine typhoons, which is insane when you think about it. the impacts are already there and it will only get worse. the half degrees difference between one degree celsius and 1.5 degrees, it makes a tremendous difference. this is the average across the entire earth. you have to imagine the amount of changes that need to happen to move the needle. that means more extreme weather events, that means water scarcity, more wildfires, that means losing our coastlines and a tremendous amount of impact that we are not currently adequately prepared for. emily: in the meantime, you have some big companies like google, amazon, microsoft teaming up to developed ai to identify

impending famine. talk to us about how this works. eric: it is very interesting, the project was announced today by those particular tech leaders. the goal of that project is to look for natural and social metrics that when certain alarm bells go off among each of them it could be interpreted as an early warning signal for famine. one thing that is interesting and gets lost in our sort of voluminous talk everyday about big data and a.i. is climate and weather were sort of the original big data topics going back to the 1960's. pattern recognition and machine learning in some ways cut their teeth very early on these topics. and so four or five decades later, what we are seeing is this interesting marriage of

highly sophisticated, highly advanced, cutting-edge a.i. being applied to less cutting edge, government supported models that evolved over the last few decades. and that combination of these, the old approach to modeling with the new a.i. tools is producing interesting startups at exactly the time we will need them most. emily: you should note, michael bloomberg, founder and majority owner of bloomberg news is a u.n. special envoy for climate action. one way to phase out fossil fuels is electric cars. on that note, audi just unveiled s tesla challenger which was just launched. and it is interesting approach to plug in the car in. they have teamed up with amazon, which will arrange installing home chargers.

a contributor to bloomberg opinion weighed in. >> amazon will use its home services division to do installation of these chargers. and home services is one that i can confess i've never used before, because it is for infrequent big purchases, maybe something you do once or twice in a home's lifetime, like a refrigerator or a home charger. so what this is doing is removing quite a bit of the friction out of doing something that you do not do that often. it is an intriguing way to just simplify a process. you may know what charger you want and i am sure audi would have a preferred set that is there for any given purchase. this is getting somebody in the home to take care of the paperwork and do the connection for you. emily: what is the significance of this for amazon, assuming that this is a sliver of their business and for tesla, for which this is a huge part of

their business? nat: good question. i will take the tesla part first. for tesla, and i give a talk about this last week at a conference in london, it was essentially existential. you have the chicken and the egg problem, you can build great cars, but without a network you cannot charge your electric cars, and without chargers you will not sell a lot of cars. so for tesla, they built a network first. for amazon, this is far, far different. i doubt that this would be materially significant, even with any given decade in the future. what is intriguing to me is that it is getting amazon into the home in another way. emily: you do not think that this could become a much bigger business for amazon? nat: i went with a little thought experiment on it, which was last week, or a couple weeks ago, amazon released a new slew of alexa connected gadgets, and one was a microwave. it simplifies a process that is full of menus, options, opaque

attempts to do something and you could replace it by saying alexa, heat up my pizza for me. my thinking was electric charging is another thing that is similar. it has a lot of latency in it, there is time involved, there are many decisions you could make, but probably you do not want to do. so my thinking was, let's say amazon rolled out its own charger in the future and you drive in and say, amazon, i am not going out tonight, so charge me up. imagine further that it is all you want charging for your prime account, or something like that. emily: nat bullard, contributor of bloomberg opinion. that does it for this edition of the "best of bloomberg technology." you can tune in every day 5:00 p.m. in new york. bloomberg technology is livestreaming on twitter. check us out and be sure to follow our breaking global news network. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ taylor: welcome to "bloomberg businessweek." i'm taylor riggs. jason: i'm jason kelly. we are joining you from bloomberg headquarters in new york. taylor: in this week's issue, the death of cash. how technology is changing the most basic component of business and finance. that is money itself. jason: cannabis used to be illegal. now it is investable. taylor: first, we have a bloomberg exclusive. donald trump's former steve strategist steve bannon slams nikki haley's decision to