emily: this is the best of bloomberg technology where we bring you our top interviews from this week. coming up, amazon confirms what we already knew, that it is splitting it second headquarters between new york and virginia. why some are calling this whole search a bait and switch. uber moved where -- closer to releasing data on sexual assault. our sit down with their chief officer.

and we speak to the ceo of micron, the latest company at the center of the u.s.-china tech dispute and the doj is backing them up. first, to our top story. after 14 months, amazon has whittled down 230 applications -- 238 locations to two. nashville will become the so-called operation center with more than 5000 jobs. -- cut up with their seniors senior vice president and asks about the plan. we will have shareholder meetings in these headquarters, board of directors meeting, our , our employeeings meetings. the rest of around leadership will move around. as these headquarters grow, we will have senior leaders based in these locations.

i'm on the leadership team, i live in washington dc. i'll be going up to new york a lot, which i'm excited about. we are a seattle-based company. came -- became more than seattle. centers across the country employ 20,000 people. we have invested billions over the last seven years. as you know, we hire a lot of folks and we pay up and down the income scale. these will bring a lot of positive benefits to new york and tc -- d.c.. emily: how do you feel about the backlash that amazon took advantage of cities? ? or that a company of your size does not deserve big tax incentives. first, on data, the data we use were based on what hundred different metrics and are all publicly available.

this is information that cities readily provide to any potential investor, or that you can find in surveys or other research. that process helped us make the decision and it should help others as they look to invest. one of the things we learned through this process is that there are some great places that may not have been the right place for us to create 50,000 jobs, but there are great cities across the note states that are very appealing places. process have announced over 6000 jobs in cities that were competing were among the 20 finalists but were not selected, cities like vancouver, san diego, birmingham, alabama. think this process has been positive for us, obviously, but also for the cities that were chosen and the cities that were not.

one thing that is unique as we are planning in advance for the growth. instead of growing organically like we did in seattle, now we have more than 45,000 employees. we are working ahead of time with new york, with virginia, to make sure that this growth has a positive effect. amazon's senior vice president jay carney. to talk more about the decision to split its headquarters, i want to bring in the open market institute executive director andy lynn from washington our bloomberg correspondent. who do you think the real winners are here? >> i think amazon is the big winner. they have made the selection process highly public, so it has generated a year of. publicity.

in each of the cities that was vying for the location, places like birmingham, calgary, alberta. think amazon is the biggest winner. emily: i know you are a skeptic about this, but do you think amazon took advantage of cities in this process? >> absolutely, no doubt about it. aboute just talking amazon stuff this immense amount of data from cities across the country. and it is not this publicly available data, it is data about what kind of deals, tax deals, tax breaks, subsidies will these administrations put forth to lure in investment. a lot of this information was entirely secret, available to no other company. is, as just mentioned, a huge winner in the miss -- in this.

it is a general problem across the country in terms of how we treat large companies. emily: what did you think of jay carney's response to that? as a company this big, should they be getting these tax breaks? and if the data is available, couldn't it be useful? ry's point wasbar right, amazon was in secret room with developmental authorities, so they have a good sense of what the cities and states are willing to offer. this is a company that has 600,000 plus employees, it operates warehouses and data centers and other facilities in just about every state in the u.s. and around the world. it needs to have information to figure out what are the best places to put our growing demand for warehouses and white-collar offices in data centers and places like that.

jay carney is right, but also, it doesn't show you the whole story about what amazon got out of the process. emily: looking out, amazon has said this process is going to take two decades. two decades from now, how do you think this will change arlington, virginia and long island city? >> the issue is how it changes these places today. what it reveals is that officials and long island city in new york city and in virginia , at both the local and state level, are willing to give away a whole lot for not that much. we have to remember that they were originally promised the whole deal, the whole headquarters, the whole hq to -- hq2. it looks like it will be even less than half, given some of these other investments that have been revealed. what we see, if you are a

taxpayer, a citizen of new york say, hey, what did my officials, my mayor and governor just give away? these subsidies and tax breaks, that is my money. time, youthe same have google talk about expanding its presence in new york but not getting all of this fanfare. is that fair? >> yeah, it's interesting. google has said it has not applied for some of the tax ,ubsidies that amazon has got although google is in manhattan and amazon is in queens, so a bit of a difference. but to be fair to amazon, economic development is a bit of , controversial process particularly this idea of giving tax breaks to already affluent companies like amazon or high-paying jobs that look good for the city but also have the potential to make income inquality even worse

expensive cities like washington dc and new york city. it is always a give and take of benefits and drawbacks when you are lowering -- luring high profile employers like amazon to a place with a large workforce and a high cost space. emily: that was barry lynn and bloomberg tech's shira ovide. coming up, bloomberg's report on -- movers -- uber's report on sexual assault. and if you like bloomberg news, check us out on the radio and in the u.s. on sirius xm. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: 53 pages, that is the length of a new report that outlines how over will handle cases of sexual harassment, misconduct, and assault.

written with the help of experts at the national sexual violence research center and urban in it it defines 21 different sexual infractions. this report will be key in that endeavor. it comes at a time when many tech companies like google, facebook, airbnb, and more are changing their policies on handling sexual harassment and discrimination cases. uber's chief legal officer join us thursday. conversationsng with other companies about adopting this taxonomy. what this is is categorizing exactly what kind of behaviors or i should say misbehaviors that make up sexual assault or sexual harassment or misconduct. conduct that you do not want happening in a customer service environment and what is great about it, even though it was developed with the over platform

in mind, it can use any company in a customer service environment. how do you balance your instincts as a former doj attorney when there are tens in profession togal enable companies, rather than resist them. there are far more than are actually reported. is this good for your business? >> it is good for business, but more importantly is the right , thing to do. it is good for all of us. we have always believed that if you enhance the safety of the platform for women, you'll make it safer for everyone. what this effort does is it takes a closer to this goal of having a safer platform. i understand why some people might be reluctant. the chief legal officer is usually the guy in the room saying take less risk not more. the reason this makes sense for

us is we have a paramount duty to our shareholders. no? food -- no question. we also have a duty to our stakeholders. those are the millions of partners and writers who used the platform every day. we have to do right by them. this is a step toward making the platform sustainable in the long term. months before google and it forced arbitration and sexual harassment cases, you have done it. you have done it for writers -- drivers.d airbnb is taking it a step further. microsoft allows class action around sexual harassment. why not go that far if there is an argument to be made that you address more systemic problems? >> i'm certainly proud of our leadership position on this issue and i have to applaud airbnb and facebook and google for following suit. we think that the fact the bar is being raised for everyone is a good thing. it is a great thing when you have companies competing to

raise the bar on an issue like this. when we took the step to announce the end of mandatory arbitration, we did so with safety primarily in mind. that is really what drove best decision i said at the time that this is a first step but not the only step. these are active conversations we continue to have. emily: so, you are considering the discrimination provisions? >> that is one of many things we are considering. i should say that there is nothing wrong with arbitration. arbitration is an appropriate tool that is used by businesses every day in an appropriate way. when we determined is that it is used when it comes to sexual harassment was inappropriate because it stripped control from the survivor. even continuing to do what the original act can do in terms of stripping the control. it is not an appropriate tool there.

you want to give the survivor a choice, and as we look at whether or not arbitration is appropriate for other types of claims, that is the kind of frame that we will approach it with. emily: you now have an anonymous tip line for employees. managing that has been challenging. some of your top executives, your former hr head, your coo have been in the crosshairs, another executive resigned over some allegations. how do you balance corrective punishment and outright termination when people want to see consequences? >> certainly, i cannot speak about any particular personnel decision but i can say that it is important when you have a system of reporting and consequences in any workplace, that there be a progression of responses that you can bring to bear. because what you are ultimately trying to do is make the workplace safe, inclusive, welcoming for the people to be there so they can bring their best talents to work every day.

you want to be of to support people in that environment. if you can create that environment by giving someone coaching or changing someone's assignments so they are not in the same environment, sometimes you may have to terminate someone, that is an appropriate response. the main thing is that you have two telegraph that you are going to take those actions. you are going to hold people accountable for their behavior. that will be true across the board. i have said many times, no one is indispensable. everybody has to be held accountable for their behavior. emily: you reached a settlement on the hack with all 50 states. there are still multiple open questions from your former , foreigninto gravol corrupt practices violations, data scraping, stealing secrets. do you think that legal risks

will factor significantly into the uber's ipo? >> certainly, you always consider legal risks whenever you are looking at whether you are going to go public or not. i should say that i cannot talk much about whether or not when they go public. i can say that we just had a bond offering. part of the risks included a -- included in a document like that included the legal risks that you face. one of the good things is that our legal risks are well known. there is not a lot of secrecy there. investors know that we have been methodical and successful in mitigating the legal risks. we have been able to not only announce a data breach but then resolve it in all 50 states. that has to be a record.

from the time you have announced a problem to the time you have actually resolved it with 50 different regulators. we are continuing to be very methodical about that. -- uber's chief legal occifer tony west. route, that conversation next. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: the bad news keeps piling on to apple. at least four of their chief suppliers for components have reduced revenue estimate. the latest was swiss company ams, which makes light sensors. that ups concerns about weak demands for iphones, and apple is headed for the longest losing streak in more than six months. surprisingly, it is not

alarming. and i want to put it into some historical context. the supply chain, when there is , these tend not to be good indicators. the reason is that apple already gave their guidance on november 1. it is not alarming because what we are hearing from the suppliers you mentioned is that those comments were already reflected in apple's guidance, so there should not be anything new. and my history trying to figure out the supply chain is that this is more of an art than a sign. one thing that is important to know is, every year, apple tells their suppliers they need to produce more than it will have orders for. every year, they cut orders going into this. so this is nothing new. emily: shares have come back a bit, but in general how confident are you that the latest lineup of iphones has

been a hit or is it not the question to be asking anymore? as they transition to a services company? >> i am in the camp that that is the right question to ask. can they grow the base of iphones in the low single digits. i think that they are still on track to do that. over the next 12 months i expect they will increase the base by 3%. it is not about a big hit iphone. it is about maintaining the base and finding ways to grow from that. one way is by increasing the asp's. which we have seen over the past year, and that will continue over the next year. another way is by selling services. that is the broader bigger question. i suspect the street is slowly , it will take a year plus, adopting the view that the overall apple business operates like a service. the hardware included has some predictability that historically hardware companies did not have. apple's iphone business will

start to yield a more predictable trajectory. emily: looking at the stock chart, you can see the slide since around when the new iphones were unveiled. we know this is the company that has been dependent on iphone sales. going forward, do you see a point when services revenue is equal to iphone revenue? >> it is probably a long time away. 15% of revenue right now. in four years, we expected to be 20%, that compares the iphone going from 65 to 60% of revenue. to be a bigl going gap of their, emily. ultimately, the emphasis is to conceptualize that the hardware business is operating like a software services type of business. that is the real inflection opportunity around the stock. that could pave the way that we are going to look back and this will be considered a buying window for long-term investors.

emily: they are now well off the trillion dollar market cap milestone that they recently had. -- past. -- passed. do you think investors are getting it? >> i don't think investors are getting it. this concern and anxiety about the health of the iphone franchise is misplaced. i understand there are three factors that play into it. one is the overall market, second is apple getting less disclosure about iphone units, or no longer giving disclosure, and i think the third is what we are hearing in the supply chain. this caused the street to fundamentally miss the story. again, i believe the iphone franchise is intact. the chatter from the channel is essentially already priced into december expectations. another piece that investors don't get is that this story trades below clorox are -- or coca-cola.

at a minimum it should be on par with those two type of consumer staple companies. in fact, that is what apple has become, a consumer staples company. emily: what about globally? we know that in india, apple has failed to break into the market in any significant way. in china, there is concern that -- about these trade tensions. the iphone is so much more expensive than many other phones out there. we are talking $50 phones. are you concerned that apple will not be able to keep up with the global competition? or, you know, is the iphone always going to be the most desirable and aspirational phone out there? >> i think that apple will continue to be the leading edge. call it 20% of the population will want to pay up for a better experience.

as you said, a lot of people cannot afford it. india and china are two different stories. in china, i am still confident that despite the availability of $50 alternatives a much , different competitive environment than any other market that apple competes in. despite that more difficult market, the sheer size of the opportunity in china still renders this incremental positive for the apple story in the years to come. there are a lot of people who do make a lot of money in china who can afford iphones. india is a different story. this has been needling at apple for a long time. i still don't see the path where apple is going to get meaningful traction in india. they just don't have the brand in india that they do in the rest of the world. emily: gene munster. could facebook itself the one threatening to democracy?

we will discuss a bombshell new york times report out this week. bloomberg tech is live streaming on twitter. check us out and follow us on twitter. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: it is no secret that facebook has been struggling to keep up with fallout from its platform being used for election meddling. now, a blockbuster new york times report alleges just how far the company has gone to protect itself. specifically, how ceo mark zuckerberg and coo sheryl sandberg went on the offensive to fight back against facebook detractors. this includes lobbying and going after lawmaker opposition. even hiring a republican opposition firm to paint its accusers as anti-semitic. specifically holocaust survivor and billionaire, george soros. a move that soros is

philanthropy chief calls reprehensible. he wrote in an open letter, to sandberg, the notion your company at your direction actively engaged in the same behavior to try to discredit people exercising their first amendment rights to protest facebook's role in disseminating vile propaganda is frankly astonishing to me and disappointing to see how you have failed to monitor hate and misinformation on the platform. to now learn your active in promoting these distortions is beyond the pale. zuckerberg, for his part, defended the company against the reporting on a call with reporters thursday. take a listen. >> to suggest we were not interested in knowing the truth or that we wanted to hide what we knew or that we try to -- tried to prevent investigation of this is simply untrue. emily: he added that facebook will form a new independent body to review content decisions. here to discuss, who else, but bloomberg's sarah frier, who covers facebook, and our contributor david kirkpatrick.

both of you were listening in on this call and zuckerberg seemed to be on the back foot here. reporters were firing questions at him, who's getting fired as a result of this. walk us through what zuckerberg had to say. sarah: when i thought was interesting about this call in relation to calls past was that he was willing to say there could be people who could get fired because of this. in previous calls, he said everything ends with him and he takes full responsibility. in this case, he said we did things wrong and we are always making personnel decisions. that is as far as we have ever gone as far as him saying he had to fire someone. one of the first pieces of fallout is that the firm that made the link with soros, although it was true there were financial relationships there, that firm has been cut from facebook ties. they're no longer working with them. zuckerberg said that he did not

know about the definer's relationship and he was not informed about the way the company was using them. emily: this firm, the definer's, as it is called it's interesting , he admitted on the call that he did not know anything about it and learned about it in the new york times piece. i want you to take a listen to what he had to say about personnel because i think it is worth hearing exactly what he had to say. >> i generally don't talk about that, specific cases of that in public. it's not that we run the company and people make the mistakes and there is no consequences, it is that it is part of the normal process of running the company. we are evaluating performance and making changes in roles or in some cases finding different people to do different roles when we need to. that is an ongoing process in part of running the company. we will certainly keep doing that. emily: this after being pushed by reporters. david, you have read the article and listened to the call. what you think about these revelations.

david: it was amazing the defensiveness of which the call was conducted. i think it is appropriate. i think facebook is coming to a sense of responsibility so egregiously late on many of these issues of misuse and abuse, and political manipulation that they are forced into an extremely uncomfortable position. what the article most amazingly laid out i think it is not , shocking to us that follow the company closely, but it was laid out in chapter and verse. it was in the title. delay, deflect, and distract. that has been the company policy. the other thing in the headline was leaning out. in effect, this article was very much about sheryl sandberg and her role being a progenitor or -- progenitor of a deflecting tactic.

it is very interesting to me that she was not on the call today. emily: it's interesting to see some of the internal machinations of how facebook work. mark and cheryl have surrounded themselves with loyalists. for this story to get written, people were talking. we heard about in exchange. -- an exchange with board members who work really market and cheryl about why they did not respond. that kind of detail is very unusual. the board has come out with a statement saying they did push mark and cheryl to move faster on this interference, but to say they were not interested in figuring it out or getting to the bottom is grossly unfair. sarah: i think david is right. the story points directly at the part of facebook that is run by sandberg and the strategy she has been praised for. political savvy, contacts in washington, to be able to go to them personally.

the story talks about her writing personal thank you notes after meeting with people and try to change their opinion. obviously, those things have a very different tone to them when you think about the broader narrative that facebook is trying to propagate which is that they are on top of this, they care about it willing to , change and behind the scenes to have one of their top executives talking to members of washington saying you really should not be as hard on us. this is not something you should look at. that kind of thing is very concerning because you have a behind-the-scenes that is different from the pace book -- facebook people are trying to portray. emily: are some of these tactics , you know, some of them are reprehensible but some are tactics used by all companies, -- other tech companies, all companies are lobbying on capitol hill. is it fair to criticize facebook for them when we can presume

other companies are doing this as well? david: i don't think there is anything wrong with the company managing its image. that is what pr is all about, but what is unseemly here and which the article laid out in devastating detail is that even as the company has essentially been in active in addressing some of the disastrously harmful social effects it has, it has been extremely active in managing its image to try to undermine the impact of people thinking it was bad at managing the social harms. to me, the former is much more important. i think the article may be did not hit as hard as i would have but that is what they need to be focusing on. not image, but substance. they did announced some things today that i thought were extremely positive. of oversight, which will largely be outside people, is a positive move. i would say that zuckerberg's

tone in general was the best tone i have ever heard in terms of taking, seriously, the set of problems they face. but why they did not have the attitude years ago is the real question that is not yet answered, and maybe cannot be answered, but has to be asked. coming up, the u.s. government is targeting a chinese tech firm for stealing from micron. we get the latest from micron's ceo next. plus, siri has become a household name, but can apple keep up? this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: the u.s. government -- first the u.s. government took aim at zte by leading sanctions that nearly put the telecoms giant at a business. now a chinese chip manufacturer is accused of stealing technology secrets from micron. monday, we caught up with the ceo of micron, sanjay mehrotra.

sanjay: it's important that intellectual property is protected. in all geographies across the world. a company like micron, we just turned 40. in those 40 years, we have invested billions of the voters -- of dollars in building new technology. we make memory and storage that is absolutely critical to all technology applications of the future. it's very important to protect our intellectual property. emily: do worry the move by the doj risks ratcheting up the tensions with china? china is a large market for us. we are very well engage with the customers in china, who very much appreciate the innovation capability that micron is able to bring to them. whether it is data center

related or mobile, smartphones, or related to industry or consumer industrial applications. china is an important market. our customers value the technology and the products that we bring to them. we are, you know, one of the three companies in the world that provide memory and storage solutions. our customers rely on us to bring advanced technology and solutions to them. we rely on them in terms of working closely with them to understand their requirements for the future, and we are very well engaged with the ecosystem of customers in china. micron, of course, has manufacturing in china, as well as our and the. -- research and development. we are an important partner to china. we want to make sure intellectual property is protected and there is fair, level playing field in the country. emily: you have facilities there, employees there and the chinese government accusing you of antitrust.

how do you navigate that situation? sanjay: when we work with them in terms of addressing their concerns, we absolutely openly work with them, and we're continuing to work with all aspects of technology, customer engagement, our manufacturing, as well as product development capabilities within china? micron is a global company of 34,000 team members worldwide. we are strong in the u.s. in terms of our r&d capability, manufacturing capability, as well as designing products. we are also well spread out throughout the globe, so very well diversified supply chain that the company has, as well as well diversified footprint. emily: any indication now that jeff sessions is no longer the head of the doj that that would change the course of action the u.s. is taking in your case? sanjay: we appreciate the action taken by the doj in terms of protecting intellectual property.

and the theft of intellectual property by unauthorized companies. i do not expect that their drive will change in any way. emily: you have been telling investors that the memory chip market has not changed. we are not seeing the mad rush to grab market share anymore, but i'm curious about the evidence that you are seeing. another one of your executives told a ubs conference that there had been some inventory issues recently. how do we make sure there is not some big downturn coming? sanjay: we discussed in our september earnings call that as is well known, there are certain cpu shortages. as well as certain inventory adjustments, but the important thing is that memory and storage are in the very early innings of driving the growth and experiences that have enabled, whether it's in autonomous -- in -- autonomous vehicles in the

future, which i like data centers on wheels, needing a lot of ram and flash, which we manufacture to ultimately, truly process all of that data that , the sensors on the car will generate in order to provide for a safe, comfortable driving experience for the future. or in the data centers today, in terms of really unleashing new business models, you need machine learning, artificial intelligence needs to process lots of data. that data resides in the memory and storage solutions. emily: that was micron's ceo. sticking with china, blue or cut capital founder says a new short report that this shanghai-based company is uninvestable. after a review of multiple data points, we spoke earlier about the firm's short position. >> we are short for four reasons. their revenues are overstated and their net losses are greater

than they reveal. we also think their headcount is substantially larger than they tell investors. there is an undisclosed party, and finally, their headline is wildly exaggerated. emily: still ahead, companies like apple, google, and amazon have invested billions in voice assistants. where we will see the tech integrated next. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: in 2010, steve jobs made a phone call, proposing a deal to provide the first true automated assistant. that was siri. became a launchpad for an

onslaught of voice assisted technology. syria, alexa, and google assistant, over 50% of assistant use -- households use intelligence assistance. it did not stop with apple, and he continues to lead a company behind samsung's bit speed. i sat down to talk steve jobs and the future of technology. take a listen. >> it started out with a phone call. he literally called me out of the blue and said we love what you are doing. and could you come over to my house tomorrow, i'd love to talk about it. emily: did you fall out of your chair? >> a little bit. it is not the normal startup routine. after you launcher app to have steve jobs call you. but yeah, we were flattered we were very interested. emily: you went, you met with

him, what happened? >> we have like a three-hour discussion in front of his , he was convincing us that they were going to win the smartphone wars. we called it throwing in together, that we could build a new way to interact, especially with the iphone. emily: at the time, a number of companies were trying to buy siri, correct? >> we had previous offers, but we were not ready to sell. when steve calls, every technologist wants to take what they are working with, their baby, and go big with it. so that was pretty hard to refuse, but we did decide, it was a long process. he called me like 37 days in a row, is calling me at midnight, so he was very involved. so that is what you mean

when you say relentless. and then he went on to develop with him. what was that like? >> he was very active. we met every week and went through, what we want siri to do for the first instantiation at apple. but it was fun to work with something like him, so detail oriented and had a very strong opinion about what it should do, and we have lots of debates. what was his vision? he wanted tothing do was to make it revolve around the basic, everyday use cases, calling, messaging, reminders, things you saw in the first version of siri. we wanted to get into more things like conversational commerce, the ability to buy a book and reserve things, take things that were harder to do with your phone. because you can use your voice

to do it, make it much easier. emily: there's a funny story about see you saying to siri are , you a man or a woman? what is your answer to the gender? of series of gender?s dag: siri is actually genderless even though the name in norwegian means beautiful woman who leads you to victory, we decided not to make it one gender or another and have it be a persona that is there to help you. emily: and you are right, you can choose male voices as well as a default. siri was first integrated into the iphone 4s. now we are up to the iphone xs. has it lived up to your expectations? so, on the positive side, it has gotten faster, speech recognition is better. i would have liked to see siri evolve to do more things, have greater capabilities to become a

bigger part of your life, merely because it is doing so many things for you. that was the genesis for the next company we started was how do we make it go from not a novelty but sort of utility in your life to something much bigger, a paradigm, be really reliant on and use in your everyday world. emily: why do you think siri has not gotten their? is it apple's fault? >> to some extent, but i think they just had a different focus than where we started originally. emily: what would you like to see apple do differently? >> i would like to have seen them to a third-party ecosystem. open up that is something we are doing now. we think that is the big missing peace. if you look at something like the app store, it is a perfect metaphor.

the iphone actually launched in 2007 with a few apple apps on it, the weather and basic things. when the apps store opened, it unleashed creativity of developers around the world. that change the world. emily: you took the rare step of selling your next start up to samsung, and not a major u.s. tech company. why? >> one of the big focuses for us in the world was ubiquity. when you look at the fact samsung sells 500 million devices a year of all different types, we saw an opportunity to take our technology and put it in place where it can affect millions of people around the world, lots of different context, different kinds of devices, the sheer scale is an ideal platform. emily: you talked about bixby. -- you just reintroduced bixby. sold it to samsung developers. what makes you think bixby can

compete with apple and amazon and google at this point? >> one of the points i made at the talk yesterday if people -- at the talk yesterday was that, people don't remember this, but google was the 14th search engine to enter the market. we are still in chapter one, not even the introduction to this story. i don't believe there is a timing issue. what we want to do is gain momentum and get the world of developers in an app store like way but bring it to ai. when you have a thousand things you can do with an assistance, -- assistant, it becomes a much more important part of your day. emily: you think we will be relying on one or two like google, just one, or do you see us using money in the future? -- many in the future? >> ultimately, it will boil down to a few. you will see minor assistants that will specialize in things.

be a part of that game. but ultimately, because it requires it to become such an important part of your life, all the personalization it learns about you, i think ultimately it -- people will use one far more than others. it becomes more like the search market. emily: do you see this being integrated into washing machines and refrigerators? and what does that world look -- look like? >> it is already happening. you have it sooner than later, you are seeing it on samsung. in a few years, bixby will be on a billion devices, and that is just samsung. we will open it up to other third-party hardware as well. emily: what do you say to people who think these listening devices are creepy, and they they don't want them in their living room, and they don't trust amazon and google not to listen to them? >> i would say don't buy them, but the reality is all the companies i have been associated

with take privacy and security very seriously. people have asked me, is my alexa listening to me or my home pod or my bixby? the answer is no. it is listening for what is called a wake word a wake word is the thing that lets it now that you are ready to tell it something and give it some sort of command. the bigger risk is yes, there is security concerns when your whole house is full of devices that could possibly listen in. there are risks with hackers or somebody breaking in, but it is not with the companies themselves. there is no behind-the-scenes conspiracy to listen in on what everybody is doing. less, --at was back at dag kittlaus, founder of siri. that was it for the best of

bloomberg technology. bloomberg tech is live streaming on twitter, check us out and follow our global breaking news network on twitter. this is bloomberg. ♪

we focus on the risks and rewards. ♪ >> oil under pressure. crude prices impact flows for oil and energy stock etf's. is the tail wagging the dog? the volatility in equities. and, honoring those who serve. encouraging veteran participation in the workfor