emily: i'm emily chang and this is "best of bloomberg technology." we bring you all the top interviews from this week and tech. coming up, trade truce tensions? presidents trump and xi by a days,ial it down for 90

but trump's tweets sent markets on a wild ride. what did they agree on? to temporarily halt the trade war. plus, locking up huawei, the ceo arrested by canadian authorities at the behest of the united states. how will this impact the tenuous trade truce? spacex sets a record, deploying 64 satellites in one fell to -- falcon nine rocket. first, to our top story. the confusion following trade discussions between the u.s. and china at the g20 in argentina. on monday, global markets cheered the weekend a court that accord that suggested the two presidents agreed to a 90 day tariff tax, but things changed when doubts emerged over what the world's two largest economies had agreed on. we will set the scene with this report from monday with michael mckee who was at the summit. michael: the agreement may be the best investors could hope for, but doesn't necessarily mean big changes in chinese

behavior ahead, particularly for tech. it isn't sure what is agreed to. the white house has a list of semi-specifics, including reconsideration of the qualcomm deal if the companies are interested and purchasing what president trump calls massive amounts of agricultural, energy, industrial, and other products. chinese officials haven't mentioned qualcomm and say only that they are "willing to expand the imports according to the needs of the domestic marketplace and the people." no specifics on products. the u.s. administration will spend 90 days negotiating unforced technology transfer, intellectual property protection, nontariff barriers, theft.er the chinese say president xi agreed to open markets and resolve the legitimate concerns of the u.s. there is no indication china will make any changes in its made in china to 2025 effort to lead the world in the technologies of the future. on the other hand, the u.s. made no concessions on exports to

china of dual use technology with potential military applications and offered no indication the u.s. won't subject proposed chinese investments to detailed review. even if there are 90 days of negotiations, that hardly seems enough to make progress on complicated issues, which leaves analysts saying the countries kicked the can down the road. trade tensions will come back in 2019. emily: michael mckee there on monday. tuesday, the president posted a series of tweets hinting he could extend that period of detente, coming after more confusion on eliminating tariffs -- tweet about eliminating tariffs of u.s. made cars. larry kudlow told foxnews the deal isn't finalized, but he expected china to lower its auto tariffs. take a listen. larry: the president expects they would take their car tariffs down to zero.

they were 15%, then they were not up to 40% as a retaliatory move, and i think you will see pretty soon, they will be knocked down to zero. that is my guess. emily: we discussed with a senior fellow of the asia society. >> the heads of german automakers meeting at the white house today with trump administration officials, emerging from the meeting and their message was not that they are here to advocate for trade. the eu isn't charge of that, but -- is in charge of that, but they came to tell trump about their plans, that they might be able to expand themselves in the u.s. and i'm sure auto tariffs did come up and that would be a disservice to the companies they want to important to the u.s., but the larger message was there is potential for more u.s. investment and car production even by european companies, so let's not scuttle the relationship. emily: the chinese haven't said

anything about this at all. they have not commented on the president's initial tweets nor have they commented on the backtracking. what do you make of that? isaac: i am having a tough time figuring out what is going on. my best guess is that they didn't really agree to anything on saturday night except an agreement to keep talking and trump felt either desperate or impulsive for a deal. the u.s. side put out a list of things they wanted to get out of it or thought they got out of it. you had a bizarre trump tweet sunday about the terrorist that -- tariffs that kudlow had to walk back and the markets and outside observers and possibly the chinese are scrambling to understand what exactly is -- trump's play here and if this is this something planned or just impulse and error? emily: one of the most memorable tweets of the day so far, "i am

a tariff man. when countries come to raid the wealth of our nation, i want them to pay for the privilege. it will always be the best way to max out our economic power. we are right now taking billions of dollars in tariffs. make america rich again." aren't american taxpayers paying the tariffs? sarah: there are companies in the u.s. who are complaining who import from china that the tariffs are hurting them. china has issued retaliatory tariffs, being hit by those. the trump administration would argue it has added billions of dollars, but it comes at a cost for u.s. businesses. i think that is the key marker as we look ahead to the 90 days. what impacts are the tariffs having on the economy? trump has a few months to assess the data to see if these trade headwinds that economists are predicting are taking hold as the tax cut affect peters out and this global momentum shifts a little bit. emily: on the intellectual property theft issue, isaac, the

chinese government has laid out 38 different punishments to be applied to various ip violations. how significant is this? what counts as a violation and will the government can force -- and force it? force it? isaac: all we can say right now is it is a positive step. it is really hard to know whether or not the government will expend the political capital it needs to enforce it. my guess is that for some really agree just cases of brands being ripped off, they'll make a big show about taking those down, but for companies like huawei, a national champion, i would be shocked to see them say you are accused of stealing u.s. ip so we will actually punish you according to new regulations. emily: but the range of potential ip violations is broad. chinese citizens coming to work

at u.s. companies and going back to china. walk us through all of the potential issues around ip theft and what this is actually addressing. isaac: what this actually addresses, it gives beijing the opportunity to say you guys have a big problem with ip, we are doing something on it. here is a concrete list of what actually we are doing. there is such a huge disconnect in china often between the letter of the law and its implementation. there is also an issue, an old chinese expression, the mountains are high and the emperor is far away, with beijing's ability to control the implementation of something like this in farther regions from beijing. we do have 38 specific steps they say they will take, but i would be shocked if we have this conversation in three months and find they have taken a lot of those steps. emily: sarah, that said, is this

going to be enough to appease the administration? sarah: this ip issue isaac was discussing is the high water mark for any deal that trump is going to reach. achieving that in 90 days sounds almost impossible. last month, the u.s. released a report that said china has not responded to any of the trump administration's demands to address the ip issues. it was the basis for the tariffs to begin in july. if the trump administration is -- ignores this issue, which will be the most difficult to tackle, will be going to easy on china in terms of the bar that it set. emily: that was isaac stone fish and sarah mcgregor. trade tensions were further complicated after the arrest in canada of huawei's chief financial officer. coming up, we will dive into the reasons and repercussions 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: lyft has filed to go public. they submitted early-stage documents for an ipo beat uber to the punch. bloomberg has learned that lyft is working with j.p. morgan and jeffries to lead the offering in the first half of next year. the banks have pitched valuations from $18 billion to $30 billion. more on our top story, trade talks between the u.s. and china could get even more complicated following the arrest of a chinese telecom executive. the u.s. convinced canada to arrest huawei cfo meng wanzhou in connection with violating sanctions against iran. she is the daughter of huawei's founder. we talked to sam sacks and a a cyber policy and china digital policy fellow along with bloomberg's mark gurman. >> this is seen as a dramatic

escalation from beijing. even though this isn't directly linked to the trade war, it comes at a time of tremendous political tension between the u.s. and china and could make ongoing trade talks more contentious. emily: the statement from china at the request of the u.s. side, the canadian side arrested a citizen not violating any law. the chinese protest over such actions which seriously harmed the human rights of the victim. they want the u.s. and canada to correct the wrongdoing, to restore her personal freedom. mark, put this into context because huawei is by far the most global of china's tech companies. alibaba and tencent are huge, but they are still relatively confined to the chinese and asian markets. mark: huawei has two main businesses we care about.

one is the devices business, and the other is there telecommunications equipment business. the phone business has become one of the biggest in the entire world, eclipsing apple according to some estimates as some of the most popular phones on the market. that is not what we really care about. we care about the telecommunications because all of the talk is about 5g and word is huawei is using equipment to spy on citizens in other countries, america, the u.k., australia. that is what these conspiracy theories originated from years ago when everyone started looking into huawei. that brings us into a doj investigation from the u.s. that started around april that we reported on bloomberg at the time. this arrest appears to be part of that. emily: it is impossible not to view this in the context of president trump's meeting with xi jinping. we don't know if the president knew about the arrest, but what do you make of the broader

signal that this sends to china in the midst of will or won't the u.s. strike a deal on trade? samm: this comes at a time when the u.s. is taking a multi-pronged approach to taking down huawei. the u.s. government has gone around talking with allies and partners across asia and europe and said huawei should not be a part of 5g networks. we are seeing signs the u.k. government is going to be reviewing huawei in their networks, which is significant. i see this as a broader effort by the u.s. government to take on china's technological dominance as they see it using huawei, maybe as a whipping post for that. emily: just how advanced are huawei's technologies compared to u.s. networking companies, compared to u.s. smartphone makers? mark: on the telecommunication side, huawei is regarded as one of the top players in 5g networking, their equipment that

allows them to connect to smartphones. they are a major player, their equipment is intended to work almost globally and is a big part of their overall business in china. this is definitely not a good thing for the company's bottom line and that is one of many reasons you see stock trades at -- and at futures having such an such anutures having impact globally right now. in terms of their smart phones, they are regarded as some of the best as well and we have seen them shut out of places in the u.s., at least. we have seen some carriers including verizon and at&t dropping deals to carry huawei devices in january, february earlier in 2018. we see the pentagon no longer allowing employees to buy huawei devices. best buy has shut huawei out of operations, one of the biggest devices retailer in the world. we see a lot of companies working with the u.s. government to shut out huawei. emily: how do you imagine the chinese government could retaliate or react here?

samm: there are a number of ways they could retaliate. they could take measures against u.s. tech companies in china. it is an environment where all bets are off. they can use standards, market access tools, i think this could be a chip that could be used as a bargaining tool in ongoing negotiations in the 90 day erin: following the dinner. right now, this says we are in a new environment in the u.s.-china dynamic and there is uncertainty. we don't know how this will play out. emily: what is the likelihood is like zte where president trump steps in and placed the hero. he figured it all out, zte paid a big fine and were able to go back to their usual operations. samm: this brings up an important question because the theory is this kind of investigation should be independent from any kind of ongoing political negotiation over trade. we saw that wasn't the case with zte, so it is possible this

could be used in a negotiation. zte is different in that it was brought to its knees when the u.s. threatened to cut it off from access to u.s. components. huawei is not as dependent as zte on the u.s. supply chain. telecom carriers in the u.s. and globally, many use huawei. they will have tremendous impact from that angle. emily: samm sacks and bloomberg's mark gurman. coming up, another trip to the white house to talk emerging innovations like ai, ig and robotics. we will have all of the details shortly. facebook's messaging market in asia, home to more than 200 million whatsapp users. we talk about the opportunities along with the challenges later in the show. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: tech industry leaders descended on the white house this week to talk about emerging animations like artificial intelligence. while the administration's trade war with china wasn't officially on the agenda, it loomed large. we broke it down thursday. alex: i think it has a lot to do with trade and less with the future of technology, the industries of the future that the purported purpose of the meeting. ceo's wanted to know whether the white house has a plan to resolve this trade war with china in a way that truly gets at china's alleged theft of intellectual property. emily: trade representative robert lighthizer was there, longtime hardliner on china. what does that signify? alex: it shows that trade was probably the truth agenda item. -- true agenda item. the white house was expecting the ceos to come with questions on trade.

it wasn't something the white house particularly plans to -- planned to bring up, but were prepared for it. emily: it has been a confusing week, a volatile week. do you imagine the white house will listen to the concerns that tech ceos might have about trade issues? alex: it feels like the white house is looking for a way out of this trade war regardless of the tech ceos concerns. i think they are staring at mountains of unsold soybeans in iowa and wobbles in the stock market and wondering whether this trade dispute is not working out in america's favor, so i think the concerns, the tech ceos raised will be added to the pile of other indicators that the trade war is not particularly great for anyone. emily: this isn't the first meeting the white house has had with tech ceos.

put it into context with that -- context for us. alex: we don't have any readout from this meeting from the white house or the ceos. we don't know anything that was discussed for a fact. i expect very little to come of this meeting. the president has done several of these, as you mentioned, and there has not been any particular policy or announcements that the white house has proposed as a result of any of this stuff. i think the white house for the most part likes to stay in touch with the most important people in u.s. industries. emily: bloomberg's alex wayne in washington. i want to talk more about the meeting. while the official agenda listed ai, robotics, 5g, it took place against a backdrop of trade tensions simmering between the united states and china.

to talk about how those are tech companies and the u.s.'s policy toward technology, we have david kirkpatrick in san francisco. senior joshua new, analyst. he has a report out arguing the u.s. needs a national ai strategy to boost u.s. economic competitiveness and support u.s. defense capabilities. not particularly optimistic anything will come out of this, but what does the white house need to understand about the advance of ai in other countries around the world and what can be done about it in the united states? joshua: thanks for having me. the important thing to keep in mind when it comes to a i is the united states enjoyed an early lead because of our strong technology sector and innovation regulatory environment. other countries are aggressively pursuing leadership in this

space. there are signs our lead is, so china in particular is the best positioned to overtake the u.s. they released their artificial intelligence strategy in 2017 and are detailing massive amounts of funding and investment with the stated goal of being the world leader in ai by 2030. the united states, unless there is action, won't be able to compete with china. emily: at the same time, we're seeing tech lash coming from the president. he has been hard on google, amazon, facebook. how does that play out, given the need for progress on these broader issues? david: there are different parts of tech and google and facebook don't have much participation in the chinese market. a number of the companies in the white house today do have very deep business ties in china. emily: except google is considering going back in china. david: there were just reports

of how well ads are selling in china soto. the president says one thing, does another often. i think that is worth keeping in mind. i also think this issue has to do -- this meeting has to do with trade, but goes beyond trade because there are genuine long-term issues of u.s. competitiveness that have to be addressed because not only is china moving forward with ai and other technologies, we have led this historically, but we are literally the only major country that does not have an explicit government policy of supporting our ai and other technology developments. i think the trump administration has been moving steadily toward a more explicit set of supporting policies for tech in the united states as a competitive weapon, and i think this discussion is connected to that, even though there are short-term issues about ip theft, etc. emily: even so, many would argue the u.s. has a thriving tech

sector. silicon valley is still innovating, so what are the drawbacks of the u.s. not having a comprehensive policy like perhaps china does? joshua: yes, it is true the u.s. does have a strong technology sector. we are the world leaders in ai for now, but there are signs this lead is slipping. china in 2015 surpassed the united states in a number of patents related to ai and deep learning is filed and in 2017, published six times as many compared to the united states. there are serious education concerns that we might not be producing enough workers with the ai skills necessary to develop these kinds of technology. we are not meeting that demand as it stands today, and it is only going to get worse without policymaker intervention. r&d investments are at nearly half a century low as a share of gdp and that is crucial for developing the foundational research the private sector can later innovate 20 years down the line.

since we are not doing that now, the future of the private sector's ability to develop in the space is limited. emily: coming up, here is something you don't often see associated with an iphone. a discount. well apples latest marketing moves be enough to win our holiday customers? bloomberg technology, livestreaming on twitter. follow our global network tictoc on twitter. this is bloomberg. ♪ ♪ there's no place like home ♪

argh! i'm trying... ♪ yippiekiyay. ♪ mom. ♪

emily: welcome back to "the best of bloomberg technology." i'm emily chang. apple supplier woes continue. tuesday, cirrus logic joined others to tumble after cutting the forecast following worries about future iphone demand. shares of cirrus fell as much as 6% in early trading before recovering some of that loss. we spoke with mark gurman about this and the measures apple is

taking to try to sell more iphones. mark: they are not actually cutting prices per se. they are advertising a lower price which makes it so interesting. they are advertising the iphone xr for $300 less than it costs. this is a marketing tactic you might see from samsung or huawei or some of the carriers for at&t. this is a new type of effort for apple. this is not something we have seen from them, basically disguising the price or saying it is something it is not. this is a trade in deal they are boosting, so this is a new, aggressive tactic and it was unbelievable to me following apple for so long, and seeing a banner for a $300 discount that is not really a discount at the top of the page. emily: you do not think about banner ads and discounts associated with the iphone, however those are being delivered.

talk about the marketing shuffle. they have put additional staff on trying to make sure they get more iphones out the door? mark: about a month ago, they shuffled some of their marketing resources and staff at apple in what one person called a fire --ll, the allocating reallocating resources to find new ways to market the iphone and boost sales in light of these concerns, and in recent weeks and months about the prospects for the holiday season. emily: talk to us about these continued supplier cuts. are the alarm bells getting louder? mark: we have heard this before with the iphone x and it turned out it did quite well. it was their best seller on a weekly basis. apple continued to say that iphone unit sales were not that bad across 2017 and 2018. the problem is, all of these fears are compounded by the fact that apple will no longer reveal their iphone unit sales.

at this point, the truth is important, but apple will not come out and correct the record. they already said they are not going to do that. quite frankly, that says the days of iphone unit growth are over and perhaps they will share that when growth increases. we will find out what it means based on the revenue numbers as well. emily: i have this chart showing apple's continued dependence on the iphone. it has gone up and it has gone down slightly more recently. we have been talking about how apple is trying to make this transition to the services company, but the iphone will still be incredibly important. we talked about how the company is making a bet that 5g one not -- won't be a big deal next year, they are waiting until 2020, yet at&t is working on a phone with samsung that will have 5g conductivity and be ready for next year. how much of a threat is that to apple?

mark: in years past with the iphone 3g and iphone 5, they missed the boat by one year. it did not matter because five to 10 years ago, no one cared about any high-tech phone other than the iphone. these days, the competition is much higher and you will see samsung having about a year and a half head start on 5g. it is a network technology that will be more heavily marketed. i want to touch on the transition for a minute. apple has been trying to give it investors to look at services and i quite frankly find the notion that they are pushing this a little ridiculous, because the services have to run on something. services growth has been tied to the growth of iphone hardware. at some point, they will have to have a new piece of hardware to run those services on. emily: it is all about continued growth of the apple ecosystem. do you think we will be getting more supplier cuts? there are companies we have not

heard it from yet. mark: and the careful balance has to be related to an apple supplier and what can be said about samsung's own issues selling phones, because the smart phone market overall is reaching saturation and growth is slowing. the interesting one today with cirrus logic, in their most recent filing with the financial institutions, they say that 82% of the revenues come from apple. that is a big chunk of their revenues, the most i have seen from any supplier to be dedicated to a single company. it is not great for their business and their shareholders, but that is indicative proof that this is an apple related problem. emily: we kept on apple with our journalist turned investor who is now a partner at true ventures. we discussed the challenges ahead for the tech giant. om: feel that they are doing what they are supposed to do as a company. they are making new technologies, new products.

they are pushing the envelope on their products, whereas they have new services business which is growing really fast. as a company, they are doing what they are supposed to do. do i get bothered by their not reporting their numbers? a little bit. i think you need to be more open. emily: let's talk about facebook. i have been dying to get your thoughts on the latest controversies and new reporting about what mark zuckerberg in sheryl sandberg been doing over the last couple of years in response to russian election meddling, fake news, and more. the title of "the new york times" investigation certainly does not reflect well for either of them. then there has been this trip of news thatdrop maybe they were not truthful when they responded to the article and shares have plummeted 35% since july with hundreds of millions of dollars wiped off the market cap.

you followed facebook for a long time. you know mark zuckerberg. what is your reaction to these leadership issues? om: let's separate the leadership issues with the business. there is not that many players in the advertising market, it is google and it is them. advertisers are not leaving facebook anytime soon. they may make statements in the press, but not a single one has quit facebook because it cannot afford to. how many people have quit facebook, employees? not very many. i think what people forget, the biggest challenge in terms of facebook is not mark or sheryl, it is more their business model is based on fundamentally engaging people constantly. in order to do that, they are willing to sacrifice any sense of morality around it. emily: to that point, six cofounders of the companies that facebook has acquired over the years, whatsapp, instagram, and

oculus, have all left the company and not with nice things to say. how concerning is that? om: everybody knew what this company was for a long time. since 2007, i have been saying this constantly, that we have to be very careful how these guys collect information, how they push the society, and what they do with our data. unfortunately, 10 years later, it is a little too late to say that. i think when whatsapp or oculus or instagram sold their businesses, they knew what would happen. to think that they were unaware of the outcome, that is childish. emily: if whatsapp and into -- instagram are where the future growth is, do you think facebook can achieve the same kind of growth may have seen if the original social network if indeed engagement is plateauing on facebook proper?

om: i think they will grow in -- i think they are going to ruin instagram much more than facebook as they have more economic pressure. they will really push the envelope and that will mean that instagram will -- the lifespan of instagram as a golden goose will be much shorter. emily: what about whatsapp? om: i don't know about that one. emily: when the facebook cofounder left and appointed chris daniels to run whatsapp, he has been to india a couple of times, and you understand what is happening with technology in india, do you think that is a huge opportunity for facebook that they can exploit? om: whatsapp owns the indian market. everyone uses whatsapp to make phone calls, send text messages. people live inside of whatsapp. but, i don't know how they turn that into money. it is still a big if.

i don't think it is very clear as to how that whole communication channel gets monetized. is it through e-commerce, advertising? is it through paid services, chat services? definitely they have a big opportunity there. emily: do you think -- as you mentioned earlier, this is still where advertiser dollars are going -- but do you think we will ultimately see a decline of facebook over the next 10 years? or do you think it is status quo? om: it took 25 years for yahoo! to be sold for a few billion dollars, so i think facebook will be here for a long time. emily: is facebook the next yahoo!? om: eventually we all become yahoo!, less relevant, less able to innovate. i think every company goes through that phase.

with marketplace and their ability to overlook any kind of morality or doing the right thing, will keep them in a good place and make their investors very happy. emily: that was true ventures partner om malik. coming up, spacex with another launch of 64 small spacecrafts, we will bring you all the details. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: oracle told the pentagon it plans to file a lawsuit. the company is claiming that terms for the $10 billion project violate procurement standards and unfairly favor amazon. oracle is pushing to protect its defense technology business

following a months long lobbying by oraclen washington and microsoft. a pentagon spokeswoman confirmed the government received the notice of intent to sue. not one but two spacex launches this week, the 16th mission to resupply the international space station. perhaps even more notable, a launch lifted 64 satellites in one fell swoop. what you are seeing is considered to be the largest rideshare mission in history. the falcon nine rocket took off from vandenberg air force base in california, a sign of the growing demand to launch smaller satellites, modern devices that some companies believe will improve business. joining us to talk about the satellite launch is max chapman in new york. max: it is a big deal in the sense that it is yet another sort of proof point in what seems to be a growing sense that spacex is a mature, successful, stable company that elon musk

and gwen shotwell, the coo, have turned this thing into a big aerospace contractor that is a force to be reckoned with. emily: talk about what makes this mission unique and what it took to get here. dana: it is a milestone in all kinds of ways. it is the 19th mission of the year. that is a new record for the company. they have managed to recover the first stage booster again. it had flown twice deviously. this is the first time they have caught or recovered a rocket booster that has already flown several times. they are trying to catch the fairing, this crazy boat named mr. stephen which has a contraption. we do not know if that has worked out yet. they launched 64 microsatellites. typically when you think of a rocket launch, the payload is some huge object, one big, massive satellite.

in this case, it was 64 small ones and that is where people think the satellite industry is going. smaller payloads as opposed to one large big one. emily: max, what does this pave the way towards? obviously every mission is another step toward something and towards elon musk's broader goal. max: it paves the way towards having a long-term, sustainable business. we do not know for sure what spacex's books look like. we know they are collecting a lot of revenue because the revenue numbers for each of these launches are relatively public. the list price is. to build a sustainable business, to be able to make a much bigger rocket, which is the next step, they need to generate profits. being able to tap from not just the public sector, which spacex has made a really great business in doing business with the air force and nasa, but start up private space companies, that

will be good. there are other rocket startups , rocket lab is one, that are betting on small satellites as a focus. if spacex can keep the small satellite market and do the big launches for nasa and the air force, that will be great for them. emily: spacex has a contract to send american astronauts to the international space station. how far away is that? dana: the first test flight is supposed to be in january, and if that goes well they could be flying astronauts to the space station as early as june. that is a big deal. elon musk wants to colonize mars but has never proven he can fly humans safely. if they could do that, it will be a big proof point for spacex. emily: what has to happen before they get there? isn't nasa doing some sort of investigation into spacex and boeing? dana: nasa is looking at the

safety culture of both companies. it comes after elon musk spoke pot online. it is nasa's excuse to look under the hood as to what the safety culture is. it has not affected the timeline at all. everything is still a go for a commercial crew and nasa has invested an enormous amount of resources to make sure that happens, because without boeing and spacex, the alternative is american astronauts have to fly on a russian rocket. emily: max, do we think this investigation will turn up anything of significance or raise any red flags, or will everything move forward for spacex as planned? max: my expectation is that it always takes longer than it is supposed to take. this is an issue that neither nasa nor spacex nor boeing can afford to screw up. if nasa does not have these private companies, it will not have a way to send humans into

space. we would have to rely on the russians. you really want to get it right, and just for the safety of the crew, and is one thing to be launching expensive satellites into space. it is another putting human beings on that rocket. emily: in the same way that tesla has missed deadlines and some of the goals that have been -- that musk has set, but has now reached some of those, do we see the same in spacex or are they more on time? dana: the launch industry in general is notoriously late. today's launch was supposed to happen last week and then they had to delay it because of the weather and there was another delay when they were looking over technical specs. it is always late. the mars colonization plans will always be late. falcon heavy was late. i do not think it is much of an issue because it is a privately held company and it is more of a standard in space, everything is late in space.

it is an industrywide thing. emily: from the court to investing, we will speak to golden state warriors star turned tech entrepreneur steph curry on why he is betting on a travel startup. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: steph curry disrupted basketball by making seemingly impossible three-point shots look routine. now he is looking for disruptors in business as he scouts out investments off the court. the nba's highest paid player is bulking up his investment portfolio of tech companies with his latest bet, a startup called snap travel.

he says it is destined for success. curry caught up with natalie wong in toronto. steph: being in silicon valley for the last 10 years, it is about relationships and expanding ourselves. part of my team is kind of on the surface in terms of companies that are being disruptive, and having success. in terms of snap travel, finding ways to meet the consumer where they are in terms of being disruptive in that industry. excited about the company and the leadership and excited to be a part of the team. natalie: what type of value do you think you bring as an investor to the table? steph: hopefully a lot in terms of using my platform to bring attention and awareness to the company and what it can offer. there are a lot of things around

my brand and things around the philanthropic world and media space that hopefully can boost space that hopefully can boost and amplify the things that's -- snap travel is doing well. i love to be hands-on with things and trying to bring added value anyway i can, and being available, that is something we try to bring to the table as well. natalie: you have made a variety of investments in different companies. what is your investment philosophy? steph: it is continuing to grow. obviously looking at founders and their track records, we want to look at their judgments and build credibility and sustainability early in our investment strategy. in terms of finding companies that have strong market traction doing our due , diligence, and the approach of trying to be the hardest workers

in the room, that is very important. in terms of trying to be successful early and to continue to sustain. natalie: you have obviously had a process that is made you arguably one of the best basketball players so far, but what is your process making investments and business decisions? walk me through that. how do you make that decision? steph: in a synergy to basketball, you surround yourself with the right people. people are smarter -- people who are smarter than me and forming those. in terms of details of the beginning, doing our homework, doing research, getting educated and being smart with our money, that is very important. natalie: do you see yourself as more of a risk taker or do you have more of a conservative approach? steph: obviously i'm somewhere in the middle. i like to take some chances, but you have to make sound judgments and make sure you are doing your homework and aligning with the

right people. i think the power and leadership and how important that is in the process of building strong, sustainable, and successful companies is first and foremost. natalie: many former basketball legends have become very savvy business men. -- business investors. who are some players you have turned to for a outside of your father? steph: that is the fun part about playing where i get to play. the network is amazing. when you go to the games and look around courtside, major corporations ceos and things like that. the network is strong and my tenure is there. i can have a long list of people but had a simple conversation where you just learn. veterans in the game that have been really successful, you

named two of them. so far, dave robinson for sure as far as what he is doing in the philanthropic space, seeing how successful magic is in his ventures. there are plenty of guys who have done it well. i am trying to do it my way, but listening to advice as well. emily: that was golden state warriors star steph curry speaking with natalie wong. that does it for this edition of "the best of bloomberg technology." we will bring all the latest in tech throughout the week. tune in every day 5:00 p.m. new york, 2:00 p.m. san francisco. we are streaming live and follow our global network on twitter. i am emily chang. this is bloomberg. ♪

>> coming up on "bloomberg best," the stories that shaped the week in business around the world. the u.s. and china call a trade truce, but it is not as simple as that sounds. >> there is something of a disconnect. >> what are the exact items? we do not have details yet. >> a lot of volatility and angst in washington, d.c. reverberating in the markets. >> more battling over brexit. a key vote approaches. opec and its allies gather for a critical meeting. >> 1.2 million barrels per day is the number. >> some of that is fairly insignificant for us. >> investigators debate over the yield curve. and november jobs report.

>