♪ emily: i'm emily chang and this is "the best of bloomberg technology," where we bring you all of our top interviews this week from tech. facebook hit with a bombshell, "the new york times" reports the network cut deals with 150 companies to share more data than it disclosed. the first big suit is filed against facebook over cambridge analytica. apple versus qualcomm, both sides of the global patent showdown weigh in after china supports a ban on the sale of

iphone models. six from production hell to hitting model three milestones, we look back on the roller coaster year that was at tesla. first to our top story months , nine after a scandal erupted over facebook's open borders overuse of information, those are under scrutiny again. "the new york times" reported this week that after facebook tighten rules in 2015 to limit the user information that could be linked to outside apps, it the social network made many exceptions and cut special deals with certain companies. for example, facebook gave spotify and netflix the ability to read and write. facebook helped apple hide signs wereigns that it's devices asking users for data. "the new york times" got access to enable article sharing. in all, 150 companies had access to more data than facebook

this close, impacting hundreds of millions of users every month, and this comes as it faces a fresh legal challenge by the d.c. tourney a general over the cambridge analytica general over the cambridge analytica scandal. to discuss the latest, we talked to rich greenfield who has a buy rating. and sarah frier. facebook gave spotify and netflix the ability to read and write and delete my personal messages? what does that mean? >> what facebook is trying to allow you to do is to use facebook in a way that is better integrated with those apps. so you could send a song to a friend, a show to a friend, and you would not have to go straight to facebook and copy and paste. it is integrated. you need to have the right permissions. if you delete a message, it would delete it in your facebook chat history. emily: could spotify go in there

and read something i sent to a friend in 2013? >> that is unclear here. facebook does not go into that detail in its response. what i want to know is, there is a big difference here between allowing you to do that kind of messaging and being able to read all of your personal messages with people who are not even using spotify, and it is not clear where on the spectrum this falls. what matters is that facebook said post-2014, it wound down those deals to share data with third parties. they said that to congress. this is an example of how that was not quite true. emily: according to the new york times of these was ongoing with , one yahoo! as recently as this summer. facebook has a post today. to be clear, none of these features gave companies access without people's permission nor did they violate our settlement 2012 with the sec.

facebook, rich, is saying that partners did not use this data inappropriately even though there is certainly no way to verify that. do you think that all of this bad news is going to start to impact growth? >> i go back to what sarah said. you think about a consumer, you take a song on spotify and want to share with a friend. copying a link and going into facebook and looking up your friend and pasting it in is cumbersome and certainly not user-friendly. i think facebook has wanted to be since the earliest days the social layer that connects you and everyone that you are friends with across the internet. and i think many of the things we are talking about, or that the new york times is talking about, tie back to wanting to be log incial connectivity,

with facebook and share content with your friends from third-party sites. this was to make your life better. it is easy in the maelstrom that facebook seems to be stuck in now to say that the company had evil intentions with all of this. from a consumer standpoint, this was done to make the consumer's life easier, and it is in part why the users liked using facebook and instagram. they make life easier than life twobefore those applications existed. the reality is -- emily: i do not think, yes, this is making it easier but the problem is not so much what they did but how they talked about it. they were telling people they had full control over their data. they were telling people that they could opt out of these things. yet, we hear that they are. even if this is something consumers want, was facebook being totally clear with people about how it worked? there are several examples this year, not just the story, that they were not.

>> the article also says netflix was accessing personal messages and netflix came out and responded in said that isn't true. just because you put words on paper does not mean every word is accurate or correct or that capabilities were being utilized. it takes two sides to utilize data inappropriately. also the person taking advantage of it. there are two aspects to this and i think we are focusing on the facebook side of it and not the third parties that were trying to leverage this, and were they leveraging it or was it that it was available, which, i agree was an issue. emily: ok, so let's talk more specifically about what facebook got out of this as well. some of the data they got back from these companies enabled them to power the people you may know feature, which, and i have

seen friends, it feels creepy, . you hear about psychiatrists and patients being connected to each other when there is no reason facebook should have that information or that those people would want to be connected more publicly. so talk to us about what facebook got out of this. >> facebook is collecting data from every possible avenue it and even beyond this new york times story, i had a separate discussion with facebook yesterday about location data. there were users on media who posted a story about how they turned off location data and yet on their facebook app, and yet they were getting location-based ads. that thereter said is one way to turn off your location. but we can always get your location and there is no way to opt out location-based advertising on facebook. and that does not sound like what they were explaining about

how you have control over your data. they should be clear with people about exactly how this all works, because in confusion, there is fear. emily: facebook shares have been suffering. gtvve this chart on my library that shows the market cap as it rose to the middle of this year and it started to decline significantly. rich, i know you happen more optimistic about the idea this will not impact growth significantly, that this bad news will not be bad for growth. not just as a journalist, but as a user, these revelations bother me. i do not feel i have this information when i signed up to facebook. are you changing your opinion that this will hurt growth? >> you might want to look at the cookies tracking you on every device you use. whether it is the mobile device in your hand or your computer, but i would argue that you probably have hundreds of cookies tracking literally

everything you do. everything you click on is being tracked by some site. the entire premise of internet advertising is tracking you and everything you do, pictures you look at, pictures you click on, everything you do is tracked and used to track and target in some fashion, so this is a broader issue that goes well beyond facebook. emily: rich greenfield and sarah frier. coming up, it is apple versus qualcomm in a battle around the world. we will hear from the attorneys representing both sides of the case. and if you like bloomberg news, check us out on the radio, cap,n on the bloomberg bloomberg.com, and in the u.s. on sirius xm. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ emily: a new development this week in the ongoing global legal dispute between qualcomm and apple. thursday, qualcomm won another injunction on iphone sales in germany after a china court ruled in qualcomm's favor,

banning sales of six older models of the iphone across the country. we caught up with qualcomm general counsel don rosenberg tuesday, who says that apple needs to take this seriously. don: this case started in 2017. apple and its attorneys have have been involved regularly in every process going on in the court. they were aware that a preliminary injunction was being sought, and it was ordered. it is not and nor will it. this is an order that became effective immediately. and it affects older iphones. it affects the iphone 6s through the x, and the only reason it does not apply to later devices is because when we brought the suit, they did not exist. emily: when do you expect this to take a bite out of apple sales? don: it should have been taking a bite and should be right now in china. the order requires them to stop

selling, stop offering for sale, and stop importing any devices between those model numbers i suggested. and by the way, the new models will be coming very soon. we are already in the process of seeking an order covering new models as well. emily: there are obviously developments in this global patent showdown every day. we spoke with steve mollenkopf in august. take a listen to what he had to say about where he hopes to get back to with apple. >> i think there is probably no better opportunity and partner for qualcomm than to work with apple. it makes sense that the technology leader in mobile should be partnered with the product leader in mobile, and those things tend to work out. the way we think is that you get the disputes figured out and you move on into a different period. i hope to be in that period

according to the schedule we have laid out. emily: this seems to have gotten uglier cents. is that really possible? >> possibly to get uglier or possibly to resolve? emily: -- don: as steve has said, this will resolve one way or the other, either through the court processes, which are going on all over the world, and rulings such as this recent china ruling , or through some kind of settlement process. that is the way these things generally terminate, but it will end at some point. now, do we want to do business with apple? saidutely, as steve has many times. obviously they are a significant player in the mobile communications market, and if we were to get there through settlement or because one of these many milestones, as steve describes them, have occurred and that brings parties together, then so be it. emily: there seems to be confusion on the pathway to

resolution. are the companies in talks or not? don: we are not talking about whether we are in talks. the company's obviously engaged, have engaged in the past, continue to engage on some level. apparent totely everyone that can watch this that the company's are involved in extremely difficult litigation processes and were bound by certain confidentiality requirements. we are bound by the things going on day to day in court, but process of negotiation is something we are open to. emily: the sec has brought an antitrust case against qualcomm. apple'a.s similar to qualcomm has said you are in settlement talks with the ftc. what are the chances these cases go to trial? don: there is a pretty good

chance that they go to trial. we are anxious to go to trial in san diego, where we can prove that apple and its contract manufactures, in the case of the manufactures, have breached their agreement. they have not paid us in close to two years for intellectual property that they have been paying us for in some cases for 10 years. apple has told us contract manufacturers not to pay us and , to pay us rather, and they are obeying. we would like that to get to trial and we would like to establish our right to have those royalties paid both for the past and going forward. the case with the ftc, we have been for now sometime in settlement discussions. we hope to resolve that case. if we don't through settlement discussions, that is scheduled to go to trial in january. extremely we have strong defenses. we believe the basis of the ftc

case, like several other cases, is unfounded, and we think we can prove that. emily: qualcomm general counsel don rosenberg there. for apple's lawyer contract manufacturers has a different perspective. i spoke for a lawyer representing those manufacturers about the global patent showdown. out it is in order that is linked to software. it doesn't have anything to do with the technology at issue in the lawsuits we have against qualcomm for my clients, where we are seeking about $9 billion in damages. and from what apple has been saying, they have an easy software work. but qualcomm has been engaging in distraction techniques meant to take people's attention away from the fact that they are facing three big lawsuits in the united states that challenge their business model to the core. emily: and qualcomm is not happy

with apple's response, that they will design around some of these issues. the general counsel telling us they are obligated to immediately cease sales and devices andof the prove compliance in court. you are representing manufacturers. what happens at factories if apple cannot sell its most popular devices on the chinese market? announcer: i just don't think that is going to come close to happening. qualcomm is exaggerating. qualcomm is deceptive. their ceo is saying there is a settlement on the horizon which , which is just false. this is something the sec looks into. that order is not going to affect contract manufacturers i represent. but again, qualcomm is just trying to take away from the fact that the united states government is taking them to trial on january 4, arguing and claiming that their business model, which is a monopolistic

practice, excessive pricing, and abuse of the law, must stop. so that is what they are trying to pull everyone's attention away from. that is what this is all about. and the patents they are claiming in china is not something they created. is something they bought and has nothing to do with the legal hurdles they face in the united states. emily: so what would it take for all sides to get serious about a settlement? ted: qualcomm would have to cease its illegal practices. what happened is qualcomm took a lead in early cellular technology and it obtained a monopoly, and then it use that monopoly power to tax innovation, to add a double price, something no company could ever get away with when they sell chips to product manufacturers. and qualcomm needs to stop that. it needed to compensate the contract manufacturers for the injury and harm. and one of the reasons i wanted

to talk to you today is this case has been talked about as apple versus qualcomm, but it is really more than that. it is my clients, the builders of the devices, the united states government, regulatory authorities around the world, china, europe, korea have found this conduct to be illegal and have imposed over $3.5 billion in fines. so qualcomm needs to cease illegal activity and to treat competitors and consumers fairly, because the bottom line is it's behavior is injuring consumers in the united states and around the world. emily: that was the lawyer representing the contract manufacturers that assemble apple products. coming up uber's future may rest , on its ambitions beyond ride-hailing. we will talk to the executive growing its food delivery service and more, next. after new reports that russian hackers heavily targeted black users, the naacp is returning a donation to facebook and calling for people to log out of the social network.

we will speak with the naacp president, derrick johnson. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: in november, uber released a limited set of financial information, a move the privately-held company makes each quarter. the san francisco-based ride hailer offered a glimpse into his food delivery business for the first time. uber eats generated $2.1 billion in gross bookings, 17% of its $12.7 billion in gross bookings last quarter. the emergence of uber eats has as a promising new business has been good news just as the company prepares to go public. the ceo was asked about it at a conference earlier this year. >> lots of companies at our scale would kill for 41% growth. it is a law of large numbers at some points, and we have businesses like uber eats that are growing at 150%.

so we have a mix of businesses, and there are some businesses that are going to mature as a scale, but as they are scaling, we demonstrated that contribution margin is positive. we are in a battle with lyft. so i can't claim that for the u.s., and that is a challenge. emily: i caught up with the uber vice president and head of uber everything monday. jason: i joined the company four and a half years ago to help build the team to help figure out what other businesses uber could get into. it is about how to use its urban logistics platform to launch new businesses and new ideas and allow people to connect with their cities. we said there are a lot of things we can do and let's look at the things we can move. it ao we said let's call vision for everything. food was a big part of it. it became about 95% of what we

do on a regular basis outside of experimentation with our businesses. we were not expecting food would be as big as we thought. at the beginning, we thought there were a number of businesses. we decided to focus on that. so there is the uber everything title, but we do uber eats. emily: it is 17% of gross bookings, that means all food orders, not just what uber is taking, but the entire order essentially. give us an idea of how fast the business is growing. like at what point could we get to half? jason: it is hard to say when we would get to half. emily: is that even the possibility? jason: it is so hard for me to speculate, and the reason why is we just had our three-year anniversary. so we launched in 2015. $2.1 billion in

bookings last year. it is growing faster than what we thought. it is hard to say. our approach has been if we focus on the customer and restaurants and markets and what people want out of the business, then it will end up being what it is. it is bigger than what we thought and it will continue to surprise us. emily: so is uber eats profitable anywhere in the world? jason: we have a number of profitable markets. growthvery focused on now. we took the business from growth stage. we wanted to make sure we could get the economics in shape and we did that. we prove that to ourselves, and we said let's keep going. emily: will you get more specific than the ipo filing? jason: the ceo has said we are going public next year. i'm going to leave it to him to talk about the specifics. emily: the ceo has expressed interest in delivering groceries. where does that stand? part of it.ries is part of that, and, we are staffing a team in toronto to address that opportunity.

we see grocery and prepared food on a bit of a collision course, if you will. because if you go into a grocery store, you have got prepared food, and a lot of the movement on the restaurant side of things since fast casual started picking up is people are trading treating that prepared food more as a replacement to grocery. so i think you are going to see those worlds move together, and we are making a bet. we are not urgently getting into it, but we are starting to look at it. emily: you are looking at delivering prepared food from grocery stores? jason: we do that today. but more as a full-fledged grocery offering that we do think it's something that is adjacent to the eats business. emily: the uber everything vice president. coming up, we speak with derrick johnson, naacp president, why and ceo, why the organization is asking congress to further investigate facebook's

involvement in russian hacking and calling for users to stop using the social network in protest. and bloomberg technology, we are live streaming on twitter. you can check us out and follow our global breaking news network tictoc on twitter. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: welcome back to "the best of bloomberg technology." i'm emily chang. the naacp is one of the oldest civil rights organizations and is calling on users to boycott facebook for a week after a report shows russian hackers targeted black users leading up to the 2016 election. derrick johnson joined us from baltimore. why are you asking users to log out, not just to facebook but to instagram? derrick: they are part of the same company. we are concerned with the pace at which facebook has responded to the reality that a foreign nation sought to subvert

democracy by suppressing black votes. that is something that no u.s. corporation should tolerate, especially a company like facebook, where african americans are overindexed in terms of their usage. we should be protected and our corporation should make sure democracy is safe. emily: you have returned a monetary donation you received from facebook. you say as much in a tweet. how big was that and what was the response from facebook? derrick: we have been in communication with facebook. our goal was to make sure they hear our concerns. facebook sought to be supportive of the naacp. we felt our value system was a ligned. any time a corporation refuses to support democracy by making sure citizens are protected, the nature of a company using racial hatred to

divide this nation is something that should not be tolerated. at naacp our mission fights against that so we could not accept any donation at this time. emily: was it sizable? are you willing to share the size of it? derrick: i prefer not to get into numbers. it was a donation that we would have accepted but at this juncture, anytime you have this scenario, compounding it is it -- one of our organizations was targeted by a firm hired by facebook did began to do research. what would have happened if that would have been me or the naacp? we stand in solidarity with this color change and the third-party outside firms doing opposition research on. emily: facebook says they have undertaken an audit by a key civil rights leader to work on these issues you are raising.

they say they have expanded their voter suppression policies, added resources when it comes to safety. sheryl sandberg says facebook is committed to working with leading u.s. civil rights organizations to address civil rights on our service. they have raised a number of important concerns and i'm grateful for their concern and guidance. -- candor and guidance. we know we need to do more to listen and take action to respect rights. have you gotten to speak with sandberg or mark zuckerberg? derrick: i have spoken with sheryl a couple of times. i do agree with her. facebook needs to do more. one of the things i raised was the importance of the audit. it cannot be an audit used in the media and individuals three levels down are responsible. it needs to have the level of importance to ensure that facebook changes its culture and maintain a positive relationship with the african-american community.

and u.s. citizens as a whole. emily: what was sandberg's response to you? derrick: she was nice and heard what i had to say. for us, it is a matter of seeing the next steps. are they going to take the recommendations released in the audit, are they going to implement those and are they going to ensure that african-americans are not used in a proxy fight for political gain? emily: you are not the first person to complain about the black experience on facebook. we spoke to a former employee , mark lucky who raised concerns , about the treatment of african-american employees at facebook and how the company treats black users. take a listen. mark: they do not think of the black experience, which is a shame because black users are overperforming on the platform. it is a missed opportunity, it is a missed financial opportunity for facebook to not

engage with those users. emily: what is interesting is that perhaps tech companies and even facebook may not realize the power of black users on their platform and yet russia troll army does. what does that mean for the future of your advocacy and the naacp's advocacy? derrick: it is important for facebook and the tech industry to appreciate and respect the consumerism of the black community. that is reflected in not doing more ads, it is reflected in their corporate hires, whether or not there is enough diversity on the board in decision-making positions so that where a critical opportunities that present themselves they can , seize upon those while at the same time, recognize there may be cultural sensitivities and -- around certain decisions and they can avoid those sensitives.

emily: talk to us about what you are calling for. derrick: we want to bring attention to the urgency of facebook taking action to ensure african-americans are not targeted by foreign nations, that racial hate is not used on their platform, that they look at their diversity in terms of their decision-making and on the board. they have vendors that are not used towards african-american organizations or our community. emily: what do you want users to do? is a temporary boycott enough? derrick: what we're doing now is we asked our members and supporters to log off and not use facebook for a day or a week and our goal is to make sure facebook understands the nature of what has taken place. the fact that racial intolerance has grown since the 2016

election is something that many of us are confronted with and some people are living in fear. that was festered on facebook 's platform. the fact that platform was used to suppress black votes nice to be addressed. needs to be suppressed. the fact that facebook hired an outside firm and that firm begins to target african-american organizations, that needs to stop. facebook needs to own up to the fact that diversity is important and their leadership should reflect a diverse population, particularly a community that overindexes the use of their product. emily: derrick johnson. and of lacey p president and ceo. -- naacp lacey p president and ceo. out of the u.k., uber has lost a bid to overturn a court ruling that allows drivers to get a minimum wage and holiday pay. the court of appeals dismissed

the challenge. it is the third time uber has lost. they will take the case to the supreme court. coming up, after a wild year that included monetary milestones and erratic tweets and an sec investigation could , elon musk be getting a last laugh? how doordash went to becoming one of the fastest-growing food delivery market. we will speak to the ceo. this is "bloomberg." ♪

emily: the tesla headlines in 2018 kept coming so fast it has been hard to keep up. from the fallout of elon musk's funding secured tweet, media coverage was on anything but autopilot. to discuss the year it was for tesla we sat down with the bloomberg reporter who covers the company and a writer who wrote about the inner workings of tesla. you interviewed dozens of current and former tesla

employees and a certain amount of love-hate is expected. what surprised you most? >> what surprised me most is how fairly chaotic it became in the company over the last two years. we saw elon musk talking about the model 3 as some of the most difficult times of his life. what we did not understand was how intensely difficult it was for everyone inside the company. people talked about it as being a hellish year that was so challenging that many of them ended up leaving. one person said that everyone in the company ended up being in an abusive relationship with elon. it was a year that was not only transformative for the firm itself that they got through the process of being able to make the model 3, but this huge exodus of talent because the bloom was a little off the rose about what kind of

company tesla was. emily: they talked about him in your piece being 95% genius and 5% mad. one of the more startling anecdotes was this idea of rage firings, where musk would say i have to fire someone today. i just do. charles: the biggest challenges inside the company was that mr. musk -- he is passionate and if you happen to encounter him and you could not answer his question right away, and answer he was looking for, you might be fired on the spot. one executive told me she had forbade her employees from walking close to the desk that musk used because she was terrified that some random encounter might result in them being let go. or otherwise impacting their career. it is a place where elon musk's personality imprints every aspect of the company.

he says he sleeps there overnight. he wants to be at the front of the line leading them towards victory. as a result his quirks, his eccentricities, his short temper has a hugely undue impact on the company itself and it is a reflection of who he is. emily: we cannot ignore the fact that tesla hit some huge model 3 production milestones. i have this chart showing how many more cars have been produced every quarter. tell us about the successes. >> as charles reported, this was a hellacious year for everybody. you saw dozens of executives leave and yet they recorded this profit in the third quarter and out everyone is waiting to see if they will do it again. is out there and everybody loves the car. emily: take a listen to this from "60 minutes." obviously a roller coaster year, the sec issue seems to be resolved. then he says this.

>> i do not respect the sec. i do not respect them. >> but you are abiding by the settlement? >> because i respect the justice system. emily: what is your reaction? dana: i was not surprised. this is someone who had to settle because of stock prices. the settlement says they have to appoint two directors. they are within that window. he is not really flagrantly abusing the settlement degree. he is not following the spirit of it in terms of his public statements but he is not out of compliance. emily: executive turnover, there has been a lot. do you think musk can continue to lead the company without -- with that kind of turnover? charles: he is going to continue whether anyone wants him to or not. he is the largest shareholder. he has an incentive system in place that would give him $55 billion if he left the company

and hit certain milestones. it would be the largest package in history. nobody can force out elon musk and the board is not inclined to do so. it is a board that does what elon musk tells them. i think the bigger question is can they maintain this position in the marketplace? for consumers and investors and counterparties in this industry, trust is everything. we buy a car because we trust it is going to do what it is supposed up. -- supposed to do. suppliers hand over parts without asking for cash on delivery because they trust they are going to get paid. one of the real challenges is that mr. musk has said he signed an agreement with the sec but he does not respect them. there is a question at what point to people run out of trust, how much rope do they give an executive before they start to say, we are worried and about the direction things are going. when that happens, once the

trust is gone, it is hard for a company to hit full speed. emily: how much rope do you think current and potential employees will give him? we'll tesla continued to be able to attract talent? charles: the line worker, there is a long list of people and they are seeing a record number of college graduates who want to work at tesla. at the executive ranks, that is where the challenge is. when i talked to former and current executives they did not , want to work at tesla the way they wanted to at one time because they knew the environment was such a challenging one. tesla has been ahead of the curve in terms of their technology, on the cutting edge of the market. but other car companies, companies that know how to manufacture at scale, are

catching up. for the next car, is tesla going to have the people in place to beat the other companies that know how to do this at scale? emily: uber self-driving cars are hitting the road again. nine months after the death of a pedestrian in arizona, uber has received the all clear from the pennsylvania department of transportation to resume testing in pittsburgh. testing will resume with more limitations and safety measures, including improvements to braking and monitoring. autonomous cars will also be deployed in san francisco and toronto to be driven in manual human-driven mode. what has uber been doing since that accident? >> reassessing on every level,

looking at the safety of drivers, looking at what breaking technology they use, what is on, what is off, what they maintain from the cars. they get this technology and they couple it with their self driving technology. it is a lot of work and changing processes and saying we are going to drive slower and do it on a much, much smaller circuit. where they're going to be driving in pittsburgh is a much smaller course than before. emily: one or two is not many. where also the testing them? eric: the sense i got is there is not a lot of room on this course to fill it with a ton of cars because it is so small. in toronto and san francisco, they are in manual mode which means a human being is driving but the car is taking this data that uber can use. you can imagine getting them back in manual is one step

towards getting them back in true autonomous mode. emily: what is the importance with the ipo coming up? eric: it is a major cost center. i think hundreds of millions. that is going to be a risk for them. we talked to the ceo and he said they are going to look at ways they can spin it out or different financial vehicles for the program. i think that is still an open question what they do with the , autonomous program. what they want is an upside. it is still good to say whenever these vehicles are ready we are in the business of autonomous vehicles, but it is a major cost center. emily: how -- where is uber in comparison to lyft? eric: lyft had more partnerships and started later. i think uber has more of its own

self-driving vehicles out and about that is trying to aggressively catch up with the idea they can partner and as time passes, it becomes easier to catch everybody else, that once was novel is easier for a new company to play catch-up. emily: eric newcomer, thank you. google will invest more than $1 billion to expand its presence in new york city. the company will move into new buildings in manhattan over the next three years. the move could allow google to more than double its staff in new york, which currently stands at 7000 people. coming up, doordash. it was about to be left in the dust and other companies going faster than any of its competitors. we speak to the ceo, next. this is "bloomberg." ♪

emily: a year ago, doordash looked like another meal delivery app, facing competition and thin margins.

the company was burning cash as a was struggling to differentiate its product. then things turned around. doordash started turning a profit minus overhead expenses. granted, that is a generous definition of the word "profit" but it was enough. there was a fresh round of investment totaling $500 million. ceo tony xu joined us to talk about the turnaround. i'm going to double down on the fact that that is a generous definition of profit because salaries and rent are a part of everyday operation. how well is the business doing? from a revenue-generating perspective? tony: the business is on fire. we have tripled sales in one we are north of in $1.25 billion net revenue. there are a handful of businesses that can say that and no one can say they are growing that fast in the industry we serve, the restaurant delivery business. we are gaining share faster, we

are growing faster, and we are on track to being the largest platform in the space. emily: how do translate that into actual profit? including the overhead costs? tony: we have had a playbook on how to turn businesses from investment mode in a growth mode and a cash flow positive. it is only after that playbook that was developed that we decided to raise the financing in march and in august. emily: we had the head of uber eats on who also said business is growing faster than they expected. they are doubling down and exploring grocery delivery. they have deep pockets too. how do you stand up to the competition? tony: we already have. emily: what are you doing to differentiate yourself? tony: a lot of the work that led to the results of 2018 happened before 2018. since day one, we have had a

differentiated strategy of focusing on merchants by building more services like doordash drive which builds channels for merchants to deliver their own orders. we signed up more merchants than anyone else. we have 97 of the top 100 merchants signed. that is more than all of our peers combined. we are also delivering other types of meals. we started with food, which is the hardest. but our partnership with walmart started in april and has reached over 500 stores and we deliver the vast majority of walmart's groceries. emily: where do you think this is going? do you think there will be a few established players? some smaller players will go out of business? it does not seem like this many different food delivery players will survive. tony: you are starting to see evidence. it is a vast market. let's start with where things

are. 30 years ago, 5% to 10% of pizza sales were delivered. today when you think pizza you think delivery. over half of pizzas are delivered. outside of pizza, only 8% to 10% of sales are delivered. you are seeing that both talent, capital, merchants, partnerships , relationships are accruing to a couple of national players. dash is leading the field. emily: where are we going to see you expand, use this money? tony: doordash started the year with 600 cities. we are now 3000. when we spoke in march i believe we said 2000. we are well ahead of the goal. that said, we have a lot of the u.s. left to serve. we serve the largest coverage today in the u.s. but there is still 25% to 30% of households

we do not serve. we have to get to more cities. second, we continue to expand. today, we deliver drive with partners like wing stop and walmart. there are many other businesses for them to survive the next decade. they need to build their own e-commerce and for film and channels. there are other products we have to continue on our merchant first approach that will give customers more selection at higher quality and that is what keeps customers coming back. emily: doordash ceo tony xu there. that does it for this edition. we will bring you the latest every day of the week. tune in every day at 5:00 p.m. in new york. 2:00 p.m. in san francisco. newsw the global breaking on twitter. we are live streaming on bloomberg. this is "bloomberg." ♪ ♪ there's no place like home ♪

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

♪ carol: welcome to "bloomberg businessweek." i am carol massar at bloomberg headquarters in new york. this week's special issue focuses on businesses and companies and industries working on improving what they do. plus, it is the end of the blankfein era at goldman sachs. we take a look at the legacy. but we stat