♪ emily: i'm emily chang and this is the "best of bloomberg: technology." coming up, amazon spurns new york, scrapping their plan to build a second quarter -- headquarters after backlash. lawmakers blast t-mobile's proposed purchase of sprint as leaders from both companies testified before the new democratic led house. and we take you behind the wheel of an electric car that is gaining attention out of canada.

lede.rst, to our lead -- a growing backlash has pushed amazon to cancel their plans to build a headquarters. the deal have promised thousands of jobs with a high average salary. one problem was that local opposition was fervent from the beginning. lawmakers resented being excluded from negotiations welcome to the groups fear rising rent in the neighborhood would push out longtime residents. we spoke to a local councilman who spoke -- who opposed the deal from the start and our executive editor brad stone. >> no one is running a victory lap, but i would say is that this is a victory, because we fought for our values. we challenge the deal from the beginning because amazon has a track record of not treating workers rights.

we expose them over this process over the last two months with a declared, once and for all like they would fight any attempts tom employees and amazon challenge them directly. or organize. that is antithetical to my values as a progressive new york city democrat. i think it is antithetical to most of us in new york city. they refused to budge. at the end of the day, amazon chose to leave. no one killed amazon. amazon walked off the field. they refuse to change their ways and they simply did not want to risk having to allow their employees to organize. which is outrageous. emily: amazon has turned some of its supporters into enemies. mayor bill de blasio said they gave amazon a chance to be a good neighbor. instead of working with the community, amazon threw away that opportunity. if amazon cannot recognize what that is worth, it's competitors will. >> i think mayor de blasio is doing some damage control. he was a proponent of the deal

that blew up in his face. this is a catastrophic outcome for everyone involved. amazon was looking for a partner, which it fell it did not have any more in seattle. it conducted this very public search. it made mistakes in new york city. it should have trotted out jeff bezos more to help the steel. putting him in a room with politicians and councilman could've helped. i think that on the other side, and i would like to ask the councilman, you're never going to change amazon's stripes. it has historically been antiunion when it comes to its fulfillment centers. these are white collar jobs in queens. it will sell technology like facial recognition to the federal government. how does losing these 25,000 jobs help your constituents? many of them supported the deal. >> it helps our city in the long run and it helps the nation, quite frankly. if we had not thought this fight in new york city, we would've

had other corporations saying you let amazon not only come to new york city by get $3 billion in taxpayer money, declaring themselves to be so antiunion that they would not allow workers to organize. if we allow them to do that, everybody else coming after that will say we are doing the same thing. i think at the end of the day this is a fight that needed to be fought. and also with respect to their use and support of work against ice's work country. -- against immigrants in this country. queens is the most diverse county in the country. we have so many immigrants, but documented and undocumented. how can we as elected officials to represent union workers and a lot of immigrants allow amazon to dictate the terms of this deal? dictate the terms of their arrival?

the truth is that amazon could have fought, could have actually proposed new ways to do it. i agree with you, amazon did not fight very hard here. we never heard or saw from jeff bezos. there was a was no discussion by the time this deal was announced in early november until today, and i was surprised by the announcement today, since that time there has been a no work on behalf of of amazon in the governor or mayor's office to solve the problems. even organized labor said to amazon that if you do agree to be neutral, we might be able to go along with this. emily: let's talk about what the people wanted or what they appear to want. amazon said 70% of new yorkers were in favor. we looked at an independent poll that said that the 7% of new 57% of new yorkers were in favor. when you ask them if they were

in favor of $3 billion in incentives, they were more split. 57% of new yorkers 46% support, 44% oppose their. could you have done anything differently to keep amazon at the table? >> again, this is their decision to take their marbles and go home. i've met with amazon, took some criticism from some folks, and i believe they, at the end of the day, are unwilling to move on anything. i believe it is their core values. corporate values to crush unions and the ability of their workers to organize. that is on them. i'll must like to put in no -- i also think that there was almost no effort to respond to the criticism initially. they rollout was totally mishandled. bypassing community review. they were almost destined to fail. even worse was how they handle the last three months. there are appearances before the city council were dreadfully bad. they were simply unable to move

and maneuver through what they were going through. emily: how much damage has amazon done to itself here? >> they will recover easily. those jobs will go elsewhere. they will not change their antiunion stance. i think new york and queens of particular loses out. could they have done it differently? i think they were unprepared for choosing a location that had this much opposition. they did not have the tools to counter the groundswell of action that came from aoc and her allies. they could've have done things that relate, but new york is, unfortunately, sacrificing the longer-term economic benefits that amazon would have brought the city. emily: are you at all concerned

about political consequences? >> i understand there are people angry today because of what happens. and look, there are consequences when we take stances. i am willing to stand up for what i believe in. i'm willing to fight even the most powerful man in the world because of where i come from and what i believe. if there are people who will not support me going forward because i chose to defend working men and women, because i chose to defend immigrants undocumented and documented, because i chose to defend the city councils meaningful role in land use review, then so be it. i know what i took on this fight and i'm proud of it. emily: thank you so much for . jimmy van braemar and bloombergs redstone.

how teche over data, giants are expanding information empires as they expand into our homes. if you like bloomberg news, check us out on the radio and on sirius xm. this is bloomberg. ♪ emily: as tech giants were to

place at the center of your home, both are increasing the amount of data they collect to control other gadgets, stirring up more privacy concerns. we caught up with bloomberg text .ext day amazon season opportunity with its smart speaker and its doorbell meaning it is a force to be reckoned with. whether that are shopping with her voice, control and websites, thermostats.

this wireless purchase they made an san francisco is the next step in that evolution. pros oro you see more cons with amazon and google living with us? 2019, whenthat in you look at the tech landscape you can see tech with all of the promise of doing good and changing society, giving us wonderful tools to enable us to do things that it is starting to encroach upon our lives. i think that the idea of having an open channel for these tech companies into the data stream of my home -- matt will talk about some of the passive data collection taking place, it is not good. i don't think it's good for consumers, i don't think it's good for our country, or good for innovation. and for startups. emily: on one hand, when you put it that way, it's terrifying. you wonder if consumers actually understand what is happening.

talk to us about that passive data collection, and what these companies are collecting about us that we may not even realize. matt: in the last year or two, amazon, seen as the leader in smartphones, and -- smart speakers, and and google started talking to the smart device maker partners about increasing the amount of data they transmit back to the central hub. what's both companies are trying to require now would mandate that any time a smart lightbulb is toggled, if you flip the switch, that the company gets a record of that. their point is they want to use this to improve the user experience, to make these new features based on the knowledge of what is going on in your home. john: what's key is that it is not with the user doing anything. to the smart speaker? matt: that's correct. it's not necessarily when you invoke alexa or the google assistant. it's any time the device status changes. emily: matt, how can consumers protect themselves? matt: on this technology, there is not a whole lot of

granularity in user control. both amazon and google offer options to go back in and delete data that the companies have accumulated. they both have websites where you can make that happen, but in terms of stopping the devices from informing the companies in the first place, there is not really a way to do that other than unplugging them. job, what you think the social repercussions of this are? john: in the short term, we have seen a few incidences of fairly scary and weird hacks that have taken place where people hack into other people's smart homes and started people speaking to baby monitors or adjusting the thermostats. we have seen software upgrades go haywire and reset people's thermostats and frozen pipes. we've seen small, isolated incidents. i think over time, as you start to see the entire home get

connected, and in particular, the point matt is making which is key is these companies are trying to turn these devices into the central hub that passively collects all of the data for the home. if that hub gets hacked or the company is to use it for advertising data or other data, they are free to do that and you could see the entire home being at the request of a single -- at the bequest of a single technology provider. consumers are not understanding that is what they are buying in the first place. emily: matt, what are other companies saying about this? i presume amazon would say unless you say alexa and you turn it on, it's not collecting this data about you. matt: on the contrary. they are. even if you don't invoke alexa. a point amazon made as i talked to them about this, they said we value consumer privacy, which is

something a lot of the tech companies say, and they do not use this for advertising, they say, at this time. what you do with your devices will not be used for advertising. google, which didn't comments to us for this story, has not made a similar promise. it is not clear what they are doing with it. john: i think there are two important points. we saw this with facebook going through the cambridge analytic issue and beyond. are they using it for third-party advertising data or using it to inform internal data sets? that is important. i think some of the companies are glossing over that. i think they use this and are using the data for internal data sets, which gives them the ability to more finely grain target customers for a whole bunch of services. that is the first point. the second point, related to data, is that we have all of these amazing services today. companies are giving us these for free, software services.

quarter after quarter, companies are managing to get more and more margin out of -- profit out of their products and that is happening because they are monetary easing the data -- monetizing the data. we have a handful of companies becoming massive data collectors in all quarters of our life. it is a problem and it is not good for society or users or from technology or for startups. emily: now, while i have you, john, i want to talk about another advertising market and that is podcasting. you were an early investor in companies bought by spotify. people who listen to podcasts love them, but it is still a niche market. what more activity do you expect to see in the forecast market?

-- the podcast market? john: the podcast market is related to smart speakers because it is a voice interface, but what we have seen in the last five years is emergence of a new wave of innovation and development coming into the podcast market. the podcast market really started around 2000. it was a small niche market but five years ago, we at beta works saw a handful of things that were a healthy mix of intuition and data, where we saw on the data side that people's phones were getting better, bluetooth was more stable and people come -- connecting to their cars and using their cars. if you think that americans, on average, have about two hours a day they are not connected to a digital interface and the auditory podcast interface is wonderful, the, rich interface in storytelling, both fictional and nonfictional.

we are seeing a significant growth there in the acquisition in the last week of these two companies. two of the biggest acquisitions to date in the space, i think it is the beginning of a whole new wave of media and of interaction in the online space. emily: bloomberg texan that day and beta works see you -- betawork's ceo. russia disconnects from the alleged attack on the. pretext for a shutdown. we discuss, this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: russia is planning to disconnect from, that means the entire country. legislators are making moves to create a sovereign internet to that traffic goes through domestic portals. moscow says this is an attempt to test the country's cyber defenses how well off with a be

they were cut off, however critics say this risks having the kremlin extensive power to censor the web. the senior vice president for cybersecurity strategy jointly tuesday to discuss. ryan: russia is looking at extremely aggressive options to control pretty much every piece of communication that goes over the internet in their country. emily: would this look like china's internet? ryan: that seems to be the implication. they are looking to test their own version of the great firewall not only to censor things they have been centering, -- censoring, but have control over what communication channels are viable, preventing people from using whatsapp, facebook, etc. emily: what kind of firewall do they have in place? ryan: for many years, they have had lots of different systems in their country's isp's. they had a reasonable amount of collecting ability. they could see pretty much everything that was going on. in recent years, they have developed capabilities to actually block things.

through the legal system, they have also started to ban things like storing russian people's data in other countries. just last month, they reached out to facebook and twitter and said you are not storing russian citizens' data in russia, you are violating law. so they might use legal exclusives to a cop the same thing. emily: what are the actual mechanics of this? presumably, it can be done. ryan: it absolutely can be done and many countries do it. china is the most obvious example. in the middle east, there are many different countries that, for whatever reason, they might be choosing to censor pornography, or speech they consider subversive. setting up ways to get the isp's which are effectively the only way out of that country from an internet perspective to block what they choose to block. emily: google and facebook operate in russia, they don't in china. what will this mean for them? ryan: it will be a challenge. i think back to a couple of years ago. maybe even a couple of months ago.

telegram was blocked because it was using a domain -- the messaging service -- a domain fronting service hosted on google to basically operate beyond these censorship restrictions. that was found out and google actually adapted to what the russian government wanted, blocking this domain fronting activity, so an unauthorized service could not be conducted in the country. i think this will have grave implications for any organization that does not want basically full russian control of the data across the services. emily: you raise an interesting point because we were just talking about google's exploratory plans in china and sundar pichai made the point they actually do have different rules in different countries they abide by. china is the one we all know about. does google bend to government demands elsewhere in the same way it might in china if it operated there? ryan: almost every company has to. we choose not to do business in russia and china because as a cybersecurity company, it would be virtually impossible for us to conduct our mission of

protecting our customers were we to comply with the laws in those countries. this has a really long history. the fight that at&t conducted against tapping phones decades and decades ago, there is a lot of resemblance to a lot of these challenges going on now and with governments that are little more heavy-handed, those challenges look a lot different. emily: would the russians still potentially be able to meddle in other countries' elections if they were cut off in this way? ryan: any good cyber attack is not staged from your own ip server, anything that can retrace back to you. it is staged from another location entirely. this really wouldn't hamper their offensive capabilities. emily: how does this fit into the bigger geopolitical issue at play right now? ryan: this is a fairly aggressive move. it is a very interesting thing for them to be able to test because it lets them know that one of the key tools that, say nato or the united states may choose to use against them can be blunted or at least tolerated by the russian infrastructure.

that is a really interesting piece of knowledge that the west does not really have in this conflict. emily: what would this mean for users inside russia and what do we know about how they feel about things like this? ryan: really good question. the long history of subversive speech in russia being conducted across new apps being brought out, ads that pop up, it is fairly fascinating but it is gradually being forked down into things that the russian state can control. if russia really cared about facebook and twitter, they would not be pressuring them and --be shunting the russian social network, which the russian government would prefer everyone use because they could surveil everything that is happening. emily: what are the biggest cyber threats you are looking at around the world right now? ryan: for most organizations, the biggest cyber threat will still be the theft of money. we sometimes forget this because it is a massive geopolitical

issue and things like misinformation and election interference dominate the headlines, but that is still -- that still powers everything from a cybercrime perspective. of course, you have state actors like north korea, pretty much acting like a cyber criminal enterprise. the big scary things tend to be around either broad internet of things or critical infrastructure, like power grids, which we do know are being explored in adversarial and defense sense by every government worth its salt. with a proper cyber capability, and it's yet to be proven that the ukraine example, which is probably the closest thing we have seen to a real nightmare from a cybersecurity perspective is actually viable outside a very small country with one power grid. emily: that was proof points ryan the bloomberg -- ryan kelember.

this rented once space in silicon valley, but time you have changed. on we are live streaming twitter: you can check us out and follow our breaking news network. this is bloomberg. ♪ i'm a veteran

and the army taught me a lot about commitment. which i apply to my life and my work. at comcast we're commited to delivering the best experience possible, by being on time everytime. and if we are ever late, we'll give you a automatic twenty dollar credit. my name is antonio and i'm a technician at comcast. we're working to make things simple, easy and awesome. emily: welcome back to "best of

bloomberg technology." i am emily chang. over the $26lled billion merger. t-mobile ceo appeared before the u.s. house communications subcommittee defending the megadeal against claims it is a threat to competition. >> our opponents are wrong when they claim it will lead to higher prices. the opposite is true. consumers will win with lower prices and better services. our costs will drop sharply and our network capacity will expand

tremendously. emily: nine democratic senators called for the deal to be stopped, saying it would hurt consumers. >> his message was simple, the one we have been hearing for a while that the merger is good for competition because it will wrap in 5g and such great advancements it will make the company a stronger competitor to at&t and verizon. not everybody was buying it. he fielded questions from democrats worried about coverage in rural areas and price hikes hiding within his pledge not to do that. emily: talk to us more about what lawmakers biggest concerns are. importantf all, it is the concerns at this hearing were not just from democrats but they were bipartisan. there are concerns that when you

mobile carriers into three, prices are going to go up because you eliminate a competitor. and there was concern about low income and simmers. one thing that has gotten lost in merger discussions is the fact if you combine t-mobile and sprint, you are combining three of the biggest carriers, virgin modal, metro pcs. proportionately harsh impact on low income consumers. what is fascinating, in filing with the sec, sprint -- filing with the fcc, they say we know this will lower prices, but they use their cell phones a lot, they will bear the cost, which is a remarkable admission. emily: let's listen to the pushback. market would take the pp from where it is now at 24.67

just under doj threshold to a level that raises lots of red flags. these numbers have historically resulted in higher prices for consumers, less competition, and less innovation. john ledgert promise prices would not go up? >> he said it a couple different ways, and doyle is not convinced. he wants the regulators and the justice department to take a quick look. there are a lot of different ways to make pledges about prices, and a lot of ways to adjust afterwards, saying you have a lower price considering what you have got. it is not trusted by some in washington. emily: is this a promise that if it happens, ledger will be held to? >> this is interesting. t-mobile has made a three-year

pricing commitment, promising not to change pricing of rate plans. there are so many loopholes in that, you could drive a truck through it. they could change their data caps, increase network quality and increase charges there, they could increase third-party charges. that pricing commitment is no commitment at all. point,s a more important typically in this administration policymakers have said the assistant attorney general has said we do not want to be overseeing merger commitments. we do not want to act as a regulator and looking at whether companies are abiding by their behavioral commitments. there is no appetite for behavioral merger conditions, and they do not work. in thed not work comcast-nbc merger.

they do not work in other mergers, and particularly in this administration nobody wants to be in the business with the justice department engaging in price regulation. ledger had a few pronouncements at this hearing. into this one about huawei. >> that maybe clear there is no , andi or zte equipment there never will be, not today, not tomorrow, not ever. emily: t-mobile has been involved in a case involving huawei alleging they stole property involving robotic technology. what do you make of that pronouncement? >> it is one he could easily make, indicating distaste with huawei with their

entanglements. one thing you can say, there is the pledge for t-mobile and the united states to deal with the parent corporations, softbank in japan and say, look, there is huawei gear there. arm's-length may not be far enough. emily: can sprint survive without this deal? >> absolutely. the notion that sprint is failing is nonsense. they are not even ailing. he put up the third-quarter financials two weeks ago and they are gaining subscribers in the lucrative postpaid market. revenues are increasing across the board in prepaid and postpaid. they've invested $1.4 billion in their new networks. there is nothing about their financials frankly for the last several quarters that make anybody think that sprint is

anywhere near failing, and in fact they are on the uprising. saudi arabia is looking for office space in san francisco, specifically for its a public investment fund. this follows similar moves from regional neighbors caughqatar. comes months after saudi arabia faced international condemnation for the killing of journalists jamal khashoggi. we discussed this issue on wednesday. >> it is obviously a hot market and there are lots of investment . ,he concern is one of values and whose values are driving the creation of new products, services, and apps. we have seen outcry over the

nreation, the support of a arabia'sallows saudi to track the email of associates or relatives. we would obviously want to a spouse democratic values of equality and liberty, that is part of my organization's name. the question is what values are we embedding in the technology in our daily lives? emily: do you think these companies which have done business with the saudi's in the past will change their tune? >> this has been an age-old debate. as the tech sector has expanded in other countries, it is a conflict of laws and cultures. the international internet allows for the export of u.s.-centric values and vice versa. we are at the conversational point about saudi arabia that we

had been out with china and other countries and how they run internal operations and use technology. emily: where do you think this goes? there has been a lot a private talk, whispering about whether companies should or shouldn't take softbank money because so much of the money comes from the saudi government. the you think this issue dies, or does it continue to be an issue? i have yet to hear someone say, we do not take that $500 million he could came from softbank. >> it is difficult when there is that kind of money on the table for corporate leadership. the conversation is going to continue about the values and norms and democratic principles embedded in the products and services that companies are creating, and the source is not only a fund and revenue from those products, but i see those calls coming as much from within

silicon valley and the employees as i do from outside in civil society let groups like mine. this is a conversation just beginning in many parts in this country and around the world. his is not the last we will see of it. -- this is not the last we will see of it. emily: a recent poll shows facebook is one of the country's least trusted institutions, down at the bottom with congress. google and amazon are at top, and facebook earnings keeps growing and does not seem to be losing users. how do you square that? >> is a terrific platform in many ways, it is useful and free. i think we are having a conversation about the use of information by companies of all kinds, not just in the tech sector. that may account for the various brands' trust factor, we are in

a position to have a conversation about the use of versatile information by all companies, and the respect and dignity for their customers, and employees. i think we will see law in the near-term to put us back on the global playing field about privacy and data. emily: how much do consumers want privacy regulation? >> i think the pendulum has swung very far in the direction that more and more average users , citizens of this country realize they are not getting a , as people in the other parts of the world are getting our own companies in the protection and use of data and disclosure of how it is being used by the company to read there is a practical reality, people want to use the services and be part of the economy, but they want to know more and have more balance of powers.

emily: coming up, competition in smart speaker's is heating up. we will hear from the ceo of sonos on how they plan to stay ahead of their main rivals. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: sonos shares were humbling even as results topped estimates in its last earnings report. analysts say the inventory issue was disappointing that probably --broadly positive. the smart speaker space continues to be filled by apple, amazon, and google. we discussed this with the sonos ceo. >> it is always hard to know what is driving sentiment. we are a young public company, so investors are looking to see how we perform over a long period of time.

about other hardware companies that have not persevered over the long-term. emily: the speaker market exploded with competition, amazon, apple, google. who do you think of as your main competitor? of the players that are there, a lot are helping more people get into listening out loud, and there have been cheap bluetooth speakers. amazon,what google, play in time, and we are the option for those who get a taste of music streaming service and want something better to last longer in your home. emily: are any companies seeking more share than others? you can listen to alexa on your sonos speakers. >> we work with companies in the streaming space, spotify, sirius xm, you name it.

one benefit is we build products that are built to last. they sound great and work with all the services. you are not trapped in one ecosystem, you can get what you want. that is why we are hitting record sales. emily: amazon and google have sold a lot of speakers, and that is not somebody choosing any ecosystem. >> that is right, but when you are in the ecosystem, if you are using one of those products and think, this is nice, i want something for another room, or something that looks better, sounds better, and works with apple or google or amazon, that is where sonos comes in. emily: jp morgan thinks apple should buy sonos. >> i am working to make sure we are an individual successful company doing the right thing for consumers. emily: would you be open to a deal? >> myself and other board

members would look at that and consider any offer from any company, but right now i am focused on making sure we are a successful money for the long-term. emily: tell us what you are seeing and what is plan b? been in china for a long time. every component is there. last week there was some noise that was incorrect about what we were doing. expansiond a global plan, and you want to be where your customers are. we thought about taking our supply chain outside of china, in addition to china, never leaving china but augmenting it. we accelerated those plans on the back of the tariff noise. emily: where are you taking the supply chain? spots, but of other we have a lot of customers in north america and europe, we want to be close to those locations. emily: have you seen impact on

sales thanks to the trade war? >> we have not, we are in a good position. emily: what would the timeline be for moving your supply? >> it is augmenting, but that is something we want to do late this year or early next. a timeline fort getting inventory issues under control? >> we have already moderated and had a great january. it got a little overblown. emily: talk about new product launches. >> there are three ways i think about this, one is we are focused on new homes in new countries. only five countries represent 85% of our sales. job two is new products. we are focused on the home, now we are looking at other places auto,io, you think about headphones, commercial, other areas where we have unique possibilities.

in the third is, we are looking at what services we can offer our customers. what would be a great thing for sonos customers. emily: would you ever be a content provider? >> there seems to be a lot a focus there now, and i think a lot of companies are doing that well. we are looking at things that we can do for listeners that are different. emily: that was sonos ceo, patrick pence. sobering.een publishers laid off thousands of employees. study,ng to a 2018 pew 30% of newspapers have experienced layoffs. for digitalis 22% outlets. one of the large digital ad exchanges weighed in on the

current state of digital media and advertising on wednesday. >> i think the underlying question is the business model, and it is one of advertising. that is a tale of two cities, overall advertising is doing well. grew 7%,ng in 2018 twice the rate of the economy. facebook grew 30%. what is interesting is there is a lot of money to be made and advertising, but there is an asymmetry, a lot of people's time is spent on sites and apps like google and facebook, but the ad dollars are not matching that. you is going on is when advertise on facebook for example, you reach a huge audience with a lot of data, so it is scaled, efficient, effective, and easy. it works well. ad dollars are shifting over

there, but marketers want to spend in more than two places. theyest of the open web, need an advertising model that works more like what works on facebook and google. emily: what will it take to redistribute? i do not spend all my time on google and facebook. >> correct, there you go, that is the problem. i call it people-based logic. we need a system that offers for the open web so the ad dollars can follow the users, and the attention generated by all of those great outlets doing great journalism. emily: how do we do that? >> you lean on companies like mine to innovate more, and that is the background of our google cloud deal much to innovate more and complement the big systems. is a multifaceted player,

for us alone they are a big partner, a big customer, one of the biggest buyers, a competitor, and a technology vendor. we embrace all those aspects, and that is the way the world works. emily: do you think google and facebook's business models are under threat relying on consumer data? >> i do not. i think they have a strong position because they create incredible consumer products. emily: what about amazon? >> amazon increasingly, i have because word triopoly it is the three players, amazon is building a large advertising business quickly. it has amazing consumer data, it the cultures where people buy and has millions of merchants. emily: coming up, canada's

answer may not be what you expect. we take an electric three wheeler for a ride on the streets of vancouver. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: finally, you have probably never seen a vehicle like the one we will show you next. a canadian company has its way, it will not be long before you see a lot of them. we report from vancouver. pricedtric like a tesla, like a ford fiesta, and one of the weirdest looking vehicles you have ever seen. introducing the solo. >> a clean electric vehicle for one person was an opportunity too great not to fees. is beingree wheel ev handbuilt in vancouver. has 3000any

preorders, and it will mass-produce an updated model in china. >> it could be assembled quickly , efficiently, and with high quality in under three hours. solo has 100 miles of range and charges in three hours. it is designed with a specific group in mind. the company says 83% of north american commuters drive to work alone each day. the question is if those commuters would be repaired to drive to work in something like this that you can just sitting. fit in. >> seven out of 10 of what the consumers are buying is a truck, so a single seater limits you to a specific user. >> there are areas bloomberg intelligence sees more promising . they are looking at car sharing.

there are already tests for deliveries. >> you do not need two seats for delivery. why is the second seat there? says the solo will be profitable. >> 25% growth profit is built into the design of the car. >> the company hopes to deliver 5000 in 2019, then a further 20,000 in 2020. longer-term production could be brought back home. is closing a site after 100 years of manufacturing in canada. the ceo says the company is interested in the site. -- can it handle the challenge of meeting billions of dollars a preorders? bloomberg news, vancouver. emily: that does it for this edition of "best of bloomberg technology." we will bring the latest in tech

throughout the week. you can tune in every day. check us out. this is bloomberg. ♪

scarlet: i'm scarlet fu. this is bloomberg "etf iq," where we focus on the access, risks, and rewards offered by exchange-traded funds. the road to etf's, may only be 26 years old but its roots as a passive fund go back to the sea merchants of venice and genoa. looking to protect our downside risk without any shortselling and derivatives. dr. victor chow of west virginia came up with an etf for that. we drill down into his fund. and a blockchain etf in everything