♪ emily:. i am emily chang, and this is the "the best of bloomberg technology," where we bring you the best interviews from this week of tech. t-mobile'sers blast proposed $26.5 billion purchase of sprint, as it does from both companies testify before the new democratic-led house.

an we go behind the wheel of electric car gaining attention out of canada. but first to our lead. backlash is called amazon to drop out of building a campus in a new york city. 40,000l had promised jobs with an average salary of $150,000. one problem -- local opposition was for rent the beginning. lawmakers presented being excluded from negotiations of the deal and committees groups feared rising rents in the neighborhood would push out long-term residents. cosooke to a long-term member who had opposed the deal from the start, and bloomberg's senior executive editor, brad stone. >> they are running a victory lap, but this is a victory for ourwe fought values, we cherish the deal from the beginning because amazon has treatingecord of not its workers right, and is horribly antiunion. we expose them during this

process the last few months that they declared the they would fight any attempts of employees to organize. it is antithetical to my values as a progressive new york city in newt and most of us 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 because they refuse to change their ways and simply did not think, to risk having to allow their employees to organize, which is outrageous. emily: brad, amazon turned some of its supporters into enemies as well. this coming from the mayor who said -- we give amazon an opportunity to be a good , it is that of working with the community, amazon through a way that opportunity. if amazon cannot recognize what

that is worth, it's competitors well. de blasia wasor d doing some damage control. amazon was looking for a partner , which it felt it didn't quite have anymore in seattle ended it conduct this very public search. it did make mistakes in new york city. it should have trotted out jeff bezos more to help support the deal. i think putting him in a room officialsiticians and like a kasselman would've helped. but, you are never going to change amazon's strips. jobs, andwhite-collar it is going to sell technology facialfed like recognition and departments like i.c.e., so what does this 25 thousand jobs help your community at all, many of phone support the deal? our city in the

long-run, and also our nation, quite frankly. if we had not thought this fight in new york city, we would've had other corporations saying , look, you let amazon not only come to new york city to get $3 billion in taxpayer money, solaring themselves antiunion that they would not allow members of their workforce to organize. if we allow them to do that, everybody else coming after that will say we are doing the same thing. and i feel like a van of the day, this is a fight that needed to be fought. also, with respect to their use and support of i.c.e. work against immigrants in this country -- cleans is the most diverse county in the country, we have some rain immigrants and up with documented undocumented. how could we as elected officials who represent with a lot of union workers and immigrants, allow amazon to dictate the terms of this deal?

dictate the terms of their arrival? the truth is amazon could have fought, they could have actually proposed new ways to do it, and i agree with you. verydidn't really fight hard here. we never saw or heard from jeff bezos, one, and there was never there was no-- discussion, from the time the deal was announced in early november until today, since about time, there has been almost zero work on behalf of amazon governor or mayor's , and 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 it appears they wanted. amazon says 70% of new yorkers were in favor. we looked at an independent poll that found 57% of new yorkers were in favor. when you ask them if they were in favor of $3 billion in

incentives, they are more split. .6% support, 47% oppose could you also have done anything differently to keep amazon at the table? >> again, this is their decision their marbles and go home. some with amazon, took criticism from some folks, and i believe that they at the end of the day were unwilling to move on anything. i believe it is part of their core values, their corporate values, to crush unions in any ability of their workers to organize. they did not want to change and that is on them. i also think that there was almost no effort to respond to the criticism initially. the rollout was totally mishandled. doing this in secret, bypassing kevin is a review, they were to fail.stined

also how the land of the last three months -- their appearances at the city council were extremely bad and are almost unable to maneuver was they were going through. emily: how much damage has amazon done to itself here? brad: i think it will recover easily, those jobs will go to another virginia, nashville and other places were amazon has offices. they will not change their antiunion stance or where they sell their technology. i think new york loses out. could amazon have done this differently? i think they were unprepared for selecting a location with this level of opposition. they may not have had the tools theheir disposal to counter groundswell of opposition from alexandria ocasio cortez and her allies, they could have done things differently. but i also think that new york is sacrificing the longer-term economic benefits that amazon would have brought the city.

emily: mr. van bramer: are you at all concerned about political consequences for you? >> look. i understand that there are people angry today because of what happens. there are consequences when we take stand. but 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 council's meaningful role in land use review, then so be it. i know what i took on this fight -- i know i took on this fight and i am proud of it. that was the new york city councilman and bloomberg's brad stone. coming up, the debate over your

data. how text giants like amazon and google are expanding their growing information empire as they expand into our homes. you can check out bloomberg on the bloomberg cap and on sirius xm. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ emily: as tech giants like amazon and google work to place their smart speakers at the center of the internet-connected home, both are expanding the amount of data they gather about us, the people who use their voice software to control these gadgets. it is stirring up more privacy concerns. we caught up with bitter works betwaorks ceo on tuesday. >> so amazon sees an opportunity with the echo smart speaker and its ring doorbell purchase last year to be a force to be reckoned with in home technologies, whether that it shopping with your voice, controlling other gadgets, televisions, thermostats. this wireless purchase they made

yesterday of a company in san francisco is the next step in that evolution. matemily: emily: john, do you see more pros or cons with amazon and google living with us? john: i mean, i think in 2019, when you look at the tech landscape, you can see tech with all of the promise of doing good and changing society, and giving us wonderful tools to enable us to do things is also 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. alan thicke it is good for consumers and our country, will think it is good for innovation and for startups. emily: on one hand, when you put it that way, it's terrifying. matt, you wonder if consumers

actually understand what's happening. talk to us about that passive data collection, and what these companies are collecting about us that we may not even realize. matt: so in the last year or two, amazon, seen as a leader in smart speakers, and google behind them, started talking to the smart device maker partners about increasing the amount of data they transmit as a matter of course back to the central hub. it would essentially mandate that anytime 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 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, right? 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 you 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 but other than to unplug them from the homes smart system. john, what do you think the social repercussions of this are? john: in the short term, i think we have seen a few incidences of fairly scary and weird hacks that have taken place, where people have hacked into other people's smart homes, or started speaking into baby monitors or adjusting the thermostats. we have seen software upgrades go haywire, resetting 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 -- in particular, the point matt is making which is key, is that these companies are trying to turn these devices into the central hub that passively kenexa all the data -- 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, the companies free to do that. and you could see the entire home of being 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 praise you amazon would say, unless you say alexa and you turn it on, it is not collecting this data about you. matt: on the contrary. they are. even if you don't invoke alexa. but one of the things, appoint listen, we value

consumer privacy, certainly what a lot of the big technology company say, and they say that they don't use this for advertising at this time. that the data will not be used to inform any sort of advertising. togle, which didn't comment us for this story has not made a similar promise. it is unclear what they are doing with it. john: i think there are two important points of their, we saw this with facebook, going through the cambridge analytica episode and so on. are they using it for third-party advertising data or informy using it to internal data sets? it is important. and i think some of the companies are glossing over that. so i think that they use this and they are using the data for internal data sets, which gives them the ability to more finely grained-target customers for a whole bunch of services. that is the first point. the second point, related to data, which i think is critical, we have all these amazing

services today that companies are giving us for free, software services. important isis quarter after quarter, these companies are managing to get more and more margin and profit out of these products, and that is happening because they are monetizing the data behind these services. at more and more granular levels. i think the fact that we have a handful of companies becoming massive data collectors on all quarters of our life -- on all corners of our life, is a problem. i don't think it is good for society, users, technology, or startups. emily: well i have you, john, what a doctor to you about another small advertising market, podcasting. you were an early investor in gimlet and anchor, companies that have been bought now by spotify. people who listen to podcasts love them, but it is still a niche 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. so the podcast market really the year 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 and battery life were getting better. andtooth was more stable, people were connected to their cars and using their phone as their primary device in their cars. america is an average have about two hours a day that they are not connected to a digital interface, and the auditory podcast interface is wonderful, it is rich in storytelling, both

fictional and nonfictional. and we are seeing significant growth in in the acquisition of these last companies in the past week. 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: that was bloomberg tech's workx ceo,and beta john borthwick.

emily: russia is planning to disconnect from the internet. yes, that means the entire country. temporarily. legislators are making most to create a so-called sovereign internet, so traffic goes through mostly domestic portals. moscow says this is an attempt to test the country's cyber defenses.

how would the country be if it were entirely cut off? critics have a different view, saying this risks ending the kremlin extensive power to censor the web. the senior vice president for cybersecurity strategy at pro ofpoint joins me to discuss. ryan: russia is looking at extremely aggressive options to control pretty much every piece of information that goes over the internet in this 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 so that they could not only censor things they have been censoring for years now, but also have control over what communication channels are viable, preventing people from using what's up, facebook, etc.. emily: what kind of firewall do they have in place? ryan: for many years, they have had many systems in their country's internet service providers. they could see pretty much everything that was going on.

in recent years, they have developed capabilities to actually block things, and through the legal system, they have started to ban things like storing peoples data in other countries. last month, they wrote to facebook and twitter and said, you are not storing russian's data here in russia, you are breaking our laws. emily: what are the actual mechanics of this? presumably, it can be done. ryan: it can be done and many countries do it. china is obviously the most obvious example, but in the middle east, many different countries choose to a sensor pornography, speech, they might consider subversive, and they have set up ways to get the isps, which are essentially the only way out of the 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 months ago telegram was blocked -- and messaging service -- it was using a domain 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 cannot 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 havethey actually do different woes in a different countries that they abide by, china is actually the one that 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 or china because as a

cybersecurity company, it would be virtually impossible for us to complete our mission of protecting customers were we to comply with the laws in those countries. but 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 a little bit more heavy-handed, those challenges look a lot different. still would the russians potentially be able to meddle in other countries' elections if they were cut off in this way? emily: any good cyber attack is not staged from your own ip server, anything that can be traced back to you, it is staged from something that could be compromised, or from another location entirely. so this would not really hamper their activities entirely. 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 u.s. may choose to use against them can be blunted or 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 inside russia? what do we know about how they feel about things like this? ryan: really good question. the long history of subversive speech in a rush conducted up, isnew apps that pop certainly fascinating, but it is gradually being forced down into things the russian government can control. so, if russia really cared about facebook and twitter, they would them, and theing russian government would much prefer them to use a certain technology so that they can survey of everything that is happening inside it. 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 dominates the headlines, but that is still -- it still powers everything, from a cybercrime perspective. stated course, you have 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. 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 ryan kalemeber. coming up, tech giants like

facebook and amazon have done business in saudi arabia, and now the kingdom wants to rent space in silicon valley, but time has changed. ♪

♪ emily: welcome back to "the best of bloomberg technology." i am emily chang. lawmakers grilled tech leaders over their proposed merger of t-mobile and sprint. they are pure before the u.s. house and karmic issues subcommittee defending the deal against claims that it is a french competition. >> our opponents are wrong when they claim the merger will lead to higher prices, in fact, the opposite is true. consumers will win with lower prices and better services. drop sharplys will

and our network capacity will expand sharply. senatorsne democratic called for the deal to be stopped, saying it would hurt consumers. our guests weighed in on the results of the hearing on wednesday. >> the message is pretty simple, what we have been hearing for a while, that the merger is good for competition because it will wrap in 5g and such great advancements that it will make the company a stronger competitor to at&t and verizon, but it seems nobody was buying it. there are questions from democrats word about coverage in possibleas, about price hikes hiding somewhere in his pledges not to do that. i, tell us about lawmakers' concerns. >> they were bipartisan, and as todd said, it is the

conservative combine 4 mobile wireless carriers into three, prices will go up because you are eliminating a competitor. articularly, there was concern about low income consumers because one of the things that have gone lost in a these merger discussions is the fact that if you combine t-mobile and sprint, you are combining three of the biggest prepaid carriers -- virgin mobile, boost mobile, and metro pcs. this will have a harsh impact on low income consumers. and what is fascinating is that in filing for the federal communications commission, sprint and t-mobile's economists have said, yeah, we know it will raise prices on low-income consumers, but they use their cell phones a lot so they will just bear the costs, which i think is a remarkable admission. emily: let's take a listen to some of the pushback. here is a clip from congressman mike doyle. rep. doyle: that would take the prepaid market from where it is

24.67, which is threshold,d.o.j.'s to a level that raises lots of red flags. these kinds of numbers have historically resulted in higher prices for consumers, less competition, and less innovation. emily: didn't john legere in the hearing promise that prices wouldn't go up? todd: he said it a couple of different ways, but after the hearing, i talked to doyle and doyle is not convinced. he wants regulators from the fcc f.c.c. to take a deep look at it. there are lots of ways to justify the price after, saying that you got a lower price considering what you got. it is not trusted right now by some in washington. emily: gigi, is this a promise that legere would actually be held to? gigi: this is interesting -- t-mobile has made a three-year pricing commitment promising not

to change the prices of rate plans. now, there are so many loopholes in that you could drive a truck through it. they could change their data caps, they could increase network quality and increased charges there. they could increase party challenges -- third-party charges. so that pricing commitment is no commitment at all. but there is a more important point. particularly in this of ministration, the assistant attorney general has already bed -- we don't want to overseeing merger commitments, we don't want to be acting as a regulator and looking at whether companies are abiding by their behavioral commitments. so there is no appetite for behavioral merger conditions, and frankly, they don't work. they didn't work in the comcast-nbcu merger. in fact, bloomberg was one of the unfortunate non-beneficiaries of that. they don't work in other mergers.

and particularly in this administration, nobody wants to be in the business, neither the f.c.c., nor the justice department, of essentially engaging in price regulation. emily: legere had quite a few pronouncements at this hearing. take a listen to this one about huawei. >> let me be clear, there is no huawei in our network today and there will never be, not today, not tomorrow, not ever. emily: of course, t-mobile has been involved in a case involving quality, and allegations that they stole intellectual property from t-mobile, having to do with robotic technology. todd, what do you make of that pronouncement from legere? todd fish i think it is one he could easily make. he even said, we have a history with that company, indicating a bit of distaste for huawei, given their legal

entanglements. there was an indictment of huawei by u.s. officials alleging they stole t-mobile secrets. one thing you can say is that there is the pledge for t-mobile itself in the united states. do opponents look to the parent corporation softbank in japan and deutsche telekom in germany and say, gee, look, there is huawei gear there? the influence is arm's length and maybe that's not far enough. emily: last question, gigi, can sprint survive without this deal? gigi: absolutely. the notion that sprint is a failing firm is nonsense. they are not even an ailing firm. they just put out their third-quarter financials two weeks ago and they are gaining subscribers in the lucrative postpaid market, their revenues are increasing across the board in both prepaid and postpaid. they've invested over $1.4 billion in new networks. so there is nothing about their financials, frankly, for the last several quarters, that make anybody think, or should make

anybody think that sprint is anywhere near failing, in fact, they are really on the uprise. with: that was gigi sohn georgetown law, and bloomberg starred shields. saudi arabia is looking for space for its investment fund. this follows similar moves from its neighbors like tatar and abu dhabi. the saudi fund has made huge tax investments lately, and this comes three months after saudi arabia faced international condemnation for the killing of generalist jamal khashoggi. the ceo of the center for democracy and technology discussed the issue with us on wednesday. >> it is obviously a hot market, there is lots of foreign investment in silicon valley and across they united states tech sector. the concern is whose values are driving the creation of new products, services and apps. we saw just recently some outcry

or thee creation, support of an app led by the saudi government that allowed people to track female associates or relatives. these are concerning kinds of applications and we would obviously want to espouse values of equality and liberty. that is part of my organization's name, is democracy and technology. so the question for me is, what kind of values are we embedding in the technology in our daily lives? emily: do you think these companies that have done business with the saudi's in the past will change their tune? nuala: it has been an age-old debate. it is a conflict up laws and cultures. the international internet allows for the export of u.s. -centric values by u.s. we are at the

conversational point about saudi arabia that we have been at about china and other countries, how they run their internal operations, and how they use technology. emily: so, where do you think ?his goes there has been lots of private talk, whisperings about whether companies should or shouldn't take softbank money, because much of its vision for the money comes from the saudi government. these think this issue dies, or does it continue to be an issue? because i certainly have yet to hear someone say, we didn't take that $500 million because it came from softbank. nuala: i think it's very difficult when there is that kind of money on the table to make those kind of choices for corporate leadership. but i do think the conversation is going to continue about the values and the norms and the democratic principles embedded in the products and services to companies are creating and the sources that only a fun but of revenue from the sales of those products. i see those calls coming as much from with silicon valley and the

employees of many of these companies, as i do from outside in civil society groups like mine. i think it is a conversation we are just beginning in many parts of this country, and really, around the world. this is not the last we will see of it. emily: i want to talk to you about the tech industry more broadly. recent poll that shows that facebook is one of the country's least trusted institutions. google and amazon are toward the top, yet facebook just reported earnings, and it keeps growing. it doesn't seem to be losing users. people are still using it. how do you square that? nuala: it's a terrific platform in many ways, it is useful and it is free. i do think we are having a conversation about the use of information and the use of personal information by companies of all kinds, not just , and i thinkector that could account for the difference in the various brands

' trust factors. but i think we are in a position at now is a country to have a conversation about the use of personal information by all companies and respect and dignity that companies allow their customers, employees, and partners. i think we are going to see comprehensive privacy law in the united states in the near term to put us back on the global playing field about privacy and data. emily: how much do you think consumers actually want comprehensive policy regulations? nuala: the pendulum has swung in the direction, that more and more average users, citizens of this country, realize that they are not necessarily getting a fair deal as people in other parts of the world are getting, even from some of our own theanies, in protection and use of data and of the disclosure of how that data is being used by the company. i think there's a practical reality, people want to use the services and be part of the internet economy, but they want to have more balance of power between the individual and the companies themselves. emily: nuala o'connor from the

privacy and technology. hear from the ceo of soreness on how they plan to stay ahead of their big rivals. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily:sonos shares were sent tumbling, even after they beat estimates in the last earnings report. inventoryaid the issue was disappointing, although many remain positive on the company's future. this comes as there is hot competition from amazon, apple, and google. how do they plan to keep up with the rest? we discussed with ceo patrick spence on monday. patrick: it is hard to know what is driving the market with investors. andre still a young company investors are looking to see how

we perform over a long. of time. so we are paying for the sins of the past, as you think about other hardware companies that have an persevered in the long-term. emily: the speaker market has exploded with competition. amazon, apple, google, some more successful than others. who do you think of as your main competitor? patrick: when you look at right now, we think of the silent home as our main competition. the players there, a lot of them are getting people getting into the habit of listening out loud. there have always been bluetooth speakers and those kind of things. that is for google and amazon and those players have played in time. we are the option for those who get a taste of voice assistant or a music streaming service and want to listen on something a little better. built to last longer in your home. emily: is anyone company taking than others? i know that you can listen to alexa on your sonos speakers. so there are partnerships in play as well? patrick: we worked with spotify, sirius xm, apple, you name it.

one of the benefits is that we build products that are really built to last for a long time, they sound great, and they work with all the services, so you're not trapped in one ecosystem, you can get whatever you want. i think that is why why we are able to hit record sales last quarter. emily: amazon and google have sold a lot of speakers. patrick: certainly. emily: and that is not someone choosing any ecosystem, that is someone choosing a specific ecosystem. patrick: that's right, but the nice thing is you're using one of those products and you want to get something for another room of the home or you want something that looks or sounds better and maybe also works with apple or google, if you bought amazon one, that is where sonos comes in. emily: jpmorgan thinks apple should buy sonos. patrick: right now i am really making sure to work -- to make sure that we are successful. we are working hard to make sure we do the right thing for consumers. emily: would you be open to a deal if an offer at itself available?

and the boardf members would really have to look at that, but right now i am focused on making sure that we are a successful public company for the long-term. what you'reus seeing as a result of the trade war, and what is plan b? patrick: we have been in china for a long time. our supply chain has been built there. every component is there as well. last week there was some incorrect noise about what we are doing. we have had a global expansion plan for a while, and you always want to be in the places where your customers are, so we have always thought about taking our supply chain outside of china in addition to china, not actually leaving china, but rather augmenting it. , we have accelerated those plans on the back of the tariffs noise, but that is something we have been working on for months. emily: so where are you taking the supply chain? : a number of spots. we have a lot of customers in north america and europe, so we

went to be geographically close. emily: have you seen any impact as result of the trade war? patrick: we have not. thankfully, to this point to have not been impacted. emily: what would the timeline be for moving to different locations? again, it is augmenting, but it is something we want to be able to do late this year or early the next. emily: and what would be the issues to deal with? patrick: i think the issue and inventory got overblown, quite frankly. emily: talk about what other product launches the good sees beyond speakers. thatcher: we are focused on a new homes in new countries. we are only represented in five countries. job number two is new products. we been focused on the home. now we are looking inside the home. there are a lot of other places of audio such as auto, headphones, commercial, other areas that i think our system

gives us unique possibilities. we are also looking at what services we could be offering our customers, what would be a great thing for listeners. emily: would you spotify or ever become a content provider like spotify or apple? patrick: there seems to be a lot of focus their right now and a lot of companies are doing that really well, but i am looking for things that would do things for listeners are a little different than what other companies are doing. emily: that was patrick spence, sonos ceo. major publishers like buzzfeed .aid off thousands of employees sadly, it is becoming something of the norm for journalism since the event of the internet. according to a 2018 study, newspapers have experienced 23% for digitally native outlets. one of theopenx,

largest exchanges, weighed in on the current state of media and advertising on wednesday. >> i think the underlying question is the business model, the one of advertising. it is kind of a tale of two cities. over all, advertising is doing actually well. 7%, twice the rate of the economy and digital advertising group's 15%. there is a lot of money being made in advertising, but there is a symmetry which is a lot of people's time is spent on sites and apps outside the major world gardens like facebook and google, but the ad dollars are why?atching the. emily: >> when you advertise on facebook for example, you reach a huge audience with a lot of efficientt is scaled, and effective, so it works very well.

so ad dollars are shifting their. but marketers want to be a way to spend it more than two places. so the rest of the open web, which is many of the business is about, that are part of the open web, they need an advertising model that works more like what works for facebook and google. certainly don't spend all my time on google and facebook. tim: that's the problem. so i would call it a people-based marketing. what we need is a system that offer reflects people-based marketing for the open web. so that the ad dollars can follow the users and the attention that being generated by all those great outlets with great journalists emily: how do . emily: how do you do that? tim: you lean on companies like mine to innovate more and to get closer and provide a more viable compliments to those really big systems. emily: isn't that bad for google, your new partner? tim: google is a multifaceted

player. right? for us alone, they are a big partner, a big customer, they are one of our biggest players, emily: and they are a competitor. yes, they are a competitor, and one of the biggest player. so we embrace all those aspects. that is sort of the way the world works. emily: do you think the google and facebook model are under threat by relying so much on digital data? tim: no, they have a very strong position. because they create incredible consumer products and they have a great trade-off between consumers and those products. emily: amazon? tim: it's really three players, not just the two players. a very largelding advertising business very quickly, with a number of great assets and amazing consumer data. it understands what people buy and has billions of merchants who want to reach those consumers. openx ceo tim cadogan.

coming up, we take in all electric three wheeler for a ride on the streets of vancouver. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ emily: finally. the have probably never seen a vehicle like the one we will show you. but if this company has its way, it won't be long until you see many of them. >> all electric like a tesla, priced like a ford fiesta, and one of the weirdest looking vehicles you have ever seen, introducing the solo. >> a clean energy electric vehicle for one person was an opportunity that was too great not to cease. the three wheeler election be 23,000 solo orders.

to meet demand, it will reduce them in china. >> we also needed a vehicle that would be a somewhat quickly, efficiently and in under three hours, and that, it can. many the solo has 100 miles of range and charges in it is three hours. designed with a specific group and light. the company says it is to percent of north american commuters drive to work alone each day. so the question is whether those commuters would be prepared to drive to work in something like this that you can just fit in. the company's optimism is not backed up by the numbers. >> seven out of 10 of what the consumer is buying is a truck, at this point. so the idea of a single-seater limits you to a specific user. ed: there are areas bloomberg intelligence sees as more promising. electromechanica is looking at car sharing. 7-eleven and dhl already testing

for deliveries. >> you don't need two seats for the delivery vehicle, you have one employee. why is a second seat there? ed: investors still need convincing. shares have fallen since last august. says it will be profitable. >> 25% growth profit is built into the design of the car and that is fine. ed: the company hopes to deliver 5000 china-produced solos in 2019, and a further 20,000 in 2020. longer-term, production could be brought back home. general motors announced it was closing its offshore site. after more than 100 years of manufacturing in canada. the ceo says the companies company is interested in the site. they are eyeing more passengers for the two-seater, but can it handle the challenge of billions of dollars worth of preorders? ed ludlow, bloomberg news, vancouver. ♪

emily: that does it for this edition of "the best of bloomberg technology." tune in every day at 5:00 p.m. in new york, 2:00 p.m. in san francisco. livestreaming on twitter. this is bloomberg ♪ the latest innovation from xfinity

isn't just a store. it's a save more with a new kind of wireless network store. it's a look what your wifi can do now store. a get your questions answered by awesome experts store. it's a now there's one store that connects your life like never before store. the xfinity store is here. and it's simple, easy, awesome.

♪ >> coming up on "bloomberg best," the stories that shaped the week in business around the world. the u.s. and china top trading .- talk in beijing, and investors are hanging on every word. >> a lot of indications both side want to deal. abigail: in washington, a deal on border security heads off another government shutdown. >> we went from shutdown craziness and now we will go to a new phase. president trump: the order is signed and we will have a national emergency, and we will then be sued. >> we have no shortage of people lining up and threatening to sue. abigail: with the brexit clock