♪ welcome'm emily chang, to the best of bloomberg technology, we bring you all at the top interviews from this week in tech. coming up, the roadshow picks up this week as the ride hailer gears up for what could be the best u.s. public debut this year. we will discuss the prospects with some early investors. in theate officials are early stages of a probe into google, focused on antitrust and privacy in the largest cord needed effort to take on big

attack since the 1990's. we would hear from the attorney general of texas. service wasital born in the wake of the bumpy rollout of healthcare.gov. now it is stepping up efforts to give americans better access to government services. story, lyft isp taking itself as a fierce challenger to uber. investors are taking a close look at the second-largest ride-hailing company in america had of its $2.1 billion public debut next week area can the startup window over? took a closer look. 2019, the gear that so many highly anticipated tech companies and to the public. among them, to stand out. they race best described as focus versus frenzy. frenzy being uber. engaging and rapid global expansion and retreat. food delivery, bike sharing, self driving cars and flying taxis. say, a valuation of bankers

could soar to $120 million. be described as focus. they launched in 2009, they grew out of cofounders logan green and john zimmer's 2007 startup, which connected college students looking for rides. it is focused solely on growth in the u.s. it went from less than a dozen cities in 2009 to 95% of the country in 2019. 39% now claims it controls of the u.s. ride-hailing market. it is just starting to go international. it's launching in toronto and ottawa city in 2018. it is keeping up with its top rival by getting in on scooters and bike sharing, buying the owner of city bike and new york, and it is working on self driving cars, buying london-based louvers and labs, getting stabs -- beeping of staff to over three and her people on autonomous technology. lyft sort article dated a slew of investors. a slew ofeady lured

investors. it wants to double its right count to one billion in less than one year. revenue jumped up 541% to $2.2 billion last year from just $343 million in 2016. an estimated valuation of 20-20 $5 billion. 22% to losses increasing 9090 $1 million in 2018, while that was second out of the gate to lunch, it is first in line to go public. for months ahead of uber. in an increasingly volatile tech market, the hope is that investors will hail lyft's ride. this week, we caught up with an early investor and left board member, along with her partner, at floodgate. very first pitch that they came in with, it's a pitch

that i still have and i like showing it to stanford students. they talked a lot about why transportation was so critical u.s.e fabric of the they started off of canals and went to railways and then they showed highways and how actually the physical landscape of the country changed and the economy changed as a result. the question that john and logan posed that i thought was fascinating, was what is the next transportation revolution? do you want to be a part of it? my answer to that was absolutely yes. there was nothing else on the market that was a transportation revolution. emily: uber already listed at this point did nick? ann: it did not exist at the time we invested. >> i think it was a black car service of the time. it wasn't about ridesharing. ann: when you were first launched, they started as uber

taxi and then it became over black. launched, there were still a pocket of time where the only cost that we could find in the market was that car. that's what we were comparing it against. is there some thing because the night? -- then that? mike: when you invest as early as we do, you have to have an opinion on where things are going. we have been early in the sharing economy with task run and companies like that. -- rabbit and companies like that. we liked that the smartphone the but you locate some thing that was unused and moving. we were looking for networked transportation. when they walked in the room and described their vision for how things could be, we said, those are our guys. emily: this is a company that is losing a list is half as much a -- money as they are making. they brought in $2 billion in lost $900 million in revenue last year. how do you justify that you public market investors will buy and now? ann: this is really about the

long game. we always return as early stage investors to the origin story nine years ago, we were complete buyers and why we are still buyers of what the vision is. the really unique nature of this that thiss transportation revolution still hasn't played itself out. there is so much more to be done. there's so much more to go. if you think about the potential theetwork transportation, ability for people not to just share the ride, but figure out all of the different ways in which they can get from point a whether that includes an autonomous vehicle or not, there are so many new ways in which we will be adding and thinking about transportation that is going to actually start to change where people live and how they make choices about where they go.

so we're just trashed the surface of what is possible here. that's my excitement about the future. emily: it's not unusual for a couple need to go public and not be making money. is saying they might not make money. they say they may never be profitable. why should investors buy into that? given the extreme nature of this case? mike: i don't want to speak for numbers, the way we look at some markets, the product is so compelling and the body proposition is so compelling, it will be satisfied. ridesharing was just one of these ideas, where, i don't know if your mother the first time you took a left, you knew instantly it would be a huge success. people throughout the world would be energized to want to get to places this way. when the market will be satisfied, sometimes, the best

way to create value is to move very quickly. our belief is that transportation is being reinvented and that it is a race to be the category king. days, value gets created by crating market share and satisfying the demands. the rightt always strategy, but in this case, the companies that have been aggressive and moved quickly have one of the ones that did not. emily: i agree, it is something that users and i want. what is the value of it? who is to say this isn't the next snap? where you go public and then, a year later, it is with a third of what it was. there is very little that i can actually say about the company specifically and the financials specifically. ofeturned to that notion

come out when you look at the original pitch deck that john and logan pitched, you look at the founder's manifesto, and you letter,the founders there is an incredible consistency to why they built this business. mike and i are looking at a company and we are investing in businesses that we believe will ,e here not just 10 years now but 25 and 50. we call them thunder lizards, legendary businesses. to see companies that have this incredible lengths in terms of the store that they have. we have seenings consistently is that companies that have a characteristic have this storyline to them that is consistent from not only day one, but it goes throughout the length of the story of the business. when you compare these three

documents that i've seen, there is an incredible story of why this company needs to exist. and why we believe that investing into these founders, nine years ago, was a good idea. that story is so consistent. that creates an authenticity that we love in john isner we invest. coming up, u.s. attorneys general are looking closely at whether google presents an antitrust case. our interview with the top lawyer from texas, attorney general ken paxton. that is next. if you like bloomberg news, you can check us out on the radio. listen on the bloomberg app, and on sirius xm in the u.s.. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ emily: lastemily: september,

jeff sessions called a meeting of state attorneys general to discuss whether google and facebook were suppressing conservative views. , now we know that a smaller group of the state officials have begun looking into possible antitrust or consumer protection violations by google. it comes at a time when presidential hopefuls like senator elizabeth warren are calling for a break about big tech firms. a rallying cry that is reaching across the isle with tech -- senator cruz retreating warren's criticisms of facebook, saying, the first time i've ever retreated elizabeth warren, but she is right. big tech has way too much power. i spoke with texas attorney general ken paxton on monday. ken: we have serious concerns about both of those issues that you talked about. both antitrust, the power and the wealth of these companies. we have a history in this country of looking at those issues and breaking up countries that are too big. with concerns about privacy. the lack of transparency and how the collected information,

lack of transparency of how to use it. consumers are not being paid for this. -- there are also vulnerable populations like children, the getting their data gathered and we have no protections for them. googledidn't --emily: released a statement in response to this probe. or early stages of a probe. they say, privacy and security are built into our pot i said we will continue to engage constructively with the attorneys general on policy issues. action, do need to be gassed using these be taken? ken: we need to get more information from them. the questions answered were general answers. sostions about analytics, there's not a lot of clarity for attorney general's to understand exactly what they are doing with this data. i for the tick -- that google has thousands and thousands of data points on every consumer that uses them. they know about you than you do.

it's concerning that those consumers are not aware of the data that these companies have. and how they're using it and selling it. the consumer is not getting any of that money. i'm sure you're aware of senator elizabeth warren's proposal to break a big tech at this point. here's what she had to say at sxsw a week and a half ago about her proposal. >> that opportunity to do what you do best, to come up with a great idea, to work your heart out and make it happen, to be able to compete on a level playing field is taken away by these platform giants. my view is cannot break those things apart and we will have a much more competitive, robust market in america. emily: you have republicans on your side of the aisle, like ted cruz, agreeing with her, at least in principle. you think big tech these to be broken up? ken: i'm not sure yet, but i

have concerns. i talk to their competitors who have pushed out of the marketplace. in how they choice respond, because there is such control by a company like google that controls about 89% of the search engine. , whetherhese companies get pushed out of the marketplace. there are concerns about competitiveness and companies being able to start up and republicans emily:, generally resist the government getting too involved in the private marketplace. what makes this different? we are definitely free market. we want lots of competition. that's the key word, competition. to dominate the marketplace, becoming my benefit -- monopolistic, competition goes away, then you have the argument that consumers may be harmed. the european union has already find google aliens of dollar to dominate the marketplace, becoming mybills -o

there are concerns about the competitiveness and the opportunity to create products that google does not push out of the market place. emily: how do you feel, given your concerns about data, how do you feel about facebook and inld you be interested taking on a similar exploration of whether facebook deserves some of this scrutiny as well? ken: we're certainly looking at companies like facebook and google. it's not limited to just those two companies. it's any of these giant companies that are dominating the marketplace and potentially causingconsumers and consumers to be in a position where all of this data is controlled by one company or two or three companies and the consumer does not have access to them and they don't get paid for it and they don't know how it is being used. emily: do you think consumers should get paid for the data? ken: i think that should be looked at. it's incredibly valuable information. when you know some much about every consumer. you are selling the data and make consumer doesn't even know.

there ought to be at least some greater transparency involved. the consumer realizes what they are turning over to discoveries. emily: if you're looking at google and facebook another big technologies, are you also looking at amazon and apple and microsoft? ken: we are just beginning this. we don't necessarily have specific companies that we have targeted. we are looking at a broad range of companies that control a lot of the marketplace. we are try to determine, are they involved in viewpoint determination? are they protecting consumer data? transparency more in the process? so consumers are treated fairly and their information is protected? we don't know how much these companies are protecting the data and who they are selling it to. we reportedyear, that this explanation of google came out of this meeting with then attorney general jeff sessions out of a concern that the tech companies were suppressing conservative views. were you at that meeting? ken: i could not attend.

i have people in my office at that meeting. we are concerned about this. we had it happen this week in the texas senate. the texas senate caucus put up a facebook post about the born alive bill to protect children that are born alive from being aborted after they are alive. that content was taken down by facebook. they were arguing that that was engagement. they also to done in other facebook post by an individual senator the talked about that issue. i don't know what engagement rate is. i thought that's what they wanted. that's certainly an issue that is coming up more and more often. emily: that was texas attorney general ken paxton. coming up, social media platforms like facebook rely heavily on algorithms to stop the spread of it should miss content. as we saw and the new zealand bus shooting, the doesn't always work -- new zealand mosque shooting, that doesn't always work. that's up next. this is bloomberg. ♪

>> as we sit here, 99% of the isis content is flagged before any human sees it. this is success in rolling out ai tools that can proactively police and enforce safety across the community. emily: that is what mark zuckerberg told the senate judiciary committee in april of last year. this is what facebook's newsroom posted the day after the new zealand mosque shootings that killed 50 people. hours, werst 24 removed the one and a half million videos of the attack globally, of which 1.2 million were blocked and upload. video keep getting uploaded after such an attack? on monday, we talked to cardica sonic a, -- carter cosonica. book, the author of a new a look at how algorithms are shaping lives today. also joining us is tom giles.

>> we knew it was bad. we knew it was bad, not just on facebook, but on youtube and other platforms, being on social media. we know it is bad. see this many people can such violent imagery and these companies struggle to use the tools they have at their disposal to pull it down, it is a terrible thing. that's a lot of use. -- views. those things are getting

those things are getting politicized. emily: we know that it took 17 minutes for the video to be caught and taken down.

>> putting live video out there, i don't see, you can physically .elay >> you can't live", but you delay it a little bit. that helps to some extent.

will have 100% accuracy. you do rely on human beings. users flagging offensive content. that takes a few minutes or hours. one has to, and some ways deal with this real question. it's not how and why you got through, and i think it is unavoidable for live content. the question for me, is what exactly are these firms doing to police the content. ?an they be more transparent other independents done, and that is where we started to see some initial stats, but they could take that further. emily: the point was made of the weekend that these platforms have done a lot to take down tariffs -- terrorists and isis related content. not nearly the same efforts have been taken to eliminate white supremacy on these platforms. you a lot than here, this is free speech are this doesn't

quite cross the line, what about the problem of white supremacy and hate online, that they can often see these found acts. -- violent acts? >> the line between what is free speech and what is clearly promoting hate on the platform and needs to go away, for every decision, there will be somebody on the other side, but do they have to take an aggressive action? they have to view themselves as media companies they had to take on the response ability of curating. they're letting users share with we wantbecause i think them to take a stand. human's guideof a to machine learning and our own tom giles. slams googlerope with another fine, totaling $1.7 billion. its third and possibly final penalty.

bloomberg tech is live streaming on twitter. you can check us out at technology and follow a global breaking news technology, tictoc on twitter. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: welcome back to the best of bloomberg technology. google was fined by the european union in its latest antitrust judgment. it is the last of a trio of probes that have racked up $9.3 billion in penalties for google. they are making changes to how they display ads to comply with a 2017 order. of newnted at less risk fines in the future. ,> the numbers that we have now on the intentions in the android

position, this is also to say we don't have a noncompliant issue as it is now. we will keep following this, but i think it is positive google takes steps for more consumer choice. ceo at a search engine which operates in 22 countries and competes with google in europe and our reporter join us to discuss. >> we have a third and quite a large fine, but with the googles balance sheet, it is baked in. investors are not concerned about the fines that cost a ton of money. this looks like the heat on google from europe after 10 years of what google called discussions with the e.u. looks to be closing. i don't think it means they will never be looked at again by european competition authorities

but there are bigger fish to fry. with the last 10 years have shown is european regulators can go after big companies -- tech companies, get support politically back at home without getting major pushback from consumers in europe. emily: you have applauded the e.u.'s decision. what does google changing its practices in this mean for your business? fineat i would say is this today is something we welcomed and consumers have welcomed, but it will not change a lot in the marketplace. google has been given a cease and desist order which says don't do what you have been doing. they stopped in 2016, but in the two-sided markets, basically the market tipped in google's favor. they will say we paid the tax for basically taking over

another market. we ask for the commissioner to go further and force google to put right the wrongs it done to this market like in shopping and android. emily: what would that mean? to your point, google controlled 2006 tots market from 2016. >> you have to look at this and say google has all the data, all the market, people look at it and say, why can't you compete well? they have this entrenchment with the publishers and the only way that can happen is if google was forced to give up market share, which looks like the commissioner is unwilling or unable to do. emily: what is google's response? they pointed to a few complaints. is they wonponse

because they have the best business, the best algorithms to provide these kind of ads and products to the people who pay for them. it is true when they were in control 70% of the market, that gives them the power to continue and grab more and more of it. it is difficult to see how that would be changed. google and its investors are confident they are not going to be kicked out of these markets. they are willing to pay and they will continue doing business. emily: if google had owned 70% of the ad market, with changes, how does that change? i don't see much changes at all. they will continue to control and have at least 70%. nothing has really changed in their behavior when they removed

the exclusivity clauses. you have to look at the broader context and say this is a company that has lost its moral compass. this is the third time it has been found guilty of anticompetition. along withfine today the others, but from googles perspective, it is a tax, take over more market. google is betting big on gaming. they unveiled their new stadium game streaming at the game developers conference in san francisco this week. it will let players access high-end games on the web without buying expensive consoles or personal computers. it is already being nicknamed the netflix of gaming. google also introduced its own game controller for consul like gaming on a computer or can't -- i spoke with the vice president bill harrison tuesday after the announcement. >> we see it as the new generation of platforms combines playing and watching games into

one seamless experience. this is being built for the 21st century, powered by amazing technology that only google can bring to bear. emily: but can only google bring certain types of content? will this have exclusive content? today the announced formation of stadium games and entertainment, google's first developer studio, and we are working with developers all around the world right now. we have shipped hundreds of development tools to leading studios and they are hard at work creating games for the platform. emily: will you be licensing content? gaming content is a lot more expensive than typical video streaming content. phil: we partner with game publishers and game developers big and small. you saw in our presentation today some of the leading lights of the game industry like

ubisoft and take two, bringing their amazing experiences to our platform. but also it is about bringing youtube creators into the mix where a youtube creators who has millions of subscribers can bring their fans into the game, and allow game developers to connect with more and more people seamlessly across all the screens in their life. emily: if this is successful, it could mean a huge shift in the gaming market. but how will you make sure the experience is consistent across devices, given the differences in bandwidth when it comes to everyone's internet experience? phil: that is the magic of google technology that runs in our data center that allows us to utilize our advantage of investments in technology, focus on hardware and service software and that allows us to take the original vision and stream it to 4k, 60r's home, up to

frames percent again, all the latest visual and audio capabilities and technologies that gamers are used to, but without the need for a dedicated box, console or pc. emily: coming up from google to the white house, we talk about how his career in tech helped prepare him for his time in washington. and later check it out on instagram, shoppers will be able to buy what they like right from the app. could it be the next big revenue driver for facebook? this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: in the heart of washington, a nonpartisan tech group has been working to bring government services to americans online. the u.s. digital service helps speed up veterans disability claims and break down technical barriers for immigrants looking for green cards. we caught up with the administrator and started by

talking about the long and bumpy history of government technology services like healthcare.gov. and the importance of clean rollouts going forward. >> i think it is crucial. you do not always see in government people bringing user centered design. it is really thinking about the veteran, the doctor, the student, and putting them at the center. a lot of times if you just write specifications and some software for a couple of years, and do not talk to users, you do not end up with a good consumer experience. emily: you worked for google where things work at light speed. why move to the government? things move very slowly. >> there is a couple of reasons. first it is the mission and the impact. the meaningfulness of being able to see the impact you can have is really deeply gratifying. the other thing is technology, you can cherry pick. you can choose to serve one particular market. government needs to serve everybody, and that means

whenever you talk to somebody over thanksgiving dinner table, they are able to see, this is the impact. emily: has it been a culture shock? matt: yes. we like to joke that the u.s. digital service is like a bridge between the worlds of technology and government, and the worlds don't always speak well together. you can learn to speak the other language. emily: you worked under the obama administration and you now work under the trump administration. you don't set policy but you execute. what has it been like working for two different presidents? >> what is really gratifying is the fact we care about implementing systems so government systems that millions of people use work really well. and we have had support in both administrations. it is not a partisan issue to say technology in some cases is broken, or a veteran trying to getting her benefits or a student going to college, for them to get the information they need and the service to work well. we have actually gotten great support, and we are gratified to make good progress.

emily: the president is once again taking on google and facebook, accusing them of bias. is that fair? it is an interesting question. in my mind i am like -- i am just worried about, if you have a particular doctor that wants to submit a payment for medicare, does that system really work? it is fun to talk about after hours and that sort of thing. i think in the same way that dc does not always understand silicon valley, silicon valley does not always understand dc. and the more cross pollination, probably the better. emily: what does silicon valley need to understand better? in the era of techlash? there is so much backlash. matt: i was at sxsw and i sat down eating a hot dog, and somebody pitched me on a startup that does augmented reality dance lessons. i think silicon valley can do more about the services everyone needs, not just a select few. emily: we saw many of the many

democrats gathered there and are .aking on big tech we are also seeing state attorneys general are investigating whether google presents an antitrust case. do you think google presents an antitrust case? matt: as someone who serves in the government, i do not want to take a position on that but when , i worked in government there were earnest people making sure the best quality of search results showed up. for me, it is a question of, did the federal trade commission, the department of justice, they need to look at consumer harm and consumer good. it is a question people can look at. emily: how about a broader question, senator elizabeth warren saying big tech needs to be broken up? amy klobuchar wants an investigation. do you think big tech broadly needs to be broken up? matt: for me personally, it is not a matter of breaking up so much as big companies need to realize they probably are going to be scrutinized. i think most companies realized that and accept the fact that no matter what, they have to think

about their impact not just amongst their consumers and their markets, but throughout the entire country and the world. emily: you handle some of the most sensitive data about americans. medical records, for example. google and facebook have a lot of sensitive data about us. is it clear at this point that we cannot trust them with our data? matt: one thing that is kind of interesting is that if a tech company or any company loses the trust of its consumers, i think people will start to leave. they have the choice to take their data out or stop using the company. facebook, whatever it is. what interests me, if you think about the u.s. government, what is the trust in the u.s. government and how can we make , that work better? there was a poll came out and for the time, the u.s. first government was listed as it were a company. of the top 100, it was dead last and so there is a lot of ways technology could make government work better for everyday people. emily: yet we are continuing to see areas where technology is failing.

there was a mass murderer in new zealand, then facebook video getting hundreds of posts. they were almost powerless to stop their own power, so what can be done about that? matt: that is an interesting case, because there is the notion of something you do not want to show up like spam, and i used to work on spam on google search results, and then there is also the notion of real-time things you don't want to show up. this idea of something going viral and people live streaming really terrible stuff, i suspect the tech companies just have not had the time to adjust to that specific model. i would not be surprised if engineers throughout silicon valley are thinking about adjusting so it does not happen as easily in the future. emily: we are seeing technology working with the government, and that has caused, in google's case employee protests around , google's work with the pentagon. such that google actually ended a contract to help the government interpret aerial

drone footage using google ai. is that a mistake? matt: reasonable people can have different viewpoints. i was talking to the ceo of microsoft recently. he came to visit one of our staff meetings. he had an interesting position that said microsoft is basically a platform, and the platform should allow all kinds of customers and clients to come in. you cannot anticipate how anybody will use a platform. people will be grappling with these issues for quite some time. emily: coming up, if you like what you see on instagram, you now have the option to buy it. we have the details on the social networks new e-commerce strategy next. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: after years of posting beautiful images of food, fashion, and design on instagram, users will be able to

by items they see and like right through the app. instagram is testing a shopping feature called check out with a handful of retailers including nike and revolve. shoppers will be able to pay with visa, mastercard, and paypal. paypal's chief officer talked about the roll up along with sarah frier. withthe rollout along sarah frier. to purchasebe able a product, unlike we have seen before. previously they would redirect you to a retailers website or app where you could complete your purchase, but this gives instagram another line of revenue beyond advertising which is going to be extremely significant to their business over the long-term. emily: how much business and traffic do you think this will drive for paypal? bill: this is building on a phenomenon we have seen for a long time. small business, retailers are having new forms in which they

are meeting buyers. we think check out on instagram is a great new experience, and instagram has been a great forum for sellers to meet buyers. as sarah was just commenting on, this has been building for a long time in terms of buyers connecting with brands and sellers and then linking off to their site. now they can complete the purchase in context on instagram helps more of this activity happening. this is something we hear from sellers all the time, this is a very important for them for them. this is an interesting new place for sellers to meet more buyers. emily: it is interesting, but how big do you think it can be for you? bill: if you look at our marketplace and partner business, separate from ebay who continues to be a partner we have worked with for a long time, our top 20 marketplaces that we work with are already

$85 billion in volume for us last year and growing 41% year on year. that is a very large segment of our's nest, growing quite rapidly. our aspirations, we want to connect our 30 plus million sellers with buyers. this is an important trend. a decade ago there was one place or a couple of places a seller could go, particularly if smaller seller could go to sell online. now there is this explosion of new forums that they can sell, and we want to help connected to all the best places where they can be buyers. we think instagram is quite important in that, and we are excited about enabling the checkout right inside the story there, and we are quite excited to be powering some of those capabilities, particularly buyer transactions as well as seller transactions and partnering with them to help enable experiences. emily: facebook is going through a lot of changes. we just talked about ad targeting on housing and credit

to. -- credit ads. mark zuckerberg said they will shift more towards private communications. how much revenue do you think this will drive, instagram commerce, will drive for the facebook company? sarah: it is hard to say because it is so early but what is important to keep in mind that facebook's legacy business, the news feed and advertising will run in the newsfeed is not going to grow much more from here. it is already so saturated in all these big advertising markets around the world. so the company is invested in figuring out their next business models. e-commerce is something they mentioned on the earnings call as like a big priority for the future alongside things happening in messaging which may be harder to monetize. so i think this is one of the few bright spots they have that is maybe more proven than some of the other things they are trying like cryptocurrency and encrypted messaging.

emily: let's talk about the less bright spots. and bill facebook and instagram , are both getting plagued by hate and misinformation. you look at many, many instagram comments, this is a problem. does that concern you? bill: we partner with facebook across multiple forums for some time. we have a growing partnership. and one of the things that we enable is fraud tools, things that enable market place and partner operators to go make sure that they are getting buyers that are legitimate buyers, and they are getting sellers that are legitimate sellers. it is something that across all the different forums, we provide buyer and seller protection in those different forums. separate from how we engage here, across the way we engage with our consumers and merchants, we help them share without sharing financial

information. we help merchants connect to more of these forums. there is a number of things are being addressed across some of these places. can this be a great forum for commerce? i think you see a number of sellers really engaging with buyers, and so i think it is a great forum but this makes it better. we are excited to partner on this, not only providing tools that will help with the sales going in and out, but how do you combat fraud and these kinds of things. sarah: one question for you. do you think consumers will have hesitancy about sharing their credit card number with facebook through this kind of transaction? or will paypal prevent that from having to happen? bill: this is something when you use the paypal button broadly, when you use that paypal button it is helping you do not have to , go through the friction of giving a card. there are going to want to be plenty of users to provide a card directly and we will help

them with that. users can make those determinations where they feel comfortable. one of the things we are provided, not have to go to those types of things which the process.t of either way, we will give the user the choice. emily: you are taking friction out of the process, but in light of sarah's point, in light of the more recent privacy concerns with facebook, will users want to share and store their payment information with instagram? today? bill: you see a lot of users really wanting to go connect with sellers and the brands already, so certainly making a place where users feel comfortable doing that is important, and it is something we are working together on. paypal helps the directly, but i think you see a lot of users engaging there. i think that is already happening. this is something that makes that even better for those users

and more seamless. emily: sarah, we mentioned nike, revolve. what other retailers are taking this off? sarah: i think it will be a small group for now, but in the future, all these people that have created their businesses on instagram, based off their following will be able to build a marketplace. that is going to be like uncharted territory. emily: you will be able to buy kylie jenner's lipstick on instagram. is that what you are saying? sarah: one day we will be. a business today just had a more than $1 billion valuation. these businesses that have been built up via instagram followings will have a more direct way to sell and maybe will be able to see a little bit more into how that works. emily: chief operating officer bill ready and bloomberg's sarah frier. that does it for this edition of "the best of bloomberg technology." we will bring you the latest in tech throughout the week, 5:00 p.m. new york, 2:00 p.m. san

francisco. we are live streaming on twitter. you can follow us @technology and be sure to follow our global breaking news network on twitter, tictoc. this is bloomberg. ♪

haidi: welcome to "daybreak australia." i am haidi stroud-watts. kathleen: i am kathleen hays. kathleen:sophie: i am sophie kamaruddin. we are counting down to asia's first major market open. here are the top stories we are covering. robert mueller finds no collusion but doesn't clear the president of obstruction of justice. trump said it is a complete exoneration. mr. trump: there was no collusion with russian. there was no obstruction a