emily: i'm emily chang in san francisco and this is "bloomberg technology." day has finally come for lyft as it prepares to set a price for its shares before it hits the public market. plus, antitrust lights shining on big tech. we speak to the louisiana attorney general for his take on what the state should be doing about companies like google and facebook. the department of housing and

urban development versus facebook. why ben carson says the social network's ad platform is "just as discriminatory as slamming the door in someone's face." first to our top story. lyft compared to uber will be the first to hit the public market if all goes as planned. 2019, the yard so many highly anticipated tech companies plan to go public. among them, two stand out. a race best described as focused versus frenzied. frenzied being uber, engaging in rapid global expansion and retreat, food delivery, bike sharing, celfin driving cars and flying taxis. plus a decision bankers say good reach $120 billion. lyft on the other hand may be best described as focused.

lyft grew out of cofounders logan green's and john zimmer's zimride, and focused solely on growth in the united states. going from less than a dozen cities in 2009 to 95% of the country in 2019. lyft claims it controls 39% of the u.s. ride-hailing market. it is just starting to go international, launching in toronto and ottawa city in 2013. -- in 2018. it is keeping up on its top arrival by getting in on scooters and bike sharing. and yes, it is also working on self driving cars, buying london-based blue vision labs, working on autonomous technology, beefing up the staff to 300 people. lyft already recruited a clew of investors like rakuten, but as it prepares to go public, it is trying to lure more, hoping to

double its ride count to one billion in less than one year. revenue jumped to $2.2 billion last year from $143 million in 2016, with an estimated valuation of $20 billion to $25 billion. despite losses to $991 million in 2019. and while lyft was second out of the gate to launch, it was first in line to go public, weeks or months ahead of uber. in an increasingly volatile tech market, the hope is investors will hail lyft's ride. emily: i want to bring in bloomberg tech's eric newcomer, and olivia.yft, what are we expecting to happen? olivia: we know the bank executives are deciding the price. they have orders coming into the book, and take a weighted average to determine the price.

we should expect it any minute now. originally they came out with a $62 price range and upped that to 72. rumors are it could go higher than that. emily: why such enthusiasm given the revenue and cost issue where the company is losing almost half of what it is making? eric: people are betting on a story. it is the endpoint of the on demand conversation we have been having for a long time, are people going to switch to take lyfts and ubers more than their own cars? investors hope they jump on the next big tech company more clearly than where they are doing an analysis of where the money is going to come from. there is no clear accounting how lyft will start to throw off cash. it is about betting on this huge trend continuing.

emily: $72 a share at the high end. why do investors think that is justified? olivia: traditional stat companies do 10x trailing revenues. was's revenue last year $2.2 billion. i think what eric just said is right on the money, it is right they are buying into more than just looking at revenue. they are buying into this larger story of replacing car ownership. that is what lyft has been pushing as they went out to investors. are millennials in this next generation even going to own cars? emily: these are the investors who are enthusiastic. what about the investors who are not so enthusiastic? what are they saying? fascinating the company's short positions. for private companies, it is

difficult, if not impossible to short them. i'm looking to see how skeptical people are. emily: we are getting some initial reporting about the pricing of the shares, but i will wait for a moment before we go with it. olivia, in terms of what you have heard into the lead up to today -- you have been talking to investors, to bankers -- what is the prevailing view on how lyft will set the tone for these ipos to come? olivia: we can't put enough emphasis on how important this ipo is for all of the others we expect for the rest of the year. if it really goes wrong, it will put a damper on what will happen with uber, with pinterest. all eyes are on lyft. it needs to be priced just right. it needs to come out without too much pop. if the price goes below, that is a terrible sign too. everyone is watching what happens here. emily: what does this mean for uber?

the fact that there was so much enthusiasm, uber is just beginning this process and has the opportunity to press certain buttons based on what they see happen with lyft. eric: it is great for uber, because uber's story will be add up our stakes, think about our international footprint, still in india and now a bigger one in the middle east, add on our autonomous program -- uber is cumulative approach. the valuation of lyft in the beginning is good. the question will be how much the two companies are spending against each other and how competition normalizes. those things, depending on decisions lyft makes, could hurt uber. the big valuation would be great for uber. just because they can say look, ours is more than that.

do the math. reported lyft has priced its shares at the high end of $72 a share. your reaction to that? olivia: i would expect them to go slightly higher than that based on the conversations i had with investors today. it makes sense that want to be conservative. they don't want to leave money on the table. they don't want to have too much of a pop. i think it is fair they come out at that price. eric: i am skeptical. they get to set the initial price expectations. they are constantly talking to investors. i don't think we can read too much into the pricing games ahead of the ipo. what will really matter is the value lyft holds over time on the public markets. seeing the numbers go up is good for the company, but i'm not going to read a ton into it. emily: cnbc reporting lyft pricing its ipo at $72 a share, the high end of the range.

of course we will work on confirming it ourselves. you get on it, olivia and eric. [laughter] sorry to keep you busy on the show. thank you. u.s. department of housing and urban development set its sights on major players in the digital ad space. on the agency led by ben carson thursday announced it has accused facebook of violating the fair housing act with ads that can be targeted on the basis of race, religion, or other traits. spokesperson confirmed the agency has reached out to google and twitter to get more information on their ad practices. more on this story later in the show. coming up, regulating google. withndar pichai met president trump this week to discuss wide-ranging concerns about the search giant. is it enough to keep individual states happy? we will ask the louisiana state attorney general jeff landry coming up next. if you like bloomberg news, check us out on the radio, the

bloomberg app, bloomberg.com and on sirius xm. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: on wednesday, president trump met with google ceo sundar pichai. according to the president's tweets, they talked about google's efforts in china and work with the u.s. military, as well as political fairness. a meeting the president said and -- said ended very well. despite the positive sentiment, google and its parent company etse that -- company alphab are targeted by lawmakers. senator ted cruz claims it silences conservative voices. bloomberg previously reported a group of state attorneys general are laying the groundwork for a probe into google on the basis

of antitrust and privacy concerns. i want to welcome the attorney general of the state of louisiana, jeff landry. thank you so much for joining us. i am curious what your reaction is to the president's meeting with google ceo sundar pichai, or his tweet about it, given the state attorneys general have least a preliminary expiration -- exploration into whether google breached antitrust and privacy concerns. a.g. landry: i was not privileged to the discussion the president had. i would guess it mainly surrounded google's activity in china. i have not heard they discussed any of its practices as it relates to data mining, their manipulation of the digital ad space, and content suppression, all of which you mentioned earlier.

what we have here are different layers of problems all surrounding big tech as a whole. these are issues attorneys general around the country on both sides of the aisle have been discussing for quite some time. this is not new to us. this is a discussion we have been having as we are not only the chief legal office's of our particular states, but we are tasked with protecting consumers in each of our states. emily: what are the issues you are most concerned about, and what kind of action do you think needs to be taken? a.g. landry: i think all of the issues that have been brought up concern me equally. i would tell you each of them have a different take. some have an antitrust avenue, others have an unfair trade practices avenue as well. we were scheduled to discuss these issues with the ftc last week. that meeting has been postponed. my understanding is they are rapidly trying to reschedule

that particular meeting. when it comes to the digital advertising space -- i will give you that as an example -- could be antitrust and an unfair trade practice area. emily: are you part of this inquiry i mentioned where attorneys general are looking into whether google warrants a probe on antitrust and privacy issues? a.g. landry: look -- we have had a number of discussions with additional attorneys general on both sides of the aisle. each of us are looking at some of the same things and some additional issues where you mentioned content suppression as well. we are looking at big tech as a whole to determine what avenues may be appropriate to ensure consumers are protected. emily: google has responded to this preliminary exploration saying "privacy and security are

built into all of our products and we will continue to engage constructively with state attorneys general on state policy issues." republicans and conservatives have historically not wanted to regulate big business. how serious do you think conservatives are right now about regulating big tech, and what makes this situation different from historical situations? a.g. landry: let's not confuse what google said. of course google as well as everyone else in the industry that collects data on consumers is concerned about the privacy of that particular data. that is not at all the bigger picture of what attorneys general around the country are looking at. the question to google is, what are you doing with the data, does the consumer know you are collecting on them, are they getting a benefit, and should consumers be getting more from

what you are collecting out of them? on top of that, is the data google is collecting from the consumer proprietary to the consumer? that is one particular field. the next question is whether or not google is manipulating the digital ad space. are they controlling it in a way that would basically be unfair? when you look at the big picture in the digital advertising space, would the ftc allow chase or goldman sachs to own the nasdaq? the answer would be absolutely not. they would not allow them to own the nasdaq or the new york stock exchange, yet that is exactly what google does in the digital advertising space. emily: what do you think about privacy in particular, and what roles states should play in enforcing a federal privacy bill? a.g. landry: when you talk about privacy, that is a broad

subject. are you talking about how individual companies protect the data they already have, or are you talking about being open and transparent with the consumer as to what you are collecting from them? emily: when it comes to jeff sessions, when he was attorney general called a meeting of you and your peers to talk about conservative bias on tech platforms. do you believe some of these platforms are deliberately subverting conservative voices? a.g. landry: i can tell you some of the actions i have seen on the big tech platform raise that particular issue. we have seen it time and time again where they have suppressed conservative content. we report it to them. we ask them about it. of course it is always an apology from their standpoint.

at some point in time when the mistake is made again and again, it becomes evident there is content suppression. i think the concern senator ted cruz has raised could be real. that is what we are hoping to find out. emily: speaking of senator ted cruz and senator elizabeth warren, elizabeth warren has advocated for the breakup of big tech. ted cruz said she has a good point. what you said about not wanting goldman or jp morgan to own the nasdaq reminds me of that. what do you make of their arguments to break up big tech? a.g. landry: it is certainly a possibility. i think it may be a road that may have to be traveled on. attorneys general around the country are leaving all of the tools in the toolbox in an effort to cure some of the problems we are seeing. we are talking about a virtual marketplace the average consumer

has a hard time wrapping their heads around. when you go to the digital ad space -- i will give you an example. i was trying to purchase a cover for a dog bed. i have this large lab -- he destroyed his dog bed. i didn't need a mattress, just a cover. i went into the field and searched " dog cover" and searched the manufacturer. when i went online, i found out they were out of stock and had to buy the whole bed. knowing what goes on in the marketplace, i went to the second and third page and found the cover i was looking for. the question is, is google purposefully doing that? are they driving consumers to more expensive avenues they are not exactly looking for? consumers have come to have an expectation that when you search for a particular product, that what they are getting is quality, maybe quantity, and

service. that is what we are trying to determine, whether or not the consumer's expectation is meeting what eventually comes out of the search. emily: louisiana attorney general jeff landry, thank you so much, and for the explicit examples. appreciate you stopping by. coming up, amazon may have withdrawn from new york, but it has not stopped expanding. we will discuss how the e-commerce giant is growing its texas presence. and bloomberg tech is livestreaming on twitter. you can check us out and be sure to follow our global breaking news network tictoc on twitter. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: amazon is expanding in texas. the company says it will hire an additional 800 engineers in texas in its first major expansion plans. amazon dropped out after running

into fierce opposition from local politicians in new york. tell us more about these new jobs. matt: amazon is very clear these are not jobs that were going to go to new york. they said these were already planned before they went to queens. emily: that was going to be my next question. matt: they are hiring about 800 people. it is mostly technology roles. amazon has been expanding at satellite offices around the country. this is the first we have seen since they have pulled out of new york. emily: could this be another hq, or hq 2.5 in austin? matt: they have tried to close the book on fear the -- the book on further hq searches, and instead would spread those jobs around their satellite facilities in the u.s. emily: do you think amazon has learned its lesson from the fanfare around hq 2 or feels burned from the fanfare around it? candidly they will tell

you they feel a bit burned by i it, but they have not assessed what went wrong in a public way. emily: what does the expansion in texas mean? this is a big company. they have employees and a lot of cities. why austin? matt: austin has a pretty rich tech heritage. just a ton of stuff going on. apple has a one billion public interest they are setting up. -- public campus they are setting up. amazon has their biggest subsidiary in whole foods based there, so there are a ton of reasons for them to try to hire. emily: we are continuing to talk about government scrutiny of big tech. do you have any concerns about -- you have any sense amazon is concerned about pending regulatory issues, whether it is senator elizabeth warren or the president himself? i know that gets complicated. matt: they have not commented on senator warren's statements, or the president who tries to stay above it.

one thing we do see is their expansion of their lobbying effort in d.c., certainly being able to speak to antitrust concerns. emily: maybe amazon is trying to stay above it, but jeff bezos has gone in pretty deep. we have not heard the latest scandal and his implication the white house could have been involved in the national enquirer blackmailing him. do you think that is the last we are going to hear? is that story put to bed? matt: there is always something new and crazy on that one. i would not rule it out yet. they have been pretty interested, amazon and bezos both in separating them from the country. emily: bloomberg's matt day, thank you so much for stopping by. coming up, lyft may be the second largest ride-hailing service, but first to hit the public market.

we break down the company's numbers next. also coming, another u.s. federal agency targeting facebook, this time on allegations the social network's ad platform is discriminatory. that is coming up. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ emily: this is "bloomberg technology." lyft raised $2.2 billion in its initial public offering, pricing its shares at the top of an elevated range. there is confirmation they priced the shares at $72 apiece, the high-end of the boosted range. it will likely be seen as a bellwether for other silicon valley companies. the second largest u.s. ride-hailing priced at 30.8 million shares, $72 apiece. for more we want to bring in tim sullivan, a lyft investor. you must be pretty excited about this. tim: we are certainly.

emily: why is $72 a share fair for a company losing a lot of money? tim: if you look at lyft's topline growth, which is the metric they are juggling that valuation against, that is 7x on their topline. that is essentially in line with the high-growth company, with the valuation of $25 billion. the company is still growing at 100% year-over-year. that is conservative. i think lyft has room to grow. emily: how much to the costs bother you? tim: i don't think they are much for the growth they are seeing. i think lyft has run an extremely capital efficient business. part of that is due to uber's paving the way, so to speak, and lyft being able to draft behind them and come inefficiently and execute per their vision. i think they will continue to do that. if they can crack the insurance nut and other things, you will see profits sooner than

anticipated. emily: what about marketing and customer acquisition? i have been on the receiving end of deep discounts from lyft and uber, especially in the last couple months. it seems like every other week they are offering 30% off. tim: i think heading into ipo season, both companies are spending a lot of money on marketing, trying to get ridership up and drivers and everything else. i don't know that line item will be consistent and sustained. i think those discounts will start to wane as we move forward. emily: there is a story lyft is selling that it will replace car ownership for millennials. on the other hand, there is the -- we will replace drivers with self-driving technology. in a way, that seems at odds with the other idea that they are giving jobs to all of these people who can now work flexibly as a result. how do you square that?

tim: lyft's mission is more along the lines of transport as a service as opposed to specifically ridesharing. i think the autonomous car is further away than people thought. a year ago, people thought in six months, san francisco will have autonomous cars everywhere -- that didn't happen. there are a lot of technological roadblocks to get over before it is something considered reliable and safe and adopted on a large scale. it is not around the corner. emily: how far away is it? you are saying the opposite of what another uber investor told me earlier this week, self-driving is closer than we think. he said three to five years. tim: three to five years is not around the corner in my opinion. i think three to five years is a reasonable assumption, but it could certainly be more like five to seven. given that, a lot of things will

change in the meantime. emily: like what? tim: as you mentioned, car ownership is declining with millennials. who knows what will happen with the next generation. i think the service industry, in all its iterations, ridesharing -- the ridesharing economy in -- sharing economy in general i should say, are changing our world environment in ways we have not considered two years ago. emily: what will you be watching for tomorrow? tim: i will be watching what everyone is. i will be looking for a nice pop up on the open. i saw one of the finance shows this morning say it would come out with first trade at 100. i would be thrilled if that was the case. i am excited. i will watch for high-volume, like everybody. of volume lyft

pricing 32.5 million shares apiece. not 30.8 million as we said, but either way still giving the company a $22 billion valuation. do you think among other tech unicorns that that is a fair valuation of the company? tim: you have to go back to the fundamentals of lyft and look at their revenues and their growth and expenses and model it out against industry comps. if you do, you will find for lyft specifically, that is a fair valuation. if you apply it to other companies, you will have a different result because they have different fundamentals. emily: do you invest in public companies? tim: no. emily: so you would not be buying more shares. tim: that is not our model. we are specifically private company focused. we hold through the ipo and then some, but we are not public market investors per se. emily: what is the next wave? we have, silicon valley has a

lot of companies going public this year. now you have to find new horses to bet on. tim: there are plenty of new horses to bet on. we are looking at new opportunities on a daily basis. emily: like what? tim: right now, there is a company in the concussion protocol space. they are widely adopted in the ncaa and other spaces. they are changing the game as far as head injuries go. we are excited about the prospect of that company. emily: tim sullivan of oceanic partners. i know you will be watching very closely tomorrow. do not miss our interview with lyft's cofounders 9:45 a.m. eastern time tomorrow. i will be speaking with them in person right here on bloomberg television and bloomberg radio. coming up, facebook under fire for its ad targeting practices. we have all the details next. this is bloomberg.

♪

emily: facebook is already the target of the federal trade commission for privacy violations. on thursday the u.s. department of housing and urban development said it is charging the social network with violating the fair housing act, allegedly. hud says facebook did so by restricting who can view housing related ads on the basis of race and religion. here is what housing secretary ben carson said in a statement. "facebook is discriminating people based on who they are, where they live, using a computer to limit a person's housing choices can be just as discriminatory as slamming a

door in someone's face." hud hasd reacnote reached out to google and twitter as well. for more we have naomi who covers tech in washington, as well as selina wang. this is a pretty damning lawsuit. facebook has reacted quite strongly to the lawsuit, saying they are very disappointed. selina: it has definitely caught facebook off guard. last week they settled several lawsuits with the aclu, the fair housing alliance, saying they will overhaul their ad platform so advertisers of employment would not be able to do this micro-targeting on the basis of areas like gender and sex. hud is arguing that does not go far enough and are charging facebook still allows these discriminatory ads to exist. they allege there is the ability for advertisers to target where they live based on drawing a

redline around these areas. also alleging facebook uses online and off-line data to figure out with machine learning what these characteristics of these people are based on these protected groups, like the basis of race, gender, sex, even if they are not explicitly allowed to target these groups. emily: a facebook statement is surprised by the decision and says it has taken significant steps to prevent ad determination. last year we eliminated options that could have been misused. we are disappointed by today's developments but will continue working with civil rights experts on these issues. by the way, naomi, facebook a couple weeks ago changed a bunch of their ad targeting practices because of complaints around these issues. they say they worked with civil rights groups to make those changes, part of the reason why facebook seems so caught off guard. why is hud taking this action?

naomi: i think it is another symptom of washington regulars continuing to ask questions about the social media's targeted advertising policies. house democrats now that democrats have taken control of the house made it clear they are intending to seek more answers to questions about whether targeted advertising on facebook or other social media companies is discriminating against minority communities. it is clear that washington, as the hud secretary made it clear in this move, but washington in general is putting the heat on facebook. emily: when you look more closely at the categories that advertisers were allowed to tick or not tick -- parents, non-christian, interested in accessibility and hispanic culture.

it is interesting thinking about what was going into these products decisions by facebook and why they thought this was a good idea. selina: these policies are only as good as their enforcement. clearly there was some sort of data mechanism going on that told them these are interesting targets to group that would be beneficial to advertisers and get them more clicks. clearly there is a reason why they those groups. emily: you can also exclude those groups by not targeting. selina: exactly. anyone on facebook right now can go and make an ad. you see there are dozens of behavioral, educational, income categories anyone can pick. the trust is put on facebook that if you are doing a housing related ad, their algorithms and humans are able to catch that. that remains to be seen. emily: the government has reached out to google and

twitter about their targeted ad practices. a statement from google, "we have had policies that prohibit targeting ads on sensitive categories like ethnicity, religious belief, disability status, negative financial standing, etc. our policies are designed to protect users and ensure advertisers are using our platform in a responsible manner." are there indications google's practices are vastly different from facebook or how the government may proceed in these other two cases? naomi: google says it is not discriminating in the same way, but it is clear google has not also been as open with its algorithms and behind-the-scenes mechanisms it uses to determine its advertising. more access to that information has been a top concern in washington. i think it remains to be seen whether there are ways google isn't certifying internally those advertisements are compliant with housing

discrimination law. emily: something we will continue to see how this unfolds with the department of housing and urban development. selina wang and naomi nix, thank you both. still ahead, google is facing growing backlash over a conversion therapy app in its play store. why the search giant has yet to remove it, next. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: the popular gay dating app grindr is being viewed as a national security concern. according to a report from reuters, the committee on foreign investment in the united states has told a chinese gaining company to sell the app. the government expressed concerns beijing could use information from the app to blackmail american officials. joining us to discuss is isaac stone fish. isaac, this is a fascinating

story. beijing: none is already in the process of selling this company. i had no idea the u.s. government could order china to sell a company. isaac: they are certainly trying. we don't know quite yet whether the media company will try to sell grindr, which they should not have a problem to do so. it is a fabulously successful app. we have just seen anonymous reporting about it. it really does point to fascinating national security implications of where the u.s. china relationship is right now. emily: talk about what the national security implications are. isaac: grindr is similar to the tech giant huawei in both of them are nonstate owned companies. grindr is listed, huawei is privately owned. because of the relationship between individuals and businesses and the ruling

communist party, american security officials can't trust that the founder wouldn't give the data, the photos to the communist party if the party so desired. emily: so we are talking about very personal, potentially very explicit photos, data about users of this app. the company was planning to list grindr publicly, but reuters is reporting they are shifting to possibly sell it out right. grindr is soliciting interest already from u.s. investment firms. how do you expect this to play out? isaac: one of the stories said they are trying to sell it for double what they paid for, roughly $250 million. i think it will work out well

for beijing media. it really does point out to where we are in the relationship today. we have to remember when we think about grindr, china is far more advanced in facial recognition software and big data. you don't have to be that creative to think about what a potentially hostile foreign power could do with facial recognition and grindr. emily: you often see acquisitions stopped or scrutinized, but you don't often see acquisitions undone. how does this fit into the broader context of what is happening with huawei, with the u.s. china trade war that is ongoing? isaac: what the government is trying to indicate is they will place their view of national security first. it is funny, because it is a nontraditional company for this to happen to, but i think this could chill other chinese or

american investors in working together. emily: we have seen president trump vacillate on his statements between the latest negotiations with china, seeming to indicate he wouldn't want to lift the tariffs. how is it being perceived in china most recently, and what is the chinese government telling its people? isaac: there was frustration after the summit with kim jong-un where trump walked away because he did not get the deal he wanted. i think some chinese officials interpreted this as a sign if chinese chairman xi jinping meets with trump and they said down and do negotiations, trump might just walk away, which would be frustrating for the chinese leaders. one of the things beijing is the beginning to its own people is a

deal is not necessary for what they are trying to do. i think one of the worries that chinese leaders have about the trade war is it is hitting on consumer confidence, and not necessarily in ways we can find numbers with. xi jinping is portrayed in someone who can do no wrong. he has not been able to have a steady and successful conclusion to this. that has hurt his confidence domestically. emily: meantime, the ceo of google met with the top ranking military officer in the united states, met with the president. they talked about their concerns about google's potential work in china. google continues to say they are not planning to launch a search engine in china. they have an ai office there that is seemingly giving them headaches. do you think the era of u.s. companies freely expanding in china is over because of this increased government scrutiny? isaac: i hope the era of freely expanding is over.

i hope we come to an era where they tried to smartly expand in china. it will be so useful to students, professors if they can use google in chinese. unfortunately the ruling chinese communist party will not allow google as it is to come in. it is good for the chinese people, it is bad for google to go into china. we are trying to find out what the new normal is. i think it is an open question. emily: isaac stone fish, thank you for breaking down these complex issues. google has lost an endorsement from the humans rights campaign, the largest gay rights group in the united states. the advocacy group is withholding google's perfect score on its annual corporate equality index until it removes an app tied to conversion therapy practices. it said "we have been urging google to remove this app because it is life-threatening

to lgbtq youth and violates the company's own standards." google declined to comment. tell us more about what is happening. alistair: this was a classic case of google's app store and whether they policed it carefully enough and whether they want to get dragged into these decisions. this app has been on the play store for a while. obviously this organization, human rights organization does not like it. it allegedly pushes conversion therapy, which has obviously been debunked in a lot of circles. emily: we have seen employee activism at google. is something like this likely to push their buttons? alistair: google's main -- i don't know if vulnerability is the right word, but they are completely obsessed with hiring and retaining the best talented engineers. it will basically do anything within its powers legally to

attain and hire people. a lot of people who are in this field want to work in diverse and supportive workplaces. a rating from this human rights organization would be helpful for that. google is in a tricky place. in that, a lot of its employees care about these issues. if it is not going to do anything, google might struggle to hire more people. emily: is this in the apple app store too? alistair: the human rights campaign says it was in the apple app store, but apple took it down. this is a classic case -- apple is much more comfortable with pulling things from the app for specific reasons. google is very much supportive of free speech for the search engine and its app store. it gets very tricky for google. emily: google has been recently criticized for failing to remove an app created by the saudi government, which allows men to track women.

this was also in the apple app store. is it still in both app stores? alistair: it was in google's app store until recently. it is a situation where google loves to have everything on the app store and not to take sides. it is so big and influential and has been pushed to these types of decisions. emily: increasingly held responsible for the content it promotes and is on its platforms. alistair barr, i know you will continue to follow that one. "daybreak: asia that -- that does it for this edition of "bloomberg technology." a programming note, bloomberg's tom mackenzie has an exclusive interview with huawei's rotating chair later on friday. we are live streaming on twitter. follow our global breaking news network @tictoc on twitter. we will be covering lyft's public offering tomorrow. i will be sitting down with

lyft's co-owners tomorrow as the company gets out of the gate. this is bloomberg. ♪

>> the following is a paid presentation for waterpik sonic fusion. the first and only flossing toothbrush. the biggest breakthrough in oral care is finally here, using sonic toothbrush technology and the world's number one water plosser. introducing waterpik sonic fusion. now you can brush your teeth and floss at the same time. the sonic brush cleans to surfaces.