emily: i'm emily chang and that this is the best of bloomberg technology will bring you the interviews from this week in tech. coming up, lyft officially have the markets in the biggest listing of the year so far. apple meets hollywood, after months if not years of speculation, the iphone maker unveils its streaming plan with a star-studded event. a lot of excitement and a lot of questions. in securing the vote, a congressman is sounding a call

to protect the 2020 election. we will discuss his plan about getting it right next year. first to our top story, the biggest listing of the year, lyft hitting the public markets and officially trading under the ticker lyft. n the roadshow leading up, investors packed a standing room only luncheon to hear the pitch and the offering was oversubscribed. we parse through all of the details after the company listed. >> it is important to have a context that we are going after the trillion dollar market opportunity. every year in the u.s., american spent $9,000 owning and operating cars. so this massive market shift, just like entertainment, it is happening with car ownership, and we are investing to take advantage of that. our economics are improving and we're very confident.

emily: in your risk factors, you say you may never be profitable. how do you convince investors that they should be betting on the optimistic? >> if you dig in on the numbers every year, the economics of the business improve. and we are confident that the business will be very profitable. there are, of course, risk factors. we are making tremendous progress going after this once it a generation shift with the entire industry, a $1.2 trillion market could flip from an ownership model to a service model. emily: let me put it this way. if you focus on margins one-day, does that give over an opportunity to call back? >> we are not focused on competition, with focus on what we can control. every day, we're thinking about how to serve drivers and passengers and build a long-term model, pushing down operating costs. that is what has allowed us to go from over 20% market share to nearly 40%.

we don't focus on market share, we just execute and serve our constituents. emily: is getting to 50% market share more important than expanding internationally? >> our focus is always on taking care of customers we focus on delivering the world's best transportation to our customers. so we do think about international, every year, we sit down and make the trade-off can we go deeper on this $1.2 trillionmarket and deliver better transportation to our customers? or is it time to go abroad? a little over one year ago that we launched in canada and that has been a great experience. we will continue to consider international opportunities. we think it is a great option. emily: what do you mean? >> there are many future growth opportunities in this business, whether we are deeper in north merica or internationally.

so we look at that as an option for the business, and we may choose to do that someday, but we don't have current plans. emily: let's talk about founder control, you have 50% voting power but only own 5% of shares. what is your argument that that is the best way? >> we put a lot of thought into this with the board and investors wanted to set the company up to go after the long-term. to seize this long-term opportunity. we think that will be necessary to deliver the largest shareholder returns over time. it was an important peace of it. john and i together still have less than a majority control. we have selected an independent share, sean has stepped in as independent share. we have an incredible board from a diverse set of backgrounds set up to guide the company. we think of that is collectively

the right package. emily: but there are concerns that this will not lead to the appropriate checks and balances you need on the company. but if we see in google and facebook where founder made decisions were made that were maybe not the best, how do you respond? >> we have been balanced in how we put this together. an independent chair, a diverse set of shareholders. and we talk to the investors, would let them know that we care deeply about their views and incorporating them in our track record shows that. emily: you have been investing heavily in self driving technology. how much and how fast do you think it will bring your costs down? >> i think we are still years away. emily: how many? >> i wish i knew myself. there's kind of a conception that there going to be a magical vehicle that will appear one day.

the way we see it playing out from all of our work is that the first generation of vehicles will only be able to do a subset of the rides. i think it will be critical that they are rolled out on a platform like ours where you can count on drivers to fill requests it may be a long time for security reasons before autonomous vehicles are allowed to pick up at an airport, let alone drive and extreme weather, drive it night, drive at certain speeds. there are also the restrictions the first generations of vehicles will have said think a network application will be the majority case. emily: in the meantime, i know you are focused on changing transit and car ownership, and many cities that you are seeing an increase in cars on the road. you're actually seeing more car ownership.

>> we have seen peter carr ownership, and if you look at national numbers of people purchasing or deciding not to purchase, if you look at millennial's coming of age and not getting their license, and if you look at our growth, there is a pretty obvious trend. last year, over 300,000 customers got rid of a car. some families are going from two ars to one car, but it has begun. emily: in your roadshow, you talked about how you don't do food deliveries, you are about focus. that said, you are getting into new businesses. what is going to be your biggest source of new revenue? will it be something that we do not know about? >> we compete with car

ownership. when you open up the app, we want to provide you every possible option you can be trading on. whether that is public transit or connecting you. whether it is a bike or a scooter, a shared ride. we want to provide you with any possible options. we will be competing with the car park in your driveway as your primary goal. emily: speaking about the future of drivers, i know self driving technology is very urgent and important and long-term, as he said. so much of this is about the values of treating customers and drivers well. if you are investing in self driving technology, does that mean all the jobs go away and it undermines? >> i don't think those jobs go away, we will need many more drivers heard today, the entire -- think about today. the entire rideshare market is

just 1% of miles traveled if that goes to 10%, you would need either 10 times the number of drivers if we were at nearly 2 million now, we talking 20 million drivers. obviously, there is room for increasing the number of work opportunities, and adding vehicles. emily: where are you in five years? >> in five years, we want you to be subscribing. the same way you have a cell phone, we want people to completely get rid of their car and jump in the world of transportation. that you don't have to think about each trip, you are just wholly on board in one ecosystem. emily: is this like a monthly thing? >> it will have to take shape, but i think people will be subscribing. emily: boeing says they were very close to a software fix when the ethiopian airlines jet crashed on march 10. the plane maker has spent months working with regulators and refining software. flight data has showed the system repeatedly tip of the

nose down before losing control. the boeing update says the update is more obligated than initially estimated. they pressed the acting administrator at a hearing about its oversight heard the as the plane maker remains under scrutiny. coming up, apple goes hollywood, their plan to take on the streaming world. i bloomberg news, check us out on the radio. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: after weeks, actually years of chatter, apple finally resealed that it is all in, unveiling a news magazine service, a video gaming platform, and with a parade of hollywood elite from jennifer aniston to steve carell, and opreh, a new premium video service to rival the likes of netflix and amazon. >> our vision for apple tv is to bring together your favorite shows, movies, sports, and news and make them available on all of your devices. so you can spend less time looking for something to watch and more time enjoying it. emily: perhaps the key is apple's brand-new credit card in partnership with goldman sachs to facilitate payment. the card is tied to apple pay, which a marketer claims has been adapted by 39% of mobile payment users. to discuss all of this news, bloomberg's mark gurman who

covers apple joined us monday along with research president bob o'donnell. >> we knew which shows were coming every time it went in the development was closing in on filming, apple or the producers would a very publicly announce these deals. we knew that this was going to be some sort of subscription service. we knew it would be premium, what we did not know was two basic things, how much would they charge, and which devices it would be supported on. apple did not come out and saying, but i expect it will be available on smart to these in addition to roku boxes, but no word on amazon arrangement or android tablets. we also also did not know price. i'm not sure there will hundred percent certain. they did not really discuss

pricing for the apple channels, and by the way, same name as amazon channels will be waiting on those. that is what investors compare about, prices. emily: apple is also offering a bundle of tv channels which will include hbo, showtime, they obviously pulled out all the stops with this announcement. it is cool and it shows the amount of priority they are putting on these new services. >> absolutely, and it was a big, splashy event. the question is how are we going to feel tomorrow? wait a minute, what exactly are we getting from this? there are plenty of other options to get everything except apple's original content. it is going to boil down to how compelling can they make this total package, not as from a feature perspective, but pricing so the lack of pricing to me was very disappointing to me and others as well.

and ironically, i do think the tv service was the biggest or best announcement. i think it was the credit card. emily: that is kind of a big eal. they unveiled this credit card, listen up. >> anytime you pay using apple card, you get daily cash. not a month from now, but every day. every day you spend, cash is added to your apple cash card, which is also in the wallet app. it is cash, real cash, you can do anything with it. anytime you pay with your iphone or apple watch, you'll get 2% of the amount in daily cash. emily: aside from oprah, that was my favorite line. it's cash, like real cash. his is something we were not necessarily expecting from apple is getting into the credit card business and a lot of things

they are offering make a lot of sense and consumers are probably going to be pretty excited. no late fees? >> they had a lot of the pain points. transaction fees, late fees. you can cycle through tons of credit cards get the best bonuses in different cash back percentages. what we are seeing here is 2% flat rates through apple pay, that is actually the highest in the industry, but that is only from using it with the phone. you have the physical card, which looks like it comes right from apple with the titanium and laser etching. if you are in an environment with lots of apple pay high cash back i don't think there is a better card on the market for this. emily: do you think this card could be given the hope is you are charging a lot of new apple

services on this card? >> it will take a while. people will have to get used to paying with their phones, that's why we see adoption still relatively modest but the joke i made with a couple of folks is that the credit card proves that apple is still the best hardware, because that was the coolest thing. having a card with no numbers, it reshapes the way you think about them. that to me was apple at its very best, taking something that is hard and making it simple through the apple magic. the question is how many other capabilities are we going to see them do this on? to me, that will be a bigger story, but i think it'd a great job of showing how you do with paying and things people want to now. real world people. emily: let's talk about the news subscription service building on what apple has already done.

take a listen to roger rose. >> over 300 great magazines, "wall street journal," "l.a. times," those great, premium digital subscriptions, there has literally never been an offer like this before. if you are to subscribe to all of these individually, it would cost you over $8,000 per year. with apple news plus, you pay $9.99 per month. emily: if you look at the subscription for the "wall street journal" alone, is over $20 a month. so make sense of this for me, mark. >> there is some debate online. apple is telling some people that you get full access to the "wall street journal," where is the "wall street journal" said that a memo earlier indicating

the subscription service would not cover the journal in its totality, that some business news would be exclusive to people pay higher rates. so until that is sort it out, i cannot comment completely. but i think apple will probably get its way here. emily: these magazines, they look amazing on the ipad, but you are talking about an industry that is already resource starved. do these magazines and newspapers have the resources and staff to build out an entirely new experience to make it worth it? >> great question. and like you said, they showed some great demos with the floating city and all these cool things. but there's a lot of work involved. people have had the opportunity to get digital magazines before, and it has not become a huge business i think this is a good thing they are doing, i think it is interesting. 'm not sure is a huge hit.

in terms of economic impact. emily: the idea is certainly attractive. >> is attractive, but apple bought a company that was essentially offering the service before. mind you, they were not apple. but there's a question of how much they really will get from the "wall street journal" and from other magazines how long they can sustain the interactive version of their magazines, and frankly, how many are willing to pay for that, because at most, you will read a couple anyway. emily: that was bob o'donnell and bloomberg's own mark gurman. in the meantime, youtube is said to have canceled their plans for a slate of high-handed dramas and comedies, a step back from the company's designs on a pay service that features hollywood quality shows. bloomberg has learned this is reportedly due to the high cost it would take to compete with he deeply entrenched players and netflix and amazon,

without it, youtube is still making a lot of money the old-fashioned way. apps. we will stay on apple ahead of this week's conflicting decisions in the long-running dispute between apple and qualcomm. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: just one day after apple's big services of event, they have barely escaped and import ban on the iconic smartphone the international trade commission rejected a patent infringement claim. apple is not out of the woods, the decision coming just hours after a separate judge says they have infringed a different patent and recommended a ban. the cases subject to review by the full commission which is

expected to complete the investigation. on tuesday, we spoke with the cofounder of the ventures. >> it will play out over the small bumps in the road country by country, unfortunately. to put some context on these headlines sound most concerning, sound is the important work. the substance is that this is purely noise. ultimately, to answer your questions, how will this play out? we will see very degrees of announcements but that does not change where the trajectory of the relationship is going. that relationship is moving in a different direction with a will eventually be separate. you can point to some of the hires they have had where they have started to build their own chips internally. they want to do the same thing around technology. they have an option of moving in that direction. so the big picture, the simple

reason why this is noise is that, in the future, apple will not be dependent on qualcomm. in this irritation in the courts only accelerates that move. emily: the iphone has been banned in other countries in other rulings pertaining to qualcomm. i know that it mostly involves older models. even if it is just older models being banned, you think that is still just noise? >> it is, and there is, and there's some dispute about which models are going to be banned. apple uses intel chips, and to your point, if you think about the simple exposure, said iphone 7's are banned the u.s., the probably has a 5% headwind to the overall business. so, it is a measurable piece of the business, but importantly, e come back to the central

theme. that these customers likely are not going to make a decision based on a price point that is unavailable for 50 or $100 to jump to an android phone. apple has retention that has been steady for the iphone between 90-95%. i think that availability, or lack thereof, is not going to materially change the umber. emily: loup ventures cofounder gene munster. can we protect 2020 elections from foreign influence, and what is silicon valley's role? we hear about that next. check us out and follow our

breaking global news network tictoc on twitter. this is bloomberg. ♪ this isn't just any moving day.

this is moving day with the best in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. and this is moving day with reliable service appointments in a two hour window so you're up and running in no time. show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving simple. easy. awesome. stay connected with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a store today.

emily: welcome back to "the best of bloomberg technology." special counsel robert mueller's investigation of interference in the election is wrapped though the political fight may continue. there is still plenty of work to do prior to the presidential vote. a congressman has laid out what he believes needs to be done. writing, "completely preventing the injection of foreign government propaganda into our discourse is impossible, but we can ask our tech industry to reduce the amplification of such messages and quickly request quarantine and report to u.s. officials."

congressman khana spoke to us on tuesday. rep. khanna: the russians hacked into our emails. they manipulated social media. they clearly wanted donald trump to win. we need to make sure they never do that again, and there are simple things we can do. technology companies can form a consortium to share information about bots or bad actors and make sure they are removed. second, our law enforcement agencies can better coordinate with tech companies, who do not have all the resources to do the intelligence work. third, we need to label these ads. are consumers seeing an ad that was paid for by a foreign entity? emily: is there anything congress can do legislatively to make sure that coordination

happens between the u.s. government and intelligence and the tech companies? it seems like a lot is falling through the cracks. rep. khanna: we can give funding to these law-enforcement agencies to specifically help private companies with cybersecurity and with fighting foreign interference. we do this all the time. we do not expect facebook to be responsible solely for their security. they may have private security, but still have the protection of our military and police. they should also have the assistance from our intelligence agencies to help them identify who the bad actors are on their platform, and then they have a responsibility to remove those bad actors or make sure they are not spreading propaganda. other people on this side of the aisle, i have talked to about the need for congress to step in so it does not happen again.

emily: we just saw this live video of a mass shooting in new zealand go up on facebook's platform and nobody caught it for 17 long minutes. it diminishes faith in the tech industry to take action on these things. are we better prepared now then we were in 2016 to prevent this interference from happening on tech platforms? rep. khanna: i think we are better prepared. many tech leaders take this seriously and have instituted far greater safeguards into their platform to make sure they are ready to act. you mentioned the new zealand shooting, which was atrocious and awful, and it took a few hours to remove the video from every site, but it is a hard problem. once the video is out there, it is not easy to remove it.

this is a difficult issue and will require investment in artificial intelligence, better coordination. many of the leaders understand their responsibility. emily: do you think big tech gets how big an issue this is? is there truly the will to invest the human and technological resources to make this happen? rep. khanna: i do. they are citizens of our democracy and want these platforms to enhance democracy. they will talk about how proud they are of the black lives matter or parkland kids having social media as a platform, or how excited they were about the arab spring. i understand these platforms have been abused, so they want to solve this. they know they cannot do it alone. they need the help of law enforcement and the government

to invest in resources. they have a responsibility and there are things they can do themselves, such as disclosures of ads and making sure they limit the virality of propaganda or hate speech. emily: big tech is getting bipartisan scrutiny as of late, elizabeth warren calling for the breaking up of big tech and ted cruz supporting her. is that the way to go? rep. khanna: i do not agree with them. i do not watch china to have the only big tech companies. it would be ironic if alibaba, tencent, and baidu were dominating the world. the paradigm should be the microsoft case. the government said they could not tie internet explorer and they prohibited that, but they did not break that up.

we see in technology that the giants of the past like aol or yahoo! are often not the giants of the future. strong antitrust protection, yes. breaking up big companies, no. emily: what kind of antitrust protection would you advocate? rep. khanna: you should not have anticompetitive platform privilege. it means you should not be able to prioritize your own product. let's take a concrete example. amazon should not be able to say that when you search for a detergent, the first thing he will see is amazon basics. they need to make sure every competitor has access to their platforms. those reasonable steps and strengthening antitrust laws is a good thing. that does not mean that we break up these companies into

multi-parts and then allow alibaba to succeed and become the world's platform. emily: you represent silicon valley. have any of the representatives reached out to you to express their concerns about government regulation? rep. khanna: we have conversations all the time, and there are times they think i am going too far with my internet bill of rights, or talking about antitrust enforcement, but also, ultimately they understand that. they do not like painting with broad brushes a policy of demonization. tech remains very popular when you go around the country. tim cook said it best, that we need well-crafted regulation. emily: the mueller investigation has wrapped and we have the

attorney general summary. are you satisfied, or do you want the full report to be released to the public? do you think congress should move on? rep. khanna: we definitely need the full report released. the taxpayers paid for it. bob mueller did not make a conclusion as to whether the president obstructed justice. if mueller wanted barr to make that conclusion, he would have put it in. we need to see the full report. emily: that was congressman ro khanna of california. hiring 800 additional engineers in texas, amazon says it will

distribute the 2500 jobs formally bound for the big apple among 17 offices in north america. regulating google, the ceo met president trump to ease concerns over the search giant and its practices. is it enough to keep individual states happy? we ask the attorney general of louisiana. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: president trump met with google's ceo and talked about work with the u.s. military, a meeting the president tweeted went well. google and alphabet are still

being targeted by lawmakers. elizabeth warren has called for their breakup and ted cruz says google silences conservative voices. a group of state attorneys general are laying the groundwork for a probe. we talked about all of this with the attorney general of the state of louisiana, jeff landry. a.g. landry: i was not privileged to the discussion the president had and i would guess it mainly surrounded google's activity in china. i have not heard that they discussed any of its practices as it relates to data mining, the use of data mining, the manipulation in the digital ad space, and content suppression. what we have here are different layers of problems surrounding big tech as a whole. these are issues attorney

generals 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 not only are the chief legal officers of each of our states, but we are tasked with protecting consumers. emily: what are the issues you are most concerned about, and what kind of action needs to be taken? a.g. landry: i think all of the issues that have been brought up concerned me equally. i would tell you that each of them have a different take. some of them have an antitrust avenue and others have an unfair trade practices avenue as well. we were prepared to discuss these issues with the ftc but that meeting has been postponed and my understanding is they are rapidly trying to reschedule. when it comes to the digital

advertising space, that could be both an 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 attorney generals on both sides of the aisle. each of us are looking at some of the same things and some additional issues. you mentioned content suppression as well. we are looking at big tech as a whole to determine what avenues may be appropriate to ensure our consumers are protected. emily: google has responded to this preliminary exploration saying privacy and security are built into their products and

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

collecting from the consumer proprietary to the consumer? that is one field. the next question is whether or not google is manipulating the digital ad space. are they controlling it in a way that would be unfair? when you look at the big picture in the digital advertising space, would chase or goldman sachs be allowed to own the nasdaq? absolutely not. yet that is exactly what google does in the digital advertising space. emily: what do you think about privacy in particular and what role states should play in enforcing a federal privacy bill? a.g. landry: again, when you talk about privacy, that is a very broad subject. are you talking about how

individual companies protect the data that they already have, or are you talking about being openly transparent with the consumer as to what you are collecting from them? emily: when it comes to political bias, attorney general 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: some of the actions i have seen on the big tech platform raise that issue. we have seen it time and time again where they have suppressed conservative content. we reported to them and take action or inquiry, and it is always an apology from their standpoint. at some point in time when the mistake is made again and again,

there is evidence of content suppression. the concern that 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 advocated for the breakup of big tech and ted cruz said she has a good point. you said about not wanting goldman or j.p. morgan to own the nasdaq reminds me of that. what do you make of their arguments? a.g. landry: it is certainly a possibility. i think it may be a road that may have to be traveled on. attorney generals are leaving all the tools in the toolbox to cure some of the problems we are seeing. we are talking about a virtual marketplace that 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. i did not need the mattress, i just needed the cover. i went in the field and searched dog cover and the manufacture. what i got on the first page is the covers were out of stock and i had to buy the bed. i went to the second and third page and found the cover i was looking for. the question is, is google purposely doing that? are they driving consumers to more expensive avenues but that they are not exactly looking for? consumers have come to have an expectation that when you search for a particular product, what they are getting is quality and maybe quantity and service. that is what we are trying to determine, whether or not the consumers expectation is meeting what comes out of the search.

emily: that was louisiana attorney general jeff landry. another federal agency targeting facebook, this time housing and urban development alleging their ad platform is discriminatory. that is next. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: facebook is already the target of the federal trade commission for privacy violations and on thursday, housing and urban development charged the social network with allegedly violating the fair housing act by restricting those who view housing related ads on things like religion and race. here's what ben carson said

"facebook is discriminating on people based on who they are and where they live. that can be just as discriminatory as slamming a door in someone's face." we discussed this with selina wang and naomi nix. selina: facebook settled lawsuits, saying they would overhaul their ad platform so that ads will not be able to do this micro-targeting on areas like gender and sex. hud is arguing that does not go far enough and they are charging that facebook allows discriminatory ads to exist. they could target based on where they lived, using a redline. they could enable off-line data to enable with machine learning what the characteristics part of these people based on protected groups. even if they are not explicitly allowed to target those.

emily: facebook says, "we are surprised by hud's concerns and have taken steps to prevent ad discrimination. last year, we eliminated thousands of targeting ads that could potentially be misused. we will continue working with civil rights experts." facebook a couple of weeks ago changed a bunch of their ad targeting practices because of complaints around the issues. they said they worked with civil rights groups about these issues. why is hud taking this action? naomi: i think it is just another symptom of a washington regulator continuing to ask questions about social media's target advertising. the democrats have made it clear they are intending to seek more answers to questions about

whether targeting ads discriminate against minority communities. it is clear that washington, as the hud secretary made it clear, washington is putting the heat on facebook around this issue. emily: when you look more closely at the categories that advertisers were allowed, it is interesting thinking about what was going into these products decisions by facebook and why they thought this was a good idea. selina: it is interesting because these policies are only as good as their enforcement. facebook is not required to hand over their algorithms so clearly a data mechanism told them these are interesting targeted groups that would be beneficial to

advertisers and get them more clicks. emily: the government has reached out to google and twitter about their ad targeting processes. google saying, "we have had policies in years that prevent the targeting of certain categories. our policies are designed to protect users and make sure advertisers are using our platforms in a responsible manner." naomi, is there any indication that google's targeting 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 that google has not been as open with its algorithms and behind-the-scenes mechanisms it uses. more access to that information has been a top concern in

washington, so it remains to be seen whether there are ways that google is not certifying internally that those advertisements are compliant with housing discrimination laws. emily: nasa's historic all-female space walk has been put on hold for a lack of fitted space suits. according to the agency, both need a medium-sized spacesuit torso and only one is readily available. nasa spokeswoman stephanie shireholtz told "the washington post" an all-female spacewalk is inevitable. it better be. that does it for this edition of "the best of bloomberg technology." you can tune in every day, 5:00 p.m. new york, 2:00 p.m. san francisco. be sure to follow our global

news breaking network at tictoc on twitter. this is bloomberg. ♪ so with xfinity mobile

i can customize each line for each family member? yup. and since it comes with your internet, you can switch wireless carriers, and save hundreds of dollars a year. are you pullin' my leg? nope. you sure you're not pullin' my leg? i think it's your dog. oh it's him. good call. get the data options you need, and still save hundreds of dollars. do you guys sell other dogs? now that's simple, easy, awesome.

customize each line by paying for data by the gig or get unlimited. and now get $250 back when you buy a new samsung galaxy. click, call, or visit a store today. carol: welcome to bloomberg businessweek. jason: we are joining you from bloomberg headquarters in new york. the ceo of lloyd's of london response to a bloomberg businessweek investigation into how women are treated in that firm. how thee tells us company plans to stamp out sexual harassment. carol: how microsoft plans to beat