>> i'm emily chang and this is the best of bloomberg technology. come up, lyft in reverse. how fast the ride sharing company can start making money. plus youtube faces for controversy. staffers say managers are not listening and the proposal to change recommendations are being

sacrificed for engage identical. and twitter co-founder and there isck dorsey said a positive impact on the tech industry. first to our top story. after much fanfare, lyft is losing some steam after going public, falling below its i.p.o. price. analysts are striking a cautious tone about the stock with the majority giving it a neutral rating. we discussed the road ahead with jake fuller. i'm not sure you want to read too much into it. we did launch with a neutral

ating. whether or when they can get to a self-driving car future. emily: logan green said he couldn't give us a date when self-driving cars would be available. you seem to think that the expectations are too high and lyft won't be eable to meet hose expectations. >> a lot of people were pecting them to trade as the at the same rate as service companies. it goes to show that we're still in the early steages of this arket.

of carl at do you mike icahn? you see the same thing at facebook. at google. for a company that maybe doesn't have a lot of leverage, what do you make of a big name brandin vestor backing out? >> i'm not sure we make a lot out of it. he has been in four years. made a lot of money on it. not so surprising. i guess the other question is what about the other large holders. folks like google. fidelity. g.m.. my guess are those are more long-term holders. to me it would be scary if we saw one of those types leave. emily: lyft investors are backing them up. i sat down with ben horowitz. he had this to say about what

lyft has managed to pull off. take a listen. >> all of these founders in silicon valley. nobody believes in it. i think we were about a 16% share. we're about 39% now. that's an amazing, really thrilling thing. emily: going from 16% to 39% mark share in the united states in a matter of of years do, you not think that is impressive enough? >> i think it is impressive but it is built on a lot of subsidies. if you offer subsidies and you know you're burning a lot of cash, you can gain market share. at the end of the day, you have

retain the subscribers. that is much harder. i would wait for at least a few quarters to see that steady growth and rider pricing and stuff like that. >> from my vantage point, the q.e. key question here is not what you have done but what you are going to do. you only have four ways to get there. cut driver pay. bring insurance costs down. get self-driving cars. none of those things are meelingd immediately obvious. emily: do you have the same concerns about uber even though it is a much bigger business? >> it is a bit of a different animal. number one it is a market leader. they have a big international business and they have a large food delivery business so a bit of a different storey there. emily: number three, they have a large food delivery business

that they are pouring a lot of money into and they have other bets. lyft pitched itself as focused. uber has a number of bets spread around. does that make lyft a better case than uber? >> what is the financial profile of some of those other businesses look like? zwropet the details for uber yet. hard to say. the food delivery business stands out. companies like grub hub where the profit margins are quite high. emily: uber has released some financial data for the last several quarters which show that uber's revenue is much bigger than lyft but also losses much bigger than lyft. have you done any preliminary work on how they actually compare? >> they are about five times bigger in revenue and booking

and you know, it just goes to show that they are obviously diversified but at the end of he day, their top sideline driven more by kind of international growth as well as u.s. growth. it is a very balanced top line whereas lyft is more u.s. focused and this is higher takeaways. lyft has takeas of about 28% now and they have grown imoppressively over the past 2 1/2 years. they are much better. to so it is really for lyft and uber, their take rates are very good. i think that plies to both of them. mily: guggenheim's jake fuller and bloomberg's mandeep singh.

the event prompting more questions than answers. while the iphone maker brought in a parade of slep celebrities to announce its new project, it has less investors and analysts questioning just how it plans to compete. the biggest thin we saw is u.s. direct results are streaming and use three different streams. u.s. adults are able to watch, want to watch about 15 channels and they are willing to spend about $100 on cable and also want to watch about 15 streaming channels with a maximum of $24 per precipitation.

they are willing to spend about i 100 a month for streaming. we want to own how what that device comes with us. emily: apple hasn't said how much it is going to cost. i would assume a higher price point wouldn't be good for your models. >> i think that is a great point that dallas makes. initially ceci a dollar or $2 less than netflix. right now it is an arms race they need to get to. if you look at the event, the big issue is obviously detals. it come downs them building themselves more of a distribution platform than original content. spending $1 billion a year relative to the $20 billion that netflix, disney and amazon are spending.

we do believe that a large content acquisition will finally happen at apple in 2019. emily: but apple rarely makes big acquisitions. what content acquisition, what kind of acquisition are you looking at? >> the clock struck 12 in our opinion for them. we look at lion's gate, m.g.m.. viacom as a potential acquisition candidate and the longshot is netflix. right now when you look at that services business, the $50 billion per year, in our opinion, the evaluation, $450 billion in services, they cannot trip over their shoelaces on services. specifically on the content piece. now they need to put more fuel in the engine from content. a. ee them do that with m &

emily: you believe content is not necessarily king. the fact that they don't have all the contact in the world, is that a game changer? >> distribution is king. the biggest news apple made is they are moving away from the device and hardware strategy and letting viewers access it on their televisions this year. emily: apple has to have shows that people want to watch. >> the majority of o.t.t. subscribers are watching more streaming content on their smart phone than they are on a dwirs device. not a single netflix, amazon or google show is in the top 10. the number one show is "friends" for which they paid $100 million

this year. emily: friends reruns are never going to die. what do you think about that? maybe content doesn't matter so much or that apple is so far behind? >> i couldn't agree more with dallas in terms of distribution. it comes down to 1.4 billion active device. how we get to 100 million potential subscribers over the next three to five years is distribution. that continues to be their position of strength. content definitely playing from behind the 8 ball but right now it is going to be distribution first and then content. that is going to be the focus for cook and company. they are backed up against the wall. this is in our opinion going to be the most defining period for cook and apple in the history of the company and right now their future will be defined by their success on services and monetized and install base over

the next decade. emily: i know this is first world problems. they are overwhelmed. >> they are overwhelmed with too many choices. emily: i feel like i spend 30 minutes a night just frige trying to figure out what to watch. >> i think that is what apple does really well. they organize content in a way that is user friendly. it is key. whatever skinny bundle you want, if you want hbo now in that one segment, you have it wrapped up. emily: dallas lawrence. coming up, bloomberg technology investigates how youtube led objectionable videos flourish on the site. we'll bring you to key takeaways next. bloomberg app on or bloomberg.com.

emily: a new bloomberg investigation reveals managers

at google, youtube with not doing everything they can to curb toxic videos on the platform. multiple current and former employees say executives and c.e.o.s' were given suggestions how to deal with malicious content. they said they were not to rock the boat. >> there is a series of events getting back to maybe 2012 or so. that was when youtube put in an internal goal to get to a billion hours of watch time. hey based their entire infrastructure based on how long people watch videos. since the 2016 election, a lot of people bringing up the downsides of that where they are optimized for outrage.

you see people on the political fringes going viral on the site. kids channels, toy freaks, aggressive and violent pranks flourished in part because of the algorithms. emily: so youtube gave us a statement saying our primary focus has been tackling some of the platform's toughest content challenges. we have taken a number of significant steps to prevent the spread of harmful information, bringing the number of people focused on content issues across google to 10,000 to be able to more quickly and find and remove the content. youtube has made some changes. are employees saying it is not enough? >> yeah. they have made a series of changes and fairly radical ones.

if you look at them historically. they eliminated comments on a lot of videos aimed at kids. people at youtube say this is a huge shift. there has been a debate about comments for a long time. he kept comments in tact because they want you to to be a social media platform. the key issue here is that the company has been shifting around for what they call responsible growth. that is a metric where they are using things like user surveys to see how people feel after they watch videos. that is a really tricky thing to deal with. they have not exactly told investors, the public and their employees what that looks like. emily: youtube on twitter has released follow-up statement saying that susan specifically has made this a priority. but in your story, employees are saying that she personally is not making this a priority. what exactly are employees telling you?

>> consistently, the thing i have heard for people who worked under susan was not that she does not care about these issues, especially around the kids content which was an eye-opening moment for her and her leadership team. the consistency was more paralysis for a number of reasons. whether it is concern about being seen as anti-conservative or the changes they would make to youtube's advertising platform. and the concern that paralysis has led to them stalling inertia. we look at the anti-vaccination, we have new data. the number of videos promoting anti-vaccination, youtube has been aware of it for a long time. there is a series of eventualities where they have become a publicity nightmare and that are forced -- and they are forced to take action. categorizing these videos as borderline content and to no longer be recommended. they have not shared externally if those changes on the recommendation engine, and a lot of the changes that wojcicki has made an impact on their

business, their engagement and the changes for the business, employees, and for the company. emily: coming , it was national equal payday in the united states. we'll tell you how the biggest tech companies made out next. this is bloog. -- bloomberg. ♪

emily: in the u.s., april 2 is known as equal payday. it is a date to recognize the push, or lack thereof for pay parity among men and women in corporate america. they had the second gender annual pay scorecard of the world's largest companies on pay based on race and gender. this year, the scorecard gave in a rating to only one company, citigroup. they also passed out failing grades to have to companies surveyed. where did the tech land? if you recall in january,

citigroup was literally the first company in the world to reveal its and its ender pay gap u.s. median racial pay gap. it did not use an adjusted number, which is what are the disclosures we have gone from company so far. which is equal pay for equal work. most of those numbers we have seen from companies have been adjusted, they are around 99 cents to parity. if you and i were in the same position, we would make the same is if i was a man and you were a woman. citigroup published their medium number. if you take all the men and women, you take the middle person and say what are they making? what is the man making versus the woman? there is a much bigger gap. that is how equal pay is measured in the u.s. women are paid $.80 on the dollar. that is the median earning. citigroup, in response to a proposal, came out with this data and stepped up as a leader

in really setting the standard. emily: not only are they releasing more data and being more transparent, the data looks good. isn't that what you're saying? natasha: the data does not look great. those median numbers don't look great for most companies. it was a 29% median pay gap as compared to their $.99 equal pay gap. right? for minorities in the u.s., it was $.93 on the dollar. it does not look great, they squeaked out and a. they got 86 out of 100, that they are the only company to receive an a on the scorecard. emily: apple and intel, you gave hem a b. you gave oracle and hp failing grades. why? natasha: some of those companies were a or a minuses last year. emily: so they got worse? natasha: no, we added one new criteria. we are ranking across 10

different quantitative factors, it is very transparent. and we added the median racial pay gap. that is the statistic that citigroup put out and that no other companies put out. it set a new standard. some of those companies that were getting a minuses are now getting b's. they have made some improvements. they have the equal pay for equal work numbers. their global coverage of how many employees are reporting on. and the companies that failed, it was half of the list. emily: oracle, hp, marriott, mcdonnell's walmart, why did they fail? natasha: because they are not disclosing. if they are it is because of regulatory mandate in the u.k.. some of those companies, like mcdonald's, have to report in the u.k.. those numbers look ok, but those are only two out of 10 data points that we are looking for. emily: we are seeing some steam in momentum behind equal

pay regulation in the united states. do you think we need laws. natasha: i think it has been very slow. new york and california have started to improve their state laws. recently we saw a judge in the u.s. overturn a freeze that had been put on by the trump administration that was going to require companies with over 100 employees to report their gender and racial pay data to the government. that is promising. that is similar to what is happening in europe. a recent study shows that even when companies are referring to the government, they actually improve on -- they narrow the gender pay gap, they hire more women in positions of leadership, and that is where you see the performance benefits. emily: new survey shows that 50% of men believe that the pay gap, the gender pay gap is made up.

how do we deal with that when men are still running most of these companies? natasha: i think that is sad. i think there is a lot of misinformation. you can look at it on an equal ay for equal work basis. ven in my industry, finance, i'm a financial advisor, the gap for financial advisors for equal pay .62 on the ork is $ dollar. that is pretty remarkable. even for -- even if men and women are paying -- being paid the same, there is still able median gap. because there are no opportunities for women and minorities at these companies and there should be. emily: coming up . bring on the regulation so says mark zuckerberg. we break down the facebook

c.e.o.'s plan for the government to set new internet laws. that's next. check us out at technology and ollow us on tictoc on twitter. this is bloomberg. ♪ the biggest week in television is almost here.

xfinity watchathon week. starting april 8th, enjoy free access to the best shows and movies from hbo, showtime, epix and more. what! whether it's more jaw droppers, standing o's upon standing o's or tv's biggest show stoppers. get more into what you're into. get ready to watch with xfinity x1 or the xfinity stream app. xfinity watchathon week. free starting april 8th. boop! emily: welcome back to the best

of bloomberg technology. in april last year, mark zuckerberg told congress the writing was on the wall akin to policing social media. -- i think it's inevitable that there will be regulation. i think you have to be careful but what regulation you put in place. emily: we got some more insight into what he thinks those rules should be. global the call from regulation from a facebook post. >> he said to update once best

about it. the freedom for people to express themselves to build new things while protecting society from broner harm. talked about this. she was an assistant attorney general for the state of new york. to get in front of any rules or regulations that come. it is really self-interested have a strong voice in this discourse. whatever comes, it will have a big impact on facebook. he is calling for new global internet regime. he talked about for key areas. about election integrity and for it to be around the world. he talked about a lot of

streaming information from one network to another. emily: is this something you support? i think it's very silly for zuckerberg to be out there, promoting regulations to fix problems of his business model is causing. he has the power to fix these problems by changing his business model. the targeted advertising business model is the reason why fake news and harmful content is amplified by facebook's algorithms. this is why they are taking so much data on us. they are able to target us. he can fix these problems. he doesn't need a regulator to fix them for him. emily: there has been a lot of criticism of his plan. saying rulelawmaker number five should be mark zuckerberg doesn't get to make the rules anymore. they are under civil investigation.

he cannot regulate himself. saying facebook should regulate itself. he is saying that it can't. >> that doesn't amount to anything than just a glorified public relations document that is trying to punch the responsibility off. when he talks about harmful content, this is beneficial to facebook. mistakes are going to happen. now, they can say we were just following the line. a regime, and i helps a lot of these larger players more than the smaller players. it's very cumbersome for a small company to have to comply with these rules. they can increase facebook's wherewithal. that, some of to

their behaviors of an to what they've been saying. this integration they are doing of what it increases its power and answersta questions like data privacy and makes it harder for regulations to moderate with going on if they are encrypted and they don't have access to once actually being said. these things could be helpful here, that facebook could do more to regulate itself. a also, governments around the world could do more to cooperate and regulate facebook? >> i think they will definitely regulate facebook. i do think they should take their cues from mark zuckerberg. there are other things that could open up competition much more effectively than what he proposes. measure,ink this half he knows they are not going to be effective. gdp are has not been effective.

he is proposing things that he knows what fix the problem or require facebook to change the way it does is this and it won't affect their profitability. it just won't work. regulators need to get involved, they don't need to take advice from mark zuckerberg. emily: what will fix the problem? it's a big way to allow entry into competition that would be things like your verizon wireless phone can communicate with an at&t phone. allowing communication between networks that allow competition to open up. if i take my data, where will i take it? i need to be were all of my friends are. competitors inp a secure way is another proposal that's been made. integration ofe

what that instagram and messenger should be prohibited by the ftc. that should be unwound. mentioned civil and criminal investigations. they could have some oversight of this marriage. how are we expecting these investigations to play out? it will likely be years. >> it can be difficult to keep up with the number of global investigations going on. they are looking into unwinding parts of facebook. that will be complex and drawn out. integrating the backend makes it harder for regulators to be able to separate the data. there are concerns that section 230 may be under pressure. this may be exempt of social platforms being liable for the

content on their platforms. if that was rolled back, that would have a big impact. we see other governments move ahead with regulations as the u.s. stalls. singapore is coming out with new laws that would hold companies like facebook liable for false information and forced them to take them down and show the corrections they are making. emily: are there governments getting it right? is there anybody that has a good model that other countries could follow when it comes to creating a framework to better deal with big tech? isn't doing aly good job of regulating themselves, even though many people think they should. gdpr hadk the promised. it's not being enforced properly. i think there are things you can learn from it. privacy measure,

big tech is out there promoting other laws in other states with the goal of getting a weaker privacy law at the federal level to preempt the stronger california law. caseerman authority has a where they sit facebook abused its dominance by collecting too much data from consumers. they have a good clue of where things are going. the european commission has enforced against tech platforms, even though it hasn't done a great job of following up on the remedies. coming up, the twitter ceo weighing in on one of the biggest issues for tech in 2019. he says regulation is a good thing. who hacked jeff bezos? the security point man has a new

theory. it's a bombshell. we will discuss. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: jack dorsey is going mark zuckerberg's comments, calling for a heavy regulatory hand when it comes to the tech giants. they are looking at healthier conversations after drawing criticism for issues like harmful speech. video interview, he said he would welcome more regulation. >> we have seen abuse and harassment. we have seen people leave our platform because of it. we see voices being silenced because of what is happening on the service. platform ofld a thath for conversation will remain relevant to people if people don't feel safe. for all of those who believe in

free expression and free speech, it's critical that we are not utilizing technology like twitter to shut down voices and to silence others. a lot of our policies and enforcement and technology is aimed at addressing those problems. it's never going to be fully solved. it's one of those things where you have to constantly iterate. we need to give people much better controls. we need to do more of the work for them. we need to take away the burden of reporting harassment or abuse. we need to utilize technology better to identify where it's happening or where there is a high probability of it happening. people don't necessarily need to see it when they didn't ask to get into the fray. is twitter of it

focusing on that? how much of it is inviting more conversation from outside parties? conversationsn about mark zuckerberg's piece. are they in line with your general views? generally, i think regulation is a good thing. it's a positive. is that of a company regulators, helping and legislators understand what tapping with technology. trends we are aware of, how are system works, the regulators ensure protection of the individual. as long as we are working together on that, that has good outcomes.

i haven't looked at all of the specific feedback to mark's post. i generally think there are that have beenr positive for our platform and the industry in general. there is a lot more clarity around privacy and how data is being used. typically, a service like ours, our terms of service are hard to read and follow. they are not necessarily the most customer focused things. elementsght out some that you have more control over. there is more room for that. also -- there's not going to be anyone party responsible for fixing this. on anyh of that weight

one entity, whether it be a corporation or a government, it's not going to work. we have to think about it differently. we have to think about it as a desire. our purpose is public conversation. increasee is to healthy conversation. we can look much deeper. we can look at the very foundational nature of the business and make sure we are not incentivizing behaviors that would take away from health. there are areas where i think we are. those are questions we are asking. that will lead to some fundamental shifts. emily: that was jack dorsey. now for reaction, we spoke to selina wang. very far froms the grand manifesto. when we wrote about that on

facebook, twitter declined to comment. -- don't hear dorsey reacting to the points. he says regulation is a positive thing and gdpr has been beneficial. terms andat the conditions are difficult to read. i think it's worth mentioning that twitter has less of an incentive to play a strong role in the discourse around regulation. it's in their benefit to let facebook take the heat and any regulation that eventually comes will impact facebook and google much more than a smaller platform like twitter. i wonder ifmily: they would like to shift the responsibility to somebody else. outou have the ceos who go and try to improve the public

relations around the company. at the end of the day, we have to see the results within the company. jack dorsey likes to have idealistic visions about the future of conversation on twitter. we haven't seen how that's going to change in the product. they have started iterating a beta app. they are deemphasizing the number of likes and responses people have. they want to encourage healthy conversation. that is still in the testing phases. we still haven't seen the results. emily: i want to ask you about softbank. $100 million is not enough. >> it's not enough until you start looking at the pace of dealmaking. just about two years, they have invested $70 billion in startups like dog walking companies.

they don't want us slowdown -- to slow down the dealmaking. they are seeking $100 billion. they are looking at a variety of options, debt repayment, raising more capital, all sorts of options. we don't know the timeline for when this may close. it's possible a deal could not be struck. they want to continue on this and groups off ai number one. they want to back the leading company in every industry that is critically impacting and , whetherg that sector that start walking or cancer detection. he said he wants to raise another $100 billion fund. investorey are a small in uber. do we know if they are going to make money on the ipo?

>> we don't know yet. when you talk to softbank, they are talking about the long-term vision. they say their repayments are very attractive and the investors are interested in doubling down and recapitalizing. there is not a lot of transparency on the numbers at this point. emily: that was selina wang. still ahead, all the riches in the world could not keep jeff bezos from getting hacked. wasn't the national inquirer? or was it a foreign power? securityalk to his next. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: jeff bezos took to the media to accuse the national enquirer of trying to blackmail him. the washington post coverage of

the murder of a journalist in a saudi arabian consulate hit a nerve. things have taken up to another level. thesecurity consultant made concluded the saudi's have access to his phone and gained private information. it is unclear to what degree if any they were aware of the details. >> he is steering the consensus about this episode. , michaeloccam's razor sanchez -- emily: the woman he had an affair with. her brothernsus is

provided all the text messages in the fall of last year to the national enquirer. i thinks they are frustrated with that explanation. they believe in this is been clear since the media post that saudi arabia and its leader were involved. they see some discrepancies with the solution. michael sanchez claims that when he was contacted first by the national inquirer, they already had some text messages. he is pointing to these other forces who may or may not be at work. he turned over information about this to law enforcement. emily: he makes these proclamations, he doesn't provide any evidence. does that undermined the argument at all? >> absolutely. at this point we don't know if he is buying the narrative of his choosing or if they have

some evidence to back up the claims. all the claims he put in his conspiracy theory, it's circumstantial. it's all interesting and intriguing. show us the goods. emily: it certainly is intriguing. why? >> i believe one or two weeks ago, the new york times had a story about these companies, many former law enforcement secret security people from israel now have companies. they mentioned a couple. dark matter is the name of one of them. they are sluicing on behalf of governments and could be stealing communications. saysints to that story and we know this is happening. this contributed to the murder of that journalist. why are they doing this?

i think it's a simplistic narrative. emily: despite the unsubstantiated claims, american media reviews the unsubstantiated claims that we had help from anyone other than the single source. that is lauren sanchez's brother. broke, it seemed to be from her side. how do we explain that? explain the texts we've seen are from reseau's? -- jeff bezos? that's an interesting thing. if the saudi government had access to his phone, this is the best they could come up with? by the nature of what spin revealed so far, it looks like

the person with access to the messages is someone close to lauren sanchez. great point. michael sanchez does not deny he provided some of the texts. the question is where did originate? he says the national inquirer already knew about it. becker,what gavin the it's almost coming off his juvenile. who started it? what is the point? who knows? million onds $1.6 his personal security. disclosures, it's kind of amazing that a lot of people paid their a well to executive,otect this they didn't do their jobs properly. emily: they say they are going

to lower the price of goods at whole foods across the board. what do we know about this? >> we know that's a small fraction of their inventory. whole foods is a lot more expensive than most other places to buy groceries. jeff bezos still has a job. what do you make of this in the context of the larger amazon narrative? are a 10 year plus work in progress. they've been trying their own services, they acquired whole foods. they don't have much to show for it. foods sales of been flat. they need new store formats. they are lowering prices to juice that business. and that doesn't for this

edition of the best of bloomberg technology. we will bring you the latest in technology throughout the week. you can tune in every day. we are live streaming on twitter. you can check us out and follow our breaking news network tick-tock on twitter. this is bloomberg. ♪ want more from your entertainment experience?

just say teach me more. into your xfinity voice remote to discover all sorts of tips and tricks in x1. can i find my wifi password? just ask. [ ding ] show me my wifi password. hey now! [ ding ] you can even troubleshoot, learn new voice commands and much more. clean my daughter's room. [ ding ] oh, it won't do that. welp, someone should. just say "teach me more" into your voice remote and see how you can have an even better x1 experience. simple. easy. awesome. jonathan: i'm jonathan ferro.

bloomberg "real yield," starts right now. jonathan: coming up, the return of the goldilocks jobs report and u.s. payrolls bouncing back despite signs of a solid labor market, the president repeating his call for rate cuts, and further distortions in global fixed income. credit with subzero yield piling up. we begin with a big issue, the goldilocks jobs report returns. >> a solid report. >> the perfect report for the fed.