♪ ♪ caroline: i am caroline hyde in new york, denver emily chang. this is "bloomberg technology." in the next hour, surge pricing. ipo, how much demand is there on the public market? and facebook cofounder chris hughes writes a bombshell op-ed in the "new york times," saying the social network is too good for its own -- too big for its own good. and what happens in vegas --

joining us from the salt onference to weigh in volatility and the global outlook for the trade war. our top story, of course is uber . likely to be the largest ipo this year in the u.s. while uber probably won't hit the highs expected as stocks fall because of trade tensions, trading 26% below ipo price. our guest, we are waiting for the all-important exact pricing, but we know it will be at the low end of the range, close to was the last final funding at? >> it might have been overly ambitious to begin with. but worth mentioning uber started selling shares to private investors in 2016 at about $49 a share, and that has

been relatively flat ever since. the ipo price will maybe be a little below that. so we are talking about three years of no movement in uber share prices. caroline: despite the hype and excitement. mitchell, as someone with a stake in uber are you pleased by the road it has taken toward iv for uncomfortable it hit at a volatile time in the market? mitchell: thanks for having me on. i think the best thing for uber and lyft is to be public companies. listening to the lyft earnings call, it is clear that pricing is becoming much more rational. a couple things about this ipo. it is a huge deal in terms of absolute size, so this isn't going to have some and or miss pop because of so much -- some enormous pop because of so much volume, not like one of the small ipo's where they raise

$200 million. the most important thing is for atson, dara, and the guys goldman sachs and morgan stanley to price this so it works. let the public investors make some money, enter the public market. caroline: people might argue, and it is almost unfair, that lyft hasn't worked, even though facebook when it first listed had a pretty torrid time of it, and look at it now. talk to me about the extent of the business and where it could be valued at? mitchell: i think there's huge opportunity in ridesharing, as a global phenomenon. uber is in pretty much every major company, with exception of japan and germany, which i think will come over time. uber eats is exploding. what people are not talking about here, with uber eats, bookings are still growing 100%

per year, but the amount of money that flows through as of 2018to uber, in q1 was i don't know, 12%, 12.5%, and down to 6% by q4. these are all in the s-1. the reason for the decline was that they were rapidly expanding into other markets, and in q1 of 2019 their advanced estimates were 8%. i think what you will have, looking six to 12 months down the road, is take rates going back up towards 12% for uber eats, with booking still growing 70% a year. so take rates doubling and booking growing 70% a year, leading to explosive revenue growth at uber eats, which is becoming a bigger part of the business. we think overall revenues will accelerate, which is what investors will see. obviously the investments in southeast asia, russia and china

are valuable. a huge opportunity here. ira, that is if we are even given the take rates going forward. lyft for many has been less than transparent. mitchell: i think you are going to. dara is a pro. caroline: your response to some of the things mitchell said? shira: i think it is a fair point. the issue with uber is that the core business in on-demand rides has stopped growing. it's not growing very fast. bookings, the total values of fares, might actually decline in the first quarter from the fourth quarter, which is not a great thing. you don't want declines when you are supposed to be a growth company. it is true uber eats is growing fast. caroline: i will break into say raise $8 is a set to billion in the ipo, pricing at $45 each. optionality ise

in things like uber eats, which as mitch said is growing fast, although it is still small. we don't know what the ultimate economics are, especially for uber eats which relies a lot on chain restaurants like mcdonald's and starbucks that have a lot of pricing power. caroline: mitchell, you paint a picture of the scale of the business and where it can go. pricing at $45 and raising 8.1 billion dollars, where do you want that put first and foremost? mitchell: where do i want it to go? caroline: how do you want it prioritized in terms of spending, where the r&d has the most bang for the buck? mitchell: i trust dara. he is a world-class capital allocator, as well as nelson. i think another important point to keep in mind, people are so focused on the amount of money but lookny is worth,

at last year, when they did about 5 billion rides. the average ride is around $10, slightly less. they lost $2.5 billion. if they raise the price of a -- 60 cents, they break even. let's say you live in new york city, midtown going to laguardia airport, on an average day $20 in a uberx to do it. you will pay $22, $24. probably not $45. but the companies have pricing power people are failing to understand. caroline: interesting, when we look at the $45 per share, you were talking about how the share price hasn't budged over the last few years. you have a really interesting take on how the employees fare with share sales.

will they be jumping for joy? shira: to be fair, a lot employees hold shares, and the shares for a lot of those folks is a life-changing amount of money. but let's say you were hired at uber a couple years ago when shares in private transactions were at $49, and the ipo price is five dollars. maybe in your -- is $45. maybe in your head you're thinking, in two years i will be a millionaire, i will buy a house, i will pay off college debt, but the value of your stock has been flat. kind of a psychological hurdle for folks. caroline: very interesting take. i want to get mitchell, your uberhts, you bought into as a private company. will you hold it to the same extent as a public company? mitchell: sure. k, own half $1 billion in stoc directly and indirectly, and

have no intentions to sell it. we think the economics will get much bigger, and we are happy it is priced here. has 100the fact dara million-plus reasons to get able to keep the stock. not saying it happen right now, but it will happen. caroline: we will see if they can reach the $120 billion we once talked about. mitchell green, thank you. and bloomberg opinion's shiraa o ovide, great to have your expertise. gopro reported first quarter owing lossesarr through cost cuts. the ceo said in a statement the company is raising revenue and profit projections for 2019, but did not provide specific numbers. shares rose 1.5% in extended trading. coming up, intel and

semiconductor stocks as a whole on track for their worst week in three years. this is bloomberg. ♪

caroline: over the last year, the trump administration has aggressively pushed other ei fromes to shun huaw the global networks. although it has been slow to catch on, a handful of countries like australia and japan have followed the u.s. call, as huawei recently surpassed apple in smartphone shipments. on thursday, the federal coming occasions -- communications commission barred china mobile over security concerns. mark gurman joins me. let's talk about the china mobile news. 5-0 was the voting.

what do they have in terms of national security issues that is so strong? mark: that is interesting. i was surprised how in this climate that even went to a vote, but i guess it is process. the fact this was shot down is really not shocking at all. mobile, they are concerned the chinese government could have some ability to listen in to phone calls of u.s. citizens and track their network activity. in any climate, the united states would not want that on its soil. caroline: interestingly, some people, some lawmakers even called for them to go further and start investigating china have known carriers that received approval to connect to u.s. networks earlier. just how realistic is the threat, and it is all to do with chinese law, and the fact that if you are a state-owned company,, you can pass on details to the government. mark: the timing is interesting, because we have the ongoing

trade discussions happening today, and are supposed to get some sort of end result tomorrow or over the weekend. that backdrop makes it more complicated, interesting, but this would be happening regardless. it is a real problem, having phone makers and networking equipment tied or allegedly tied to the chinese government being available in the united states. just like how china might fear that the united states has some sort of stranglehold on equipment in china. so it makes sense this is not going to happen anytime soon, or probably ever. caroline: so china mobile out. huawei meanwhile, the ongoing battle continues. the u.s. trying to dissuade particularly those in the e.u., u.k., to prevent the ongoing penetration of huawei into 5g networks. does that seem realistic? mark: i understand why the u.s. to my earlier point doesn't want huawei equipment here and

doesn't want major retailers like best buy and whoever selling huawei goods, not wanting huawei 5g equipment here . but what i don't fully understand is why they are trying to get other countries to shoot them down as well. i think that is a step too far. fine, you don't want huawei locally, but the u.k. and australia and japan and other nations can make their own decisions on that one. caroline: how integrated would u.s. networks be with european? is there any means, by the fact you are getting your 5g connectivity in the u.k., does that mean in any way it could be affecting phone calls you are making with the u.s., or indeed when you travel to the united states somewhere? mark: i think it is pretty isolated. let's say that you are in the u.k. and i am here, and we are on a phone call, you are making a call on huawei equipment. in that sense, yes. i see the argument. but otherwise it is not really realistic. caroline: some of the key telecom companies in europe want

to do business with huawei. mark gurman, great analysis as always. thank you. 5%nwhile, intel shares slid on thursday after the chipmaker gave a weak forecast. ceo bob swan said sales growth would be in the low siegel digits the next three years, and growth margins would see a decline, after the cut of full-y ear revenue. joining us to discuss, bloomberg's ian king. why was the investor base so shocked? ian: it is more of a step back point of view. i was at the meeting yesterday, where people hoped intel's management would come out guns blazing and say, yes, we know we are in a tough situation, but this is what we have in place to fire back, basically do what intel has done over the years. whenever it is under pressure, it tends to come out fighting,

and competitors better beware. that was not the impression management left the audience with yesterday, and you are seeing reaction to that today. there was no real upside story. caroline: and we know they backed away from certain areas of growth. they were looking at 5g, decided not to. where is the story for intel at the moment? ian: this is an issue for the management. you are trying to change the narrative and redefine your company. you should do that when you're on top, not when you are under pressure. they were saying, our total available market is in the hundreds of billions, and we will be in all these new kinds of equipment, telecommunications equipment. all these new kinds of chips that will show up everywhere. there is believe from the executives espousing that, but the audience really wasn't buying that. one of the biggest problems,

what they are good at, microprocessors that are so high-margin, these adjacencies, people worry that even if they do succeed,, it will be at much lower profit. caroline: and what does that say about business sentiment at the moment? we know datacenter chips had been a little lackluster. inventory was high. google and amazon and ibm building out their areas of offerings for web services has been on-call, but the idea was that they thought they would start to ramp back up and reinvest in these. ian: you nailed it. that is exactly the issue intel is facing. they are saying that a lot of their issues are basically market-related, that google and amazon bought a lot last year that they need to install and get running, and then go back to spending. saying, analysts are

and investors obviously agree if you look at share performance, you are really blaming the market for an issue you caused yourself through manufacturing issues and this competition you have opened the window for. that is what is really hurting you. to be fair, intel management said they are in development for that, but it will be the second half of the year before we see whether their version of events there'sct, or whether more competition in a space where they have been incredible dominant. caroline: 12 declines in 13 trading days, and the backdrop he is at a really difficult time for chipmakers. they are in the eye of the storm when it comes to u.s.-chinese trade tensions. ian: that is true. the u.s. is the largest producer of chips, and china is the largest market, but the backdrop is really that we have had an incredible run in stocks. the stock is up over a third.

to put that in perspective, intel is the only chipmaker to decline this year. caroline: not lucky for some. a great chart. ian king, always great to get you talking all things chips and intel. coming up, is alexa spying on your kids? how amazon's echo devices are collecting and storing personal information despite parental controls, next. this is bloomberg. ♪

caroline: softbank's big bets are starting to pay off. operating income tripled in the fourth quarter, and division fund issue to double digits to investors. son boastedsayoshi that there was no kind of private equity that deliver this return, and indicated they are planning on vision fund two in the near future. thehe timing of the launch,

size and structure are to be sorted, but it will be about the same time as -- same size as vision fund one. amazon's meanwhile, echo. kids devices might not be as friendly as you might think. a coalition is asking u.s. regulars to investigate whether the device infringes on children's privacy rights. in a complaint filed to the federal trade commission, it said that they are unlawfully storing personal data even after parents tried to delete it. amazon said that they are compliant with the children's online privacy protection act. toning us from washington new discuss is ben brody. they say they are compliant. is complaining that they are not compliant? "c.o.pa." fort

short. this is a coalition of children's and privacy advocates who spent the last two years or so talking about the effect on children of devices, alleged addiction, and privacy is a huge one. amazon joins complaints they launched against facebook, against google and its play store, and people looking at youtube, which is not summing they have complained about yet. all these questions are about how we deal with the intersection of kids dealing with devices and tech platforms and all those things. caroline: ben, notably amazon doesn't seem to disclose that third-party apps are using children's data as well. is that something they could easily tell the community? ben: this is one of the problems

with connected devices. you log onto facebook, sign up for the first time. you click a box and you sort of allegedly read the privacy policy, and there is a place you can go back to read it. some of these recourses are a lot harder to have with a connected device. you aren't writing things, or clicking things, and there are not necessarily stable webpages where you can go back and have disclosures and show, where people can go and at least find out what is being collected. of course, those privacy policies are notoriously vague, so you don't necessarily know. it is difficult. amazon isn't the only company ha telling consumers what it is collecting. amazon has that problem. caroline: this is not the first tech company to get these complaints. you said it happened with

youtube, facebook. what can amazon expect? are there going to be repercussions, changes to law? ben: absolutely. .a. works, there was an update two years ago for devices. the question is whether they will be hit with fines. complaints,a lot of which allowed a group of senators to send a letter demanding investigation that they tied back to privacy concerns, privacy legislation. so not every complaint turns into fines or other remedies. what i am watching here, the ftc has been signaling that when it does rarely say things publicly, they really care about .a. compliance. they recently issued a record fine, $5 billion, but pretty easy for amazon to absorb. caroline: ben brody, thank you.

coming up, we go to the salt conference in las vegas. and later, he was present at the start of facebook. why he is calling for it to be broken up. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ caroline: this is "bloomberg technology." let's recap the big news of the day. shares for18 million just $45 a share, the low end of the range. based on the amount of stock outstanding outside the offering, the ipo price gives them about the market valuation of $75.5 billion, just below its last private market value of $76 billion. finishing off for the day as president trump said a trade war with china is still

possible. erik schatzker is in las vegas with another key guest who is no stranger to market volatility. k: i'm here with jim breyer of breyer capital, one of the world's most successful venture capitalists. it's always great to talk to you, jim. >> a pleasure. great to see you. erik: i need to begin on the subject of uber because the company has priced its ipo, $75.5 billion ipo. a lot of people say it's a down deal. you have taken many companies public. i want to know what you think. >> a down round is less consequential. once upon a time when i was on the pricing committee of facebook in 2012, that $38 a share ipo price for facebook was a little bit of a down round as well. i remember the six months after extremely vividly as we traded down, but i think that what's fundamentally important in a

number of the soon-to-be technology public companies is the quality of the senior team. who are the next tim cooks? either teams like mark zuckerberg, sheryl sandberg? who are the teams that will grow into that kind of executive leadership position? the technologies will change. business models in many cases will evolve and change, but that's what i would focus on for the long-term. people are investing in public offerings today either in the u.s. or in china. erik: i'm going to ask a facetious question, might even be an obnoxious question. why go public anymore? private markets are so deep. >> the private markets are deep. there is a badge of honor long-term worldwide to being a public company. access to capital will not always be close to what it is cost of capital is

zero in the private markets. that changes. there are tremendous opportunities through acquisition down the road, or in other ways, to buy companies long-termor stock and build in that way. erik: used stock as your currency in other words? >> exactly. that would be a primary reason over the long-term for companies that are excellent and ready to go public to go public. erik: might it be the only reason? >> it might be the only reason. erik: isn't that interesting? at the same time, we see a torrent of money fleeing public markets and entering private markets. i needle him point to the example of blackstone, a company on whose board you sick, limiting the amount of money raised for its latest private equity fund to $25 billion -- i need only point to the example of lack stone. it is effectively oversubscribed. areinvestors to enamored --

investors too inevitably return premium? >> in general, yes. specifically, in the very best cases, however, i believe that something has changed in the world of private equity and hedge funds and the major technology and media companies. i have never witnessed where scale and excellence have grown as they have in many of these industries. when i look at the blackstone board or management team -- steve schwarzman, tony james, john -- erik: sure. >> they are superb, so the returns have not been diminished as the business scales. if we look at the best technology companies, the scale, of course, has been awesome, both in the u.s. and in china, and the excellence at the senior ,evels continues to increase

and this one other element, which to meet is fascinating. increasingly, the best private equity and hedge funds compete for exactly the same talent at the top universities as the very best technology companies such as apple, facebook, google, and others. computerhine learning scientists that are today's most valuable commodity, if you will, much more so than an nfl quarterback or premier league future superstar. erik: i'm glad you brought up the idea or notion or the importance, perhaps, of scale because it was front and center in an op-ed in today's "new york times" written by a facebook cofounder. i know you've read it. i'm sure you have talked to many people about it today. he makes the case passionately that facebook should be broken up, that it's too big, that mark zuckerberg has become too powerful. your thoughts? >> i politely disagree with

chris. i remember working with chris many years ago and when he took his sabbatical, which turned into a more permanent sabbatical when he left to work for the .bama campaign from facebook i think the fact of the matter is the public outcry. as we know in silicon valley and around the world, there is anger and distrust of the very largest of the technology companies. absolutely. does that mean they should be broken up? should amazon be broken up into pieces? should also that be broken up into pieces? i first turned to what antitrust and law would suggest, but technology moves awfully quickly and as we've seen time and time again, many of the leaders of today fall behind, and there's always a new set of competitors worldwide that will give certain the best companies a

run for their money. erik: with the world be better off, would america be better off had the government not broken up standard oil or at&t? most people would say no. again, i woulds say are, when you look at microsoft in the 90's, when we go back to at&t, this is a little bit different because the consumer in many cases has benefit enormously from lower .rices, free delivery amazon has absolutely revolutionized not only shopping be one by itself would of the most valuable technology businesses in the world and those aws software tools have enabled a whole generation of entrepreneurs. when people are as good as jeff bezos or mark zuckerberg, larry page, etc., tim cook, the question of breaking these

companies up into pieces is worrisome to me just because there are so many great global competitors, and that's where push comes to shove. i like to see american companies succeed in a very dramatic way. globalany of those competitors are emerging in china, an area where you have deep expertise. are you concerned about the potential fallout on the trade talks between the trump administration and the chinese government and what it may mean for investors like you and your clients? the nature ofged the investing. a year ago, there was cross-border investing occurring on both sides. u.s.-china, china-u.s.. seeing is awe are freeze up and freezing of cross-border investing. u.s.-china,believe china-u.s. long-term is a fundamentally important relationship for us as investors

, for us as citizens, and i'm hopeful that over the long-term, the right reforms are made so that intellectual property is protected much more in china. at the same time, we are investing very significantly in what would be the chinese southern area and the level of entrepreneurship and artificial intelligence and cancer and other areas of artificial intelligence rivals only silicon valley in terms of the pace of innovation, and there are areas where i would love, for instance, to see chinese artificial intelligence and cancer summit companies work willthe u.s. and maybe we find some common ground. i'm hopeful, but i'm an optimist long-term on u.s.-china, china-u.s.. have many people know you been focusing much of your investing activity in ai, as you

mentioned. you are also working in the life science area. the question comes up about ai all the time -- do you need to be concerned about the impact that ai may have on society? i will not going to the details of how it may play out. there are lots of narratives on that. or from an investment standpoint, do you really need to care so long as you are on the right side of the trade? >> i need to care and i do care. in the last three months, i attended the opening of the m.i.t. ai launch as well as the stanford ai launch and ethics, linguistics, philosophy has to in not only the academic institutions when it comes to ai but also the companies, and so for instance, i have invested in a couple of companies which are trying to use artificial intelligence and cancer data and some of the best hospitals in the world to help doctors and patients make better informed decisions about

treatments. one day in our lifetime or our children's lifetime, we can eradicate most forms of cancer. the ethics around data, who owns our data, our health care and cancer data? the general practitioner? the patient, as i believe should be the case? these are all questions which the very best companies which will be the most successful are grappling with today. erik: thanks very much. it's great to see you. caroline, you can see how well-versed he is in so many topics, passionate. we could talk to him for hours. .im breyer caroline: i wish we could, too. what a great interview. thank you. coming up, break it up -- that's martin zuckerberg -- that's mark anderberg's former roommate what he is saying about facebook. and oh, yeah, he's the cofounder. that's next on bloomberg. ♪

carolyn: chris hughes went from mark zuckerberg's roommate at harvard to one of the cofounders of the world's largest social media company. he left facebook to volunteer for the obama campaign. looking back on his armor company and roommate in a "new york times" op-ed, he says enough is enough -- looking back on his former company and roommate. he says mark has surrounded himself with a team that reinforces his beliefs instead thatallenging them and mark's power is unprecedented

and un-american. here to discuss is the director of enforcement policy of the over markets institute. and in san francisco, our bloomberg official media reporter is with us as well. set us up here for the silicon valley reaction to this piece. he has been critical before to a certain extent saying maybe regulation is necessary, but was this really shocking? >> it was pretty shocking. it's pretty rare you see the cofounder of any company come out and be this critical of the thing that they helped create. i don't think many people outside silicon valley are familiar with who chris is, so in some ways, there's a little bit of novelty here in, like, who's this guy actually saying these things, but in the tech world, to have someone with his background in the company come out and kind of personally name mark here and put a lot of this on his shoulders was pretty startling.

here.n: your perspective do you agree? >> i completely agree with pretty much everything chris said in his piece. facebook has gotten too powerful . it controls way too much of information flows around the , and they have really been asleep at the wheel. we have had neither regulation nor antitrust enforcement with facebook has acquired companies that were competitive threats. without regulation nor antitrust enforcement, it got to a situation where it is too powerful and needs some competition and rules that protect the consumer. caroline: what does one do? be to first step would unwind the facebook/instagram merger. illegal ifergers are they create a monopoly.

caroline: why is what facebook is doing deemed in the measure of the law monopolistic? >> the way you decide what is a monopoly is you look at the substitutes, the alternatives for any product or service, and, really, the next best alternative to facebook is instagram. caroline: isn't it also the use of that power? how have they used their power wrongly from your perspective? >> acquiring competitive threats to detect whenpp competitive threats are coming along and then representing to the enforcers that they were not in competition, that it was not actually a competitive threat to when documentsp acquired by the britain parliament show that there were internal documents identifying whatsapp as a major competitive threat -- that is part of the problem. the other part of the problem is it is just abuse they can get

away with because it is a monopoly. there were tons of people who were really upset about it and said they were quitting facebook and they will just use instagram aith the cambridge analytic scandal happened. there's no way to constrain facebook from causing whatever harm it once because it will not be affected. caroline: this is something facebook is aware of, something we've heard them apologize for significantly in front of many .overnment officials >> i do think there is going to be regulation. i do not know if the regulation is that facebook will be broken up, but it seems inevitable there will be some kind of privacy or data collection laws that come down in the u.s. as we .een in europe with gdpr i think facebook and mark zuckerberg believe that if they

are on the forefront and they want regulation and say here's how we would do it if we work writing the law, that is the ideal scenario because they say we want to be powerful and -- we are powerful and want to play by the rules, but we also want to write what those rules are. caroline: it's interesting he brings up europe because i remember covering european commission decisions and everyone from an american perspective being of an arms. the european regulators says she does not think facebook should be broken up. were enforcing antitrust laws against google and america was doing nothing, she was accused of having an anti-american bias, which i always thought was completely unfair because honestly, what the european commission was going after was the same thing .icrosoft did

it is the same exact thing that google was doing which is taking their monopoly in one area and using it to take over other products and services and leveraging that power. i don't think there has been any bias. i had not heard that she had said it was going to be broken up. i'm assuming she things it should be regulated, though, and so far, these tech giants have shown that they cannot be regulated. factoid: an interesting i got from a bloomberg intelligence colleague. we thank you. to get yourreat expertise. thank you. still ahead, bezos' mission to the moon. the world's wealthiest man just revealed his plans to go back to the moon. this is bloomberg. ♪

caroline: finally, it's the new space race. jeff bezos made his case for going back to the moon and showed off blue origins' lunar lander. generation's job, my generation's job is to build infrastructure so you will be able to. we're going to build a road to thingsand then amazing will happen. then you will have to endorse start a company in their dorm room. that cannot happen today. : bloomberg senior executive editor brad stone attended the event. brad: it's fun, jeff bezos on inge in a small auditorium washington's convention center with a giant lunar lander as the backdrop. it's exciting. he talked about a sort of philosophy, the philosophy behind blue origins and specifically laid out a plan to get a lunar lander onto the surface of mars which kinds of -- kind of answers the challenge

put forward by vice president mike pence, asking private space companies to bring america back to the moon. mars,ne: the moon, not which notably elon musk is after. brad: there is a real differentiation between like elon musk who want to go to other planets, view mars as kind of a plan b. jeff bezos is kind of a dialogue -- kind of in a dialogue saying other planets would be horrible. afters and styles and physicists he studied under at princeton, says we need to go to a place like the moon, use the materials and manufacture -- it sounds crazy, but manufacture orbiting and rotating space habitats were millions of, maybe billions of people can live and freeing up resources on earth. hasline: virgin galactic

just tobout the aim is foster entrepreneurialism, foster a reason to think differently and think big, but is it really blue origins' ethos and focus that this is about saving humanity in the same way it is for elon musk? a it really is and there are bunch of different projects. virgin galactic has a tourism business. blue origin has a tourism business, a rocket called blue shepherd will start taking passengers in space later this year. that's about kindling enthusiasm, bringing in monday to fund the rest of the business, but then you have these long-term efforts. jeff sees the world's resources running out in a couple of generations and he thinks you need to get people off the planet into space where they can harvest the sun's energy and grow crops in these orbiting space stations that mimic raffi. way, youhat's the only get industry out there, you get

people out there. it's interesting, this sci-fi idea of planet hopping. caroline: interesting. we saw the piece of equipment he is standing in front of their. i think it is the liquid oxygen powers a rocket. quite amazing. when does he think he will get their? brad: mike pence talked about missions as soon as 2024 and this is blue origins' attempt to sort of answer that call. they talked about commercial missions as soon as 2023. they also showed off a photograph, the lunar lander with a crew capsule so astronauts can go, but this is a business where progress can be somewhat glacial, so it's going before number of years what we saw on stage today is actually in space. caroline: great that you were there. to bring us some of the energy that was in the audience. thank you. that does it for this edition of usoomberg technology." check

out on twitter and be sure to follow our global news network as well at tictoc on twitter. this is bloomberg. ♪

paul: welcome to "daybreak australia." shery ahn: i'm shery ahn of bloomberg world headquarters in new york. sophie: i'm sophie kamaruddin in singapore. we're counting down to asia's major open. ♪ paul: here are the top stories we are covering in the next hour. trade talks resumed in washington with president trump saying the deal is still possible. even so, wall street closed with a fourth straight loss