thousands of mattresses to those in need. live healthier, live happier, by resting deeper. get 15% off and two free pillows. go to leesa.com today! ♪ ♪ taylor: i am taylor riggs in new york for emily chang. this is "bloomberg technology." morgan stanley announces its worst-case scenario for tesla shares, just $10, around concerns for chinese demand an electric car market saturation. and u.s. granted a 90 day reprieve for some american companies relying on huawei equipment, but china vanke --

vows to retaliate. and, they are one of the most powerful and wealthy families in south korea. we discussed the current intrigue behind samsung's chairman and his heir. but first, our top story. analysts at morgan stanley are pumping the brakes on tesla, slashing the worst-case price to just $10. the analysts said demand was at the heart of the problem. shares were lower most of today, closing about unchanged for the day. joining me to discuss this bump on the road is colin rush of upper heimer -- oppenheimer, as well as max chafkin of bloomberg businessweek. max, a few hours since the news. what worst-case scenario is that?

max: the worst-case scenario, probably elon musk brought this up, that tesla could die for some terrible reason, either because it failed to deliver cars or because the terrible short-sellers kill it, or whatever. he laid out all these threats. i think what's happening right now, tesla is a stock that's very polarizing, a company that's very polarizing. there is this amazing upside scenario where it takes over the entire automotive industry and eats personal transportation as we know it. and there's also the downside scenario, because really they have two successful cars, and a lot of big plans, and we don't yet know where those will wind up. taylor: colin, i believe you have an outperform. walk me through your downside risks, and your bear case scenario. risk thee any downside analysts at morgan stanley are seeing? colin: i have not seen that

note, and it seems a little hyperbolic, or dramatic to make that call, especially given the history with the stock. that said, what is really at stake right now is simple metrics. one, how many cars are they making and selling, and what margin are they getting on each of those cars? what we can see over the next couple quarters, a company selling well in the u.s. and europe. china, we'll see how things go, especially with the tariffs discussion. but the average selling price holding up at a reasonable level, allowing them to generate reasonable cash margin on the cars. noises an awful lot of around the organization, and folks are looking at arguments they made previously because the charts aren't looking attractive right now. taylor: when you talk about cash generation, we have to address the path to profitability, something elon musk at the end of last year said he really wanted to achieve this year, and

really every quarter going forward. do you see that at risk? ? for later on this yearc? colin: we aren't super concerned. we think the level of $35,000 on cash cost for model 3, the average selling price for those vehicles will be about $50,000, so there's a healthy margin there. and at volume, you are easily getting over the hurdles on a quarterly basis. is, what we're looking at the need to drive costs down, and they are taking the steps they need to get down that path over the next two years to get the cost metrics down to the mid-$20,000 for the model 3 to remain profitable over the long term. taylor: you talked about having two successful cars, but do you see enough demand? especially with what is going on in china. they have to be successful in china to meet those targets. max: and not just china.

tesla has taken it almost on faith that this car will have a lot of demand, and some of that is earned. llin indicated, this is a very successful car almost any way you slice it, but tesla doesn't have the marketing experience that other big car companies have. we're talking about a new kind of product. so there has been this assumption that tesla is the iphone and will change everything, and if it does it will be a huge business, worth much more then it is today. but if it doesn't, that is a pretty big ask, and it might not pan out. taylor: i went to ask you about another analyst who came out with a note this week, saying one of the biggest risks is they have to raise about one billion to $2 billion at the end of this year, which dilutes everyone else involved in put pressure on the valuation, and they are concerned about the ability to raise cash.

are you concerned that if tesla has to tap the debt or equity markets that they might not be able to? colin: at this point you have $40 billion of market cap on the organization, an awful lot of market cap to go out and raise capital. that said, we are convinced they need to raise additional money. we are looking at in terms of vehicles, pretty healthy gross margins generating a fair amount of cash in the second half. i think the company alluded to that in any number of calls and documents, and the recent cash raise was largely driven by working capital needs and investments they want to make in the autonomous. taylor: we just closed at about $205. we talked about downside risk. what is the upside potential? colin: he simple upside is that they keep making cars and people continue to buy them at a healthy rate, which is what we are seeing right now. and the second layer is really,

can they migrate from the e.v. market to the autonomous market, and there's question marks around that, but our model is about them being able to sell electric vehicles at a successful rate. we see that at this point. taylor: max, in terms of competition, a lotg of other companies. ford trying to compete. who is the biggest competition? max: on autonomous vehicles, it is wide open. we don't know what the products, the demand will look like.that is one reason for skepticism . one reason people have been freaking out the last couple weeks, there was a sudden pivot toward autonomy that makes you scratch your head a bit and ask, what is happening with the business generating the cash? is that troubled? and because autonomy is very much a question mark. taylor: thank you for joining us. great conversation. max chafkin, you will be

sticking with us. employee activism has arrived at amazon.com, with an employee back to check climate change -- employee backed climate change agenda on the resolution for -- agenda for the shareholder meeting. it would call for amazon to write a public report detailing how it is preparing for climate related disruptions and plans to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. amazon opposes the resolution, citing ongoing efforts to reduce the amount of packaging they shipped as well as investment in alternative energy. coming up, china pledging unwavering resolve to fight what it calls u.s. bullying. we discussed the nation's reaction to the ban on huawei next. and you can listen to bloomberg radio on the bloomberg app, bloomberg.com and in the u.s. on sirius xm. this is bloomberg. ♪

>> trade is the pinnacle of something much bigger. >> reordering the global trade system. >> things are not moving the right way. >> more antagonism. >> escalation of trade tariffs. >> getting more and more difficult to pull out of this. >> it adds a little volatility and uncertainty. >> the trade war is one thing. huawei to me is a protection move. >> the cold war of tech is another. >> we aren't just attacking a company. we are attacking the chinese government to some extent. >> this indicates the tensions will continue for the foreseeable future. orthis is a five-year 10 year story, not a five-minute story. taylor: the trump administration held off on blacklisting huawei, on worries

it could affect trade negotiations with china. once trade talks broke down, there was a scramble to implement the measures. we are joined by our guest, as well as max chafkin of businessweek. nick, let's start with you. the reprieve for 90 days after the band on friday. what strategy was that? just to give suppliers time, or was there a bigger story? nick: in part, that was really aimed at google, and its relationship with huawei. but it is the broader pattern you have seen from this administration, where they announce a very tough line strategy, a set of tactics that really boxes in u.s. companies that work with the company, country affected, and then a little bit of a rollback. so i believe what happened in this case, the e.o. came out

essentially blacklisting huawei, and then you started to see aftershocks of that. the disruption to the supply chain. just an enormous earthquake that may have surprised the administration a little bit. not in terms of what it wanted to achieve, but the effects on american companies the government would a stencil he support. so you see a little bit of a rollback, a little bit of an effort to give american companies some breathing space to adjust to what was a major, major move, and frankly a huge surprise to the market. taylor: heart of that major move, max, with all your reporting, a concern of is this national security issue. what is your take? max: for just -- or just pure politics? it could be all three. small u.s.zte, the telecom company that the u.s.

went after in similar fashion last year, both present a long-term economic risk to the united states, because they compete with big american tech companies that employ lots and lots of people, and there is a theoretical security risk, which is that somehow the chinese government could spy on communications. we should say, number one that these companies deny this, and number two, similar allegations have been made about big american companies. remember the snowden revelations. so you have this kind of legitimate fear, combined with legitimate competitive issues, and on top of that is incredibly volatile political situation. that's kind of where we are. the thing is,m it is potentially very bad for huawei, but also very bad for many of the big american tech companies that depend on access to chinese markets. if this hostility situation continues, it will be super bad

for apple, and potentially quite bad butite as pre-bad for american chipmakers selling to huawei. taylor: some of them have revised guidance down, and have agreed to go along with the u.s. and not cell components to huawei. but beyond that, are we seeing larger calls that this isn't the right move? max: i think for the chipmakers, it is complicated. huawei is both a major buyer of chips, but also a long-term competitor. when you look at who threatens a company like qualcomm or intel the most, it is something like huawei. because huawei has these huge missions to make their own chips, and big ambitions to be totally vertically integrated. so in a way, huawei is a partner but also a competitor, so it is a little bit of good with bad. i think if you are sitting in the shoes of an american chipmaker, it is not great, but not a disaster either. taylor: nick, from your perspective in d.c., what is

china's response? we woke up this morning with a very nationalistic china, that fight song going viral overnight. how does china respond? nick: as max indicated, they deny the humanly -- vehemently that huawei is under the thumb of the chinese government. they say huawei is an established, well-respected company globally, and countries and companies around the world should use its hardware. the u.s. administration view on the other hand is, listen, huawei might say it is independent, you could have a debate about that, but the fact it gets heavy subsidies from the chinese government and is also bound by chinese law, where regardless of whether it wants to help the chinese government it can be compelled to turn over information and turnover access, to basically do whatever the chinese government wants. ok, we areay,

extensively independent but in a system where the chinese government and communist party has almost total control. so that's the debate. on the other hand, huawei has already made itself crucial and really integrated itself into networks around the world. africa, for example. many, many countries are heavily reliant on huawei's networking infrastructure, its systems, its hardware. so pulling that out would be enormously difficult. the u.s. is focusing on having that debate with europe, where it sees the big battleground now, stopping european nations from signing these contracts, european companies from signing these contracts with huawei and avoiding what happened in other places like africa, as 5g comes out. taylor: you heard how nick was talking about how it is so integrated, especially when it comes to 5g infrastructure. i read a quote earlier, like bombing a building and having to rebuild it from the ground, getting huawei out of 5g in u.s.

and europe and getting the replacement, such a difficult task.is it better to do that by an if it delays 5g couple years, rather than have some concerns we have when it comes to huawei and 5g technology? max: so in terms of what has been happening in the u.s., we should probably say, there has been a defective ban -- de facto ban on certain huawei equipment for years. major carriers don't buy huawei routers, because that has been a government concern. the buyers of that have been some tiny rural characters, the ones who are upset about this. whereas at&t,, it is not that big of a deal. the bigger deal is in europe, and in the rest of the world, particularly in europe, where 5g is important and there are these big digital industries. countries including england,

germany, decided years ago that it was fine to do business with huawei, over our objections, and now the u.s. government is trying to say, hey, you need to reconsider that. taylor: a story that is not going away. we know that for sure. thank you for joining me. coming up, it is all about the future of t-mobile and sprint. that merger hangs in the balance. why the u.s. department of justice and the fcc disagree on the deal, next. this is bloomberg. ♪

taker: t-mobile's bid to over sprint hit another roadblock, after the agencies reviewing the deal appeared split. the fcc chairman ajit pai announced support of the merger, but bloomberg then reported the department of justice was leaning against approval. withe quinn sat down senior researcher craig moffett

earlier to discuss. craig: the basis for the decision at doj is somewhat different than fcc. the sec is taking a more subjective public interest test and decided yesterday that this is in a public interest. but the doj takes a much more structuralist view of, will this hurt or help consumers? the usual test, will it raise prices? formalistico take a view of near-term, particularly price competition. vonnie: yet it is unusual for the fcc and doj to disagree, so it would seem there is something strange,. craig: it is different than the process we saw in the past, but historically we have usually seen the doj first, sort of first, sort of the alpha dog signaling in the transaction. this case was a little different. ofy notified the fcc

changes in the deal structure, selling off the prepaid boost brand as a way to ameliorate some concerns over the weekend, and therefore reached an accord with the fcc yesterday. but the doj needs time to review that, which will take a few days. but they are very different mandates at the fcc and doj, so it is conceivable the doj could find this is not good for competition, even though the fcc found it generally in the public interest. vonnie: are there odds you can place on this? craig: they probably went up a little yesterday, but not nearly as much as the stock might suggest. the fcc was never the biggest hurdle. everybody knew the fcc was ultimately going to bless this. the real question now is not just the doj, but what do the state's attorney generals do?

this is becoming an incredibly politicized, partisan process, just like every thing else in our country right now. the fact the fcc decision will almost certainly be 3-2 along party lines, three republicans against two democrats, polarizes this, makes it even more partisan, and makes it more likely the blue state attorney generals will say, if the republicans won't protect consumers, we will. the press release almost writes itself. vonnie: obviously the blue state attorney general's would be trying to work in the public interest and have that in their favor. but if we go down the road and this doesn't happen, sprint, they may need to file for and there would not be a fourth carrier, so it would be a pyrrhic victory? don't completely agree

with you. these term of art in circles and doesn't apply to companies were chapter 11 is an option, only companies where chapter seven liquidation is the only alternative. in this case, sprint almost certainly wouldn't be liquidated, but would restructure, and there are some in washington who say that would be the best thing to ever happen to consumers if sprint would finally restructure and emerge with a clear balance sheet and be able to invest or potentially be acquired by someone else who would invest. so the doj tends not to take those kinds of things into consideration. they will clearly say that our job is not to protect bondholders. our job is to protect consumers. vonnie: i want to point out you one a sell on sprint, buy t-mobile. one of your neutrals, dish. a massive drop yesterday, bouncing back today. is the idea that they have no

one to sell to? greg: not so much that they would sell themselves, but sell some spectrum that they own.it is a somewhat simplistic but probably correct view, that if the sprint-t-mobile deal is rejected, t-mobile would need to buy mid band spectrum, and right now the list of mid band spectrum buyers is mostly just verizon, verizon and verizon. woulding a second bidder be good for the valuation of spectrum even if dish did not sell it and would probably flatter dish's valuation. if the deal is approved, t-mobile has all the mid band spectrum it needs through the sprint acquisition, and verizon has a number of potential, albeit maybe longer-term sources dish is left on the island. that is why dish has gyrated so much. taylor: that was senior research analyst craig moffett. coming up, u.s. stocks advance in the face of a tit-for-tat

with china, and tech stocks rebound as the administration provided limited relief for customers and carriers doing business with huawei. we discussed broader implications for the corporate world next. this is bloomberg. ♪

taylor: this is bloomberg technology. i'm taylor riggs. let's turn to the ongoing trade war. nike and adidas among 173 companies that signed an open letter to president trump saying "tariffs on shoes made on china would be catastrophic for consumers, companies and the american economy." bloomberg has been looking at who pays the cost of an escalating trade war. the oecd this morning cut the global for cost as trade tensions to crisis level. here's what lawrence boone had to say earlier. >> growth has weakened.

it's now quite weak. there has been trade tensions and we think that trade has derailed the global recovery that has been going on since 2017. taylor: for more, let's go to san francisco where the head of international affairs of the u.s. chamber of commerce is with us. great to have you. before we get into the broader story about the trade, i want to touch on a little bit of the news in the last few days about the huawei ban. from your side of the room over there at the chamber of commerce, what is your take on the huawei ban? is that the right approach? myron: good to be on the show. i'm in california because i am talking to the technology companies out here about the china tension with the u.s. and huawei factors into that. a lot of u.s. companies sell into huawei.

it is an important company. it operates in over 100 countries. over 180,000 employees. it raises legitimate concerns about security issues. we need to keep issues with respect to huawei separate from the commercial trade talks between china and the u.s. what i am saying is at the end of the day, we are very concerned about the overall environment between china and the united states, but we should not be surprised that our government is taking a close look at huawei's operations and how it impacts our security concerns. taylor: i like that you said to separate the national security concerns relative to everything else, so let's go to everything else. we were talking about companies like adidas and nike that have started to come out and say we are concerned about the effect this is having on consumers. what other companies are you talking to that are also highlighting these concerns? myron: those are good members of

the u.s. chamber. a day$2 billion of trade between china and the united states. a huge economic relationship. the two largest economic players in the global economy. of course, what happens between china and the united states matters and we are concerned about tariffs because they are a tax on consumers and tax on manufacturers. the escalation of trade tensions between china in the united states could put our economy -- hurt our economy and china's economy. let's take a step back and recognize why we are here. we are here because china conducts unfair trade practices. it does not protect intellectual property rights. it does not allow for level playing field when it comes to market access. a host of other legitimate issues that the initiation is trying to tackle. i think we have to remember we need a trade agreement that is a high standard, comprehensive one. we do favor trying to address

these issues in a bilateral relationship. it is something we will continue to push with the u.s. and chinese government. taylor: what is the right tactic then? you have said you don't necessarily support tariffs, but you are aligned in some ways with the trumpet of initiation to tackle some of the issues you have highlighted like electoral property theft. what is the right approach then? myron: i think there is a multitude of things that can be done and are being done. we need to bring our allies into the picture. europe and japan share our concern. they need to be a part of the strategy. we need to look at ways we can address these issues in a competition away, but a way that is pragmatic. we need a trade agreement which wing china and the united states because both countries needed. we need to put this relationship on a more stable footing. a more positive trajectory.

there is a huge amount of distrust in the relationship. that is not good for the united states or china. at the same time, the underlying tensions have to do with having a competitive environment where there is a level playing field. i think we need to think about how to do that in the context of these talks. i'm hopeful the talks will get back on track. i don't think that will really happen until president xi and president trump meet at the end of june during the g20 meeting. it is very important we bring the temperatures down as the two sides resume talking. taylor: you talk about bringing the temperature down and i want to ask how tense does it feel relative to previous discussions we have had in the last couple of months, last few decades? myron: i have met with top administration officials and the vice premier during these negotiations. i will tell you that we all thought a deal was likely on may

10. they were 90% on the way there. the last 10% is the hardest part. what do you do with tariffs in place? we have seen an escalation with a tariff hike. we also have to recognize that china has to come to the table in a meaningful way. backsliding or whatever china did with respect to the issues in the text. a 150-page text. these agreements have to be enforceable, verifiable. i think it was right the administration was pressing for reform under chinese law. i hope we can get back to the table in the weeks ahead. i hope the two presidents will set the right tone for constructive talks, but we are at an impasse right now. both china and the u.s. are going to find it very difficult with the escalation of tensions. at the end of the day, this is

too big of a relationship to fail. we need to see these two governments get back to the table for the interest of both of the countries, the economy and the global economy. taylor: when you say that these two countries need to come back to the table, a lot of that has to be a give and take. from the companies you speak to on the ground in the u.s., what do they need to see from china in terms of concessions to make sure there is a playing field -- level playing field? myron: as i sat at the outset, we need to the greater intellectual property protection in the area of copyrights. we need to see the end of forced technology transfer. part of that was done through the investment law that china recently put together but more needs to be done. we would like to see a restructuring of china's economy. we want to see the end of subsidies and tax preferences go away that favor local, state owned companies over foreign

competitors. there is a lot of areas we need to see addressed. the administration has been clear they want a big deal in terms of purchasing. those issues are still on the table and we are making progress, but now with the escalation, i'm afraid both sides are sitting on the sideline when they need to find a way to get back to the table and have serious, pragmatic conversations. there's going to have to be blinking on both sides. we have a very high-stakes poker game going on at that is not in the interest of either country. i think china has more to lose here because the tariffs will hit them harder, but it will hit both of our countries. i'm hopeful we will get there eventually. it will take some time. taylor: that is something we hear from economists as well about both countries being hit hard. thank you, myron brilliant. caught up with vonnie quinn earlier today and

weighed in on the global impasse of the trade fight. kyle: the mission is to promote stability and try to maintain this agreement that has existed between hong kong, the hong kong dollar and u.s. dollar for 36 years. i lay out the case for the fact their economy has changed dramatically over the last decade. what is happening now in the political front with china asserting a little more control over the hong kong judiciary, i.e., taking away their economy but pushing through this fugitive tradition bill -- all of the things are changing the nature of hong kong as a global financial center. i think that investors need to be aware of these things because the people that maintain the hong kong monetary authority, they will never tell you it is vulnerable. i think it is very important that the global investor thinks about where you are investing your capital.

is there a rule of law? is there property ownership? is your money safe? to the extent you have a communist, authoritarian government infringing on your rights and potentially extraditing people at there will in order to promote some political agenda, i think that changes the complexion of the agreements the u.s. and britain have with hong kong. vonnie: that is the thing because there is the hong kong monetary authority, but in this case, there is also the pboc. why would beijing kill the golden goose that has been laying a golden egg for the last 36 years? most recently when it came under pressure, beijing or somebody intervened. important to it is understand that china had built up a war chest of fx reserves that got to about $4 trillion. $3t has since come down to

trillion. if you look at the outflow data, even though china is not admitting to it, with think the numbers are closer to $2 trillion. in an economy as large as there's, you have to keep growing the reserve balance to interact with the world. china is desperately short with energy, food, basic materials. they have to pay dollars. we talk about china being the world's greatest economic power and engine of economic power. gdp, if 15% of global you convert the dollars -- less than 1% of cross-border currency transactions actually settle in the chinese currency. there is this huge anomaly that exists where china is desperately short dollars. then, that moves into hong kong and so china's house is on fire and you are telling me they will lend a few fire trucks to hong kong. the problem is the construct of

the system and currency flows in asia. taylor: that was kyle bass. facingup, tax bill samsung and who may end up in charge of the tech giant. this is bloomberg. ♪

taylor: the u.s. postal service is experiencing with self driving trucks starting tuesday. trucks run by an autonomous startup will haul mail between phoenix and dallas. the trucks will complete five roundtrips between the postal centers with a safety engineer and driver on board. after two weeks, the postal service will assess whether to continue. the startup has raised $170 million in funding since 2015

and has been carrying cargo in arizona since last year. bloomberg businessweek's upcoming money issue turns its attention on samsung's 77-year-old chairman who has been incapacitated since the 2014 heart attack. heirs are worried they can get estateh a $7 billion tax. our editor joins me now. this was a fascinating story. talk to me about the chairman who we think would pass in a few years or so and what happens with this family and all of that tax bill money. >> he is incapacited. the company says he is in stable condition but people in career are watching because the lee family controls the samsung conglomerate and one of the most powerful families in korea. he has a wealth of about $15

billion. there is a lot of money but the interesting about south korea is south korea has one of the biggest estate taxes in the western world. they take a pretty big chunk and that is where the $7 billion comes from. taylor: talk about that a little bit because $7 billion seems like a ton of money, but then you look at a company like samsung, $30 billion in profits annually. how big of a deal is that $7 billion tax bill? pat: it is really not about the money as it is about what did you have to do to come up with that $7 billion? $7 million in different financial assets. the samsung conglomerate is like a web of a lot of different companies. ownsxample, lee kun-hee less than 5% of samsung electronics. the way he has control is through this kind of web of different companies and also by having a lot of influence

throughout korea. when you have to upset the balance by potentially liquidating assets, selling things in order to pay a tax bill, that can through the family that is in control into doubt. taylor: any idea what would be sold? pat: we don't know that. it is a foggy situation. this is always a complex political situation and we will have to see what happens when it happens. all eyes are on his son who has had a difficult few years. taylor: talk to me about that because he is really the key player. when the chairman passes away, his son emerges as a prominent figure. he might not have the political influence has father had. pat: we talked about the soft power, a little bit of this company and that company and you are connecting these different strands of a company. he spent some time in jail

recently and was released early. a case having to do with bribery and corruption which had to do with an attempt to merge two samsung affiliates and get government approval. he's appealing those charges, but at the same time, the family is just very divisive in korea and it is becoming a hot political issue. will they be allowed to continue to control this large business empire? taylor: so fascinating. that was's pat. here more from the magazine's editors and reporters every saturday and sunday mornings on bloomberg television. still ahead, tech startup people a.i. is transforming how many companies market their products. a tech giantas like microsoft? this is bloomberg. ♪

taylor: closing the deal can be

a make or break moment for a sales team, but one startup they be able to help. people a.i. has created a platform that captures customer data and provides guidance to help sales teams save time on manual work and close more deals. the company has already attracted top tech clients like lyft and today it is announcing $60 million in new funding. joining us from san francisco to discuss is people a.i. cl and founder oleg. thank you for joining us and congratulations on the new funding run. what are you going to use the new money for? >> hi, taylor. the new funding we are going to use is to build more of the a.i. technologies we have been using to date. just to go back into what people.ai does, companies use artificial intelligence to supercharge their sales teams. so, we have been growing really fast.

500% last year and we are seeing a lot of global demand. the new funding is to address the demand from enterprise companies all over the world to use our technology, build new features, hire more engineers and build out a partnership platform for global systems integrators to deploy. taylor: talk to me about some of the customers you target. you are working with companies like zoom and lyft. how do you differentiate yourself from some of the competitors out there to remain cutting edge and attract those top customers? oleg: absolutely. the biggest draw for companies like zoom and lyft to what people.ai does is two parts. our product delivers productivity of how people operate. we free up about one to two days per week for every salesperson back on their calendar. the new products we announced

which we call the copilot whispers into people's ears what to do next. the next best action they can be taking. this used to be one of the first customers of ours and zoom joined afterwards. zoom reported our software has increased the productivity by 44% just a few months after we deployed the software. taylor: being productive obviously is a good thing. i want to play devils advocate because you talk about using this a.i. technology can save a salesperson 30% of their time so they can focus on other things. there has been a lot of conversations about tech and robots taking people's jobs. make the case for why you are not taking their jobs, but freeing them up to do better things. oleg: we believe salespeople will still be needed to do sales. true sales is about building a

face-to-face relationship with your client. robots are far away from being able to build a relationship between you and me. the way we look at artificial intelligence is about augmenting people. it is about giving them superpowers. people.ai is looking to provide people with an ability to focus on what drives results instead of having to deal with all the admin work or deciding who to call on next. taylor: a very competitive space. we know companies like microsoft and oracle and salesforce are coming out with their own a.i. products. how are you going up against bigger competition? oleg: we are following a playbook. people.ai that how we work with other companies, we make them better. for example, adobe customers really benefit from all the context from sales give

communications. salesforce, we make them better by delivering this real-time sales activity and data into what they provide for their customers. it is a mutually beneficial relationship with all large players and customer relationships. taylor: we talk about some of the customers. i want to talk about some of the investors. some pretty well done investors putting money into your company. i imagine they are happy with the top line revenue growth. any path to profitability? any pressure to go public? we hear a lot about these tech ipos this year. oleg: we are focused on growing a healthy, independent, long-lasting company. right now, we are focused on executing on demand we are getting from large enterprises across the globe. that is what the funding is for. where it takes us, we don't know yet, but right now it is about

growth and execution. taylor: thank you, that was people.ai ceo and founder oleg. thank you for joining us. apple has launched the fastest macbook ever. it introduced an updated macbook pro tuesday with intel processors, bringing 8 core to the processes to the laptop for the first time. it will deliver 40% faster performance. the company announced it change to the material used in its keyboard and extending its repair program after users complained about sticky keys. that does it for this edition of bloomberg technology. we are livestreaming on twitter. check us out and be sure to follow our global breaking news network, tictoc, on twitter. thanks for joining. this is bloomberg. ♪

at comcast, we didn't build the nation's largest gig-speed network just to make businesses run faster. we built it to help them go beyond. because beyond risk... welcome to the neighborhood, guys. there is reward. ♪ ♪ beyond work and life... who else could he be? there is the moment. beyond technology... there is human ingenuity.

♪ ♪ every day, comcast business is helping businesses go beyond the expected, to do the extraordinary. take your business beyond. paul: welcome to daybreak australia. i am paul allen in sydney. shery: i'm shery ahn new york. sophie: i'm sophie kamaruddin in hong kong. we are counting down asia's major markets open. ♪ paul: here are the top stories we are covering. wall street recovers as investors welcomed an apparent truce in the trade war. chip stocks bounce back from a 4% plunge but the pressure is still on. huawei says it has a range of answers to president trump's