♪ emily: i'm emily chang, and this is the "best of bloomberg technology," where we bring you all our top interviews from this week in tech. coming up, after its rocky debut, uber reports its first earning results as a public company. is the ride-hailing giant really on a path to profitability? plus, alibaba is considering a megadeal that will bring china's largest company to investors on its home turf. we've got the details on a potential second public listing. and facebook shareholders pressed for more checks on ceo mark zuckerberg's power. we will bring you highlights from his annual investor

meeting. first, to our top story, uber, the biggest ipo of the year, has had a bumpy start to public life. investors remain concerned about the size of the ride-hailing market, the reality of self-driving cars, and taking on another risky asset amid a worsening u.s.-china trade dispute. the ride-hailer gave insights into its growth, reporting first-quarter results thursday. dan ives, managing director for wedbush securities and bloomberg intelligence's mandeep singh joined me shortly after they came out. dan: right now for investors, the focus is on growth, take rates, and bookings. the last thing you want to do is back yourself into a corner, talk about profitability levers. it's going to take a few years. right now, they're doing the right things. i view this as a step in the right direction, especially after what's been a shaky start since the ipo. emily: mandeep, what is your take on this continued level of losses?

announcer: and the cfo saying this will be an investment year, they will continue to invest. mandeep: and you know where they are investing. they're investing in the food delivery business. that is where they're heavily subsidizing the drivers. that is why the rates are coming down. you can see the reason why. the average prices for food delivery business is much higher. you can scale it up over time and that is the one that is the most fragmented. even amazon invested in a company and so you know the end market is big and that is what they're striving for here. emily: dan, what is your assessment of uber's ability to get to profitability? and you know, i asked him on the floor of the new york stock exchange, if this was the peak pending year as list on the earnings call, and he wouldn't commit to that. so how likely do you think it is

that uber gets to profitability in the near term? dan: i think that's the smart move, because when you look at lyft, that's maybe something they regret saying because it markupt puts that in terms of what they can do from a profitability perspective. and right now, uber is doubling down. they need to invest. not only do they need to invest in uber eats and autonomous, but in the next two to three years, there's a better chance of me playing for the golden state warriors than them hitting profitability. so i think, in the next two or three years, that's off the table. if you look at five years, it will be more realistic in terms of where they could hit. right now, the focus is on growth and especially on international, putting a fence around their backyard and making sure that the 90 to 100 million users continues to ramp and they monetize, especially on eats. emily: alright, so, i won't be seeing you in the nba finals

tonight, dan. you just broke my heart. but mandeep did say on the call that marketing expenses were going to start to go down. that's presumably welcome news given that both lyft and uber have been spending heavily to attract new riders. mandeep: yeah, and he called out the rationality of the pricing in the u.s. markets. so basically lyft and uber are not subsidizing the riders anymore. i still feel they're subsidizing the drivers. that's why uber's take rates are coming up. it makes sense, right? it's a duopoly. when you look at this kind of structure of online travel and booking.com and expedia, over time it will pay off in the sense that these guys at least can maintain stable take rates in the core ridesharing business. emily: so, dan, what are you looking for over the current quarter, which they didn't give a forecast for? what's next? dan: i think it's important on the call that they did talk about take rates and other metrics they expect to improve

throughout the year. right now, it really comes down to the take rate number. can that spike back up? what bookings looks like the second half of the year? do they monetize eats? and when you look at eats, especially with grubhub, door dash and others, there is a lot of competition in terms of pressure on take rates. if they can manifest and sort of get through this period, it's an execution story. and no doubt it's in the penalty box, the stock out of the ipo. investors will grapple with the valuation, especially with no profitability even with binoculars. we believe if they execute some of the parts in the hundred billion plus valuation, you start to get a stock that maybe gets re-rated there when you look out the next three to four years. it comes down to execution. this is why this was such an important quarter. the next few quarters will be

laser focused on the street. emily: dan, i'm looking at a chart here that looks at short interest for the biggest and most recent ipos. the short interest in lyft is way higher than the short interest in uber. what do you make of that? dan: well, i think lyft, right away, because of domestic ridesharing situation, made it an easier target, as well as the timing with uber coming out. they shot themselves in the foot a little on the first calling call, not giving take rates and not giving bookings. the shorts have essentially smelled blood in the water and that's why you're seeing that. i do think that's overdone. i think lyft has improved some of the communication, at least with investors over the last weeks. no doubt lyft is in the investor penalty box, and i think that will be one the next few quarters, they need to prove themselves for the short to cover, which is why they're so much more focused on lyft and uber, at least where we are today. emily: that was dan ives, managing director at wedbush securities and mandeep singh with bloomberg intelligence. coming up, special counsel

robert mueller leaves u.s. citizens with a foreboding warning about systematic efforts to interfere in the 2016 u.s. election, and tech was their weapon. how well prepared are we to prevent it from happening again? and if you like bloomberg news, check us out on the radio, listen on the app at , bloomberg.com, and in the u.s. on sirius xm. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ emily: on wednesday, u.s. special counsel robert mueller broke his silence about the russia investigation. perhaps the most telling statement, he said if he and other investigators had confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, they would have said so. before stepping away from the podium, mueller also had one last important message about russian interference in the 2016 election via social media. robert: and i will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments, that there were multiple systematic efforts to interfere in our election.

and that allegation deserves the attention of every american. emily: jason casey, chief technology officer of securities scorecard and bloomberg's shannon pettypiece joined us in washington for a reaction. shannon: there wasn't much new in this press conference. he basically gave a five-minute or so summary of his report. but the visuals and hearing it directly from him i think has really sort of shaken things up in washington, especially among democrats. we've seen really a renewed call or increased call from democrats to begin impeachment hearings. and i think just the visual that you can now play on tv and on bloomberg tv, cable news and on the evening news of mueller in his own words saying these things that if the president didn't commit a crime and i had confidence in that, i would say so, saying he was bound by justice department rules not to indict a sitting president. so it was something he couldn't

even consider. and again, using this platform to remind people that despite what the president has said about this investigation being a hoax and witchhunt and a politically motivated action here, that it was at the core about russian interference in our election and trying to raise that issue again and questions about how prepared we are. so i think that while there wasn't a lot of news here, it is making waves in washington and i think it is going to get democrats catalyzing around the "i" word, impeachment, here. emily: so let's take a look at that, jason. facebook took down more accounts tied to iran, not russia, but however the social network and other big tech companies have tried to make various changes to prevent these things from happening again, but even they have said it is an arms race and it's hard to keep up. how well-prepared are we from preventing the kind of interference we saw in 2016 from happening in the upcoming elections? jason: sure. so, there really are two parts

to what was going on before. one was the targeted hacking and extraction of information. and the second was using the social media platforms as an amplifier to distribute the disinformation. what we typically find is larger organizations are better prepared than smaller organizations to defend against that first part, the extraction of information. where things don't seem to be going that great is -- how do we get in front and flag disinformation faster and prevent the amplification and social media from taking effect? there really are those two key points, right? an organization can run better defense and prevent episodes from happening like in 2016, but there still is that process of once information gets out and can be used in a systematic way from a social media perspective, there really is an amplifier effect that is quite a bit different and it gets more into disinformation campaigns than actually targeted hacking. emily: now, shannon, some of the details of the russian interference was among what was redacted from the mueller

report. do we have any more indication about what could be under those black lines and whether or not the public will ever see it? shannon: well, i certainly don't have any indication what's under the black lines. now, congress is seeking to get more of those redactions lifted to try and seek some of the that unredacted information. the president last week gave the attorney general authority to declassify certain information around this investigation and use his discretion. so, it's possible we could see more. but the reason it was probably redacted in the first place was because there was a long conversation about how it could compromise intelligence sources and methods, and those arguments will probably still be in place whether it's congress or the president who wants to make the

that information public.

i think there is a lot we will not know and it's a reminder that this robert mueller report only gives us a small window into all the information that the intelligence community has collected. this is not all the information that robert mueller has that's in his report. it's essentially a summary of it and we're only seeing a few pieces of the puzzle. emily: jason, i want to ask your opinion on what you think the responsibility of some of the tech companies should be, whether it's facebook or twitter or youtube, for example. there's this doctored video of nancy pelosi that was taken down and others have not taken it down. facebook has flagged the video. instead, do you think these companies are doing enough to stop misinformation, if that is what you would call this video, and if not, are you concerned that they will not necessarily make some of the tough choices that might be needed to prevent this kind of inference from happening again? jason: i think in this particular situation right now,

facebook is claiming satire in terms of why they didn't bring it down. i do think the social media platforms actually do have a greater responsibility. they, rightly or wrongly, are the amplification platform of communicating information to the masses, both in the u.s. and most of the western world. what they're doing right now is clearly not enough. what level need to go to is honestly not a simple and easy question. like, there are legitimate arguments around protection of satire for reasons of protecting free speech. with that said, like, clearly we can do better than we're doing right now, and having platforms that amplify the message of national adversaries is not in the goodwill or objective of any of us. emily: shannon, the president tweeted today, "nothing changes from the mueller report. there was insufficient evidence and therefore in our country, a person is innocent. the case is closed! thank you." what happens next? this is certainly not the last we're going to be hearing about the robert mueller report. shannon: i think the ball is in the democrats' court now as to how much further they want to pursue investigations into the president's time in office if they want to begin formal impeachment hearings. so, i think the democrats, this is something they have to figure out and solve amongst themselves as a caucus, and nancy pelosi is probably going to be the key decision-maker on that. from the white house perspective, i think now the white house has to be on the defense. they're going to have to try to control the message. they're going to try to repeat this no collusion and let's move on, case closed, let's investigate the investigators. so those are the the talking points of where they go from here, trying to undercut this investigation by looking into the origins of the investigation and sort of create a side narrative here. and how it plays out politically

for the president, the democrats pursue impeachment or not, i think it's still unclear. everyone looks back to what happened with clinton and the republicans. the republicans suffered big losses and clinton saw his popularity go up during his impeachment. but remember, republicans took the white house in the next election with george w. bush. so i think it's all up in the air right now and there's a lot that things can go down from here on out. emily: bloomberg's shannon pettypiece and jason casey technology officer of securityscorecard there. coming up, facebook investors are pushing for change at the top after a cascade of scandals. we will tell you what happened at facebook's annual shareholder meeting. and still ahead, following its record-breaking ipo in 2014, alibaba is considering a second listing in hong kong. we'll discuss. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ emily: at this year's facebook shareholder meeting, half of the eight shareholder proposals called for changes at the top, amidst numerous scandals and controversies. bloomberg's kurt wagner and shira ovide joining me to talk about what happened and the challenges that lies ahead. kurt: i spoke to some people who were in the room. i was not in the room, but they said it was tense. they said it was sober. i think you could tell by the

questions that were asked and the statements that people made that there are a lot of angry people at facebook and a lot of people who want to have more or better answers from mark zuckerberg and sheryl sandberg. emily: now, shira, investors asked zuckerberg several times about the amount of power he holds over the company. there was one who asked a follow-up saying something on the lines of -- i'm asking if you should still be ceo or if you should step down, and he said, we are limiting it to one question. moving on. what do you make of -- obviously these proposals were rejected , we expected him to be rejected, but also the evasive nature of the answers? shira: in a way, facebook is kind of in a no-win situation right now, that everybody is furious at them or a whole host of sins. one of the people who stood up to ask a question was asking why facebook has banned her small business that sells hoodie sweatshirts that read, "men are trash." right? so it was that level of

shareholder questioning from should mark zuckerberg be a dictator over facebook and why are you blocking my hoodie business? that just shows you the scope of anger at facebook right now from the sublime to the ridiculous. emily: there was one investor who tried to ask the independent board member on facebook's board what she thought of this whole thing. she also sort of deflected. tell us about it. kurt: they also had to bring her up to answer the question. she was not on the stage at that point. they had to make this whole special thing, we want to ask sue a question. let's bring sue up. and the question was about, hey, you're the lead independent chair -- are you going to call a meeting of independent board members without mark zuckerberg there? is that something you would ever do? would you consider trying to hold him to account by may be making decisions while he is not around? she basically said no and was pretty pointed about it. she said this isn't something we are considering. we're very happy with the structure as it is right now. we feel this is the appropriate set up. emily: meantime, well, if she

wanted to, could she limit his power? kurt: they say, as the independent chair, she would be the only person who he really kind of has to report to. there are rules in the proxy that say she can call a special these special meetings of the independent board. but again, she said she doesn't want to and doesn't plan to. so, for all intents and purposes, he kind of has the run of the show. emily: meanwhile, mark zuckerberg did answer many questions, including continued questions about counts as speech that should stay up, what should come down. take a listen to one of his answers there. mark: if the rules for the internet were getting rewritten from scratch today, i don't think that most people would want private companies to be making so many decisions by themselves about what constitutes acceptable speech or what people are allowed to say around elections or especially in different countries around the world where we may operate but may not even have a large physical presence.

emily: this as controversy continues to swirl around this doctored video of house speaker nancy pelosi that facebook has chosen to leave on the platform. youtube has decided to take it down. now, nancy pelosi herself has commented on this. she said this to kqed earlier. speaker pelosi: facebook knows that this is false. they know this is false and yet they have decided. now we have said all along, oh poor facebook was unwittingly exploited by the russians, i think wittingly. they're willing to put something on they know to be false. emily: shira, what do you make of that? nancy pelosi coming out swinging. shira: yeah, it's harsh and may be unfair, but i can understand her anger. there's a doctored video of her that's been seen millions of , look, thecebook and

company did do things to sort of make sure that it got slightly less distribution in people's newsfeeds and made sure to put a little tag on it that said there is more information about this video and linked to third-party articles that said this is a doctored video. it's false. obviously millions of people have seen it and some people have chosen to believe it. i think pelosi is reacting to that episode that embarrassed her. emily: kurt, what do you make of the fact that this is the issue that facebook is digging its heels in on? this is the piece of content that facebook is saying, you know what, we know that it's doctored, but it doesn't truly violate our policies. kurt: i said this last week, and this is a good reminder that facebook's policy actually does not mean they take stuff down because it's fake. right? this happens all the time. this is just a very high-profile example, so it is getting a lot more attention.

when facebook does take stuff a down, it is because the people who posted it might be misleading who they are. they're pretending to be in the united states but are really in russia and stuff like that. they don't take it down because it's inaccurate. so this was just a high-profile example and reminder of that policy, and there is a lot of people who realize, wait, this policy may not be as great as we think because now it involves nancy pelosi. emily: also, it brings the question, is it simply too much to expect? is it impossible for facebook to be the arbiter of truth for everything on its platform? kurt: yeah, i think it is. you think about, there are are 2.4 billion people on facebook monthly users. you know, argue going to stop you going to stop every person who says this guy is red? are you going to stop anyone who mispeaks or shares a stat that is a little wrong? i just don't think that it's a feasible task right now and they certainly don't want the responsibility of doing it and that's why they're asking the government to step in and help out. emily: meanwhile, a billboard went up in san francisco from elizabeth warren saying break up big tech. text us if you want to join our

fight. of course, facebook isn't the only company that she's talking about, shira. but they are able to throw this up in the heart of silicon valley. of people their poor over coffee with elizabeth warren talking about breaking up big tech, her campaign knows what it's doing to get attention. you're right. facebook is not the only company that's part of her policy paper about breaking up tech and amazon is a prominent example, apple and others. this is not a facebook specific kind of target. emily: given that facebook is such a large platform and, in a way, because of all the content that is on there, should they be? should they be in the position of being the arbiters of truth, even if we believe it's possible

the way that facebook is architected right now, and if facebook were smaller and smaller parts, would it be a more realistic proposition? shira: i'm not sure. i think breakup facebook has become this catchall solution to this problem of facebook, any problem of facebook. and i'm not sure it solves the problems that people are articulating. if facebook gets broken up into baby bells, into instagram and whatsapp and facebook, you still have multiple internet hangouts with more than one billion users apiece that are still going to have to make these difficult content decisions. i'm not sure it gets much easier dealing with individual companies with a billion plus users as opposed to one company with multiple products. emily: bloomberg's kurt wagner and shira ovide. coming up, it was one of the biggest u.s. tech ipos ever and now hong kong is getting a second chance to land alibaba's second listing.

we will hear from hong kong exchange chief executive charles li. and bloomberg tech is livestreaming on twitter. you can check us out, and be sure to follow our global breaking news network tictoc on twitter. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: welcome back to "best of bloomberg technology." i'm emily chang. alibaba is said to be continuing a $20 billion share sale in hong kong. this follows the record-breaking ipo in new york in 2014. the news coming as tensions between the u.s. and china escalates, leaving chinese companies grappling with how to deal with an increasingly hostile u.s. government. the megadeal would bring china closer to investors at home. elizabeth: what we know is alibaba is looking at applying for permission to file this ipo later this year. obviously, this sort of a big coup for hong kong after missing out on that initial ipo five

years ago, the biggest one ever. this is their opportunity to win back their national treasure of a company. emily: how much if anything does this have to do with trade tensions between the u.s. and china? elizabeth: the timing is really interesting. this is being called a trade war ipo. there definitely seems to be some element of that that people think this is an unattractive time to look for domestic investors, those kind of investors that use this company every day, unlike american investors, who could start turning away from chinese investments. the other thing here in the timing is that the hong kong stock exchange has changed its listing rules around these companies that have multiple share classes, the type we see from tech companies. they started doing that after they lost out on alibaba the first time around, had this long period of consultation, and now it is allowed. it has opened up the market to companies like this to start

looking therefore listings. emily: alibaba shares have taken a dive over the past six weeks or so. can we attribute that to trade tensions? elizabeth: it is hard to tell. these tech stocks are always first to get hit when there is market uncertainty. and the trade war certainly doesn't help. over the last five years, this has become a huge company and way up based on when they went public. so overall, a big success. emily: so what is next? what steps could alibaba be taking that we will be looking for toward making a final decision about this listing? elizabeth: one of the big things we will be looking to report next is the bank mandates around this, who they will be getting, and how things are going in terms of conversations with local investors and the demand they are looking at. if we are looking at the second half of this year for them to start this process, they are

going in at a very busy time for these tech listings. we had uber and lyft, not so successful, and there are still a slew of companies expected to come to market. this is joining the big march of tech companies looking to raise additional money from investors. emily: sophie kamaruddin caught up with charles li to talk about their courtship of alibaba. charles: i am happy if this report is indeed correct, that they are planning to come. but, you know, if they do come, it is not a surprise to us because i have said, when you travel far, you will come home. everybody does that. that doesn't mean that you give up your home, your new home. so i am sure it is going to come back and keep whatever they are doing in new york and other

places, and they will be coming back to asia. they could be here or they could be shanghai or shenzhen. shanghai has a new tech board. so we are very happy that they are coming back and we will be very happy for whatever decisions they make. sophie: the news around alibaba's potential secondary listing in hong kong comes as a trade war is escalating between the u.s. and china. are you assessing your strategy in light of this? charles: obviously, this trade war is a global event. it will affect all of us in very deep ways. so nobody likes it. we are all watching on the sidelines, praying that this divorce is not to take hold and maybe there are ways to scale it back. we will have to to see. sophie: what messages are you hearing from potential issuers when it comes to reviewing their ipo plans in hong kong or

elsewhere? charles: everyone is looking at this and asking the question, what does this impact me? how does this impact me? so this not only about ipo's, it is about a company, investment, even somebody that just wants to start a business, is this the time to do it? and should i wait? the uncertainty that this has created is very costly to the entire economy. i think that the political leaders really need to take the responsibility, quickly define what is really wanted. if you want a, we can probably agree. if you want b, it is probably hard, but we can work on it. if you want something fundamentally that you know is unacceptable to the other side, then we are going through a divorce and go into a civil and peaceful process to allow

everybody to still get on with their lives. sophie: the sector has been a -- the biotech sector has been a key focus of part of the rebound with the stock market rules. we have seen pre-revenue terms come to hong what are you getting for those changes going forward? charles: we had 10 listings and raising $35 billion. we are already the second largest biotech market globally, and we have another 10 in the pipelines. but the key here is that we are launching this very important chapter in our market where a huge population is aging. this is the area i see tremendous opportunity, but i am also quite worried that there are also attempts to say that this u.s.-china conflict should also somehow spill over to this particular sector, which would be really ill-conceived.

because unlike trade, manufacturing, technology, you could argue that the rights of china could mean the decline of the market, employment, military security, national security, technology advancement. i am not saying i agree with that, but i could see the reasonable argument. but in biotech, before you are american, european, asian, we are humans. we all want to be healthy. we don't want to get sick. , we wantave a disease the disease discovered and cured. so there is only one enemy. there is no enemy between us. there is one common enemy, disease. emily: that was charles li, hong kong exchange chief executive. coming up, one company raised $2.5 billion for two new funds. we will meet with scott kuper to

talk about the future and his new book. and later, a galaxy far, far away just got a lot closer. we will take you inside the debut of disney's star wars land. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: it is a firm that started shaking up silicon valley after its founding in 2009, scott kuper of andreessen horowitz has become a big individual at the powerhouse. it has invested in companies like lyft, airbnb, facebook live, coinbase and now kuper is out with a new book. he joined us to discuss the current vc landscape. scott: it is good in the sense that there is a tremendous amount of capital. it is easier than ever to get seed capital. at the same time, you have this

funny dynamic that companies are staying private longer so you have a huge amount of seed capital, and then an enormous amount of capital going into these later rounds. last year, 70% of the funds went into rounds that were $100 million or greater. so in that respect, it is healthy and a good place to be. emily: venture capital is investing in disruptors, and for a long time was never disrupted itself. now you see venture capital firms trying to reinvent themselves. how do you see the traditional model being disrupted in the future? can the way vc exists today exist in the future? scott: you are right. if you look at the first 30 to 45 years the big thing that , happened over the last 10 years is we had this introduction of seed firms and it is hard to underestimate how much that change the competitive dynamic, because you have a whole new set of investors

coming into play before venture capital firms. this has forced traditional venture capital firms to figure out, what other than money can we provide? money is no longer scarce or a differentiator, so there has to be something else. emily: are you worried about a softbank that comes in with $100 million? scott: softbank was a party of one a couple of years ago and now there are others playing in that space. we have sovereign wealth funds, private equity firms. the industry has to worry about is do something other than provide capital. capital is no longer a scarce resource. it is basically a commodity, so for venture to survive, it has to evolve and figure out what other than capital can offer. emily: so how does andreasen horowitz continued to differentiate itself, continue to be disruptors? scott: we have about 160 people today and about 100 work with our company's post-investment, everything from marketing to sales to business opportunities. look, then we have to think about across the lifecycle for

companies. one of the funds we raised was a later stage funds that allows more emphasis as they go through later and larger advancing cycles. emily: you look across the pipeline in the early stage to the public market. we are in the middle of a lot of volatility, a trade war, a lot of tech companies going public. you were an investor in lyft, and you have airbnb and slack coming soon. are you worried about your companies exiting now? scott: i think the ipo market is healthy. some companies have not performed as well as we would like, but if you talk to institutional investors like black rock, fidelity, there is a scarcity of growth in public markets and where you can find growth that is reasonable, there is a lot of demand for that. even though you see some companies have not done well, a lot of the software companies have done extremely well and we

think that reflects the core demand. emily: i was interviewing the uber ceo on the day of the ipo, which is also the day the trade war ramped up. are you urging companies to stay on their path or take a look at the environment? maybe now is not a good time? scott: you always have to look at the environment. as i said, i think the fundamental demand for ipo's and growth-related stocks is there. if the companies are ready and feel like they can perform, this is a fine time for them to go. it is the case that there is more of a preference for software-based companies that have better lines of sight and visibility, even if they are growing at a slower rate than others. people have to be mindful about cash consumption and make sure they know what the street is looking for. emily: there is discussion we are in the middle of a tech cold war with china. would you agree? scott: i don't think we are in a

cold war now, that there is certainly a lot of stuff that is challenging. we were involved and it is very hard for u.s. companies to take non-u.s. capitol in, particularly from china. we have been on record that i do not think that is a good thing. right now, we are still in the early stages. the impact on the industry and entrepreneurship is there. i do not think it is good policy over the long-term. emily: are you worried about u.s. competitiveness? scott: i am. we have talked about this. i think capital is free-flowing and entrepreneurship is free-flowing. as a country, we have been a beneficiary of being a hub for venture capital activity. 20 years ago, 90% was in the u.s. today it is 50% and the pie has gotten bigger. a policy perspective that does not encourage entrepreneurship, i don't think that is good. emily: there have been increasing voices for big tech to be broken up.

andreasen horowitz has connections to facebook. facebook isn't the only company we are talking about. elizabeth warren. do you think there is something to this argument that some of these companies are too big, facebook, amazon, alphabet? scott: it is definitely interesting from a political perspective that there is a lot of activity going on. you see it both from the people running for the presidential elections and people in the administration. the ftc is very active. the big thing we need to take away from this is we have to recognize that the impact of technology is felt in many ways that sometimes in silicon valley we do not appreciate, and we as an industry have to do a better job connecting with regulators and figuring out if we can have rational regulations that allows entrepreneurship to thrive, but also people feel there is a level playing field. emily: does that mean breaking up or not? scott: i don't have a position, quite frankly. i will leave that to the regulators. it means we have to do more than we have done historically. we have always been lucky in the sense that we have been able to live in our own hermetically sealed bubble, not a financial

bubble, here in the silicon valley. the reality is these technologies are impacting people in different ways and we have to appreciate the greater responsibility that comes with that. emily: where are we going to see andreasen horowitz put this new money? you say you are looking at companies that are just heading there escape velocity? scott: we have two funds. one is focused on early-stage companies, which we have always done. the second will be later stage venture, companies that might have $10 million, $20 million, $30 million of revenue but are still not thinking about going public in the near term. you will see us do things like make a recent investment in a company called carta, where these companies have enough of the business model working and now they need more capital to expand. emily: the secrets of sandhill road, what are some of the top secrets that entrepreneurs need to know? and how do we make sure that all different kinds of people know the secrets as well? scott: that is exactly why we wanted to write the book. there is no question i think

there is still too much information asymmetry in this business. you have certainly talked about the work you have done as well. so my hope with the book is we open that up and help people understand how does the vc business work, what does it mean to pitch vc? how do you live with and work with vc's? my hope is that encourages more entrepreneurship, not just in terms of gender and ethnicity, but also geographic diversity and away we have not seen a way we have not seen before. emily: scott kuper, managing partner of andreessen horowitz. still ahead, as global smartphone sales continue to slow, apple is betting on its first handheld to make a comeback. why the company is rolling out a new ipod touch. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: apple has unveiled its first updated ipod touch in four

years. the new model will cost $199 and support new services, including apple tv plus and apple arcade for games. the ipod was an instant hit when it came out in 2001, but has been overshadowed by the iphone. bloomberg's mark gurman joined us with the details. mark: we are ahead of the annual worldwide developers' conference. every time they come out with a major new ios release, the software that runs on these devices, it occasionally loses some compatibility with some devices. the ipod touch not updated since 2015 is prime for that because it has older components and older processor. now they are adding the chip from the iphone 7 that came out three years ago, basically extending the lifecycle and lifespan of the ipod touch another few years, and making it compatible with the next software update this year. emily: who is in the market for an ipod touch? you think, just get an iphone or ipad. who wants to buy an ipod touch? mark: what you are seeing is

some parents putting him in -- them in christmas stockings of their kids. this is in many respects an entry-level ios device for kids who might not want or need a cellular plan. of course it is much cheaper. the iphone x costs $1000. this is $200, so it is 1/5 of the price. if you are in the android ecosystem in terms of your phone and you want ios as a secondary device, an ipod touch is something you might be looking at. if you want something like an ipad but is pocketable. someone who wants to use it as a digital camera, likewise. these are really big in enterprise. a lot of stores are using them as point-of-sale devices. so there is a market for this device, and it makes sense that apple would update it, but not too much. they are not doing much other than swapping out the processor, which naturally makes it compatible with services they have been rolling out over the

past several months. emily: i stuff my stockings with bubblegum, but ok. how does this fit into apple's broader content and services push? mark: the ipod touch is the cheapest way to subscribe for apple services. that is what they are pushing this thing as and positioning it if you go on their website, their marketing and pr copy is all about the services, which makes sense given what we have seen lately. they have talked about the prices of the augmented reality device. the processor on the previous version of the ipod from 2015 was not fast enough. but other than that, you are not seeing a big update. this is basically unlocking that device. you can do all the stuff you can already do on the iphone or an ipad. emily: we have got wwdc coming up next week and you reported on a lot of things we expect apple to unveil.

what are you looking ahead towards for the event itself? mark: it should be action-packed. i am expecting big updates to the watch os and the os that run s on the ipad and the mac. the big entree will be unlocking ipad apps for the imac. they will now be able to port them to a mac. look for twitter, netflix, facebook to get into the apple ecosystem for the first time, or for the first time in a while. the apple watch will become more independent. that is a big theme driving the app store to the watch, a big move for consumers and developers looking for additional exposure. on the iphone side, i don't think it will be a significant update, but there will be lots of tweaks around the system, hitting on the wish lists of some consumers that you can see online. and the ipad will get an update

to make it more compatible with pro features. what you saw them do last year was amazing. the ipad pro is one of the best tablets you can buy. the software has been behind and they are going to fix that. emily: it is a galaxy now not so far, far away. disney unveiled its wildly anticipated star wars, galaxy edge theme park in california. the 14-acre project has officially opened to the public. bloomberg's ed ludlow got an early look inside. ed: the newest addition may not be in a galaxy far, far away, but standing in the first full-size millennium falcon ever built, it feels like it. it is called star wars galaxies edge, and has two main attractions, one is centered

around the millennial falcon. the ride allows riders to pilot the craft and man guns to attempt to smuggle goods across the galaxy. later this year, they will open rise of the resistance, which will mimic a fight with the first order. it will open by the end of 2019. fans can build their own lightsaber or droid. neither come cheap. the lightsaber is $200 and the droid, $100. galaxy's edge is disney's biggest ever park expansion and the park segment accounts for more than 40% of disney's overall revenue and it is becoming more important at a time that disney's those profitable business, tv, is losing viewership. disney invested $4 billion across parks in 2018. i spoke to the chairman and he said investors should expect that kind of investment to continue.

>> walt disney said disneyland will never be complete as long as there is imagination left in the world. you couple that with walt disney imagineering. i suspect this is a new high watermark but it certainly is not the end. it is just the beginning. ed: disney bought lucasfilms for almost $4 billion. the gross receipts from the films closed with almost $5 billion. disney hopes the galaxy's edge park would drive more merchandise. the star wars franchise has had less traction in key markets like asia and specifically, china. reservations for the land in california sold out in two hours. bloomberg expects the force to be strong with disney, particularly when they report third-quarter revenues in august. news,low, bloomberg anaheim, california. emily: that does it for this edition of the "best of bloomberg technology." you can tune in every day, 5:00 p.m. new york, 2:00 p.m. san francisco. we are livestreaming on twitter.

check us out at technology and be sure to follow our global news network tictoc. 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.

jonathan: pimco investment management is one of the most influential bond houses in the world. they have five key drivers that have insight on five key drops i could disrupt the global market, and their offices in newport beach, california, we have the privilege of sitting down with the ceo, manny -- manny: we are making sure we have the results and a plan. jonathan: and cio dan ivascyn. dan: by far our interest is in credit markets. it is related to corporate risk. jonathan: the equity markets are cratering, that credit market is arguably seizing up, and pretty