[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org ♪ i am taylor riggs in san francisco information is bloomberg tech nodge. coming up, soft wang puts together a plan that may value the co-working company below $8 billion . that is a car cry from the $47 million evaluation it had in january. plus, remember a tech giant. oracle c.e.o. mark hurd dies.

more on his life and story at oracle. making the rounds a day after telling georgetown students and vanek faculty won't police political speech, mark zuckerberg made the rounds. . rst or top story bloomberg has learned that softpa bank is putting together a financial play for wework. it may value it below $8 billion. that is far blow. it has been considering plans from different areas. joining me to discuss is a partner from manhattan ventors, and sarah mcbride who is who has been tireless on all things softbank.

what about this? >> it is even lower than expected, around $8 billion. that come pairs to around $47 billion at the start of the year. so a huge drop there in under 12 months. andrea, if you take a look at $8 billion, are we getting closer to fair value? >> i think we are. overall, something i like to onsider, being in a late venture espys, what will carry over to retail? wework has a real business, but there is still time. valuation billion something that could work with a retail i.p.o.? >> i think so. in that sense, wework is a strong player, but there is a lot of cleanup that has to be done. i think it gets a lot closer to fair value. >> sarah, with this deal with

bost bank, what do we know about the ferms? does softbank want control or not? >> well, everything is still in flux, but part of what is under discussion is preferred shares with non-voting rights. basically at this point anything is possible. they still only have two board seats, so things could go in any direction right now. >> you have been nodding your head? what do you make of that? majority owns shares and seats on the board? as you take a look at we weapon work and other companies, how important is that in terms of getting this company to the finish line? >> think they know where they can come in and save the business. but i don't think they are the type of firm to step up and say we have the experience to take

this business to the next level. with softbank's power they are going to look to identify the leadership team. >> there was a dueling offer? talk about that? putting n chase is together a group of investors. they are still shopping that around among potential investors. the advantage for wework in a debt deal is they wouldn't have to give up as much control. t wouldn't be diluted. softbank's terms would be. the thing with the jpmorgan chase package, it would take so much longer to pull together. softbank could pull the money together very quickly. that is the advantage there. >> shear chart that i am showing to our bloomberg terminal audience. we know the story. the bonds are trading down to about 84 cents on the dollar. yet that is a far cry from 30

cents to 40 cents that you normally see. when you look at the jpmorgan deal and the bonds, this 15% coupon, i know we don't know much about the price or kjeldsen, is there a sense that there is a general market appetite for a big high-yield deal like that? >> yeah, i would say so. they have found potential investors. nothing is firm yet. but just the notion of a possible deal, then wework's existing bonds were higher this week. they had been trading lower. if you price something right, you can always find a market for it. >> what are your takes on the jpmorgan competing deal? >> i think overall as we have seen in the real estate market, bondholders really do enjoy a strong real estate play. what we have to keep in mind is with bondholders, they are looking for steady income. with wework's business, if they can turn it around on a long-term strategy play, the

bond would actually perform very well. but that is it taking the bullish perspective. a lot has to happen between now and that turnaround. >> and sarah mentioneded the jpmorgan deal would take longer and the softbank deal could get done quickly. how quickly does this company need cash, and if they get it, how long can it last them? >> if they minimize a lot of the overhead with sales and marketing, the business could sustain a little longer than we were all expecting. however, they do need about $3 billion in cash going to q-1 of next we're. >> looking at softbank's side, how much of their reputation is at stake here? >> meme wonder how much this will affect the vision fund. but people forget of the more than $10 billion that softbank has invested in wework, only about $4 million comes from the vision funneled. some people exaggerate the fact

it would have on the vision fund. but overall, softbank has invested $10 billion. that is a lot of cash going into a company that has seemingly careened out of control. i think it is appropriate that they are stepping up with a plan for how to try to turn things around. they have a slate of executives that they think might be able to help run the company. it's a difficult situation for them now, but they still potentially could turn things around. >> and what is the significance that it is softbank and not the vision fund that is stepping in here? >> well, with that information, it allows the vision fund to prepare for the second fundraise they are ramping up for. i think the plans for that were a little premature. they wanted to see the returns on the portfolio. but with softbank stepping forward, it alleviates some of that burden and stress on the vehicles fund in particular. >> we were also getting news that the creative chief of

we-work, ad kimmel, is said to be resigned. at what point does it become hard for this company to retain talent if everyone keeps leaving? >> well, it is going to be very difficult for them to retain talent. but again, it offers an opportunity for them to re-invent a little bit. here is our plan for turning things around. they can turn that to an advantage as well. >> i think thisth is the story that keeps on going. thank you both. that want andrea, and sarah melbourne. thank you both for joining me. now i want to go over to mark hurd. he was the chief executive officer of three major technology companies, include, oracle, and he has passed away. oracle announced last month that hurd was taking a leave of absence for unspecified health related reasons. chairman larry ellison said hurd was a close and irreplaceable friend and a brilliant leader. mark hurd was 62. for more i want to bring in

brad stone to talk about hurd's legacy. what is hurd going to be remembered for? >> well, taylor, mark hurd has really been just an extremely visible productive c.e.o. in sal con valley really for as long as i can remember, but particularly starting in 2005 at hewlett packard where he expanded the company through acquisitions. he made it a lot smaller through lay-offs and relentless cost cutting and a tenure that was marked by some controversy. if you rethe pretexting scandal where they were trying to identify the source of leaks, and he left around a hayes of controversies around expense account improprieties. i think the legacy is really one in helping to sateri oracle from this traditional business model of selling licensed soft war to a cloud-based company that now has to compete with the likes of amazon.

>> hurd was instrumental in taking the company from the legacy business into the newer cloud model. are they set to be able to do that in his absence? >> i think so, but he was important. one, he articulated the need to move to the cloud early. in the early 2000s, larry ellison called cloud computing a fad. mark cam in and put a flag in thed ground and driven the transition. he has been the pickup face of oracle, and that is where they are going to struggle to replace him. the co-c.e.o. really operates in the background. larry elston, the chairman and the visionary, we only see him a couple of times a year. mark was the guy talking to customers, talking to us in the media. he was delivering the key notes at oracle world and i think they are going to struggle to find a rereplacement there. >> talk to me about what oracle

does here. in that september earnings statement, they highlighted they have leadership that is qualified to take this company into the next stages. ow prepared are there, given stafford katz and larry ellis who is there. how prepared are there, and frankly, do we know anymore about oracle's leadership team going forward? >> i am probably not the person to talk about that. i have heard them talk about deputies as pokes replacements. they have a recent record of suds. they hit a stock high earlier this year. the stock is up 20%. but there are some existential questions. amazon made a big fuss last week when they announce they moved the consumer business from oracle into their own cloud services. they have some vocal rivals that are creating stir in the

marketplace. where hurd was good was he could give as good as he got. now they need a chief general on this battlefield that has become cloud computing. >> bloomberg senior executive editor brad stone. thank you for joining me. we will have more when we come back. ♪

>> let's get a check on the top analyst tech calls. microsoft, the price because raised to $160 from $153, and rbc capital markets, which called the stock one of the most likely outperformers over a multi-year period.

>> shares fell friday. bank of america upgrade the stock to a buy from neutral on stronger monday tie zation trends. they have higher confidential for snap average revenue per user. the company reports quarterly results tuesday. and shares of tesla fell friday after the analyst lowered the price target to 372 from 386, saying it reflected a toning down of the optimism that was reflected in original near term estimates. the analysts expect a 2019 loss per share of $2.94. though were your top tech calls. now now ant financial, the finance giant expect credit demand among shawl and mid sighs enterprises to remain strong despite a decelerating economy. we sat down with an exclusive der view.

started by asking if deal making was in the company's future in competition. >> i think our philosophy is very straight forward. strategic. doing the portfolio company is in ine with our overall strategy. that is not our focus. we are really focusing on strategy management, number one. secondly, we are focusing on anagement. we need to finish by closing together. >> one of your key partners is pay tm, are you looking at increasing your investment there? they are looking to raise maybe $2 billion. >> i think ptm is doing well.

i am happy to to be a partner of them. if you remember, back to about five years ago when i first looked at the company, i really liked it. the founder and c.e.o. of the company, the first time i am looking at a corks actually i don't like the business of the company. liked him because he is so energetic, very passionate with a strong vision. overall i think india, the whole economy also developing very healthy and fast. ptm is in a good position to capitalize. > when do you plan to i.p.o. ant financial? >> we just did a new run. the company is very healthy in terms of cash flows.

we are happy with our overall -- the business momentum. for don't hatch any plans capital raising or for i.p.o. for now. when we have the plan, i will let you know. >> would it be realistic to think that you would be ready to pull the trigger on an i.p.o. in 2020? >> we don't have a plan right now. when the time comes, it comes, you know. we will let you know. but i think one thing to add is is an ultimate -- is not the ultimate goal of the company. it is just one stage of the company. >> that what eric jing. videogame stocks traded lower on monday. lower software sales for

consoles and hand held devices fell 12% in the last year. the analyst said the deadline was due to the launch of sony's spiderman a year ago. that was the fast eling selling first party playstation title in history. comimg up. mark zuckerberg is still out there pushing back against facebook's critics. this time he took to fox news saying there was no anti-social bias at the network. and bloomberg technology is live streaming on twitter. check you out. and follow our global breaking news network at tick to be. this is bloomberg. ♪

>> facebook c.e.o. mark zuckerberg was did having his social network, this time on

fox news. it was the same set of talking points he offered at georgetown the day before. he also continued to make the case for why facebook is involved with political advertisements. >> should we be in political adams at all or something we should block completely? you know what? from a business perspective, the controversy that all this creates is clearly not worth the very small at of our business that is paced on political adams. it is not anywhere near a big part of what we do. but the reason why i have stood up for this. adams can be an important part of voice. >> joining me to discuss, the man who hitly wrote the book on facebook. it is david kirkpatrick in new york. give me your thoughts to what you heard there about facebook being in or out of political adams? >> well, you know, one of the things that zuckerberg kept saying both in the fox interview and in his speech at georgetown yesterday was that

in a democracy the people should decide. the users of facebook, the people, should decide a they think is true and not true and they should not be sort of treated condescendingly with the company deciding for them. but in reality, the way that people, citizens, in a democracy decide what they want is by voting for politicians, who then set the laws. the thing that i feel was most missing from zuckerberg's talk and interview is the recognition that he has to work with government in order to figure out what the best way to handle these things is. he kept saying i decided, i believe. it doesn't really matter. one man shouldn't be making these decisions. >> he also said they shouldn't be in the political ad business. it is a smart portion of revenue and they don't need it for business reasons. then why are they? >> etched it it needs to be

because it is empowering for the community to have playings at all levels from the school board to the president having the ability to be on facebook. i don't disagree with that. there are many points he makes about how empowering social media and facebook in particular have been for ordinary people and politicians business, l, small et cetera that are right. everyone at all helves has more of a voice than ever-. but i don't think he is fully owning up to several things. one of them is the degree to which the only way this can properly be resolved even on an ongoing basis where it is continually being refined, is if government is at the table along with the companies. >> and you know who else is at the table, and it is china. he talked a lot about china and facebook needing to be able to take on them or else we will also lose out. react. take a listen to what he had to

say. >> china is building its own internet focus the on very different values and is now exporting their vision of the internet to other countries. until eventually, the internet has been defined by american platforms with strong free expression values. but there is no guarantee that these values win mcmurry out. is that a valid argument or is he spust speaking his book? >> it is a valid argue, and it is also very opportunistic for him to be making it. facebook came this close to launching in china a number of years ago. i think it was in 2011 when the chinese government decided after arab spring they were going to allow it. if facebook had launched in china in partnership with a local player, they would have sacrificed a lot of their

supposedly absolute values that he is now defending. he will do what is useful for his business. one of the things he is leaving out of all of these discussings is the extraordinary profits he is taking from the entire ecosystem in the midst of all these controversies. it is than walk-off the reasons why so many people are so suspicious with him and yst reputation is mud both among informed since and politicians. >> quickly here, about 209 seconds. breaking up to say big tech doesn't solve the problem. >> i am not a proponent of breaking up big tex. i am in the ruling it out as an idea, but doipt think it is the solution. good ored what, government has to get more informed and figure out what to do with the platforms by figuring out what to do with them. >> david, you will be sticking with me. coming up, we continue it talk

facebook and our look back at our week could. we will look at plans with cryptocurrency and libra. that is next. this is bloomberg. ♪ here, it all starts with a simple...

hello! -hi! how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone! [ camera clicking ] wifi up there? -ahhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your xfinity store today.

taylor: this is bloomberg technology. i'm taylor riggs. now to our weekly roundup of the top tech stories in tech, starting with wework. as we told you earlier, the startup once valued at $47 billion now looks like it is close to about $8 billion or less. this comes as another executive has jumped ship. to discuss in new york, david kirkpatrick, and max chafkin. max, $8 billion -- closer to fair value? max: fair value is whatever the end up paying for it.

i think the question people should be asking themselves is why anyone was able to talk themselves into thinking it was worth $47 billion? especially when you have a drop like this when not a whole lot changed. what is crazy to me is a lot of the things investors have sort of freaked out about retroactively where things out in the open, things in the s1. it was all there. you have to wonder was softbank kidding itself in an effort to raise money for its subsequent funds and was the rest of wework's kind of cap table going along for the ride? taylor: david, do you think $8 billion is still too much? david: it might be. i think there is a real question whether wework will be a growing concern in a year, two years. i know people who have offices in wework, significant companies

making contingency plans in case they come to work one day and find the door locked. i don't see this company having fundamentally good economics. if they don't raise the debt, they are in deep trouble. taylor: max, why does softbank appear to be throwing more money already was somewhat say bad money? max: you could say that. there is a question of throwing good money at the bad. on the other hand, they are very committed to this. they put a lot of money into wework. it is a big part of the vision fund. there is an argument to be made, notwithstanding david's concern there is the possibility if they run out of money, bolting -- the whole thing falls apart. there is an opportunity given the flexible leases to technology companies, creating these open desk environments which people seem to like -- people in wework like it. there is a real business. the question is does wework in

its effort to grow really quickly and come up with these weird financial engineering things bitten off more than they can chew? taylor: david, the last word. why would softbank want control of this company? to control their destiny? david: they are the ones that have the most at risk so they would prefer to be making the decisions. i do agree with max. it is definitely viable here, but their main competitor has more spaces than they do and has been around a long time, public company, it has a valuation of less than $5 billion. taylor: i want to switch over to netflix. another big tech earnings we were taking a look at. low expectations, earnings better-than-expected. on friday, people got nervous about competition. where does netflix fit in the midst streaming wars? max: the issue with netflix, they have a huge user

base, but they have been spending enormous amount of money acquiring content. it is a two-part concert. one is has has there been overinvestment in the content bubble? are people overpaying for these original series? and then the risk of viewer fatigue. we are about to see disney launch a service. apple is launching a thing. these are big marketing machines that will inevitably take customers and mind share away from netflix. then, you start asking did we pay too much for some random show season three, whatever? cultured of very spendy and maybe they went too far. taylor: david, as you take a look at the landscape, is it a zero-sum game? can netflix survive with disney and apple tv coming fast? david: i don't think it is at all zero-sum because people

watch so much video. for those of us like myself, baby boomer, disney seems like a great brent, but netflix is probably a better brand than disney. everybody knows they make terrific content. they probably will have a lot less pricing flexibility as the competition increases. their growth could be hurt. the main growth is happening outside the developed countries like so many tech companies and that is a big opportunity. taylor: max, i pivot to libra which is facebook's cryptocurrency.earlier this week , seven big members of the founding association pulled out, but they got the deal signed with 21 members. what are the biggest hurdles that remain for libra as you look out forward? max: so many hurdles. this thing is pretty much -- they did form the association, so in theory, it is separate from facebook. it is able to design this

cryptocurrency and work with regulators. regulators have serious concerns about this because there is the risk -- and i think it is a really extremely modest risk -- that libra could supplant the u.s. dollar, euro. basically allow the libra association, which in effect is facebook, to control a huge part of the economy. that is going to be scary for all sorts of powerful people. taylor: david, your thoughts on zuckerberg's testimony wednesday which could be centered around libra. any thoughts on what could or could not go right? david: it will not go well. i think he is making a gigantic mistake thinking he could somehow go to the house financial services committee and convince them that libra is a good idea. they are not going to think that after his testimony. he has boxed himself in by saying he will not launch it without the regulatory approval in the u.s. and europe,

which some people think he might launch it in vietnam or colombia and eventually bring it here. honestly, i have often thought in recent weeks that libra was completely dead. i don't think that is out of the question. i don't think it has a strong argument on its behalf. i can tell you congresspeople do not like it. taylor: david, the final word. what is facebook going into side projects like libra instead of sticking to their core business? david: somebody made an interesting point to me today. one of their core beliefs is virtual reality is one of the things they will be doing in the future. it will be global interaction. if they want to do commerce in global systems, they need currencies that someone in the u.s. could pay to somebody in nigeria or vice versa. we should have such currencies. i just don't think the world wants them to provide it. taylor: bloomberg's max chafkin and a very smart insightful

david kirkpatrick. thank you both for joining me. coming up, he cofounded facebook. now he is trying to rein in his co-creation. we hear from chris hughes next. this is bloomberg. ♪

taylor: the cofounder of facebook is once again weighing in on the regulation of big tech. this time, he is bringing a former lawmaker with him. societyghes, an open executive director tom perez , is spearheading a fund. they spoke to alix steel and david westin on friday. >> what we are seeing is rare bipartisan consensus that corporations have gotten too

large, too big and that concentration is affecting everyday americans. specifically because those corporations bend the rules of how it works. what we are trying to do with fund is move $10 million over the course of the next year and a half into research, organizing, advocacy, storytellers who elevate this conversation. particular is a broad term. it encompasses antitrust work but it also encompasses regulation. a good example is the problems with big tech. i'm on the record for thinking that facebook should be broken up and separated. i also don't think that is enough. we need regulation that guarantees interoperability, data portability, basic privacy and security. all of that is about raining and the power of the big corporations. that is why we call it antimonopoly because the problem is that big. david: is it an economic problem or a social democratic problem,

because those are two different issues and they could have two different solutions. the antitrust has been aimed at economic issues, not social issues. tom: the antitrust was really cut in half because initially it was both about trying to ensure competition and protect consumers. from the 1980's forward, it focused on the consumer part but not the competition part. that has been a great expense of small businesses and spurred a lot of the geographical consolidation as well into fewer and fewer cities where jobs are concentrated be you do see this remembering of a great bipartisan american tradition of competition but it is -- david: part of the reason that shift was made was because it gave some sort of a mooring to the judges' decisions. if it was economics, you could have numbers to look at. then, it is just up to the judge and how they feel on a

particular day. tom: i don't think the issue of competition is a not economic issue. i think allowing the wal marts to emerge has had some positive effect for the consumer in the short-term, but it has real economic considerations in terms of consolidation on a geographic level. i think you are also seeing this bipartisan support for attorneys general and others because there is something about this question about people's sovereignty to determine their future. david: what is the most effective form of regulation if there is to be regulation? you talk about breaking up facebook. i spoke to tom steyer and he thinks regulation would not work because you have to regulate it like the utility. "if you believe breaking them up would result in all the same people going back to the one place where they started, government regulation the way a public utility does." chris: i don't think that is quite right. because i was there for the founding of facebook, we saw a

robust competition between facebook, myspace, twitter, live journal. the list goes on. this is not like the electable grid or pipes where there is only so much space and once you invest in the infrastructure, you have to have a natural monopoly that needs to be regulated. this is more akin to what we have seen across other industries in the past. now to your question you are getting at before about the harms. i think antitrust law in particular has been completely narrowed into this view of consumers and largely prices. that has been a big barrier to talk about facebook or some of these other companies. the long arc of antitrust law is about all kinds of harms. what are the harms that big tech and other big companies are doing to the economy? first, price concerns. second, rates of entrepreneurship in the country are near all-time lows. third, productivity rates are much lower than they should be.

and maybe most importantly is the question of power, political power. we live in a moment right now where large corporations are setting the agenda in washington and completely erasing the voices of everyday people. and, americans are tired of it. alix: have you talked to mark zuckerberg about it? chris: i have not talked to him. alix: how would your view be different if you had a seat still on facebook and you were running a big company? what would you think? chris: i would say we need the same things. after i wrote the piece, a lot of people asking what do you think mark zuckerberg should do? i said to them and i would say today, the problem is not what mark zuckerberg should do. we have been so accustomed to think about how corporations can solve our problems. the response ability is on government. it is on the department of justice, ftc, state attorneys general. we now have virtually every branch of government that could

be bringing oversight. j, statee, do attorneys general stepping up to the plate to take action and say enough is enough. david: to what extent to breaking up as opposed to a behavioral one? we have the head of the antitrust division come out and say in the microsoft instance when the justice department brought a lawsuit, that was behavioral and he said that that encourage entrepreneurial ship. can behavioral remedies solve this problem? tom: i think this antimonopoly fund is looking at a full range of solutions. we are looking at policymakers -- there is some litigation element. breakup i think you are seeing some of the loudest voices of concern coming from small business owners who are seeing a google or amazon would have an enormous effect on their business and even squash it based on where they appear on an algorithm. they don't think that is fair.

ownersf small business that call up the representatives, republican or democrat, and say something here is not right in the marketplace. people want fairness. they want fairness of competition. they want transparency. and behavior could be part of that. alix: this goes to the broader issue of privacy. mark zuckerberg yesterday gave a speech talking about free speech, standing behind that and why we needed to protect it. mark: i understand the concerns that people have about how tech platforms have centralized power. but, i actually believe the much bigger story is how much these platforms have decentralized power by putting it directly into people's hands. i certainly worry about an erosion of truth, i don't think most people want to live in a world where you can only post things that tech companies judged to be 100% true. alix: what is your reaction in that if you are big and have the power and you have free speech,

it is a huge move forward? chris: with power comes response ability. he set up a false dichotomy. it is either facebook's policy today or china's authoritarian regime. i'm sorry, there is a lot in the middle and we can do better. there has been a lot of talk about freedom of speech on facebook and other platforms. no one is saying you should not be able to share opinion no matter how off-the-wall it may be yourself. the question is whether or not facebook or any other platform on the internet should amplify that opinion and give you an audience of hundreds, thousands, or many cases, tens of thousands. in my view, when a politician says something that has been fact checked as a live or when folks peddle false information about critical health care things like vaccination, it is the platform's responsibility not to amplify those messages. we have other platforms doing a better job. pinterest allows users to

express their opinions. it is not the largest left form but they are pioneering the way. yet, they don't use their algorithmic tools or display it in search results to make sure the false information does not travel across the platform. the idea it has to be one or the other is a false choice. there is a response ability of the platforms to step up and do a better job. david: the great orwellian moment a few months ago by facebook where they said we are not a media company, we should not therefore be held accountable. they want to be essentially a monopoly on all media information in the world, while not being held to the standards of a media company we would hold to this network or any other. tom: i think the problem when you get that monopoly consolidation, particularly across different sectors of the economy, is what should the rules be? whether it is behavioral or ethical codes or legal codes. again, something that in earlier

eras we saw and great leaders stepped up and broke up some of those trusts. that helped produce some of the great economic benefits of the 20th century. taylor: that was chris hughes, facebook co-founder, and tom perriello. the chase for hollywood's best binge worthy continues continues with south park. nexthe cartoon can be the $500 million bet for streaming services next. this is bloomberg. ♪

taylor: the chief executive officer of the biggest u.s. bank among doubters of facebook's efforts to create a cryptocurrency. jamie dimon had this to say on friday. jamie: it is a neat idea that will never happen. i have nothing else to say about it. [laughter] stablewe already have

coin. taylor: that was jp morgan ceo jamie dimon. now, south park is the latest beneficiary of hollywood's rerun mania. the show's creators and media giant viacom expects $450 million to $500 million by selling the streaming rights to the animated comedy. to discuss, i am joined by lucas shaw. $500 million, are you crazy? lucas: we have never seen a market for reruns that i can remember like this just four years ago, 2015, hulu paid between $150 million and $200 million for the rights show south park for five years. now in 2019, that price has more than doubled to almost $500 million. the simple explanation is back then you just had hulu, amazon and netflix. a lot of the reruns would air on basic cable. now you have so many streaming services. hbo max from at&t.

apple plus. you add that to the three big streamers we talked about and there is a lot of buyers. only a small pool of shows that are seen as really mattering. friends, the office, seinfeld -- these shows get $500 billion. lots of other shows will not get that same level of commitment. south park is a unique title. taylor: the strategy is to build up to a library to compete with netflix, right? lucas: i think the idea is you want something that a lot of people will come and watch. either the reason they sign up for the birthplace, although that is usually originals. or other shows that will keep them watching in between and that is where a lot of the reruns come in. if you have a show like friends, the west wing, or south park -- they are in their 23rd season, more than 300 episodes. if you include that in the hbo max, maybe you bring it in with the latest hbo hit. instead of leaving to go to

netflix, they can stay there and watch south park for hours on end. taylor: what is the biggest payoff for the streaming companies? investing in original content or paying $500 million for a rerun? lucas: they say originals. that is why you see netflix and it strategy switch from doing bulk deals for old library to than funneling that into new products. if you want to sign up customers, you need originals to do that. reruns are not super useful for bringing in new people. you don't walk down the street and say you should sign up for this service, they have friends. friends is available on a lot of places. reruns are useful for the in between moments. what netflix has said is most of its users alternate between a show and a movie and they are trying to essentially replace cable with a couple of streaming services and cable has both new shows and reruns. if you want to offer a full experience, you are going to mix new big hits with the new ones

-- old ones. taylor: remind us quickly, who are the big streaming companies vying for the shows? lucas: with south park, it sounds like the biggest bidders are probably hbo max, peacock, which is comcast. hulu which currently has the rights. maybe amazon. i am told netflix is not bidding. netflix is the biggest streaming service of them all and did pay for seinfeld, losing both friends and the office. all of these companies are having to pick and choose. the prices so high, you cannot have everything. taylor: thank you to lucas shaw in los angeles. that does it for this edition of bloomberg technology. bloomberg technology is livestreaming on twitter. check us out. be sure to follow our global breaking news network, tictoc, on twitter. this is bloomberg. ♪ devices are like doorways

that could allow hackers into your home. and like all doors, they're safer when locked. that's why you need xfinity xfi. with the xfi gateway, devices connected to your homes wifi are protected. which helps keep people outside from accessing your passwords, credit cards and cameras. and people inside from accidentally visiting sites that aren't secure. and if someone trys we'll let you know. xfi advanced security. if it's connected, it's protected. call, click, or visit a store today.

david: why do you think some people do not believe there is such a thing as climate change? bill: they must not have taken enough science courses or something. david: if you met with president trump, you could convince him on paris to maybe come back in or is that beyond your capabilities to do that? bill: someone else should do that. david: are you worried about the power of a.i. to disrupt our civilization, put people out of work? bill: the increased productivity that will come out of a.i. will create dilemmas. >> will you fix your time please? david: people would