♪ >> i am brad stone in san francisco. this is bloomberg technology. coming up, battle of the billionaires. elon musk strikes out against einhorn. plus, streaming services like etflix are coming for you. tactics being considered to cut

down on account sharing. and, antitrust allegations. an online merchant accuses amazon of using expensive the just six to move good, a tactic that could be driving up consumer prices, but first to our top story. one of tesla's detractors just got twitter burned by elon musk. after he lashed out, the tesla chief offered him to take a tour on the company's facilities. to discuss, dana hull joins us. give us a little of the backstory. >> this has been a long-running attle. every quarter he puts out an investor letter and e line loves this, looks for this and sent a tweet expressing sympathies.

>> tesla's stock is on a tear, 40% over the last month. >> they have to explain to investors how they got the third-quarter wrong. tesla stunned everybody with a rofit. now they've got upcoming product launches. >> maybe i'm remembering something that happened earlier, but didn't elon musk signoff twitter? like monday or tuesday? >> last friday he said he was taking a break. it is important to know that einhorn has clapped back. he responded and said i will take your offer of a tour of facilities. let's start in buffalo. buffalo is where tesla builds ts solar panels. it's been a huge controversy , how he state of new york much tax money went into that,

the state of new york just wrote down the value of the investment ast month. >> how likely is that to happen? >> we should all go to buffalo, but i think it is just like testosterone fueled. >> you said elon musk vice to njoy harassing the shorts? haven't they gotten ur7bd his collar over the years? >> i think he enjoys it when he can burn them. they have the ability to shape perception, you talk about urning the shorts, he is offering to send them again. this is sport for him. >> einhorn basically said we will see. e linked to a website that seems to be chronicling eli's exaggerations. who gets the last word? >> tesla had this amazing quarter.

what does the fourth quarter look like? how are sales in the u.s.? >> thank you for joining us. a coalition that includes netflix and cable titans, is going to crack down on password sharing. it's a loophole that could be costing them billions. to discuss the measures they're considering taken, we're joined by lucas shaw. a great article by your colleague gerry smith about this topic. talk to us about account sharing and how big of a hit is it for netflix and cable companies? >> it costs the tv business somewhere between $5 billion in $10 billion. if you think about netflix, there are estimates that at least 10% of users are using someone's password. you do the math and you are looking at billions of dollars in just netflix alone.

pay tv feels the same where you have young people using their parent's subscriptions of using their friends'. >> the challenge here is fixing this in a way that is consumer friendly so you're not asking customers to enter in their passwords every day or every week. what are the techniques available to these companies were they don't end up harassing eople? >> a couple of the techniques are making you change your password pretty regularly to make sure friends cannot just store the password. i have a password to someone else's service that i've had for years and it has not changed. if they changed it regularly, i might not be able to access it anymore. they also talked about two-factor identification, so in addition to the password you need a text message to your

phone so only the person with that phone could use it. there are extreme measures like using your fingerprint that would be cumbersome for the user. netflix, they see an account they think is violating, they'll send an email saying, is this really your account? a gentle reminder that you're breaking the rules. >> i remember a couple years ago reed hastings said password sharing is something they have to live with because there are so much legitimate sharing. has netflix changed its tune? >> they have been fairly onsistent in that they don't -- they want to judge newsers to not share the password but they don't want to upset users, they want to expose their shows to as many people as possible so more people will come back and eventually someone who is sharing will sign on. but netflix reached a point in

certain markets, especially in the u.s., where their growth is slowing and they can squeeze out extra growth if they go after people who are sharing. >> to what extent will this push people to using illegal methods? >> i think it's a big risk in other countries and to some extent of the u.s. ou have seen it drop in places -- you've seen piracy tend to drop in places where paid video services like netflix are popular. one substitutes for the other, you're getting a good service with lots of tv shows, whereas piracy remains high in markets across the asian pacific and latin america. if they get too extreme you could see a spike because if there's a new popular show, "game of thrones" has ended, it was one of the most pirated shows in the world, but there'll be more, if people can't access

it without paying for cable they'll find an inlegal way to watch it. >> who has access to the lucas shaw netflix account? >> nobody other than my friends. -- other than one of my friends but i do have friends who use any showtime and hbo log in. >> i will similarly condition fess my mother son our netflix account. lucas shaw, thank you for joining us. coming up, we head to wired 25 to catch up with wired editor nick thompson. and if you like bloomberg news check us out on the radio. listen on the bloomberg app, bloomberg.com and on sirius xm in the u.s. this is bloomberg. ♪

>> facebook employees repeatedly chafed at what they viewed as unethical practices by the company, internal district of columbia qumets showed. those concerns voiced in 2012 and 2013 were overruled by senior managers including mark zuckerberg who argued the survival of the social network as more important. we're joined by wired editor-in-chief nick thompson. from wired 25, the company's conference here in san francisco. thank you for joining us. >> glad to be here. >> so much to discuss and you have written some great features about facebook other the last few years.

let's start with political advertising and the company's position that private companies should not be policing public speech. do you agree and do you think it will sustain? >> there so many layers to that question and my opinion is complicated on that. i think in general political advertising on social platforms is a net good and it creates the opportunity for upstart campaigns to challenge incumbents, so i think you should start with the principle hat it is a good idea. i like that political advertising exists. i think facebook's policy which is that politicians can lie, but citizens cannot in their organic content is very weird. why would you give politicians more of these rights than citizens? i think it is backwards and strange. what i think facebook should do, they should allow political advertisements, but check them just like they do organic content.

>> jack dorsey was very public in disallowing political ads on twitter, making the argument that it was not prepared for the ways that politicians and their campaigns are abusing free peech. did twitter take it too far in your opinion? >> if there's anything that our political discourse is not prepared to handle this twitter, ot the advertisements. the biggest challenge for dorsey is making sure we clean up and figure out how to solve the problems on twitter. on the question of advertising, i understand the position and respect the position. it is a clean position. i don't think it is entirely the ight decision.

>> speaking of facebook, the company is rolling out a news tab. high wers can view more quality news rather than what appears in their feed, do you think that will make a difference? >> i don't think it will make a huge difference. what we have seen with those tabs & features, people will continue to read in the central place they read. in general, i think the news tab is a good thing for users. unless it becomes an excuse for removing news from the main feed, i think the overall net ositive, but a small net positive. >> bloomberg is part of the news tab. will you remind me if wired or

conde nast is as well? and is this a game changer or needle mover for the news business? >> they are both part of the news section, it is neither a game changer or needle mover, the needle is moving only a little bit. >> earlier, i referenced another asset of facebook which is that a trove of internal communications were leaked and they show the executives disagreeing back in 2012 and 2013 over the extent of which facebook would allow competitors, at that point it included whatsapp to advertise on the social network and mark zuckerberg was saying no, why would we allow our competitors to do that, but some of his top lieutenants disagreed that it looks bad. what impact does this have? >> i think of this point we are immune to old facebook documents shocking us. i think they don't paint

facebook and the most attractive light. but they're not indefensible. zuckerberg's position that the platform should not be a tool for competitors is something that some engineers will disagree with, but i don't think his position is a terrible one. here will be where we poll lieutenants and then it will disappear. hat i think it shows you about facebook is -- the thing that stuck out the most for me is they were quite cynical about privacy. what we have seen is facebook saying let's make a decision that is in our business interest and justify it by saying it is in the user interest and that weirds me out.

>> you are celebrating the magazine's 25th anniversary. i saw you asked patrick an interesting question on stage. you asked him if he was still optimistic on technology and i want to put that question to you because wired has typically been ptimistic. are you optimistic? >> i am optimistic. i think one of the things discussing today is the power to actually make things better, but i think there is a fundamental difference between the way i see wired and the way our early founders saw wired. i don't think the role of the magazine's to celebrate and promote the industry because the

position in society has changed and the role is to investigate. to show the world what is happening, for good and ill. to show the advances and critique the problems. that's the role of "wired." i will stay cey about that moment with patrick, patrick, the fastest talker and one of the smartest people we'd ever converse with. my goal going in was to make him pause for one second and i think he paused for four. it was a wonderful moment. >> give us one more highly coming today -- this afternoon or tomorrow. >> i am talking to the ceo of slack. they are an interesting company because the whole philosophy is to make organizations more agile and so one of the things i'm looking forward to asking him is doing have any evidence of that working? or is it just another way to organize workplaces?

one that give or take is mostly the same? >> also tomorrow morning, a run with marathoner nick thompson. i give my regrets on that, but i wish you luck on that. >> it is not just me. olympian shannon roberry will be there too join us, brad. brad: good luck. there's been a ruling about subpoenas for president trump's financial documents. late friday, lawyers from the president said they will file papers with the u.s. supreme ourt to take up the issue. they'll file the paperwork by november 25.

coming up, sun microsystems co-founder says people should accept that they have no data privacy, next. this is bloomberg. ♪

>> china is considering further cuts to subsidies for allegedly ago purchases. regulators have been discussing the proposal, but holding off until they can look at sales data the next few months. it could deal another blow to a once burgeoning industry that is ealing with a slump. one of the few friends of president trump in silicon valley, the co-found over sun microsystem, is concerned about how congress is approaching regulation of the tech sector. he discusses his views earlier today with david westin. >> the government here to help,

cringe. i've become more of a small government person the older i get. i've watched the federal budget go from $0 billion when i was born to $4.7 trillion next year. i think we need to cut back on regulation. i think congress moves at the speed of congress and not the speed of the internet. i think they'll get it wrong. i don't want to see private companies being managed and free speech being managed by the government, so i'm not a favorite of breaking up facebook, that's not the issue. that is not the issue. i said a long time ago you have no privacy, get over it. that's the truth. i don't believe if you're getting a free product like facebook that you're the customer. you are the product in that

space. you shouldn't have an will ation that your data be safe. i said anything that gets captured digitally is a digital tattoo and very hard to erase. the only people who have been able to erase anything are the clinton 30,000 emails. that's the only thing that's gotten erased on the internet. breaking it up is not going to be the problem and trying to regulate, i always get frustrated with the phrase hate crime. how do you define that? a crime is hateful no matter what. there's different levels of that. i don't want the government -- we have freedom of speech, we need to get the political discourse off of social and onto a more neutral site. i suggested to multiple people we need to create the equivalent of npr, public broadcasting political that conversation. something that is a dot-org.

>> we are talking to the cofounder of sun microsystems. let's put aside that and talk about innovation. one of the things that has been expressed is if you get too big actually it really curtails innovators from competing with you. that was expressed in the old trust, if you go back to standard oil, that was the concern. there's no opportunity. are you seeing any of that? are you seeing curtailing of innovation and success? > that is a great question and a pertinent question because what does facebook keep me from doing in my life? there's lots of ways to take a picture of my dinner and share that. i'm not feeling like i have loss of choice in where to post my dessert. i have lots of ways to have communicating to people. the people that might be upset that they have very little choice are advertisers. because digital advertising is

-- three-fourths of it is google and facebook and they're gaining share. they might have a beef but the consumer, you don't have to use facebook you don't have to use twitter. you don't have to use google products. i don't use a google browser, for instance. you can survive, i don't think innovation is stopped in biotech or in autonomous vehicles or anything because of those companies. i think innovation continues. i don't think that's a big issue. >> that was scott mcnealy. coming up, the week in tech. uber investors fleeing lockup. that is next. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ brad: this is "bloomberg technology." i'm brad stone in san francisco. now to our weekly look at the top stories in tech. a terrible week for softbank. their investment down to wework and uber triggered a $6.5 billion loss, but ceo masayoshi son is sounding hopeful about the office space provider. >> time will solve the wework problem. we will make money once the wework's building portfolio is allowed to ripen. how? stop the new building development and profitability will improve and we will expect a cost to go down by half or more. it is that simple. brad: part of a plan to profitability for wework is to

sell off the non-core businesses. the plan was confirmed friday. joining us from new york, rana foroohar, author of "don't be evil: how big tech betrayed its founding principles and all of us." thank you for joining us. rana: thank you for having me. brad: masayoshi son sounding embarrassed, saying he made mistakes with wework. but then you see a cfo doing interviews, saying nothing will change with the vision fund. what is happening at softbank and what kind of lessons have they learned? rana: it feels like 1999 to me. it feels very frothy. i think the fact a fund as big and bloated as softbank exists in its current form is kind of a marker of where we are in the technology sector at the moment. there is so much debt out there in the books. softbank, a lot of people think this maybe should have been bigger. i don't think just saying we are

going to cut some costs and wework is suddenly going to become profitable is really realistic. it's interesting because wework is actually taking collateral damage where the real estate was located. you are seeing property prices in london and parts of new york being affected by this. i see this really as a tipping point for the sector in general. i think it is part and parcel of company staying private for a long time, having their valuations bid up and up by larger venture capitalists. it is amazing to me these large funds are still being aised. i think at this point, investors are looking around and saying we kind of like the idea of rofit. this whole idea of grabbing market share and worrying about profits later is over. brad: let's talk about another company that has been affected. uber. shares after the lockup period expired are at an all-time low.

what is happening to uber? is it fundamentally the same story or is it the struggle of dara and the management team to move this company to profitability? rana: uber has had governance issues specific to that company, no doubt, but i think it is a fundamental business model question. i think the business model for a lot of big tech unicorns has been to go in, grab as much marketshare as possible, get data as much as possible and worry about the profit model later. once you go public, that logic does not really work anymore. what worries me is i think that business model has distorted the entire tech sector. i think not only is it raising questions of regulators in terms of antitrust issues what you are hearing more and more about from the right and left, but it is really killing innovation. it is really hard when you are coming up against a firm like uber or wework or any of the big players that have eaten there

sector to compete. it is a real problem for nnovation. it has taken the valley away from where it started out. brad: another highlight or lowlight of the week are those communiqués from facebook executives, just battling over whether rivals, whatsapp at the time and others, should be allowed to advertise on facebook. what does it tell us about the relationship between the big tech companies and their employees? rana: i think that is a fascinating question. wo thoughts. one, this is not unique. there have been people in big tech companies from google to facebook raising alarms about different things for some time now. they often have not been listened to. but, i think we are reaching a tipping point where there is almost a civil war in these companies and that will ultimately affect aluations. where does their value come

from? it comes from data, intellectual property and human capital. their talent, their engineers -- if you start to feel that people don't want to work at facebook or google because they are concerned about how the company is being run, that will have a big impact on their bottom ine. i have seen some letters from institutional investors that have been raising concerns about, wow, how is human capital within these companies being managed? brad: i want to make sure we talk about your book. i was such a fan of your last book, which argued that wall street and the financialization of the american economy was really biased against mainstream. here, you turn your eye to silicon valley. talk about what brought you to this new book and silicon valley's responsibility for the social ills we have seen today.

rana: i always like to follow the money. i noticed there was a big wealth transfer the last 10 years from the financial sector to the technology sector which led the markets up over the last decade or so, may lead them down, i think. you see tech growing incredibly wealthy. a lot of that money has been offshored. share buybacks. a lot of the things that a lot of people feel have not really benefited main street but created a lot of inequality, a lot of debt. a financialized growth but not the real deal. at the same time, you have these ig stories around election manipulation, the cognitive effects of social media and platform technology. what i wanted to do in my book is chart the 20-year history of how the valley went from utopia to dystopia and connect those dots between economics, politics and brain science.

kind of shed some light on where we should maybe go. i think a couple of things we really need to consider is a should this industry still have the opt out clauses for liability that were carved out in the mid-1990's? i would say no. do we need new thinking about antitrust? absolutely. in an age where data is the new oil and transactions are happening in barter, i think the whole antitrust thinking should be thrown out of the window and we need think about new definitions of political power, particular that the valley is the number one lobbying force in ashington. brad: one last quick question about that. what is your hope and expectation for antitrust action? is there really a practical possibility, particularly where washington is now, where we might see regulation or enforcement against big tech of any? rana: i think we will. we will see something like we saw with the 20th century railroads where the regulators said you can on the network, but you cannot own all the commerce on the network. that is patently anticompetitive. you are seeing the house antitrust subcommittee talking along those lines.

i think that is one easy fix that will be made soon. whether or not we have a bigger conversation about power in the political economy kind of depends on who wins in 2020. brad: rana foroohar, author of "don't be evil." thank you for joining. an online merchant has accused amazon of forcing him and other sellers to use the company's expensive logistic services, he says this causes home to raise prices for consumers. in a letter to congress, the merchant lays out an antitrust case which involves amazon tying its marketplace and logistics services together. joining us to discuss is spencer soper in seattle who wrote the story. thank you for joining us. the crux of this argument seems to be from the merchant that is either amazon's way or the highway. if you don't use fulfillment by amazon, you get penalized. what is he saying that penalty ooks like? spencer: basically saying if you

want to sell something online, you have to be on amazon's marketplace. it attracts 200 million people, unique visitors a month. if you choose to do that and not use amazon's logistics services, fulfillment by amazon, amazon does not force you to do that, ut if you don't, you will be less visible on the site and search results. and also, be penalized for any delivery missteps, up to and including suspension on the platform. that is really the carrot to use amazon's fulfillment ervices. better visibility on the platform. the stick would be if you don't use it and deliver things yourself, you could be suspended for any mishap. the merchant is arguing amazon frequently has delivery mishaps itself so that makes it an unfair system. brad: i see.

antitrust regulators are kind of hyper focused, or they have been historically, on price. increasing prices for customers. does the merchant make any sort of argument that it is more expensive than doing it yourself? that this behavior is not only anticompetitive, but it hurts customers? spencer: that is precisely what the merchant is saying and that is precisely why this is so ignificant, if these allegations are substantiated. because just like your previous guest said, do we need new antitrust laws? this merchant is saying yes, here is evidence of consumer harm. because amazon is forcing me into its logistics services, i have to drive up prices on consumer shopping on amazon. he is drawing a direct line between amazon's business practices and higher prices, saying if i had freedom to choose the delivery services i wanted to use, i could actually offer lower prices.

brad: what does amazon say about this? spencer: amazon is disputing a lot of the merchant's accounts. the primary thing is merchants can easily find reliable, less expensive services. their research shows that it is 50% to 80% less than comparable services. they kind of get finicky about, well, they're not forcing anybody to do anything. they have other options, but that is where it gets muddy. it is not an explicit push by amazon making you do these things, but the policies are designed in a way that merchants do not have any other way. brad: last and quick question. you have judiciary committees on the house, senate, ftc, doj, states looking at amazon's conduct. how is this likely to play and will it have any impact? spencer: this particular letter and these allegations are

interesting in one point. if this is happening so widespread, why isn't anybody doing anything about it? the merchant is saying because all merchants sign up on amazon, they agree to binding arbitration, and that is preventing any of these folks from pursuing a case on their own. this merchant is hoping that either the judiciary committee will read this and see enough meat to investigate amazon or another possibility is another logistics provider like fedex or possibly some smaller warehousing and e-commerce order fulfillment company could make a case against amazon arguing this practice is costing them business. brad: that is the always fashionable bloomberg's spencer soper. thank you for joining us. coming up -- hey, big spender. we look at how much president trump and his rivals are spending on social media to win your vote. that's next. this is bloomberg. ♪

brad: in a little under a year, americans will take to the polls to decide their next president. much like 2016, facebook is under extreme scrutiny on how it handles misinformation and politicians lying on its platform. sheryl sandberg defended the social network at bloomberg's the year ahead conference in new york on thursday. sheryl: this is a major test for us and we are building on some success. 2018, the midterms were very focused. from everything we know today, they went very well. eu parliamentary elections -- we have had a lot of elections since then but we know this is a big one. this is the highest priority for the next year. >> you have not been afraid of perhaps -- for what mark and you have said passionately about, ensuring that discord is there for those to be able to discuss.

talk to us about political ads and why you have chosen not to ake them off facebook, but actually still allow them to run even if they may not be correct. sheryl: this is a really complicated issue. it is hard and there are a lot of strong positions. we are trying to be very thoughtful on this. in the debate, there are facts getting lost. one of them, i think there are a bunch of people that believe things, like the biden ad everyone was upset about, is only running on facebook. that is not true. these ads are running on google, youtube, across the networks. i think people think we are oing this for the money. we expect this to be a half percent of our revenue in 2020. half a percent. and, i think -- this is important -- some of the voices most concerned about this are

coming from a place that they are worried that president trump is going to use this in a way no one else can, and that he is massively outspending everyone else. that is not true. the dems are outspending president trump by a considerable margin. we believe political ads are really important. they are part of political discourse. there particular important in local elections, smaller elections. this is important for people who re challenging incumbents. elise stefanik was elected to congress, youngest female member of congress at the time. she posted in the last week and said, i was able to challenge an incumbent because of facebook ads. that's why we are being thoughtful here and really trying to make sure we allow the ialogue to continue. brad: that was facebook's coo

sheryl sandberg at bloomberg's the year ahead conference in new york. joining us now is david goldstein, ceo of tovo labs. prior to that, he was president barack obama's lead pollster. thank you for joining us. let's unpack what we heard from sheryl. first, she said the democrats are outspending president trump on social media. i felt like that is a little misleading because there is a competitive democratic primary going on now. but is there any kind of advantage at this point that is meaningful that we can talk about in terms of social media advertising? david: if we wanted to discuss the inborn advantage the trump team has gained, we can talk about the $27 million they have spent on facebook since the 2018 election and how many of those ads have any of the rest of us been able to see and vet. facebook has a lab library but it is difficult to penetrate and look. you don't know how those ads are

being targeted and who they are being served up. i think you make an excellent point, how incredibly misleading it is to say, well, the democrats are spending all of his money compared to trump. the democrats are spending all this money because there are so many democrats within the race, and honestly, we are all fighting each other. the trump team is building a permanent competitive advantage using facebook's ecosystem that they will continue to have likely well into the lection. because of facebook's actions, we do not know how much of this is predicated upon misinformation, nor do we know how much of it is predicated upon the cambridge analytica theft we know took place several years ago which there has been no investigation of in order to determine if that data, if the targeting based upon that data is still being used to a evastating effect. i think of facebook honestly wanted to address these issues, they would work with the investigators, with people to find out precisely what the

impact was an address it, rather than say it is political ads in general. it is not. it is the disinformation ads, coordinated attacks against democracy that we are scared to death of which, to be frank, facebook is doing nothing about. brad: sheryl is defending it on a principle. she says these ads can be great tools for challengers to attack incumbents in smaller markets. you have been doing this kind of advertising for a while. does she have a point, that it could be powerful? david: absolutely, but that is a problem. as far as facebook is concerned, there is nothing different etween abuse of a system and legitimate communications with voters, introducing new candidates and their policies to potential constituents. everybody supports that. i support that, sheryl supports that. the problem is when it comes to malicious actors using the platform to spread misinformation and spread lies

that we know are dangerous and devastating to the basic democratic principles, facebook does not lift a finger. even when there are independent government bodies looking into these allegations and findings, facebook still refuses to participate within this investigations and often try to cover their tracks. brad: really quickly, what is the solution? twitter banned political ads. nick thompson early in the program said that facebook should kind of monitor ads and take out misinformation. what do you do if you are facebook? david: if you are facebook, use the same incredibly powerful algorithms that they used to sell us any number of things to improve our engagement, all the rest of it, to identify misinformation. to punish those who utilize their platform in this way, and to make sure it is clear to everybody that what they expect out of their advertisers and their users is a commitment to the basic things we need to be

able to function as a democratic society. they are simply not doing that and i'm not sure they will without heavy government intervention and possibly movement among consumers as well. brad: david goldstein, we have to leave it there. thank you for joining us. more coming. this is bloomberg. ♪

brad: gingko bioworks has hundreds of millions of dollars in investment and a valuation of $4.2 billion. ceo jason kelly told bloomberg what he finds most exciting about biotech. jason: biology is this thing we completely take for granted. you grow up with it, all around you, gardens and pets. think about a plant. you plant a seed, you add air, water and sunlight, and this thing manufactures itself. it has solar panels.

what is going on? if you have seen that in any other context, if we didn't have trees and apple said i invented this seed, we would be like this is alien technology. we all look at it, whatever. so, once you think of it as a technology you can program to do new things and you look at what it is already capable of, it is clear to me that we will use biology to manufacture all physical goods in the future. everything. >> can you say that again? jason: all physical things, everything. >> where are we capable of going here? jason: the irony is people think it will start with, like -- you already seeing applications and low-cost areas like food. if you have had an impossible burger, you bite into that thing -- it is like an impossible whopper and it bleeds. where does the blood come from a veggie burger? they have taken yeast that you brew beer. they programmed it to include the gene for hemoglobin. brew it up, produce the hemoglobin, add it to the

burger, and lo and behold, it smells right, cooks right. you need that stuff to have a veggie burger not taste like cardboard. you are seeing some early pplications there. people are excited about the trillion dollar market for ground beef, i get that. >> is that a real number? jason: for beef. the real exciting thing from my standpoint is sophisticated things. when you look inside, like an apple and look at what is going inside the cells of that fruit, there is a level of nanotechnology and complexity that is much greater than your apple computer, right? if you think about it, that is where biology excels. it makes that thing from nothing. we don't have any way to make highly molecular complex nanotechnology on the cheap xcept biology. i think the first technologies will be advanced materials.

the stuff that will surprise you will all be the advanced manufacturing stuff, in addition to making food more efficiently and things like that. but, it will be everything. brad: that is it for this edition of "bloomberg technology." this is bloomberg. ♪

>> the following is a paid program. the opinions and views expressed do not reflect those of bloomberg, its affiliates, or its employees. the following is a sponsored program from shriners hospital. >> wake up everybody. it is the night before i travel to oklahoma before i found excessive -- my filming session. it.nnot live without i have a new nickname.