♪ taylor: i am taylor riggs in san francisco and this is "bloomberg technology." coming up a major shakeup at the top of alphabet. google cofounders larry page and sergey brin are stepping down. but they won't have to search long for a new ceo. we will have the latest. plus, dorsey on the move. the twitter ceo is set to spend half the year in africa.

what this means for his role at the social network as well as square. plus, we speak to the u.s. deputy assistant secretary of state for cyber munication's and communication policy for an insiders view of the u.s. versus huawei. first, major changes happening at alphabet. larry page and sergey brin are both said to be stepping down with google ceo sundar pichai set to take over that position. sundar pichai will be the ceo of google and alphabet. page and brin will remain on the board. how big of a surprise was this? >> a pretty big surprise. there were questions of how much longer sundar might want to be ceo of google.

google is under a massive amount of scrutiny. he has a lot of things to juggle. there have been internal protests. this really was a surprise where basically he has had to deal with all these things and he will be back dealing with all of the other things happening under the alphabet umbrella which includes self driving cars and other things. taylor: with larry and sergey as visionaries, and sundar as -- where do they fit in? >> i think larry page is the main visionary people think of when they think of google and the driving force, but larry and sergey together, they obviously founded the search engine and turned that into what it was today. larry was the driving force behind the idea that they be seven or eight years ago, google is going to have to do something else. he really pushed them into things like self driving cars and other things.

sundar, his background came from a very core google background where he ran the chrome operating system. he worked his way up the company. he can be seen as more of an operations guide. certainly, since alphabet happened in 2015, sundar has been the one to deal with everyday things. taylor: stay with us, because joining us on the phone is gene munster. gene: i was not expecting this but in some ways i was not surprised, in part just because of the 10 year, how long both of them had been there.

separately, the concept that the company is moving into a different chapter. google proper, the next chapter, will be a lot around policy, data privacy, and regulation. what the next couple of years would look like, going through some of the minutia. there is another part of me that is kind of sad because it had such a profound impact on our lives, just a reminder that the greats move on. taylor: how much can this be seen as a vote of confidence in sundar pichai? gene: undoubtedly a vote of confidence. i think it is more related to

what sergey and larry ultimately want to do than it is a vote of confidence. but it is a vote of confidence nonetheless. if they did not have that, he would not have been the one tapped for the broader role. taylor: we talked a few weeks ago when you had apple ceo tim cook really work the politics. in this day and age, you are not just running a company. you have to be working the politics, working the regulatory issues. is sundar pichai ready and able to do that? alistair: i think he is from a technology point of view. if someone asks sundar pichai a super complicated question about what data google uses, how is it protected, he will know all of that stuff. he was partly behind building all of that stuff. technically, he is great. on the showing up for congressional hearings, that is not something he really loves to do. he's quite a quiet and thoughtful person.

i don't think he enjoys being asked things live one the whole world is watching in a sort of contentious situation. but, he certainly can do it. when you compare it to larry page, really does not want to do any of that stuff, that is really the comparison to make. earlier this year, as scrutiny ramped up on google, larry page, everyone said, this decision today addresses that, larry does not have to be there anymore. taylor: what could be some of the challenges now, being on the board and still controlling most of the shares? jean: the obvious challenge is one that we have covered around policy. i think beyond that, it will be a months oxygen to give the other bets. when we think about what has

changed in sort of late state investment, past profitability questions, even corporate sponsors of these are asking questions. that, to me, would be where i would love to be in the room and hear the conversation about how much funding to give some of these other bets. an easy one to talk about is waymo, a radical view to autonomy, basically launching an entire wrapped up and tidy product. this is revolutionary and a huge amount of spending would have to be behind that.

that, to me, would be one of the key issues. more broadly, how they want to continue to foster other bets in that 20% time that has been a foundation of working at google. taylor: do you think this can be seen as a good thing, bringing both companies together, having him run both divisions, trying to simplify under a big umbrella? gene: i can see that. google is definitely the powerhouse of the portfolio companies. that makes a ton of sense. i would not be surprised if, in the next year or two, sundar stays at the top and there is new leadership brought in for google. taylor: thank you very much. meantime, back here in the u.s., stocks selling off for a third day in a row tuesday as trade deal hopes dimmed. tuesday's lows, the s&p and nasdaq were down 1.4%, only to finish lower by a bit more than 0.5%.

here to talk about why this matters is abigail doolittle. what is it telling us about the stocks? is it trade or something bigger? abigail: it is probably trade right now. bumpy start for stocks overall, but even more in the chip sector. down a couple percentage points over those three days, the worst three days since august. the reason i say this probably has to do with trade, the chip companies receive a lot of revenue from asia, supply chain deeply embedded within china. if we look at a chart in the bloomberg terminal, it appears that it is a bit of a binary event i had. they bit of a barometer, at least this year, for the trade war. we look at the chart, that tells you overall they like the chips. take a look at that dip in april and may. the same thing in august, same

in late september, early october. stocks right now above that trendline. it appears we probably have another 2% to the downside. if it holds, new all-time highs looking at the history of this chart. if it does not hold, it could get pretty ugly. at that point, it could suggest it could be even more broadly than trade or that the trade war could eat into the global economy. taylor: as we talk about trade, so often apple, having its worst lines since august. abigail: in all of the news and noise today, apple lost some in the shuffle, but down sharply all the lows. it is another barometer to the trade war given that they received 20% of their revenues.

their supply chain, deeply embedded in china. some of those apple suppliers we are always talking about. qualcomm, broadcom, skyworks. the fact that you have the apple complex, it speaks to the rally this year. it may suggest that some investors, there may not be a deal getting done this year selling off these apple suppliers in particular. taylor: it is notable that almost a year ago, on christmas eve, we had that massive selloff. since then, a big run up. where do we stand? abigail: what an ugly day that was and what an ugly december last december was.

people are wondering, will we climb the wall of worry? or, too far, too fast? on this year, basically from those lowe's companies s&p 500 heading to its best day since 2013 if you use that as a gauge of what may be ahead, investors would be rightfully fearful. you see gains. history probably suggests that the s&p 500 may finish up slightly. a rough start certainly on these trade concerns we are talking about. taylor: abigail doolittle, thank you for joining. shares of salesforce falling in after hours trading even after they boosted full-year earnings. the software company is also looking at fiscal year 2021 revenue of as much as 20.9 billion dollars.

that means they would see some of the best revenue growth they have had in years. coming up, dorsey's move to africa just in time for the 2020 election. what this means for twitter and square. this is bloomberg. ♪

taylor: twitter ceo jack dorsey is off to africa for next year. he says he plans to live on the continent for 3-6 months. he has not said why but his plans are coinciding with a presidential election year that will likely be marked with debates about online hate speech and the role tech companies play in discourse. kurt, how suspect is the timing?

>> probably not ideal. some analysts saying this is a big year for twitter, not just them but big platforms that will be carrying information about the election. will they be able to fight fake news, election manipulation? if you have the ceo of one of those companies have a across the world, what could that do to those processes they have in place? the timing is a little questionable. taylor: what you are saying in your story, it is not just twitter, but square. neither of them have a clear number two. who do you think could be in place to help keep the show running? kurt: in one case, the fact that there is no obvious number two at the company and they still operate on a functional day-to-day level as jack dorsey has two jobs, maybe that is a sign that they don't need a clear number two.

at twitter, their cfo does some front facing stuff. that may be the kind of thing. jack dorsey has talked about remote work, pushed that internally, you will be able to work wherever you are most efficient and convenient. that might not be africa but that does not necessarily mean he will be stepping away for 3-6 months, he will to speak harder to reach. taylor: do we know why africa? he has talked about cryptocurrencies. kurt: he did mention crypto in his tweet, mentioned africa as being kind of the foundational region. during the month of november while he was visiting. if you think about it for me twitter standpoint, this is a global platform. there are probably millions of people in africa who use twitter. these are people he probably does not hear from very often.

spending some time in these regions that often get overlooked could be good for business at twitter as well. again, we won't really know until this comes into play, what the criteria is around who will run twitter in the meantime, but that would be the positive spin. taylor: to be fair, twitter has taken probably the least hands-on approach when it comes to ads in the political election. they have decided not to have any of them on the political platform. maybe it is not as important as twitter and facebook. kurt: there are two elements for this. one, we will not allow any political ads. they walked that back a little, that it will allow some issue ads.

one of their top executives, their general counsel, is actually the one who will be in charge of implementing some of these tough decisions around content policy. it will be her decision ultimately act or not to act. in some ways, that is another burden off of jack dorsey's shoulders. taylor: i want you to listen to a soundbite of facebook ceo mark zuckerberg on the political ads. mark: at the end of the day, in a democracy, people should be able to see for themselves what people are saying. >> even if the ads contain false information. mark: people should be able to judge for themselves the character of politicians. taylor: that was on cbs this morning. kurt: this is what he has been saying all along. ever since we saw him give that speech in georgetown in october, he has stuck to the same talking points that it is not facebook's role, not tech's role. the people are smart enough to see through these lies. a lot of people say, you are

profiting off of these ads, it is your responsibility to step in. what is actually more interesting is that he is not really wavering despite all the pushback. taylor: thank you. coming up, t-mobile and sprint will face fewer opponents in their antitrust file but that is coming with a cost. this is bloomberg. ♪

taylor: three states have agreed to keep their doors open for the merger of t-mobile and sprint in exchange for better deals. t-mobile has brokered settlements with texas, nevada, and colorado. the case is scheduled to go to trial on december 9 in a manhattan federal court.

what do we know about the differences between these states and what they negotiated? >> it is actually now four states. mississippi is in that group, too. i think it is not surprising, to be honest, that some states have settled with the companies. i think initially, when the lawsuit was filed in june, you may have had different reasons. some may have been just concern that the negotiated remedies beyond what they negotiated with the doj and fcc, to be sure that some of those promises about 5g buildout would go to their state. if you look at the four settlements, they are similar. they all involve promises to build out 5g certain portions of the population within three years, then more within six years. some include payments.

others include guaranteed employment levels. taylor: do we have any sense if this will go to trial december 9, or do we think we could see a more broad-based settlement before then? jennifer: we could see more settlements but i am very certain it will go to trial. it starts monday. i don't think new york and california are interested in settling the suit. the parties are gearing up they just filed pretrial briefs. the states that are still in look pretty doug in still. taylor: i want to show you a chart basically tracking t-mobile in blue and sprint's share price in white. sprint pretty much unchanged going back to last year or so. analysts are a little worried. a lot of analysts are hoping for a deal. how much pressure is this putting really on sprint and t-mobile to make a deal?

jennifer: i think it is putting a lot of pressure on them. this has been a really extended interim period. it really puts a strain on companies' business, especially the seller's business. sprint did not negotiate an antitrust breakup fee. that means however they were hurt during the interim period, they will not get recompense for it after the trial if it is blocked. i think they are working hard to settle with the rest of the states. taylor: any sense what the competitors' feelings are? t-mobile's coming out and saying they are first to get 5g and saying they will be a real threat if this merger goes through.

have we heard anything from the competitors about this? jennifer: they have been quiet for a reason. when a competitor can complain about a deal of it can have a strange effect on how the doj looks at the deal. it can suggest that the deal is actually competitive, that it will force that other competitor to lower prices and compete more strongly. at&t, i think they are just watching because i think there is a good argument here and i thick it is hard to predict what will happen and if this deal will be able to get closed in 2020. taylor: bloomberg's jennifer rie, thank you for joining us. coming up, an insider look at u.s. versus huawei. our conversation with u.s. deputy assistant secretary of state rob strayer is next. this is bloomberg. ♪

taylor: this is "bloomberg technology" global link, where we join "bloomberg daybreak: australia" and bring the latest in global tech news. i'm taylor riggs in san francisco, with shery ahn in new york and haidi stroud-watts in sydney. let's take a look at the top global tech stories of the day. haidi: france says the european union will retaliate over the proposed u.s. response to its digital tax law. the tax hits large american tech companies such as google, facebook, apple and amazon. the trump administration announced it may slap tariffs on $2.4 billion worth of french wine, cheese, handbags and other products. starting tuesday, amazon needs to check off a patchy record.

the company's prime video service will begin showing the world's richest competition to millions of fans. amazon is carrying 20 english premier league matches this month. previous attempts have been mired by technical glitches. and a california college student is suing tiktoc. it alleges the company is funneling data to china and tiktoc is using videos to create an online profile for targeted ads. tiktok has come under fire in the u.s. for alleged national security concerns. those are your top global tech stories we are watching. shery: thank you. the trump administration has been looking at chinese tech as a national security threat for some time now and it is focused on companies like huawei, zte and tiktok.

a new u.s. agency has a $60 billion budget to help developing countries and businesses find alternatives to companies like huawei and zte. joining us now from washington is robert strayer, the state department deputy assistant secretary for cyber and international communications and information policy. thank you for your time. this latest approach seems to be the carrot approach where you are trying to convince these developing nations to stay away from cheaper chinese tech. is this an acknowledgment that the stick is not working? amb. strayer: we have sought to work with developing countries to make sure they have reliable technology. this is not a different approach to the matter. independently, we are working with partners and allies to educate them about the risks of 5g.

that there can be the potential for vendors of 5g to be controlled by other governments that would require them to take actions that are not in their country's interests. there is not a rule of law for a company to object actions in line with their intelligence and security services. shery: back in september, you said there could be punishment for allies who refused to ban huawei. what is being discussed? amb. strayer: we have set for some time, we want to remain very close corporation on law enforcement and military matters with governments around the world. when we are not able to share information securely, as would be the case when they have un-trusted vendors in the 5g network, we are going to have to reassess how we share that information in the future. that may make it difficult for us to have robust information sharing relationships in the future. taylor: when we take a look at the $60 billion fund or budget that could be used to stave off some of the competitors, any chance that is going to be used on u.s. companies or is that strictly going to be overseas companies? amb. strayer: it is important to recognize that when people talk about competition in this space, largely they are focused on the

radio access network vendors. there are three main alternatives to huawei which are ericsson, nokia and samsung. beyond that, the components that go into a lot of this gear are american or western european. those include companies like qualcomm, juniper, intel and numerous other companies that are in the united states. a lot of companies stand to gain from selecting a trusted radio access network vendor for future technology. taylor: in europe, i think germany and france have been hesitant to block or ban specific companies. how do you work with them to get on board and see the risks that you see and potentially actually ban a specific company? amb. strayer: we are not trying to get them to ban any particular company.

we have been working for more than a year now to educate them about the risks of 5g networks. the most important feature to understand is software can be updated instantaneously and that update could contain a backdoor or compromise that disrupts the system. we have been telling the company is not just about applying secure practices, but also having to apply measures of what our trusted vendors and their networks. how to identify what are the criteria that would be a trusted vendor. the vendor must be headquartered in a country that has the rule of law and an independent judiciary. i said the other factor to look at is the transparency of ownership as well as its funding mechanisms for the country. in the case of a company like huawei, what is the role of the chinese communist party in the company and who actually owns the company?

they claim to be owned by 99% private ownership, but in fact, that ownership is probably controlled by the chinese communist party. shery: we keep hearing allegations of security threats coming from huawei, but other than a few allegations of vulnerability, we have not been seeing much in terms of evidence. how much evidence have you seen on those back doors and cyber threats so far? amb. strayer: we know the united kingdom looked at huawei technology. they had a relationship with them over nine years. every year, they find to be serious and systemic software engineering defects and cybersecurity challenges. they are finding hundreds of defects. what we have is a bug door. that is so many vulnerabilities in huawei is producing, it is impossible to determine if there was intent to put one of those there for a future vulnerability that will be compromised. we had a u.s. company look at the firmware, the software on the hardware of routers and switches. there are hundreds of vulnerabilities in each piece of hardware their look at.

the real question is what will china do when they have the intent, capability and opportunity when the 5g network is fully deployed? when the critical infrastructure is riding on these networks, that is when that will be temptation to use 5g as a point of leverage against western nations. shery: the question of vulnerabilities to the chief security officer at huawei and his explanation was they don't have the access to critical information, customer information that the u.s. says. that those are controlled by telecom operators. does there need to be a more coordinated effort when it comes to those equipment vendors and telecom operators instead of just banning certain companies? amb. strayer: we want to see practices put in place that will ensure that the hardware and software are being produced by trusted companies. it's fundamentally the case that huawei or zte is writing tens of millions of lines of codes. nobody can investigate their

process to determine if that technology is secure. there is numerous cybersecurity best practices to be put in place, but trust is going to be the bottom line with this technology. taylor: when you take a look at trust, germany has hinted they are looking at a joint china approach where they would set up an agency to help oversee some of the 5g technology coming from china. why wouldn't that approach work in your opinion if we were to do that here in the u.s.? amb. strayer: there could be some benefit to testing and evaluation but it is hubris to think that we as human beings, even with the assistance of computers, they are going to be able to find backdoors and software and hardware that are put there by sophisticated nationstates. huawei and zte are in the position that they have to take action when they are required to buy the chinese communist party. they should not be allowed to provide the most secure of our technologies that mean so much to our economy and security future. taylor: state department deputy assistant secretary rob strayer, thank you for joining us.

plenty more global stories ahead next. this is bloomberg. ♪

taylor: by now, you have all heard the story about wework and its fall from overvalued grace, but did you know the company had been touting to show its core services are profitable? once you subtract out things like rent, marketing and stock compensation. the alternative metric known as contribution margin allows the company to flip a $1.9 billion net loss under u.s. gap into $142 million profit. it is not the only one using that tool. you can look at lyft and peloton

using it. the sec is raising concerns about that metric's use. to discuss, barry oxford, senior analyst at d.a. davidson, and rett wallace. in august, you looked at the prospectus of the wework and said it was the master of obfuscation. what do you make of this latest news of the sec looking at the new cash flow metric? what do you make now of this latest news about the sec looking at that cash flow metric? rett: it makes sense to me the sec would be looking at companies in the way the present themselves even the size of the last profile. it is not that helpful to investors to take the big negative on the profit line and add back a lot of expenses. investors can do that for themselves. the issue with these documents is not so much what is there, whether it is a real gap metric or the alternative faxed metrics but what is missing. peloton is a good example of a company that decided to disclose the kind of metrics you are used to seeing as a private investor, like customer value and things like that.

if the sec was to call us up and ask us what we think about this stuff, we would say not so much these other alternative things are misleading because they are in neither here or there, but what we like to see is the operating metrics that the operators in early investors get to see. taylor: barry, what is your take on this about subtracting some of the key costs out from the income statements? barry: sure. i think when you look at some of these adjustments, i think they need to be more kind of secondary. i think in the document, i think wework kind of put that community adjusted number kind of more front and center. i don't think it is appropriate for evaluation purposes when it comes to the company. that being said, there is a fundamental question -- when these units from wework are up and running, are they profitable? that metric is helpful in that standpoint in answering that question.

to put it front and center as a major way in which to value the company, i disagree with how they kind of presented it. taylor: yeah, rett, i want to talk a little bit more about wework. in your august report, you were highlighting the way they were reclassifying some of those expenses. after a few years of being open, they would move them to a different part of the income statement. is that normal? is that done a lot or was this a wework-specific issue? rett: wework itself is a specific issue across the board. there is nothing comparable to wework. the disclosure is just the smallest part of it. because wework is really 550 little companies, what we were looking at is the unit economics. but not finding was the unit economics. they took some expenses away from the central parent company that is responsible of doing development and farmed it out to the individual units. the reason that was problematic was you could not tell how much those dollar amounts were.

they said they do it after the units were up for 24 months but you did not know when they were opened. it created additional confusion in a situation that was already really confusing. if we were going to talk about the unit economics, the units for wework were not really difficult to understand. you have an office and you pay the landlord for that based on your long-term lease. then, you take in rent from your tenants. the fundamental simplicity of the business model was not evident in the way that they chose to disclose the overall parent company financials. so, it was an opportunity to be more transparent that they decided not to take advantage of. taylor: barry, you bought a community adjusted -- i found that fascinating because we spoke a few weeks ago and you seemed to think it was helpful. as an analyst, how is a turn like that helpful to an analyst as you are looking at the company?

barry: i think, as rett pointed out, when you are trying to look at the simplicity of the business model and do they have enough leases out there that support the cost structure, meaning the lease cost, and some operational and marginal marketing expenses, it is helpful. again, you can kind of move stuff around on the different line items based upon how it can make your financials look a little more favorable on where you want to kind of classify different expenses. so, it was not always clear in that case. taylor: rett, i was taking a look at some of your research and you actually have an obfuscation index where you list of the companies and lyft is ranked pretty low on the index.

what is lyft doing that raises your concerns? rett: it is not nice to pick on individual companies, but when you have a consumer company that lives or dies by its unit economics, to not disclose the number of units is an investor hostile thing to do. if we were going to look on the bright side of things, wework put out a disclosure not too long ago that showed all of the units, so that we could see what the customer acquisition costs and turn rates were and so forth. to us, it is really straightforward. investors would be able to pencil out that map before they hand over billions and billions of dollars. the index, the reason we do that is the company's willingness to obfuscate information itself. that turns out to be a strongly predicted measure of a company's inability to get into the public market in a seamless way. that is why we do it. we wish we didn't have to. if we could get rid of the obfuscation index, nothing would make us happier. taylor: i have decided i am going back to accounting school

for our next conversation. that was rett wallace of triton research and barry oxford. back to the news of the moment, larry page and sergey brin stepping down from their roles as ceo and president of alphabet. how sunder pichai will manage the company ahead. this is bloomberg. ♪

taylor: back to our top story, google founders larry page and sergey brin stepping down at alphabet. current google ceo sundar pichai will become the ceo of alphabet. for more, i want to bring in brent thill of jeffries who has a buy rating on the company. also with us, bloomberg's mark bergen who covers the company. how surprised are we buy this? mark: little surprised, but as

surprised as we were four years ago when they announced alphabet. after the dust settled, it is silly. sunder pichai was effectively managing all of google. you could make the argument that he is on the board of alphabet. he has been involved with google 99% of the revenue where alphabet is a similar percentage of the workforce. in this sense, i've talked to a former googler today that says it gives structure a reality. taylor: what changed for you a few hours ago? brent: nothing at all. sunder has done a great job. the stock is up you today, doing very well. it typically does well on odd years and it does not do well on even years so people are concerned about next year. this stock is doing well. the multiple on the stock is very reasonable. i put myself in the shoes of can you imagine if you found this

company 20 years ago and worth over $50 billion and there is a super capable person in charge? i think there is a lot of other things in life they need to explore. i don't think anyone is surprised. clearly, well-deserved and incredible run. they will remain more members and shareholders. $50 billion -- there's a lot of other things in life to do. taylor: do you see this as a vote in confidence in sunder or they needed the founders to step down? is this really letting sunder take over and do what he does best? brent: i don't think there is a ton of change. they will be available, they will be advisors. sunder needs to make a call to them, they will pick up the call and vice versa. the up-and-coming businesses that are inside of google that are the next big businesses, they are all equipped with their own operating teams. they are well-funded.

i look at waymo and some of the other businesses, they are super exciting. they have a lot of great momentum. i don't think this is not a rudderless ship. they have a great team. ruth has that a great job as a cfo. she has now become, i think, more shareholder friendly with the actions of the buyback. one of the biggest buybacks they have ever had. from a shareholder perspective, this is a terrific investment still. we think there is really no issue here. i think this is more like headline excitement, but fundamentally, i don't think anything is going to change. taylor: mark, you heard fundamentally perhaps no changes. arguably, sunder pichai would agree. he is saying this transition will not affect the alphabet structure or the work we do day-to-day. i will still be focused on google and doing the same work

and pushing the boundaries in computing. what changes for him really tomorrow morning? mark: i will take the opposite argument. four years ago, they put out alphabet. it was big on autonomous driving, all these ambitious fields outside of google. nest was one of the big companies. you fast forward four years and nest is back inside google. google fiber has all but collapsed. waymo, way more critical on the progress they have made on self-driving cars. the biotech investors are decades out. in return, not something sunder has had experience in. there is something about -- there is something almost symbolic about the fact the founders who set the tone and culture for this company for 20 years have receded and now officially stepped away. so, i think there are a lot of open questions about the rest of alphabet outside of google that now sunder has to answer.

that does not say anything about the political questions he has to wrestle with. taylor: we bring up the political questions. that is clearly one of the big overhangs facing all of big tech the regulatory pressures. tim cook and apple seems to have a good relationship with the president, working with him to work on those tariffs and remove those tariffs. how do you view sunder in the context in a relationship with the president or being able to go to d.c. and tackle some of the big antitrust and data prophecies that are overhanging on the company? brent: all the big tech platforms underneath the same scrutiny. we cover amazon, facebook, all of these. they are all under the same microscope. i have said this repeatedly. having covered tech for 25 years and watching microsoft go through this, they have performed extremely well.

you have to separate the noise from the reality. microsoft is a fantastic stock to invest in in the turmoil of the regulatory overhang in europe. it will not have an impact. i have said that since the beginning of the year. facebook's stock is up year-to-date. google's stock is up year-to-date. do you want to be invested there? absolutely. the regulatory issue will always be there. it will be there for everyone. it is what they do. they have been doing this for a while. sunder said this in the last earnings call. we have been dealing with regulators for 10, 15 years. i don't think anything has changed. i think clearly this overhang creates more sentiment and that is great because they put up great numbers. when you have bad sentiment and good numbers, stocks go higher. taylor: the story of the day. thank you to brent thill of jeffries and bloomberg's mark bergen. that does it for this edition of "bloomberg technology." "bloomberg technology" is livestreaming on twitter. check us out. follow our global breaking news network, @quicktake, on twitter.

this is bloomberg. ♪ whether you're out here on lte.

or here on a wifi hotspot. xfinity mobile has more coverage to keep you connected to what matters most. that's because it's the only wireless network that automatically connects you to millions of secure wifi hotspots and the best lte everywhere else. and now get $250 off when you buy a new samsung phone during xfinity mobile beyond black friday. plus, you can save up to $400 a year. click, call or visit a store today.

>> the following is a paid program. the opinions and views expressed do not reflect those of bloomberg lp, its affiliates, or its employees. >> the following is a paid advertisement for the affordable wire free home security camera system by blink, an amazon company. >> it took me less than 10 minutes to set up >> it makes it . simple, easy. anybody can do it, and it gives you security. >> you cannot buy peace of mind. that is exactly what you are buying when you buy the blink camera system.