>> the top story we are tracking this hour, a u.s. airstrike kills a general. he was planning an attack on a .ate --raid up. and again on the way [no audio] ♪

cue --ramy: on right on cue, the foreign minister put out his response to this that the act out of the united states is an active international -- act of terrorism. we're going to get you more details on this story, information that's been for the lastough two or three hours or so. the state of the markets are looking like this. in terms of risk assets, going into the lunch break in hong kong, u.s. features down 20 points, dollar-yen low to the day, still fairly strong on the japanese currency, fly under the asian benchmark, and gold is 1540-1550.wards 4%, but still

substantial gains. he was features are looking like this -- u.s. futures are up -- my mistake, moving up as london joins -- wakes up. good morning to you. we'll get to the latest on all of this. jodi schneider is onset. and we have another reporter joining us. jodi, i'm going to start with you, the significance of this act. jodi: very significant. probably the most tense moment and certainly the biggest escalation in relations since the end of the iraq war in 2011. we've now seen, with the u.s. saying president trump -- this is being done on president trump's order -- as a defensive move, is what the u.s. is saying, given the u.s. is saying they had concerns that there would be an attack on u.s. diplomats and servicemen in the

region. that is the reason being given. this is a very significant figure. this iranian general was a veteran of the iran-iraq war. he was seen as being responsible for defeating isis in iraq and syria, and for basically keeping isis largely out of iran. is a household name in iran, so this was a very significant u.s.,ike attack by the and it is certain to escalate things. we've already heard from iran that they will retaliate. ramy: as a mental exercise, you can almost look at the other side of this and imagine a u.s. official, perhaps of that level, being subjected to this. it's the magnitude to what you're pointing to, the potential re-escalation of tensions. take us through what we need to

follow. jodi: obviously, we need to see what iran does. we're hearing from iraq, as well. we haven't heard much from president trump. there will probably be more we hear from him, as well, but it's what goes on in the grant and how is this received? how is this received by other countries? what they seem to think, obviously, the u.s. and iran have, had increasing tensions in recent years, starting with president trump pulling out of the nuclear accord. but in recent weeks, we've also seen these tensions escalate, as well, so we'll be looking at what the rest of the world has to say. ramy: absolutely. let me bring you in here. the oil markets are obviously reacting as expected. we've since pared back but we

are quite elevated. talk to us about the significance for oil markets and are we talking about significant parts of supply? maybe, maybe being under spent? guest: yes, absolutely. the clear and present danger is retaliation. somethingt iran to do on what is seen as a very aggressive show of force by the u.s. they will probably be forced to take some kind of action, which means that supplies are already tight because opec has been cutting production for the last one year or so and iran sits on a crucial point. they have shown in the past that they can take action and that suppliesto significant from that middle east area, the biggest supplier of oil to the

world. texas, 68 andst brent. thank you, out of singapore. jodi schneider is with us in our studios to talk through the politics. here, we spoken on the future of the iran initiative. listen in. any can't see how there's prospects of talks between the united states and iran after something like this. no, the prospects were already fairly dim, but no iranian president could possibly sit down with donald trump after something like this. >> this marks a series of violent episodes that have already strained relations. in terms of the broader implications with future countries, where do we go from here? with things change if 2020 leads to a different president? guest: well, i would hope so. i would hope so.

but this is the worst it's been in 40 years, in my view, the worst it's been since i ran held -- i ran held american hostages at its embassy. this is a huge crisis. i'm not sure donald trump understands the implications of what he has unleashed. ramy: donald trump just tweeted, in fact, the image of an american flag. put what you want on that tweet. jodi: he thinks he's a big hero -->> he thinks he's a big hero. but a lot more people are probably going to die because of this. ramy: that was my next question. should we start considering the u.s. getting into a regional war now? reall hard tot's bridge this point. we have to see how iraq survives this.

it wasn't just because he was assassinated, but also a prominent iraqi, head of one of these militias and a great deal of political power, as well. we're going to see the ripples flowing out from this for a long time. jodi: the uss said the strike was aimed at deterrence, -- the u.s. has said the strike was aimed at deterrence. what should we make of that, and what would be a more appropriate response? >> look, i'm not privy to the information that the administration says that it has. the united states overreacted with the killing of the 25 members of the militia, which of course led to the effort to seats the u.s. embassy in baghdad. i think the united states made a huge mistake when it pulled out of the iran nuclear deal in may of 2018.

that's what really set off this escalatory spiral. where it goes now is going to depend on the actions of those in tehran, how they evaluate this, how their allies throughout the region evaluate this, and of course the united states -- ramy: ok, now we have joe biden chiming in on this, is ashley saying he is calling the u.s. action a hugely escalatory move says,and donald trump, he tossed a dynamite. we'll be back for more. for those in the u.s., it's bloomberg tech. for the rest, best of daybreak middle east. this is bloomberg. ♪ taylor: do you see california as the beginning of a federal

privacy law? >> california has always been a trendsetter in privacy regulation. it's definitely proving to be the case already. because as eric mentioned, there are laws in new york, illinois, washington, and other states that need to take the cues from the ccpa. and i think right now, the chances of federal privacy legislation appear to be stopped, but if you have states around the country adopting nuances that are similar to the ccpa or take it a step or two further, you can have an enormously complex regulatory landscape for businesses in very short order. and i think if you reach that pain threshold, where businesses are finding it very difficult to reconcile all these conflicting requirements, that could finally be the impetus for federal legislation. taylor: eric, in your opinion, what do you see as te biggest or -- as the big driver for federal legislation.

is it the fact that businesses will be so confused by multiple different state laws that they really do need a federal law to lead the way? eric: i think there are these two different tension points. on the one side, there is this private right of action or the general push on consumer advocates and democrats to give strong enforcement on any privacy legislation that passes. that's a key piece of debate in the federal law. so that's the sticking point. it's how much are the states funding the enforcement? and that's part of the california referendum. the other side is whether we are going to have the federal law consume everything, basically federal preemption. and that takes over and kills all the state bills and makes the federal bills the law of the land. and that's what the republicans are fighting for. you see the debate there. it's, do we have a federal preemption and a private right of action, do we have neither? that's where the debate remains. it's a lot of the small pieces of the bill people tend to agree with, but it's those big sort of ideas, how we enforce it and whether the federal law is the

ultimate law in privacy that's still up for debate. and that's why congress is stuck. taylor: i'm going to play an acronym game. we were hearing that a lot of businesses didn't mind ccpr because they were already in compliance with ccpa and ggdr. what are you hearing from businesses just from a high level in terms of being compliant with ccpa? and if that isn't a big deal because they're already compliant with a broader level of data privacy? guest: well, it's true that gdpr is a major european privacy law that went into effect last year or the year before last. and the ccpa does draw upon a lot of the concepts in gdpr. but that's a law that applies to data of european residents. and so, even for big companies that have implemented gdpr

compliance, they haven't necessarily done it for their u.s. operations. and also, ccpa has its own set of requirements and nuances, so the fact that you've done gdpr does that mean you're all the way there, by any means, with ccpa. taylor: it's a debate that's certainly going to continue along with more acronyms i may be confused on. thank you both for joining. now, an analyst predicts that a federal judge will probably block t-mobile's $6.5 billion take-over of sprint. that is based on questions the judge asked during court proceedings last month. a group of states has filed suit to block the deal on antitrust grounds. and coming up, amazon employees speak out, wanting the company to do more to fight climate change. all of that next. and if you like bloomberg news, check us out on the radio. you can listen on the bloomberg app, bloomberg.com, and in the u.s. on sirius xm. this is bloomberg. ♪

taylor: the new year hasn't dulled tension between tech employees and management. an amazon workers group says the company has threatened to fire them if they keep speaking out about the company's internal affairs. the group, called the amazon employees for climate justice, has been seeking ways to curb the e-commerce giant's contribution to climate change. for more, let's go to seattle where bloomberg technology's matt day is standing by. matt, what are you hearing about what amazon is telling employees

and what the employees are saying in response? matt: the employee group came out this morning with a press statement, saying some of their members had received emails from amazon reminding them of the company's policies about speaking to the media. this climate activist group that's within the company has been largely conducting their campaign to organize inside the company, but have also been using the media as a way to get the message out and put pressure on the company to take firmer climate change stances. the company seems to be fighting back and suggesting they have to go through official channels to get approval to talk. taylor: and matt, this is arguably not even an amazon story. you talk about the tension between management and employees frankly all over big tech. but specifically at amazon, how did this start? matt: amazon doesn't have a reputation for employee activism like some of the companies in silicon valley do, given that it's more of a buttoned up work sort of place.

but in late 2018, a bunch of employees got together just looking around the climate change headlines and how they were impacting amazon's business. some had huge wildfires in washington state. they decided to take action and push the company to commit to doing more publicly to fight climate change. and since then, the company has actually taken many steps it would've recommended at that time. taylor: i want to get a little bit more of amazon's response. what else are they telling you about this sort of updated communication policy? matt: they're basically reiterating that they don't think their communications or prohibition on employees going outside the house and talking on behalf of the company. they want them to stay silent or at least ask for approval before going outside the house and talking about topics like this. but the employees think there's something new and different here that amazon is applying policy that didn't apply to them in the months and months before hand

that they were organizing these efforts. taylor: you know, matt, we often hear about former googlers, former any big techer filing complaints with the national labor board, or filing lawsuits. is this a stretch too far to think that there could be any legal ramifications here? matt: we haven't heard any rumblings of that so far pertaining to amazon. i think there's a fine line, at least in my understanding, that a protected employee's speech in relation to working conditions versus going out and claiming to speak in behalf of the company, which i think is what amazon is claiming has occurred here. taylor: what is amazon doing to fight climate change? often, i order a package, and i get 10 different boxes instead of folding them all into one box to save some of the cardboard, for example. what are some of the initiatives that they have made? matt: so, one of the earliest programs, like you mentioned,

the cardboard stack. amazon is working to cut packaging in products they ship. this september, jeff bezos, their ceo, announced a plan to be carbon neutral by 2040 and to meet the goals of the paris climate accord 10 years ahead of schedule. now finally, making some of the aggressive commitment some other large tech companies had adhered to climate change, and some outside observers would say, in part, due to their employees organizing. taylor: thank you to bloomberg's matt day. coming up, what's old is new again. apple strikes a deal with an old partner. we look at the deal between the iphone maker and its old gpu supplier. that's next. this is bloomberg. ♪

taylor: a new year, a new chip deal for apple. the iphone maker striking a deal with u.k. chip designer , imagination technology. the deal revives a relationship

and had all but ended when apple started making its own chips back in 2017. for more, let's bring in bloomberg technology's mark gurman, who covers apple. mark, what do you know about the old and the new deal? mark: some context here, when you're building a phone or an apple tv or a watch or an ipad, this is very much simplified. there's two main types of chips you want in those devices, a cpu, which is the main processor, you want a gpu, which is the graphics processor. since 2014, apple sourced gpu designs from imagination technologies. they basically put that to use when they started designing their own gpu's, and the company stock price plummeted to the point they had to sell themselves to a chinese equity firm. now, it seems like apple wants imagination technologies to come back into the fold, whether they own some patents for key technologies that apple is not able to design itself or not paying royalties to.

so they're striking a new deal with them and it's to be seen how long this one lasts for. taylor: mark, i have to ask why. you said in 2014, apple went to its own chips and it's this company. now they're going back. is this a new vote of confidence in the company, or worries about apple's own chips, or none of the above? mark: you know, i think it's a mix of things, right? i don't think this has to do with apple worrying about its own components. they're pretty much at this point leading the industry in terms of their own in-house chip efforts. what imagination technology likely has its key patents that apple figured it's going to need to pay royalties on. it would be cheaper for them within a few years if they just struck a longer-term royalty deal rather than pay them on an individual device bases or deal with a public lawsuit like they did with this company a couple years ago.

taylor: and mark, what types of patents are we looking at, ai, 5g? what do we think those are? mark: this is stuff related to computer vision and ar specifically. there's this new technology by imagination technologies that is pioneering in the u.k., which really helps with the clarity and the processing power that ar devices can have. some of these patents can be beneficial from that perspective as well, but also, imagination technologies is particular to gpu's and phones. they have a lot of patents apple could find useful. i don't think they will use any technology straight from imagination. they are developing it themselves in-house. they just don't want to pay the big bucks the royalty feed would require. taylor: and if they do, how soon would we start to see this technology? are we looking at next september 5g phones or later off? mark: yeah, i don't think this has anything to do with 5g.

this would be later off, ar related technology. it's very possible this could be stuff we aren't even going to notice is new. it's stuff that imagination technologies could be threatening to take apple to court over already behind the scenes. remember, this is not a public company anymore, so a lot of this can happen sort of under the table. so it make sense for a number of reasons why apple would want to come to this agreement. i would be shocked if we saw any new big announcement specifically related to this tech. taylor: bloomberg's mark gurman, thanks for breaking it down for us and thank you for joining. coming up, tesla's turnaround continues. can they raise their targets by more than $100? we'll talk to the analysts behind the move. that's next. this is bloomberg. ♪

has: a senior commander been killed in iraq. one of iran's most powerful generals. he was killed along with the head of an iraqi military group when their convoy was hit by the airstrike the u.s. defense department says was given directly by president trump, but says the action was taken to protect u.s. personnel abroad, and believes the general was actively developing plans to attack american diplomats and

servicemembers in iraq and throughout the region. wasbiden says the move hugely escalatory and that president trump has tossed "dyanmite into a tinderbox." ofwas described as an act terrorism and says the u.s. bears responsibility for the consequences. in a twitter post, they said the decision to strike was extremely dangerous and a foolish escalation. we've been tracking for the most part of friday, futures down 22 points. we started out the day clearly risk on. looks like we're going to end the day risk off, gold pushing to 1550. big move in the oil markets. and you look at where we are march up. oil also for

until the june contract. we'll be back and a couple minutes to recap this story. keep the here. you are watching bloo ♪ taylor: this is "bloomberg technology." i'm taylor riggs in san francisco. tesla's price target was raised by analysts at ingenuity. and analyst wrote that they will only accelerate in 2020. the target was raised to 515 from 375, one of the highest on wall street and near the street high view of 530. he joins us now from boston. we're joined now by bloomberg's david welch. thanks for joining the program. i want to show you a chart i'm showing inside my terminal.

11 buys, 10 holds, 15 sells, and yet you have a great bull thesis in your note, which i read cover to cover. what is your full thesis to get a share? well, one, i love being contrarian. i think the winning will be on the bullish side. to get into the point, when we look at coming into the year, we see many positives and see that the main negatives, which were largely financial based and their ability to service the debt, largely behind the company. so if we look at the introduction of the model y, the semi-truck, and potentially the more importantly and probably most importantly, the giga factory over in china, all of that screams positive and suggests better profitability. it's for those reasons that we took things up today.

taylor: david, we were wrapping up 2019 with some positive news on the final days in netherlands, that they had more deliveries on those model threes. does it look like tesla estate on track for what they were hoping for in 2019? david: i think they probably are. we'll find out in the next day or so. they're getting good demand in europe, which is kind of the more surprising market because electric vehicles from native automakers there just had not taken off quite as well, but tesla is doing pretty well and i think you're going to end 2020 see more action from china. i think they will probably hit their target for the year. they do have a pretty good lineup. the bigger question for investors will be if they can consistently make money with these cars, particularly as they start to sell cheaper versions. that will be the question for investors and if the bulls or bears went out on this. -- win out on this.

taylor: i want to break it down piece by piece. are you confident that they have met annual deliveries in 2019? >> yeah, i think 2019 numbers, where it's 368, they've given guidance for 360. i think those numbers are doable. you know, i was going to jump into the profitability because i think there's a really important point to hammer home that leads us to this bullish stance around profitability, too. taylor: come take a look at the chart i'm showing inside my terminal. a lot of the bull thesis has been betting on china. china demand has to be there. the problem is you're looking a sort of a decline at what has been an ev market. is there enough to combat what looks like strong headwinds in the overall chinese auto market? >> so, first off, i think the short answer is yes, but we have

to take a step back and ask ourselves why are we going over to ev's? our stance is very bullish. when you look at the vehicle, you have less than 20% efficiency in terms of energy in versus desired output out. it was the same thing we saw when we went from incandescent light bulbs to led. you saw a material shift in efficiency. i think you'll see the same thing here. so when you look at 75 million or 80 million vehicles sold, ev's are still only 2% penetration. there's a lot of room for growth there. further, when we look at profitability, as david was saying, i think the point isn't just china. if you see the shift when you go from these low-volume

high-priced vehicles that have little overlap to high-volume lower-priced vehicles that have a lot of overlap, that is suggestive of greater profitability increase for the company. that, i think, is a real important point. taylor: david, some of the concerns i've heard is the vehicles will be cannibalizing sales, not producing new potential buyers. david, what are you hearing about that? david: i think that's a real possibility, although to jed's point, there is a lot of real growth here. his point that ev's are 2% of the market does give it a lot of room to grow. so, there are just a lot of people who want an ev and as they come up with more body styles, i think they'll get the growth there. i still wonder about profitability because the big question about tesla has always been execution. can they manufacture efficiently? can they get battery costs down? can they do all this stuff on time?

that's been the real problem for elon musk and his company. look, if this were a conventional automaker, and they were sharing a lot of parts and platforms and making three different vehicles oozing 75% shared parts, i would say they are going tont money. but this is tesla. they've never proven they can print money, and i think a lot of people will take a real wait-and-see attitude. taylor: both of you talking about profitability, so let's go there now. the story of the year was last quarter, that surprise profitability that came in much higher than analysts were expecting. so jed, the one concern is there way -- cutting their way through the margins, through the income statement to get a boost on the bottom line. can they continue to cut their way to profitability, or do they need a new strategy? jed: so, i think they can, and i think that's what we're seeing, and that's what we're betting on.

to david's point, i think the most important data point didn't come from tesla. it came from their rival porsche. porsche the preeminent brand with twice the price to model us with half the range with the same battery pack. when we look at ev's, it's not as simple as just tossing some battery cells and a motor into the vehicle. there is some differentiation, and what tesla has shown the ability to do is to monetize that range, and you can either do that with price, or you can do that with longer range. and both are valuable to the consumer. in fact, i would argue that is the most valuable thing to the consumer, and it would be akin to coming out with a vehicle that gets 2x the miles per gallon as their competitor, and that was from one of the largest -- the largest manufacturer in the world.

taylor: jed dorsheimer, bloomberg's david welch, thank you both for joining me. coming up, the top security pick at needham. we'll talk to needham's senior analyst behind that call. that's next. this is bloomberg. ♪

taylor: new year, new threats. cybersecurity trends include new mobile risks. hackers are also expected to employ machine learning and attacks, and the cloud will prove fertile ground for compromise. let's bring in one of the renowned experts in the field, it is tom kellerman of vmware, he served under barack obama.

tom, great to have you here. arguably, really 2020, one of the biggest years when it comes to cybersecurity and the threats. how big of a year are you seeing with all these different threats, election, hackers abroad, pretty much come to a head this year? tom: well, yes. it has become a functionality of conducting business in today's world. you have to appreciate all the major organized crime syndicates in the world have created businesses around hacking. you have rogue nation-states and geopolitical tension continues to manifest in cyberspace in things like the trade war and other events that occur on a global stage. taylor: you know, tom, i wonder who is most at risk. i talked to cybersecurity experts and they say it's the employees. who, in your opinion, really poses the biggest risk in 2020?

tom: well, i think there's a shift in how hackers are hacking. they've moved from burglary to home invasion, which is a lot more dangerous and that they will take over and commandeer your journal transformation efforts and use your network to attack your customers. your brand will be used against her constituency and that's the awakening that must happen in corporate america. taylor: i really want to fold in the election. as you look at 2020, are we more prepared than 2016? tom: i would say we are more prepared because we're aware of the antics that certain nation-states will leverage to manipulate democracy as a whole, but that said, there's very few states that have taken up the assistance from the federal government to secure their electoral systems. many are hamstrung with limited capabilities to do a very effective job in morning nationstates. christopher wray said in a testimony in front of congress that he sees activities by at

least three nations based on our targeted electoral system, not all of which have the same goal in mind. taylor: what are the ways in which you see hackers getting to us in 2020? is it as simple as the voting machine or something much more enhanced? tom: well, when it comes to the individual or the corporation, we need to be very wary of our information supply chains, cloud service providers, outside general counsel, the outside marketing firms we utilize, and even as individuals, we have to stay on our guard because those entities will be attacked, and their infrastructures will be jacked to target us or target our constituency as a whole. what our research has shown as there is a dramatic uptick of destructive attacks where hackers manipulate the integrity of data and change exactly the way either a corporation operates or an individual thinks

specific to their devices. taylor: i love that you brought up the cloud because we've grown up thinking the cloud is secure and safe. is the cloud more at risk and we think it is? tom: well, not all clouds are created equal. the whole purpose behind what we're focused on here is to build intrinsic security into the environment across the entire stat. you can't try to retrofit security on cloud environments. you have to build it in from the beginning and understand an adversary will use that environment to attack your constituency, so you have to have greater visibility. like i said, it depends on the strategy and the amount of dedication of that organization to securing their cloud, and that varies by industry and by corporation. taylor: tom, you were saying that some of the biggest threats are coming from russia, iran, china. how are they differing in their approaches? tom: well, frankly, you have a 50-year plan espoused by china for dominance. i do see as the trade war is

lesser andu will see lesser attacks by chinese hackers against american corporations hopefully, but you see north korea and iran now having cyberattack capabilities, and they're willing to destroy data and commandeer infrastructure and leverage your systems against your constituencies. the cold war is alive and well in the russian techniques are very much focused on undermining the institutions of the west and the validity of the integrity that we place on also it's of things from democracy to our own data. taylor: tom, thank you for joining us. now, cybersecurity tech firm crowd strike provides threat, intelligence, and cyberattack services meant to deal with such risks. an analyst from needham joins us now. alex, love getting your call on the top take in the space. what's behind the bull thesis?

are: well, basically there two point i would make. one is we believe security is an area that absolutely has to see more spending. it's a primary focus, not just in terms of i.t., but at the board level. and to that extent, we think that there's clearly going to be, you know, a very significant increase in spending in this space, particularly as we get closer and closer to the election. it will become more and more of an issue. we particularly like companies that are in the cloud direct segment of the marketplace that have a cloud native solution. i heard your last guest to talk about security in the cloud. what we want to highlight as these are companies that are in the cloud natively that protect companies directly from the cloud, as opposed to connections between, you know, an aws, a microsoft du jour, or something

like that, where it's a cloud connection that's not necessarily secure, so quite different than what he was referring to. we think the company's growth is going to be well over 50% over the course of the next year. the street has it slowing down to about 30's -- 3% growth -- 30% growth. and i think that's too steep a deceleration from the 100% growth they posted last quarter. additionally, any upside you get in revenue demonstrates significant margin leverage, so we think there's good upside to both revenue and the margin side of the equation. we strongly believe that crowd strike is one of the key solutions to the security problem that enterprises are facing. taylor: so, you paint a positive picture in terms of enterprising and corporations increasing their spend on cybersecurity, but what is crowd strike doing specifically that perhaps other companies are not to take advantage of that positive backdrop?

alex: sure. me delineate between the winners and losers here in the security space. we very strongly believe that the world's perimeter defense, where you basically put an id stack at the edge of your data center, is no longer a valid security solution. while you still need to do that, the world is shifting to what i would call a cloud-direct solution. companies are in the cloud and will deliver cloud security. the companies that are in the perimeter side of it, companies like palo alto, companies like checkpoint, these companies are trying to do a perimeter defense model, where you're essentially trying to keep the bad guy out. you're just never going to win at that. there was a recent security survey where 76% of chief security officers of enterprise expected they would be hacked

within the next 12 months and 60% predicted they didn't know it when it happened. and that's a function of the nail your perimeter defense to work. all the bad guy has to do is get through once. you have to keep them out 100% of the time. it's pretty obvious that's not working. we're moving to a world of what's called zero trust or cloud direct security, and these companies in the cloud that are delivering that i think ultimately will be the next generation of security companies and will gain share. taylor: alex henderson of needham, thank you very much. still ahead, bitcoin, hyperloop, and self driving cars. we go through all the tech predictions of the last decade that did and did not come to fruition. this is bloomberg. ♪

taylor: mobile phone ownership,

elon musk's hyperloop, toyota's self driving cars, bitcoin -- they were all the predictions of the last decade for 2020. many did come to fruition. many did not. of the top 10, there were four or five that really stood out to me. nine out of 10 people over the age of six will own a mobile phone. tell me there's not a bunch of six-year-olds with mobile phones. >> yeah, i don't think that happened. erickson and vodafone probably overestimated how quickly the developing markets would come online and how quickly cell phones would come down in price. it's just a big divide to bring so many people in developing economies up into the smartphone age. taylor: i want to switch to digital because there was a

prediction that jet.com would break even. but it looks like they're still losing money, not yet breaking even. mark: yes, at that poing, that's -- they were an independent entity. kind of before uber and airbnb were coming up in creating the age of the unicorn, and they were this early example of all the silicon valley money that's going up in smoke. in response to a lot of the criticism, mark came on this very network and said by 2020 we will be breaking even. walmart ended up buying them the next year. but by all accounts, i don't think that really happened. walmart is losing a lot of money in their competition with amazon right now. taylor: we talk about google, alphabet. you come in and they thought cloud business would eclipse advertising revenue, but we

're not quite there yet? mark: yeah, they were a little ambitious in their production saying that by 2020, they will have their cloud business outpacing advertising. at the end of last year, advertising made up maybe about 85% of their revenue. so cloud has grown a lot, but it's a far cry from what they envisioned and they're bumping up against amazon, which is the biggest. taylor: what might have been the biggest bust of the year was dyson, saying they would sell an electric car. last year they shut down the business, just could not get off the ground. mark: that was a production that wasn't that far out. that was just a couple of years ago. they were like, "we're working on this electric car and we'll have something ready by 2020."

it didn't take them long to figure out the project was, as they described it, "not commercially viable." spent a lot of money as a vacuum company that wanted to be something larger and realized this was a complicated business. taylor: and a very far-off prediction was uber deploying flying cars. no flying cars in our future just yet. mark: yes, although they still maintain that some time in 2020, they expect to do demonstrations of these flying car takeoff and vertically landing vehicles. now, they do have helicopters, which are kind of like a flying car but not really. they still hope to be able to show some type of live demonstration of a futuristic "jetsons"-like car. taylor: i want to end with number seven, which is that toyota will make self driving cars. because there's been a lot of competition, not only in the ev space, but in the self-driving space also. what do we know about toyota and

their self-driving car's? tt: this was one of the closest that actually came true. they said that -- this was way back in 2015 -- i think toyota came out and said they expect to have cars that will be able to drive themselves on the highway. there will be assistant technology for drivers. it doesn't mean you won't have a driver in the front seat. they do plan to do that this year, through their lexus brand, have a car that can drive itself on the highway, kind of like a tesla does, but it was sort of a way to cap the crazy hype cycle that took place over the last decade in self driving cars. there were a lot of productions about how we'd be sitting in the back seats and have robots driving us around and we are nowhere near that day. taylor: thanks for joining. and that does it for this edition of "bloomberg technology," and "bloomberg technology" is livestreaming on twitter. check us out @technology and be sure to follow our global news network @quicktake on twitter. this is bloomberg.

♪ eñ

announcer: the following is a paid presentation brought to you by rare collectibles tv. ♪ announcer: the california gold rush is considered to be one of the most impactful events to impact america's economy for its first 100 years, and it has certainly had a long lasting impression in numismatic history, as well. it all began in 1848 when james marshall found flakes of gold in loma, california.