tv Bloomberg West Bloomberg October 12, 2015 5:30pm-6:01pm EDT
takeovere largest tech ever -- the question is whether other tech giants will follow. i'm emily chang and this is "bloomberg west." coming up, my exclusive interview with steve wozniak to separate fact from fiction in the latest steve jobs movie. plus rodeo drive meets the facebook mobile act -- the social network is planning a new shopping section. sites tracksports
record weekend was full -- with pro football lands -- with pro football fans despite the controversy. first, to our lead in the technologye -- tech takeover ever. dell is adding almost $50 billion to it that load on top of the $11 billion it's carrying for dell. it's amid the hottest product lineup in an ever more competitive environment. buyout will hopefully satisfy activist investors looking for growth. a stake inssume vmware which will remain a publicly traded company. joining me now is a partner at greylock capital who worked there for a decade and alex sherman, our m&a reporter at bloomberg. lay it all out for us. dell is one ofis several large, legacy tech
companies who in many ways best days are behind them and they are trying to figure out what is the next depth forward for us. part one of that plan was to go private and refocus on the enterprise segment to get away from what we all know dell as from a consumer pc product company to a company that services information technology too small and medium-size businesses. emc is a large enterprise company and whose core competency is storage rather than -- emily: do you see them getting out of the business? jerry: pcs are declining and everyone's moving to a mobile, tablet world. why would you become a more low-margin pc business to pursue the storage business? ofly: what is the amount
that they are taking on? alex: i wish i knew the answer to that. meg whitman just put out a memo -- take this with a grain of salt because they were deep into discussions to do a deal themselves. but they said dell will need to pay off $2.5 billion every year. that's not going to go into r&d or getting into the cloud. she came out saying this is a real opportunity and they are going to have to radically reduce r&d and it will create disruption as they rationalize channel programs and leadership. when people are comparing this to hp and compaq, whenever a big tech deals like
this happens, it does not go well. history would indicate that it's not going to go well. agent -- hp did the largest m&a and is now splitting itself off and now dow is taking the mantle. maybe in a few years, they will realize smarter is better and split themselves off. there are two things -- one is being a private company. the deal is with activists shareholders. is consolidation. you are looking at markets where you have four or five mega buyers. dell wants to get enough size and mass and technology providers to these customers. emily: it is interesting that you see them going against the mark andreessen says he
expects a lot of tech companies to break up. big m&a orcting more a more big tech breakup? great point.a hp almost did the deal with emc. that may have been plan b. i think we'll see other big companies because that's a trend we have seen -- symantec, ebay -- the one everyone speculates is will ibm split up? they need to do something, so to your point, what is that something? it's either a big m&a transaction or breaking up. hp is not a consumer business -- vocus on markets and customers and serve that customers -- serve the customer to the end. ibm has been doing this for years, sharing non-core asked that's and retooling themselves
as end to end consultants. i don't know what's left in the cupboard for ibm to financially engineer. what areasfigure out are surrounded by services. these technologies like containers and that's going to list a bunch of i.t. services. i don't think they are going to buy a large company like dell emc. we are really in the consulting business. emily: do you think they could take on aws? jerry: i don't see it. it takes aliens of dollars and lots of know how to retool your business and be a public crowd divider. i was at amazon's conference last week and they's -- they are so far ahead, i don't see them catching up. emc have on premise
software and they are not used to selling per container transaction deals. to point outeful is that what has save them is the $625 million acquisition of vmware, not a fifth the billion dollar deal. emily: it will be interesting to watch how they treat vm going forward. i will be in austin speaking about all of this next week at dell world. -- the socialwork network is trying to look more like the shopping network. they are adding a shopping section for its mobile at to go to a full screen catalog for the retailer. facebook is looking at ways to lower users into making purchases.
critical review is in -- aaron sorkin's "steve jobs" is in and has been well received by hollywood critics. steve wozniak enjoyed the film, but not because it has anything to do with reality. i sat down with him earlier in an exclusive interview. steve: this movie was top-notch professional -- the script and how well the actors played it and the cinematography, i was not familiar with aaron sorkin's work because i don't watch television. it was unbelievable to me. emily: and you actually spoke with him leading into this film. tell me about your role. steve: we talked for hours and hours, anything i could think of saying. tiny bits that got used and painted in a different way and different place. emily: and you spent hours with him on the phone or in person to eschew mark steve: in person.
emily: did you guys argue or anything? steve: i never once looked at the script. i did not deal it was appropriate for anyone to look at the script and say it didn't happen this way. it is his art. when you're close to something, every movie i've seen about apple, they have the same people and their personalities are wrong. wese are not the things would have done and after a while, you realize it's the artistic freedom to make a movie that is enjoyable. said there aree a lot of things in this movie that didn't actually happen. steve: maybe everything in the movie didn't happen but it's all based on things that did happen. in, i wase that i am not talking to steve jobs at those events. they were based upon things -- examplesle, there were of me saying please acknowledge
the apple to for 15 years -- like i would do that eschew mark that was based on one shareholders meeting. the people in the apple ii division were ready to quit. but on their behalf, i was there only voice. i called john, not the jobs. things really get built into a movie. there are myths about me and steve jobs in those come out more along the lines of the myth and not reality. emily: what is the myth and not the reality? so gung ho for every project he introduced. i thought they were good because they came from steve jobs. one of them was the macintosh -- he portrays it like a bunch of people were for the apple ii and not the macintosh. he showed me the 1984 commercial privately and said the board voted it down.
i was shocked and said part of the reason was because it cost $800,000. i said i would pay $400,000 if you pay $400,000 and we can show this ad and we should show it because it is us. even john scully believed in the macintosh. you have to manage the business and it's going to take three years to build a market and steve did not understand that. steve jobs was good and they didn't listen to him and messed up apple -- that's not -- the movie is not about reality. the movie is about personalities. betweend a discussion steve and john scully go down? if as you say, everything in the movie didn't happen maybe, does it matter that this becomes the popular understanding of what did happen? in the background of what
was going on, everyone knows the story of the evolution of personal computers and the evolution of apple products. in private meetings that are never on video. how did steve interact with people on a daily basis and it shows different sides of stephen that regard. emily: so you are saying it doesn't matter? >> it matters that it's a great movie. if steve jobs were making movies as his product, this is the kind of quality he would want. emily: let's talk about seth rogen's portrayal of you? steve: i liked it very much. even him doing things in ways that i would not -- i admired that character even know it said words i could never say. say what he did was more important the way he says it back to me. anould never call steve
epithet. i just can't. emily: did you ever talk to seth? steve: yes. he's one of the coolest actors in my mind. i'm glad they picked him to portray me. he says i usually don't lay people who are smarter than me. tim cook said he felt the movie was opportunistic and johnny eyes said he felt like steve's image had been hijacked. what do you make of that? steve: those comments got to me deeply and i started inking it is opportunistic on someone's life, but any thing any business does is opportunistic. hasthing is, steve jobs multiple sites to his personality that he's known for. he's known for greatness and thinking ahead. look at the ipod and the iphone.
aese movies all go back to former part of time that's not up to when those things happened. -- i are hundreds of cases know firsthand experiences where you would think how could anyone do this? unfortunately, the legacy has to live with the truth or not. emily: have you ever been asked to take a role that is ceremonial at apple? steve: steve jobs asked me questions like that near the time he was dying -- you want to come back to apple? i love the life i have. i get to go around and talk to highschooler's and university students and inspire them to want to have the creation of technology and make that part of their business. emily: what did he want you to do? maybe some little role, but i told him frankly i'm
sorry, running big companies to the organization, the personal ethics versus the is this ethics, i'm not the right person for that. emily: steve wozniak. you can catch the full interview on bloomberg.com. he had a lot more to say. this week, draft learned that the old saying is true -- there's no such thing as bad with city. a record 7.1 million people entered tournaments for the nfl games leading to the guest weekend ever for the two fantasy sports companies. the record weekend comes despite the controversy over a draft king's employee who won $350,000 on a rival site. employees are banned from entering any daily fantasy tournament. but it seems to have only brought the company more users. airbnb ceo brian chesky says weather and ipos in the future and how he feels
growing problems earlier today and describes how his company is different. brian: one think people will say is that airbnb is a collaborative company. i don't see us battling cities. we are a company that brings people together. if a company brings people into other people's homes you don't want to be a brand that is fighting. no plans says he has to take airbnb public in the next few years. he says he is not concerned with competition from hotels and has plans to be accessible everywhere. airbnb is one of more than 500 rand inc. software made by the newly minted unicorn, medallia. they are in the business of customer experience management. the vc firm has made it one of its best investment ever.
and amyrs borge hald pressman join me now. this is not a household name. what do you do? airbnb is a customer. what do you do for airbnb? amy: we gather customer feedback everywhere, from media for, from surveys, and we put it together and hard the data throughout the organization so that everyone in the company can take action to improve the customer experience. emily: explain how that would work in a situation with airbnb. airbnb uses ratings online. the other thing they are concerned about is what the renters think. so we capture feedback from a lot of different parties that are important and have them great analytics. the key thing is there are people within airbnb that can
specifically take action to make sure they are excited about working with us. emily: who are your competitors? great question. there's not a single competitor. we meet different people in different scenarios and the reason is, we are a platform, so we have this as part of our weial media monitoring and meet different competitors in different situations. emily: the story behind your company is interesting -- you didn't take any outside funding and built this for 10 years and in sequoia was trying to chase you down. what happened? borge: you are right. we did bootstrap and it was awesome and what we realized is you come into 2010 and social media was really changing the whole space. customer experience has never been more important we realized
this is going to be a global be they and we needed to company that runs that and we needed capital. emily: the most interesting thing about your story to me is that you guys are husband and wife. growing a like billion-dollar company with your spouse? when we started out, we naively did not think eight or 10 years into the future, but it has been phenomenal. we are incredibly competent entry in our skill set and we are able -- allen's is maybe exhilarated, -- exaggerated. i don't know if you have something to add. what cofounders aren't married? they don't go home to each other every night.
how many kids do you have? amy: three. plusre at a billion evaluation. how far are we talking about here in the whole unicorn mantra? borge: we are not super excited about focusing on valuation. we want to change the world. we want a world where customers are truly in love with the customers who serve them. it is significantly north of a billion dollars, but that's not our active. -- that's not our objective. emily: what is next? amy: this is just the beginning of our journey. we are focusing on scale and work of -- working on mobile system integrators so we can get much larger. emily: amy pressman and borge hald, cofounders and
>> from our studios in new york city, this is " charlie rose." charlie: russia and syria continued attacks on opposition groups. u.s. defense secretary asked carter criticized russia at a nato meeting in brussels. >> to have initiated a joint ground offensive, shattering the façade that they are there to fight isil. this will have consequences for russia itself. which is rightfully fearful of at