tv Bloomberg West Bloomberg October 12, 2015 8:30pm-9:01pm EDT
what. you don't have a desk bed? don't be left in the dark. get proactive alerts 24/7. comcast business. built for business. emily: dell buying emc in the largest tech takeover ever -- the question is whether other tech giants will follow. ♪ emily: 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 app -- the social network is planning a new shopping section.
i will have all the details. and fantasy sports sites track record weekend with pro football fans despite the controversy. first, to our lead and the biggest tech takeover ever. dell agreeing to buy emc for $67 billion. 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. for emc, the buyout will hopefully satisfy activist investors looking for growth. dell will assume an 80% stake in 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. let's start with you. lay it all out for us. alex: the idea is dell is one of several large, legacy tech
companies whose 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 at small and medium-size businesses. emc is a large enterprise company and whose core competency is storage rather than servers for dell. emily: do you see them getting out of the business? jerry: pcs are declining and everyone's moving to a mobile, tablet world. if you are dell, why would you spend more time in a low-margin pc business to pursue the storage business? emily: what is the amount of
debt they are taking on? can they pull this off? alex: i wish i knew the answer to that. meg whitman just put out a memo to her own clients. take this with a grain of salt because hp and emc last year 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. emily: 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. i feel like when people are comparing this to hp and compaq,
whenever a big tech deals like this happens, it does not go well. can this go well? jerry: history would indicate that it's not going to go well. at best you had hp which did the largest m&a and is now splitting itself off and now dow is taking -- dell is taking the mantle. maybe in a few years, they will realize smarter is better and split themselves off. emily: why do this? >> one is being a private company. the deal is with activists shareholders. number two 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 -- and be technology provider to these customers. emily: it is interesting that
you see them going against the tide -- mark andreessen says he expects a lot of tech companies to break up. who knows if that will happen. are we expecting more big m&a or a more big tech breakup? alex: that's a great point. hp almost did the deal with emc. -- that may have been plan b. i think we'll see other big companies split up 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. emily: jerry, what the you think? jerry: hp is not a consumer business -- focus on markets and customers and serve that customers -- serve the customer to the end. ibm has been doing this for assetsshedding non-core
and retooling themselves as end -to-ienend consultants. i don't know what's left in the cupboard for ibm to financially engineer. we have to figure out what areas are surrounded by services. a big gain on these technologies like dockers and 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. you look at the assets they have. it takes billions 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 are so far ahead, i don't see them catching up.
dell and emc have on premise software and they are not used to selling per container , her transaction deals. alex: it's useful to point out that what has save them is the $625 million acquisition of vmware, not $50 billion dollar deal. emily: it will be interesting to watch how they treat vm going forward. i will be in austin speaking with michael dell about all of this next week at dell world. the social network -- the social network is trying to look more like the shopping network. facebook is adding a shopping section to its mobile app. facebook is looking at ways to lure users into making purchases. the company says it won't be taking a cut out of revenue
sorkin's "steve jobs" is in and has been well received by hollywood critics. in silicon valley, a different story. 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. this was the first time i saw it. 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 .
steve: in person. emily: did you guys argue or anything? steve: i never once looked at the script. i did not feel 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. these are not the things we would have done and after a while, you realize it's the artistic freedom to make a movie that is enjoyable. emily: some have said there are a lot of things in this movie that didn't actually happen. would you say that? steve: maybe everything in the movie didn't happen, but it's all based on things that did happen. every scene that i am in, i was not talking to steve jobs at those events. i don't even say things like that. i don't say them. they were based upon things -- for example, there were examples of me saying please acknowledge
the apple ii for 15 years -- like i would do that? . 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 steve 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 what is the reality? steve: i was 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. it was not going to show at the super bowl.
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 this is us. even john scully believed in the macintosh. it's just that you have to manage a business and it's going to take three years to build a market and steve did not understand that. these kinds of interactions come out in the movie. 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. how would a discussion between steve and john scully go down? they even show them meeting at a later date. steve never talked to john after that. emily: 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? steve: in the background of what was going on, everyone knows the
story of the evolution of personal computers and the evolution of apple products. everyone knows that. this was 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 -- steve in that regard. emily: so you are saying it doesn't matter? >> it matters that it's a great movie. this is a product. 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. the character that he played, doing things that i didn't do, different places, times, ways, i liked the way he played it. even him doing things in ways that i would not -- i admired that character even know it said words i could never say. i would say what he did was more important the way he says it back to me. i would never call steve an epithet.
i would never do that in life. i just can't. emily: did you ever talk to seth? steve: yes. emily: tell me about that. steve: 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. emily: tim cook said he felt the movie was opportunistic and johnny ives 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 -- started thinking, yeah, it is opportunistic on someone's life, but any thing any business does is opportunistic. this has taken a person's reputation. the thing is, steve jobs has multiple sites to his personality that he's known for. he's known for greatness and thinking ahead. great products look at the ipod , and the iphone. that was the start of it, how
music is sold. these movies all go back to a former part of time that's not up to that point in time when those things happened. there are hundreds of cases -- i know firsthand experiences where steve did things, how could any human being do this? unfortunately, a legacy has to live with the truth or not. emily: have you ever been asked to take a role that is ceremonial at apple? would you like to be more involved in the day today there. -- day-to-day there. 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 highschoolers 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? steve: 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 couldn't do it. i'm not the right person for that. emily: steve wozniak. you can catch the full interview on bloomberg.com. as always he had a lot more to , say. this week, draft kings learned that the old saying is true -- there is no such thing as bad publicity. 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. coming up, airbnb ceo brian
and describes how his company is different. brian: one think people will say is that airbnb is a collaborative company. cities around the world say they like working with us. i don't see us battling cities. we are a company that brings people together. they lived together every night. if a company brings people into other people's homes you don't want to be a brand that is fighting. emily: he says he has no plans 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 brands using software made by the newly minted unicorn, medallia. they are in the business of customer experience management. oneed the vc firm to make
of its best investment ever. cofounders borge hald and amy pressman join me now. obviously it is getting a lot of attention, but 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, call center data and we , put it together and hard the wire that 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. borge: airbnb uses ratings online. that is one thing they do. 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 now specifically take action to
make sure those constituents are excited about working with them. emily: who are your competitors? amy: 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 social media monitoring and we meet different competitors in different situations. emily: the story behind your company is so fascinating. you didn't take any outside funding and built this for 10 years and then 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
category and we need to be the 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. what is it like growing a billion-dollar company with your spouse? how does that impact how you run the business? borge: when we started out, we naïvely did not think eight or 10 years into the future, but it has been phenomenal. we are incredibly complimentary .n our skill sets i don't know if you have something to add. amy: what cofounders aren't married? emily: they don't go home to each other every night. how many kids do you have? amy: three.
we have some interesting dinnertable conversations. you are at a billion plus evaluation. how far north are we talking about here in the whole unicorn mantra? borge: we are not super excited about focusing on valuation. we are here to build a long-term business. 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 objective. emily: what is next? amy: this is just the beginning of our journey. more growth. we are focusing on scale and global with our lot of systems integrators and mobile system integrators so we can get much larger. emily: amy pressman and borge hald, cofounders and husband-and-wife.
>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: russia and syria continued attacks on opposition groups. u.s. defense secretary ash carter criticized russia at a nato meeting in brussels. >> they have initiated a joint ground offensive, shattering the facade that they are there to fight isil. this will have consequences for russia itself. which is rightfully fearful of attack upon russia.