tv Bloomberg West Bloomberg May 26, 2016 11:00pm-12:01am EDT
mark: i'm mark crumpton, you're watching "bloomberg west." the republican presidential nomination is in hand for billionaire donald trump. on the horizon, a selection of a running mate. mr. trump spoke today in bismarck, north dakota. mr. trump: we're looking for absolute confidence. i fully expect we will have many women involved, i have had it with the campaign, many women involved and i think you're going to see that. you're going to see that very strongly. mark: mr. trump also said he is willing to debate democratic presidential candidate bernie sanders with the money raised going to charity. the republican-controlled house
has officially begun talks for the fight against the zika virus. but lawmakers left town for the memorial day recess with no progress toward a compromise. michigan governor rick snyder is looking to stop administrative investigations into how two state agencies handled flint's drinking water crisis. the move by governor snyder follows warnings the investigations could hurt state and federal inquiries. russia is including maria sharapova on its preliminary team for the summer olympics in rio, despite her provisional suspension for failing a drug test earlier this year. global news 24 hours a day, powered by our 2,400 journalists in more than 150 news bureaus around the world from the bloomberg newsroom, i'm mark crumpton. "bloomberg west" is next. emily: i'm emily chang, this is
"bloomberg west." coming up google dodges a $9 , million bullet. a jury verdict wipes out the oracle claim. biggest ride hailer, ft andhic alliance with ly others to take on uber. and the journalist who wrote the original story, outing peter thiel after thiel reveals he is indeed funding hulk hogan's lawsuit against him. to our lead, a $9 billion sigh for google. the u.s. jury has found that they did not need a license from the lawsuit that is dragged on since 2010. oracle has been seeking what it thought it was a fair slice of the profit google has reaped for more than $3 billion activations of the android operating system.
it marks one of the largest jury verdicts in u.s. history. but oracle is not giving up so , easily. oracle general council saying we strongly believe that google developed android by illegal -- illegally copying java technology to rush into the mobile market. we believe there are numerous grounds for appeal. joining us now for more the impact of this case our editor , at large, cory johnson in new york, our bloomberg intelligence litigation analysts, matt larson and washington, and our guest host for the hour, dan rosensweig, who is fighting a sore throat. thank you so much for sticking with us today. first of all what is your reaction to this verdict? both did a spectacular job putting on a trial. it is surprising, proving fair use. they were looking through the files, the individual source code files. hats off to google, they
overcame adversity. incrediblys diligent, they were going through all the evidence presented, looking through the files they were presented with that show the individual source code files. google, their legal team presented the strongest case for the use of this java code developing android being permissible despite the fact , that it's protected by copyright. emily: google actually started the case at eight disadvantage because the judge said google had infringed oracle copyright, so, cory, what does it mean for google? cory: the judge seemed to not really be on the side of oracle throughout the trial, it was pretty tough on oracle. i attended a couple of sessions of the first trial which was tossed out on appeal. of course, oracle said they're going to appeal this as well on a number of fronts. they have a lot of places to do that. it's a very interesting thing. during the trial we learned some
interesting things of what went on behind the scenes. yes there were negotiations , between larry elson and larry page, discussions about that, in the very early days, we are seeing in the picture, there was kind of hilarious comments, she approached one of the google people. they said, we are a new kind of company, we don't adhere to the old rules. she said to them, how about the golden rule, thou shalt not steal, that's an old rule. that got some laughs in the courtroom, even from the judge that didn't seem to favor oracle in this trial. it's an interesting case. one of the things we found during the trial, when oracle bought sun, they assigned a big dollar value to the java licenses and potential java uses. so people look at that deal and wonder why did they pay so much money for sun? java was great value to them,
-- was thought to have a great value for them, the value they expected to get out of java they may never get if they can't enforce the licenses and using this without a license. emily: this case could have spurred a lot more litigation. oracle saying they will appeal. dan, what is your take your? either side could have one -- wpon. the whole point of open sources to be able to use it, so at the end of the day, i think it's good for innovation and smaller companies, i think it's good for investment capitol to be able to use existing technology and grow businesses out of it. you had oracle didn't build it, they bought it. then they sued the company that used, the former c.e.o. of it who actually helped build it. so there were a lot of elements in this where both sides could have come out the winner. at the end of the day, it's good for silicon valley that we can use technology to build new companies. emily: what are the next steps here? matt: as alluded to in the
conversation, oracle along the way has been leaving crumbs that it can come back to and file appeal. they took issue with the way that the jury was instructed on fair use. they filed various motions at different points in the trial itself where they asked the judge to rule in their favor as a matter of law saying there are , no facts under which google could possibly win. so now that the trial is over, oracle will dig all of those back up, ask the court to overturn the jury, which i don't think this judge is inclined to do. the judge was very complimentary of the jury, seemed to think highly of their efforts. the next stage is likely going to be a fairly extensive appeal to the federal circuit and potentially to the supreme court. we'll see how it plays out. we're not looking at the end of this litigation by any stretch of the imagination. emily: quickly, cory, what does it mean for oracle's future mobile ambitions, is it a huge blow? cory: i think it really is. you can see the dollar amounts they were going after here. they wanted to be able to use
this case to enforce other infringements they see on the java patents. so i think this is a great disappointment to them. i also point out the movement of stock, as you know, i don't tend to believe in the stock market in the short term tells us a whole lot. in this case, the stock was only down a little, the street thought very little about not just the outcome, the positive outcome of this case for oracle, but also the positive valuation of java as a part of oracle's business. oracle may see a lot of value there, wall street did not. i think that's why you saw the stock not move much after hours. emily: cory, matt, dan, our guest host for the hour, you're sticking with me. now, another story we are watching, has apple got its eye on the media content business? the apple executive in charge of itunes and apple music discussed in the meeting last year with time warner's head of corporate strategy.
talks never proceeded to formal litigation, but media stocks including time warner and netflix saw their stocks rise on this news. with spendinghat high on content a deal with the , owner of hbo could help apple catch up as the iphone maker faces a future of slowing smartphone sales. coming up, the real story behind venture capitalist peter thiel to back hulk hogan against the media. journalistr from the who wrote the controversial posted that outed him.
emily: billionaire investor and facebook board member peter feel reveals he has indeed been secretly funding lawsuits to take down gawker media including bank rolling a defamation case filed by former pro wrestler hulk hogan over a sex tape. the case resulted in a $140 million verdict and could threaten gawker's very existence. "wall street journal" is reporting gawker is considering a sale. thiel issued a statement to financially support hogan's suit. he said that gawker built its business on humiliating people on sport. they said victims would be too intimidated or disgusted to attempt address for clear wrongs. freedom of the press does not mean freedom to publish sex tapes without consent. here are with me to discuss this, owen thomas, who wrote the original story for gawker in 2007, that quote outed peter as gay. he is business editor for the "san francisco chronicle."
so owen, knowing that you know now, do you have any regrets about writing that story? owen: i have no regrets about writing that story. emily: why not? owen: i didn't out peter. he outed himself to a wide circle of people in silicon valley who took it upon themselves to say, this is ok for us to know. the unwashed masses should not know such a detail about one of our own. emily: just because he told people who know him, should it be public? owen: if it's an open secret, why shouldn't you discuss it. it was in our mission. also fundamentally as a gay man, i feel like -- emily: yourself? owen: as a gay man myself, we need to live in a world where it's ok to say that person is gay, i'm gay, where it's not viewed as some kind of schoolyard taunt but as simply a , human fact about someone that is interesting. interesting because not everyone is gay, we are a minority within the population, but it should be
ok to discuss. emily: what are your thoughts on that? dan: it's also ok not to be. owen it's ok not to be gay, i : support your right. dan i support yours. : i think it shouldn't matter and we're moving towards a world where it doesn't matter, that's a good thing. owen: if it doesn't matter, why not say it? dan shouldn't a person be : entitled to whom and when they say it if it's their personal business, on this subject or any subject to be honest to you. it's not so much being gay or not gay. the question is shouldn't a , human being be able to determine how they want to express themselves, whether you agree or i agree. that is my issue with it. owen absolutely, i think that to : put it in this category of personal business, to kind of treat it as something other, to treat it as something that anyone anywhere should be ashamed of ever is to denigrate the status of gay people. dan i don't know that he ever : thought that he was ashamed of it.
owen i don't think he was. : he is a very personal person dan like many people are. : they should be able to determine when they say about themselves whatever they want to say, whether so i respect that i , like to live in a world where you live in where it shouldn't matter and shouldn't be a topic of conversation. or should be a topic of owen conversation because it's : something you can freely discuss. where we don't need to anymore. dan emily: when you published : the story, did you and nick publish it in gawker, did you discuss it and debate it, was it an automatic yes, we're doing this? owen: denton, the conversations were typically one way. he would give me a tip. i would run with my investigation, my reporting, my journalism to see if there was a story there. that's typical between any editor and their boss of the editorial team. you get a possible story. you look into it, you determine
what the story is that you want to write. this is a story i wanted to write. emily: nick just released a letter to peter saying this is indicative decade-long , campaign is quite out of proportion to the hurt you claim. your plaintiff's lawyer has sued not just the company, but individual journalists. he told the "new york times," i refuse to mean that journalism means massive pricy violations. it's because that i respect journalists, i do not believe they are endangered in fighting back against gawker. owen the largest issue is should : billionaires be able to dictate what is said about them. do we want to live in a world where the subjects of coverage get approval over every single thing a journalist writes. if they don't like anything you write, are they going to fund some secret lawsuit? are they going to use every tool
at their disposal to stop you. it's not about whether thiel is gay or not. it's about, for example, the successes and failures of his hedge fund, it's about his decisions as a facebook board member very early on in his life when it was a private company. all of these things were things were covered and things that thiel may not have wanted us to run. does he get a veto on every single thing that a journalist does? emily: what's your thought on that? gawker went hard on bill cosby before anyone else did. hillary clinton and the emails, tom cruise and scientology, not just this one story. dan: -- owen does bill cosby get to : determine what we write about him? that's personal business, right? dan i think we live if a world, : these are all fair questions and so my point is this. you can see the perspective of the journalist, this is why they become journalists, this is what they believe in. i believe your intent is just as admirable as you describe it. i don't believe that's the intent of everybody. i do believe there is
mean-spirited and the american public, as evidenced by the election, by the way, would like consequences for journalists also. the fact that you write whatever you want whenever you want whether it's true or not -- owen whoa, whoa. :dan: not you in particular. people put their own spin on it. people want consequences. this is an interesting question about whether or not how do journalists get consequences, how do prosecutors get consequences when they do wrong things? how do government officials get ? consequences now this is a consequences where they're shooting back, saying if you want to do this -- emily: should there be consequences for peter? how do you think facebook should handle this? owen i think facebook is in a : very tough position. now peter thiel has been the earliest backer of the company. he is the one who said mark zuckerberg i believe in you, you , have something here, the first real money into that company. with that said, i find it very
strange just from looking at , silicon valley for decades as have, for a venture capitalist to remain on the board this long in the company's life. he doesn't need to be on the board at this point. i think that has to be something -- emily: boards are supposed to be people with diversity of ? opinion he certainly has that. he has it, not only from other dan: people. owen with the neutrality, it : helps to have a trump delegate on the board, perhaps. dan i think many of these are : very fair questions. i think like most people, we care about what is in our best interest. so mark zuckerberg and the rest of the board gets to determine what good corporate governance is. wall street can determine whether they support that. owen facebook is structured that : wall street does not really get a vote. dan they knew that. :they published all that so you knew all that before you invested it what they were
entitled to do. let's not say that wall street on gets a vote. : emily: one last question, owen, did you ever hear from peter around that time? owen i never got anything on the : record publicly, any kind of pushback or dissatisfaction. emily: interesting. owen thomas, thank you for coming on, former reporter for gawker, "san francisco chronicle" business editor now. appreciate you joining us and hearing your side of the story. dan, as always -- dan it's a really interesting : question. emily: with me for the hour. now we're going to dig into these themes further with grab ceo anthony tan later this hour and talk about how they're taking on uber. ♪
dan is the former c.o.o. of yahoo!, current c.e.o. of chegg making some big acquisitions, first on yahoo!, there are reports that you are part of a group, your facilitating dan gilbert's bid for yahoo!, can you tell us anything about that? dan i'm not facilitating : anything. i think the story was accurate which is, i care a great deal about the company as do many , former yahoo!s. when there are high quality people interested in understanding the business, we're all happy to help them understand the business. emily: you are helping them understand the business? dan this is a complicated : business at a complicated time with lots of competitors and understanding the history of it is something a lot of people have asked me and other former yahoos. i'm happy to help people understand about growing companies. emily: how do you think it has proceeded so far?
dan it has proceeded like you : would expect. a lot of stories because nothing came out, a lot of leaks and a lot of stories around the leaks. they're doing exactly what they're supposed to do. they have been transparent with the process. they have communicated. i think that the process will play out and i think we'll have a much better understanding sometime in july whether yahoo! will be sold or not sold. emily: what do you make of at&t getting in the game? dan it doesn't surprise me. : the number one competitor verizon has been in the game, loudly in the game. they have the same series of assets. verizon has a leg up in the mobile advertising business having bought a.o.l. i think at&t's relationship with peter is probably the part that helps drive this which is peter's understanding of media, the people that work with peter used to work at yahoo!, so it's a very smart group of people taking a look at the asset and see if they can utilize it the same as yahoo! is? emily: what about marisa meyer?
what will her reputation be as she emerges from this? dan: a lot of what has been said has been remarkably unfair. some of fair, that's the role you take on when you're the c.e.o. of a public company. emily: what is fair and unfair? dan: what is unfair when they start publishing things about security and what the company spends on it. that doesn't matter for public investors to understand. she should not be under this kind of attack by anybody. that's the story that should be written. nobody chooses to write it. why is the c.e.o. under this kind of attack? emily: what do you think of the "variety" cover? dan i don't want to be in her : shoes for these reasons. it's that whole segment on what people can and can't write about you. unfortunately, some of these things are fair game whether she likes it or not. at the end day, she is doing her job as a professional ceo. she is trying to build value, she has a strategy, she is executing on it. it is been determined that that strategy hasn't lived up to the potential she hoped. she said that.
they're looking at what else to do next. that's her role and responsibility. boughtchegg recently imagine easy solutions, writing tools for students. what does it mean for your original core textbook strategy? textbook was a tactic to build the largest audience of students to bring overwhelming value and to build a company that supported the needs of students that colleges are not supporting. so we help them get into college, we help them lower their cost. we help them learn the subject. we help them get tutoring and help them get jobs. no one else has done that. the acquisition of the largest writing tool, we reach to students from middle school to high school to colleges, 40 million students. we have the largest direct student reach in the world and the services that we're bringing direct to students are growing like crazy. i think we said that our subscription services are growing 37% year over year. this new, this has been the strategy from the beginning which was to use textbooks to build a brand and then build services that are indispensable
>> the top stories this hour, asian markets extending their japanese stocks jump into a one-month high. a tax hike because of the fragility of the economy at home and abroad. china and hong kong markets and negative territory. harvardllen speaks at on the timing of a rate hike. the g-7 summit has ramped up in japan with a communique saying leaders are committed to a more coordinated response to global economic conditions. it also says the group feel that monetary policy alone is not
enough about growth. earlier, japan said the world is in risk of falling into a crisis. shares taking off today, soaring a most 10% in malaysia. to $216 million. adding five new planes this year, a growing air travel demand in china, by increasing the frequency of flights in the chinese market. powered by over 2400 journalists in 150 bureaus around the world, let's get the latest on the markets in japan. it has been a pretty disappointing morning session. >> pretty disappointing. track for the on six weekly loss, the longest losing streak since july 2012.
we are also seeing weakness on the hang seng index. we had index zero profit numbers coming through. 11.1% in march. .6% in its afternoon session, japanese stocks at a one-month high. also coming through in korea, a quarter of one percent. and most of the markets in the region showing signs of strength. that is raising the index. that will make it a weekly win. they will hold on to those gains, the first weekly win we have seen on the bench market index for the month of may. having a look at the japanese , falling by .28%.
generally, positive into the trading week. this is how it is looking at lunchtime. emily: this is "bloomberg west." i'm emily chang. this week saw new alliances forged between traditional automakers and their ride-hailing challengers. the news coming as the car industry braces for change especially when it comes to the , future of car ownership. the world's biggest car plants are hoping to secure a place in that future. let's take a look at who is leading the pack. ♪ >> carmakers are choosing sides in the ride-hailing wars. this week, volkswagen invested $300 million in gett and toyota committed an undisclosed amount to uber with plans to get into the car leasing game. in january, general motors took
a $500 million stake in lyft. let's not forget apple's $1 billion bet on china's leader, didi. with traditional car companies clamoring for a piece of the pie, which of the ride-hailers are leading the pack? uber may get all of the headlines, but lyft is taking on a much bigger rival in many u.s. cities and through international partnerships. in china, didi claims to have more than 99% of the ride hailing market. it boasts close to 300 million users in over 400 cities, completing 1.4 billion rides in 2015. grab dominates in southeast asia with a presence in 30 cities across six countries and a fast-growing motorbike service. meanwhile gett, which grew at 300% last year, dominates in europe. as these startups scramble for supremacy, it is too early to
tell how the ride-hailing wars will play out. emily: let's take a closer look now at grab. grab is uber's biggest competitor in southeast asia. we caught up with the company's ceo and cofounder anthony tan first on bloomberg. i asked him what makes grab different than competitors. anthony: grab has the largest mobile tech platform in southeast asia. we have very localized services. imagine we have taxis, cars and motorbikes. motorbikes, you jump on right behind and navigates you through the traffic that you would imagine any big city in southeast asia would have. we give back 2.5 hours of commute time to citizens. emily: your great-grandfather drove a taxi. your grandfather brought the
japanese auto industry to southeast asia. your family still runs a car business you occasionally drive , a grab yourself. tell me a little bit about that. anthony: sure. so, cars have been in my family blood for a long time. and, because of that, we felt very comfortable dealing with governments. i followed my father, working with governments before we build a factory. getting the licenses, the land. for us, learning from that, learning from how my family ran business and how important reputation is working with , government on a collaborative approach to basically build grab. that is how grab was founded. even our first launch four years ago, we launched for someone very senior in the government. emily: grab, didi, lyft announced a big ridesharing partnership in december which would cover half the world's population. how is that progressing and when will we see more integration?
anthony: you will see global roaming product. whereby, you here in san francisco can book a car in beijing, singapore. you have access to the world largest transport fleet of cars and bikes. emily: if i go to singapore, i could open my lyft app and get a car? anthony: exactly. no need of starting again, reinstalling a new app putting , in your credit card. it is exactly the same experience that you have here in san francisco. emily: when are we going to see it in full swing? anthony: soon. emily: ok. how worried are you about uber's global expansion plan? anthony: competition makes us all better. for us at grab, we focus on serving our customers. going back to the global roaming program -- very focused on the customer experience. as we continue with localized
relevant services like grab motorbike taxis, very unique to jakarta, ho chi minh, all across southeast asia. we will add a new payment piece. in southeast asia, 95% of southeast asians use cash. they don't use credit cards. we said, hey, how do we reinforce that message? how do we be the most relevant to customers in southeast asia? we are reinvesting in this payments piece to make sure our customers, grab taxi, bike enjoy that. emily: does that mean uber does not worry you? anthony: for us, it is about growing the market share and serving our customers, winning their hearts and continuing to be number one. emily: uber is valued at $62.5 billion. didi at $26 billion. what about grab?
what is your latest evaluation? anthony: there is a range of valuations out there. how we think about it is are we good value? yes, we believe we are very good value. do we believe investors believe in southeast asia? southeast asia has 633 million people. one of the fastest-growing internet populations in the world. google just released a report on that. people at softbank and cic believe grab is positioned. emily: can you share how much you raised in the last round? anthony: in total, close to $700 million. emily: do you plan to continue to raise money to fund your expansion? anthony: we are always open to great investors and great partners all throughout the world. today, we have seen people like softbank being very bullish about southeast asia and grab. emily: didi, for example, is said to be targeting an ipo next year.
what about you guys? anthony: grab right now really targets at building more value, building the greatest, biggest mobile tech company. we have bold ambitions. we try to find how to build great partners. ipo's is one of the many options for us. emily: you said in 2014 that grab might consider in ipo when the number of rides books reaches 2 million a day. where are you now and would you reiterate that today? anthony: today, we are doing quite a large number of transactions. emily: 2 million? anthony: not 2 million yet, but we do see, again, ipo is one of the many options on the table. emily: ok. we have been seeing a lot of new players entering the ridesharing investment market. toyota investing in uber. volkswagen investing in gett, the ride-hailer in tel aviv.
gm investing in lyft. apple investing in didi. what do you make of all of these? anthony: i think automakers are getting very excited and believe that ride hailing -- i think everybody in the world is seeing ride hailing is really the main form of transportation today. that is a great endorsement for us. we are always open to great partners. these partners could add value. for example, we saw car automakers investing in that space. we are talking to a lot of them. emily: i was actually going to ask that next. are you meeting with automakers right now? anthony: we are meeting with lots of different partners. you can imagine automakers being very complementary to ride hailing. emily: how so? anthony: they provide the cars and we provide the service that brings most people into cars. emily: anyone else in particular you are meeting while in the u.s.?
anthony: next week, we will be going to a conference. gene and myself will be on stage. emily: the president. anthony: the president of didi. emily: when you look to the future in southeast asia versus china, how do you see this market playing out? they are all obviously very different but this trend towards , ridesharing is the same. anthony: what you see in a very local game, local transportation, big off-line components -- it is not just about an app or machine learning, but ensuring the cars come clean and the drivers are nice -- we see all these local champions rising in southeast asia. didi in china. lyft here. i think what you are going to see is more and more of these getting stronger because the
network affects players in favor of the local giants. emily: i want to touch on regulatory issues in thailand. thailand recently ordered you and uber moto off the street. how will you handle regulatory issues like that? anthony: grab bike is pushing the boundaries of innovation. and as a company like grab that constantly pushes innovation, for sure, policies take time to catch up. going back to how i have learned from my family business and being in southeast asia for 60, 70 years, we believe working with the government and being transparent and innovating policy together -- when we ask ourselves are we doing something better for the country? are we helping make transportation cheaper and better for people? if the answer is yes, we will continue to work with governments to innovate.
emily: because you have these partnerships, does that mean you will never expand in the united states or china or india? anthony: southeast asia, 630 million people. today we are on 15 million devices. we are a fraction of where we need to be. for us, it is about more localized, relevant services. how to engage to win riders and drivers' hearts. one of the pillars is what we're calling grab pay to double down and triple down in southeast asia. emily: so that means southeast asia for now? anthony: it is the focus right now. emily: grab ceo and cofounder anthony tan. dan rosensweig is my guest. still with me. what is your take on the ride hailing wars and why these carmakers are getting into it
and why the global wars play out between uber and anybody else? dan: i don't know how it plays out. i think china is not going to be uber's to win. maybe other places in southeast asia could win it. i think only airbnb is the only u.s. company to have a chance to win in china because they bring a new economy into china. they can bring tourists from outside china into china. i think they are cultivating it very well. ridesharing -- it is interesting to see how the car companies are playing into it. the logic is that if people are going to be using uber, fewer cars are going to be sold. if fewer calls will be sold, people will be buying used cars to go into the business of driving uber. low-cost, make a lot of money. the car companies are preparing for a world where they want to make money on every iteration of
that car as opposed to only selling the new car. remember, they do used cars. once that market dries up, what will they do? if they can make money off of used cars in other ways eighth on rental companies -- it is a question of, how can they stay involved with the car longer and make money off of every use? ride sharing is a way for them to do it. i think it's genius. emily: in the u.s., do you think it is winner takes most? is it a duopoly, many companies? should uber be worried about its dominance? dan: i think everybody is always worried. i think it is a commodity where we will go for the cheapest. there are people that just get into habits. i think uber has a very big lead and it will be difficult for people to take it away unless lyft will pay a great deal of money to drivers to switch and then charge customers less. that is a very difficult
business model to sustain, but winning market share is very hard in a market where uber has such a large lead. it is possible, but it taks substantial cash. emily: all right, dan rosensweig, ceo of chegg, you are sticking with me. next, a rare look under the hood of an $18 billion social media phenomenon. we will focus on the potential of snapchat, next. ♪ emily: snapchat is now an $18
million in revenue in 2015. you the app had 100 million active users as of december, a big jump from 74 million the year before. with me now is mark and our guest host dan rosensweig. what do we know about the round? you will mark: the round was in will progress forever. will they started it last year. this was, for most tech companies, an unusually long round. you started showing shares of at $16 billion. they raised almost $2 billion in cash that it has put the value of the company at $18 billion. emily: dan, what do you make of the valuation and the terms as far as we know them? dan: i would love to have that multiple since we are larger than them. i think snapchat is proving itself to be the kind of company that has a chance to be really big and really independent and
really sustainable. despite everybody's expectation that people would lose interest, it is gaining interest. i think he's smart for raising capital when he can. he did not give up a large percentage of the company. i think the genius of it is that people are learning to take a lower, more reasonable valuation at $59 million in revenue in exchange for a clean sheet. he is in control of what he wants to do next. emily: you have more media companies investing more time in snapchat. how you gauge their product into turning this into a real business? mark: they are starting to get really excited about snapchat. the numbers do not show that. $59 million is not a lot of money. sara spoke to a person familiar who told her they plan on quadrupling revenue this year. you can see it from the way the media companies and politicians
and everybody looking at this as an important media platform to promote themselves. emily: hillary clinton did a custom filter on snapchat highlighting donald trump's comments about the housing crash, framing out one of his quotes. "i sort of hope a housing crash happens so then people like me would go in and buy." words of donald trump. you guys did a poll of students on how they are feeling about this election. tell me what you found. dan: we have a hot off the press poll reaching out to 40 million students. a 17,000-person panel that we can look into. what they support, products, popularity of snapchat. this one is interesting. in a three-man race -- bernie, trump and hillary -- bernie is three to four times larger in terms of support, and hillary and trump are about even. in a two-man race between hillary and trump, hillary wins,
but does not get all of bernie's voters. 10% will go to trump. 25% will not vote at all. emily: they will abstain. dan: a question for you about the snapchat valuation -- if snapchat grows four times this year, it will have as much revenue as buzzfeed has this year. one got valued at $18 billion and one valued at $1.5 billion. what do you think about that? emily: quickly. mark: buzzfeed has editorial staff which snapchat does not. tech investors tend to prefer a company that not reliant on hiring large staff. dan: i think it depends and benefits on the phone so much. emily: all right, mark, thank you so much. dan rosensweig, so great to have you on the show. dan: go, warriors. emily: go, dubs. we will be right back. ♪ emily: the in-flight wi-fi
provider gogo saw shares spike after receiving a proposal from an unnamed airline to offer internet on its domestic flights. will shares rose as much as 16%, the biggest single-day move since february. a it would give gogo some financial breathing room and the chance to improve its technology. as passengers increasingly demand wi-fi that is as fast in the air as it is on the ground. it is time to find out who is having the best day ever or the worst. today it is bigelow aerospace. the aerospace company so-called space hotel hit a snag. astronauts at the iss were meant to release air into an experimental inflatable room, but nasa called off the effort after two hours of attempts were unsuccessful. if all goes well, it will swell four times in volume and demonstrate a new way of living for the astronauts. nasa paid the company nearly $18 billion to test the habitat
>> it is noon in hong kong. the g7 has wrapped up in japan. leaders are committed to a coordinated response to global economic conditions. it also said that monetary policy is not enough. asia shares soared over 10% on the back of a sixfold jump in quarterly profits. that ingrown group -- net income grew to $250 million. the company expanded its fleet, adding five new planes this year. it is also expanding