Skip to main content

tv   Best of Bloomberg Technology  Bloomberg  October 8, 2017 4:00am-5:00am EDT

4:00 am
♪ emily: i am emily chang. emily: i am emily chang. this is "best of bloomberg technology." where we bring you all of our top interviews from the week in technology. coming up, mark cuban speaks out, weighing on bitcoin and trump. also, how a.i. and technology can best serve society. first, our lead. here at the establishment summit in l.a., i sat down with outspoken owner of the dallas mavericks mark cuban.
4:01 am
we covered several hot button topics from donald trump to bitcoin. we also spoke about the uproar and protests around the nfl. take a listen. mark: pick any football team, and you might recognize three players. the other 50 have no platform, no social media following of any kind. the only time they can make a statement is during the game when they show some unity. lebron james on the asphalt has a bigger platform. it is completely different. what i said to our team is that, if you have a message you want to convey to fans and the media, let's just say it. we will put you on videotape. these types of protests the nfl tried, you lose control of the narrative. emily: you think they should not have protested in that way? mark: no, i am all for it, because i do not think they had a platform to do so otherwise. the nba is completely different. we have much stronger platforms. we have a far better way to communicate a message.
4:02 am
emily: is this a battle donald trump should be taking? mark: no. companies and brands endorsed players, but come on. that is who he is. to me there is three donald trump's. there is donald trump the salesperson, donald trump the president, and donald trump the twitter troll. when he trolls on twitter, he is fair game. anyone can take him on. when he is in campaign mode, you just ignore him. when he is president you finally start to pay attention. you let him be president and do his thing, and hopefully the best will happen. emily: you have made your political views very clear. what are your concerns about the administration?
4:03 am
mark: that he just does not know what is going on. it is just not in him to make an effort to understand or learn. possibly because he is not capable, or possibly because he is not willing. i just do not think he has it in him. emily: does he make it through four years? mark: 25% chance to maybe 30% chance he doesn't. not because he's going to do something crazily wrong, but i think it is because he is just oblivious to the institution and government and to the laws and rules. he will do something and not recognize that it is an impeachable offense. emily: you recently bought some shares in twitter. why now? mark: i am a fan of artificial intelligence and i think they are making some good moves. you see the interface on applications and web, and i think they are moving in the
4:04 am
right direction. emily: should twitter kick donald trump off the platform? mark: no, you cannot do that. our lives are so tribal right now, when you try to make a dramatic move like that, you increase the amount of tribalism. if you kick him off, all the trump fans are going to go bananas. that doesn't do any good for anybody. then he will just go to facebook and keep doing the same thing. there are thousands of ways to post digitally. twitter happens to be the only one he knows how to use. i'm sure even he could learn how you or something else. emily: twitter, facebook, google are in the crosshairs when it comes to this russia investigation and the spread of fake news. what is the responsibility? mark: if you are in broadcast television and you broadcast an advertisement this has swallow this panic, and it will tear every illness. you would be held responsible for that.
4:05 am
there are rules against what you can and cannot protest. it is false advertising. the same rules could apply to facebook and twitter. emily: what about content? mark: content, it is not content if you are trying to promote a specific agenda. it is marketing. content can be fact. content can be an opinion, but then state it is an opinion. state it is reporting, otherwise it is advertising. if you are posting it through the ad platform, then it cannot be news. it is a misleading advertisement. it is the responsibility of facebook and twitter to recognize this as an advertising platform. we cannot allow fake ads to be advertisement. it is the responsibility of posted on our platform.
4:06 am
emily: last question, what do you think of people like jamie dimon saying that coin is -- bitcoin is fraud? mark: it is interesting, because there is a lot of assets whose value is based on supply and demand. it is like baseball cards. i think bitcoin is the same thing. its value is a function of emily: last question, what do supply and demand. i do have some that i purchased through a swedish exchange. they gave me some liquidity. i am also involved with some ipo's because i think watching -- block chain is a great platform for future applications just like how the net and streaming created some great companies, i think block chain will as well. i am involved with some programs which i think will change the messaging using block chain. emily: how big is your take in bitcoin?
4:07 am
>> relatively small. emily: that was dallas mavericks owner mark cuban. coming up, much more from the vanity fair new establishment summit. we will speak with disney ceo bob iger. this is bloomberg. ♪
4:08 am
4:09 am
4:10 am
♪ emily: now, more coverage from the vanity fair new establishment summit. we sat down with disney ceo bob iger to talk about the changing media landscape, and we begin with espn. bob: right now, the business model through which people access the primary espn content which is live sporting events is -- sporting events, 16,000 sporting events a year is a good business for us and for the consumers. it is working. it is not growing as fast as it once did, which is largely what people have focused on. the epithet for espn, i think it is far too premature to be writing it. it is interesting you use the word mortality. i've not seen it yet.
4:11 am
espn still covers 16,000 sporting events a year. 65,000 hours of programming. in a few months in 2016, 75% of i've not seen it yet. americans viewed espn in one form or another over that month. it is still an unbelievably popular service, and it is still thriving from a profitability perspective, but the world of tv has been disrupted, and we need to readjust accordingly. that is what we are doing by launching a streaming service. that is why we invested in vamtech. that is why we are making it available through these other sport streaming services. emily: you said you were looking into buying twitter, but you bought fan tech instead. why did you decide against twitter? bob: we were asked if we were
4:12 am
looking at twitter. i said we were looking for opportunities to distribute in more modern ways direct to the consumer. we were impressed with twitter's distribution. twitter was not the only company we looked at. we did look at it. we decided that there were alternatives to that, and since we were not interested in owning a social media platform, but we were interested in distribution, we invested in fan tech as a minority owner. and that was more of what we wanted. emily: is there any truth that you cannot get over that the more unsavory parts of twitter? bob: i do not want to be specific about what we saw in and that was more of what we wanted. emily: is there any truth that twitter, but our interest was in new distribution that was direct to the consumer. there were other ways we felt we could accomplish that as a company. emily: in the meantime, oracle
4:13 am
is taking the fight to amazon. is taking the fight to amazon. founder larry ellison calling its new cloud technology revolutionary. cory johnson that down at oracle open world. >> it is called the autonomous database. it is not a highly automated database. it is a truly autonomous database. people spend hours and hours to any databases, trying to get them to perform, trying to patch them. all of this stuff that had to be done technically can now be done automatically, autonomously, done by us. there are a whole set of implications out of this, but it is extremely significant, much lower cost, much more secure, much more automated. it is just a fantastic set of announcements from our product
4:14 am
team, and larry made those last night. corey: what is it about this technology that allows it to work more quickly? >> it is really all done in night. corey: what is it about this technology that allows it to "machine to machine learning." without getting into all of this -- when you get into all the technology, we tried to stay away from it last night, but we wanted to talk more about what it does. basically, the computer is getting smarter and smarter the more data it has. the more data it has, the smarter the decisions it will make. something as simple as being able to scan your data to look for potential intrusions, anomalies. i can go into all of this in detail. i know we don't have time. it is basically technology doing the work. computers can recognize faces better than humans can. corey: i wanted to ask you about m&a. on the conference call, they said there did not seem to be a
4:15 am
lot of targets for oracle. you basically -- you have a robust m&a team within oracle. will that process be slowing down for you? >> i would not expect much of a change in our behavior. we have always been disciplined, whether you hear from larry or may, you will hear the same story. we look at things that first look strategic choice. we do not buy things to buy things. it has to make sense financially for us, or we do not do it. it also has to be something we can actually run and optimize
4:16 am
when it gets inside the oracle family. so we use those filters. the only point larry was making was compared to maybe a decade ago when there were lots of potential targets, the market is consolidating. the market is changing. the market is dynamic. i do not think it takes a lot of analysis to say that there are less targets than there were before. we will continue to be discerning. corey: there are notions coming from the white house about repatriation of assets overseas. what the plans are. would oracle acquire more if there is a company with the potential to bring some cash back? >> let's be clear, we have been running the company as a way to invest in the company regardless of repatriation. we're looking at lots of different workforce changes in our industry, that is not us. we have been investing. as of seven or eight years ago, our headcount was at about 70,000. our headcount now is about 140,000. some of that is m&a and some of it is just natural, organic
4:17 am
hiring. we would love to repatriate our cash to the u.s.. there is no question we would reinvest it. corey: looking at your last earnings announcement, your competitors were quick to call to complain to me for some reason about your growth rate. i wonder what you make of your cloud growth rate and how it compares to competitors like salesforce? >> let's talk about our growth rates. i love it. thank you for asking the question. our growth rates are the highest they had been in years. >> let's talk about our growth last quarter, we grew the company by about 7%. that is total revenue of everything. our cloud revenue was higher, cloud revenue growth rate was higher than any of our competitors. last quarter, we grew the our bookings were -- last year, we booked over 2 billion in new
4:18 am
cloud bookings, and this time last year we had people saying i do not think you will ever get that done. we did and beat it. our growth rate in q1 was higher than the year before in q1. listen, there are a lot of people who say lots of things, but i say read the numbers. our applications business is growing, and we made the biggest announcement regarding databases we have ever made. we are pretty excited around here. emily: coming up, walter we are pretty excited around isaacson weighs in on the current leadership at snap. this is bloomberg. ♪
4:19 am
4:20 am
♪ emily: more from the vanity fair new establishment summit, i sat down with walter isaacson, and i
4:21 am
author of the best-selling book steve jobs. i started our conversation about the current status of tech giants like facebook and google. take a listen. walter: nowadays, facebook, amazon, and google in particular, are so big and creative and powerful that they could stymie competition. it is always difficult to know how to deal with that. jeff bezos has a wonderful line that steve jobs and others have said as well, that you should not be assessed with your -- obsessed with your competitors. you should be obsessed with your customer, and the rest will follow. as long as they keep innovating, they will stay a step ahead of facebook. emily: do you see a young mark zuckerberg in evan spiegel? or are they not on the same plane?
4:22 am
>> i think both of them are deeply creative people who have a real feel for what users want. i found evan spiegel to be deeply philosophical, smart, and have a great sense of leadership which is, to me, the hardest thing. to lead a public company is even more difficult than creating a product. that is where steve jobs stumbled at one point. he created really great products, but in 1985, he was having trouble leading a public company with apple. i am deeply impressed with evan spiegel. emily: facebook, google, twitter, are in the crosshairs when it comes to fake news. they are all going before congress with the russia probe. how serious is this? walter: it is very serious, and people have responsibility in
4:23 am
this world. when i first went online, there was a service called "the well," that was started by stewart brand and others. the first issue that came up was you own your own words. you have to take responsibility for what you said. in the world now of twitter and many other places, people can be anonymous. they can create fake news without any sense of responsibility on facebook and twitter. we saw that again happen in las vegas but far worse. we saw that happen in the election, and now i think the time has come where you can no longer say, "oh, it is no l -- it is not our responsibility. we are just a platform." emily: so what do you do? walter: people need to take responsibility for what they publish. with all due respect, artificial intelligence algorithms cannot do it perfectly. you need to say, here are our values.
4:24 am
people say what is the difference between fake news and real news? i say, if you have to ask the question, get out of the business. emily: google has just recently, -- pulled russia today from their premium advertisement packages. what about google? walter: one of the interesting things is you want to balance the ability to search, and you also have to stop people, who are putting up in the newsfeeds that will be searched by google, things that you know are incorrect and done intentionally incorrect. certainly, as a journalist, i know that we publish incorrect
4:25 am
things in the past, or bias, but it was not done for some old -- ulterior secret motive. however, that is what is happening right now. these companies have to look at the stories and recognize them as fake news. you have to look forward. emily: if facebook or twitter or google's way to the election in one way or another, what are the consequences? walter: you have to look forward. in this new environment -- we are lucky. we used to have gatekeepers like walter cronkite. we are in a world now where i can go wherever i want, including russian sources, palestinian sources to get the news, but we have to say that you cannot use our platform to
4:26 am
intentionally mislead people. as mark zuckerberg has said recently, we get it now. we kind of did not do that all that well. i suspect the people at google also have good values and are smart enough to figure out how to do it better going forward. emily: regulators are stepping in, especially in europe. do you think there is a reckoning coming for facebook and google and apple? walter: i am not somebody who is deeply in favor of on the spot regulations and government agencies trying to regulate information. i think that is a really bad idea, which is why it would be a really good idea for facebook and google to step up and do it themselves. emily: so not having government laws? walter: when you start having government laws telling you what information can flow, you are in a very bad place. that is why people who do get involved in the industry of flow of information have to have very -- certain values so that the government does not regulate the flow of information.
4:27 am
i am against the government regulating the flow of information. emily: it certainly requires a lot of trust in these companies. walter: it does, and they have lost that trust. when they lose that trust, it is bad for them, so they should try to regain that trust. i think they are trying to regain that trust. emily: that was walter isaacson. ceo of the aspen institute. coming up, much more from the vanity fair new establishment summit in los angeles. we will talk about the future of a.i. a reminder, all episodes of bloomberg technology are live streaming on twitter. check us out. this is bloomberg. ♪
4:28 am
4:29 am
4:30 am
♪ emily: welcome back to "best of bloomberg technology." i am emily chang. we have more highlights from the vanity fair new establishment summit. i sat down with reid hoffman and talked about the current debate around the future of ai and does its benefits outweigh the ♪ danger. take a listen. reid: ai has huge potential to solve disease, bring education and medicine to the whole world and enable space colonization. i think there are risks and we need to be careful about how we are doing it and careful and intelligent. emily: what are the risks? reid: once you get back the science-fiction description, the terminator movie, it is very
4:31 am
vivid in our imagination. we already have algorithms running our lives. doing credit and equifax and judgments on parole and parole violation. all of these things have impacts that are currently like black boxes to us and we want to have a good society. those are the near-term risks and then our questions around cybersecurity and a whole set of things come out. the science fiction risk is a ways out. emily: elon musk told my coworker that a company like google could do evil and create a robot army. does the future of ai depend on the good intentions of the companies and can we trust them? reid: i do not think it is a robot army. does the future of ai depend on
4:32 am
necessarily relying on the good intentions of companies. you have thousands of people working and potential whistleblowers and if people see something wrong, they can speak up. the thing is to be intentional about what is the thing that this helps society. pay attention to the question, how do we have good human outcomes and how do we do that? i think that is what is going to happen. the examples that elon gave actually, i do not know, you tell the ai to eliminate all human beings, that is kind of fictional. as you are building the safety measures and these devices, could you ask for more resources or articulate your goals, a simple safety measure and i know google is thinking about that. i already know facebook is thinking about that. i don't think it's a "rely on the good intentions." emily: is the fear mongering
4:33 am
irresponsible, as mark zuckerberg said? reid: i think it's dangerous because it causes the discussion not to focus on the real issues. we all talk about robots marching in the streets vs. how algorithms are already influencing our lives. it is not that we shouldn't think about the science fiction dystopias at all, but think about steering toward utopian. emily: facebook, twitter, google -- they are all being called before congress. they say they're adding more humans to the problem. can ai fix this problem? or is it something only a human can do? reid: i think both ai can get better because you say, here is a weird ad buy. here is something that looks like its external forces trying to do political ads.
4:34 am
now let's have some humans look at it. i think the answer is actually both. i think the answer is to improve the ai to detect fraud or other malicious cyberattacks. and then have humans get involved. they go, this is weird, take a to robots and jobs? i'd know we always ask about it. it seems like the ground is involved. they go, this is weird, take a look at this. emily: what about when it comes are jobs under threat, and how many of them? reid: jobs will get transformed, just as any technological revolution changes them. people had this worry from agriculture moving to the city, and a this worry from shifting beneath us as we speak. manufacturing. we have to pay attention to people. these transitions can be very difficult. however, i don't think that means jobs are just going away. i think technology also usually creates a lot of new jobs. an ai may read your radiology exam a lot better than a
4:35 am
radiologist, but a radiologist can still be there to talk to people, can still be there to look at the weird cases, that ai goes this is weird. i don't know about this. that kind of thing. radiologist, but a radiologist can still be there to talk to that's the kind of transformation that i think we should be building the technology for. emily: apple, google, facebook, amazon -- they all are in a race to get there, to be better. who wins? reid: i think in technology they are all going to win, and i think they're going to win in different ways. i think you will get great voice stuff from all three companies. i think you will have google doing the, ok, this is the one big pile of data. i think you will have microsoft doing the, hey, if you want to be building ai with confidential or private data, we will partner with you. i think it will be in different directions. emily: you are also working on a very well done podcast called "masters of scale," where you talk to viewers about how founders take their company from zero to one to infinity and beyond. i am thinking about a company like uber, what are the lessons in that about what not to do, not just for founders, but for investors? reid: so, i think that part of the thing is to make sure that
4:36 am
you start asking the social impact questions early. it doesn't mean you orient your whole company around them, but you say, look, what is our mission and how is our mission best of all for helping people? for example, in the uber case, how do we help drivers as well? how do we make sure we are increasing safety early on? you ask those questions early. what i think is in fact -- obviously, i am a board member, but i think airbnb did well. airbnb is a positive example. i think it still scaled very fast. that's still the way you build a globally impactful transformation. if you don't do that, then you are not the company that has impact. but to add in the social questions as you are doing it. emily: what's the job of investors along the way to make sure they are checking that behavior? reid: the job of investors is you are in this intense cycle of this exponential curve. let's help bring resources, questions, people to you that bring in these other voices as well.
4:37 am
i think that is one of the things my partnership does well. emily: something else you are doing, a 50-50 gender ratio from the people you are featuring and you were outspoken in the midst of this rash of sexual harassment in tech and you ask people to sign a decency pledge. curious if you are doing anything to take that forward because while a deceit pledge is great, saying you are decent does not make you are. reid: to stand up publicly and say i will not do business with bad actors and doing it publicly, people will hold you accountable and say you are doing this. it has a little bit more teeth. i am having a bunch of conversations with people about what we should do to take it to the next level. unfortunately there is lots of space. what we should do to take it to emily: that was linkedin founder reid hoffman. the star wars sequels have been a huge success for disney and more films are on the way. bob iger talked about star wars
4:38 am
and what is driving results at the box office. bob: i think quality wins and what we saw this summer was not as much quality as the audience would have liked and it's reflected in the box office. bob: i think quality wins and i just think it was a function of that. that said, there are a lot of things for people to do and more competition for people's time when it comes to leisure activity. it means the bar is raised in terms of delivering quality or experiences that people really want. this word of mouth, you cannot hide from anything, if something is mediocre, they will find about it right away before it comes out. if something is to be learned, it is concentrating more on quality. i think there are more challenge out there for smaller films because of competition for people's time. the big films, they will
4:39 am
basically thrive and continue for a long time as long as they are good. emily: will star wars turn things around? bob: i think star wars and thor will be good for us and the business. i look forward to bring them both films. emily: that was disney's bob iger. coming up, more from the vanity fair new establishment seminar. this is bloomberg. ♪ i look forward to bring them both films.
4:40 am
4:41 am
♪ emily: we're at the vanity fair
4:42 am
summit, talking with the biggest names in tech and media about massive changes the industry has seen in the last few years. one company here is discovery which launched more than 30 years ago but working to stay current. david zaslav, ceo of discovery, joins us. david: we do not see bigger and better but the way people are consuming content is different and the type of content. the reason we did scripps is they have great quality brand and on all of their content. we see it as acquiring 200,000 hours of ip and great brands that have really saturated the u.s. in a great way. hgtv, food, travel, cooking, diy. but it really has proliferated around the world. we launched some food and home channels around the world and were very successful. we think with their rent and library we can take it around the world. but more importantly, as people
4:43 am
start to consume content on all devices, we can take a lot of that content and the content we own -- we are the largest ip media company in the world. we have more global brands than anyone else. discovery, animal planet, tlc, own, science. if we close on scripps, travel, food, hgtv. those we can provide everywhere in the world on every device because the own everything on it. the way we see it, an ecosystem and moderating growth in some markets and some decline in others but relatively healthy. mid-single-digit versus double-digit or mid teens several years ago. but we have a load of ip we can take direct to consumers on their phones. ultimately if you're interested in italian cooking or if you love discovery or science, we can deliver it right to you on your phone because we own all the content. emily: when it comes to group
4:44 am
nine, are you seeing traction with a younger audience? david: we are seeing huge traction in terms of the scale of consumption of the content on group nine. it is over 6 billion views a month. we are the largest provider of short form news on facebook. those that would see now this, that is us. and it is growing rapidly. it is not making money yet, but we are one of the largest providers on facebook. it is usually one or two minute stories. we are also the largest, one of the largest providers on snap, and that is almost a full millennial audience. we have our traditional business where we are taking content around the world, an hour or half hour mostly on channels, and we will now be able to take
4:45 am
that directly to consumers either in bundles or individually. we are the number one or number two or number three player in the world in terms of short form content. even when facebook was looking to build mid form content, we were able to get a lot of those series because we are already a top provider to facebook. the challenge is it is not making the money yet. we have huge scale and great name recognition and brand awareness, but now we have to take it. we are working with facebook and snap on how we really monetize that. emily: speaking about the need to make money, there is some speculation about job cuts coming with the scripps acquisition. how many jobs? what are you working through? david: we look at it has two different things. yes, there will be significant synergy. we stated about $350 million. we think it could be more than that. the idea is we have two great
4:46 am
companies that do quality content. when we put it together in the u.s. alone, we will have more companies that do quality content. when we put it together in the u.s. alone, we will have more than 20% of viewership on cable. we have five of the top six or seven women's networks. id and own and tlc and hgtv and food. but where they are going to invest more is content and go directly to the consumer. we really view the company if we close on this acquisition or when we do as being a breaking it in half. the right side is growth, owning more ip, providing that and that is content in different ways on different devices in all languages all around the world, and getting more viewership, more scale, more people spending more time with us. the left side is cost. we have to attack that. we think we can really do a good job of attacking that. we would have needed to do that even if we didn't do scripps because the industry is changing. emily: do you see doing a more deals? more m&a? david: sure. we have said that we think scripps is a very good deal for us, but one of the attractions is we pick up more ip, more
4:47 am
quality brands, but 18 months after we close we will be less than three and a half times levered, with a bigger balance sheet so we can buy more stuff to be more successful in the future. emily: speaking of sports, we have seen amazon and facebook, nontraditional players pay up for sports rights. what is next that they could get? david: they are in the marketplace. we are working with both of them, amazon in particular. we are doing a lot of work with. we have a direct to consumer product already. we have been added for about a year and a half, almost two years in europe. we are the leader in sports in europe with euro sport where we have the traditional espn type business and the entire business, with eurosport. but our model in europe is a little bit different than the sports models in most countries around the world. one, we have a dominant position on linear. we are the only pan european player. but all the sports web acquired, the olympics through 2024,
4:48 am
tennis, cycling, handball, business, with eurosport. but our model in europe is a little bit different than the football in a number of markets, we own all that ip for all those platforms. most of sports platforms buy the rights for just the linear or the cable channel. if you go to europe or deutsche telecom or bt are selling rights to see the french open or see the olympics or tour de france, they are buying it from us. we are way long on sports ip. we seeing over the next couple of years, we will be able to sell to the super fans of tennis and cycling and the olympics and olympic sports, and we will be able to go direct to consumer in a much more scalable fashion. we are already getting real traction. emily: how many sports-free tv packages will there be by the end of the year? david: in europe right now, in most markets, it is just us. there were a couple of bigger markets like germany and the u.k. where there were more. in most, it is just us. we got a great jump on it.
4:49 am
i think more and more, if somebody loves squash, we have all of the squash. if somebody loves speedskating or tennis, that will be a very attractive model. the way you would buy a magazine if you love golf or tennis or cycling across europe, 750 million people, all the people that love a particular sport will be able to buy that from us and get all of it. emily: david zaslav, ceo of discovery. coming up, we bring you one last conversation from the summit, the man at the center of it all, grayden carter. if you like bloomberg news, check us out on the radio. you can listen to us on the bloomberg radio app. bloomberg.com, and in the u.s. on sirius xm. this is bloomberg. ♪
4:50 am
4:51 am
4:52 am
♪ emily: graydon carter, who helped to make vanity fair magazine a must read publication in hollywood studios, washington townhouses and wall street is stepping down after 25 years as one of the nation's most influential editors. carter joined me to talk about his decision to leave the magazine at the end of the year. the fake news problem and the future of the magazine business. graydon: i have been here over 25 years and wanted to take a break. i have worked solidly the last 39 years. if i have a third act, i would like to find out what it is. i was originally going to leave in april and the election changed that and i decided to stay on for the first year of the administration. emily: what do you hope the next administration, how they cover it?
4:53 am
like to find out what it is. graydon: it will be up to them. that was a personal mission of mine. i had two political missions for one was the iraq war and i was against the administration of donald trump which has turned out worse than expected. i think it bears examination. i think the press is doing an amazing job. we will see what happens. emily: in the era of fake news, you have got newer technology companies like facebook and google and twitter in the crosshairs. they will be appearing in congress, what is the responsibility of these platforms? graydon: they are sort of publishers and if you have a newspaper and run a letter to the editor written by somebody not on your staff and it is inflammatory and libelous you could be liable. once you get into this business you have to take the responsibilities that come with the business and ensuring what
4:54 am
you publish or present is accurate. they will figure out a way to do it. emily: what is the future of the magazine business look like to you? graydon: it will change. it has changed dramatically over the last 50 years. it will not be as robust as it is now. necessity is a great -- it means of getting people to do things they have not done before. i think -- i know "vanity fair," we have a very healthy digital business and healthy live business like this and would not have had it 10 years ago if not out of need and organic growth. emily: how long will there be a print version of "vanity fair?" graydon: for as long as you are alive. you are a young person. emily: will it have the same thickness, the glossy pages, with a look and feel the same? graydon: i think we're going to a temporary lull.
4:55 am
quality advertisers will realize that everything they want, they can not necessarily get on the digital space and nothing quite like a magazine for presenting something to urge people to buy it. it is right there been and hard to avoid it. you cannot click over it and cannot be hacked. magazines are a brilliant invention. emily: new house's publisher passed away, do you think they have the same commended the publishing. graydon: publishing is in their blood and i think they have an and him his commitment to conde nast and to changing it in ways that will have to change of the next five to 10 years. emily: the new establishment summit, other babies of yours, this is where we are. does this live on? graydon: this will definitely
4:56 am
live on and the great this is where we are. culmination of a lot of what we do an amazing and it brings these worlds together and part of the magazine's dna. emily: you have an amazing insight of how the balance of power have changed and you were on the stage with travis kalanick and much has happened since then, how do you make notice of how fast things have changed? culmination of a lot of what we graydon: he is not gone completely. he has just set a temporary setback. all great leaders have them. i think he is an impressive young man. i think he will come back. emily: what did you see about the power of bounce shifting between technology players and media players and media players? graydon: when we originally did at the new establishment, 60% came from the world of entertainment and 20% from technology and 20% from information businesses. now it is about 1/3, 1/3, 1/3.
4:57 am
five years ago is probably 70% technology. it changes dramatically from year to year. that is what makes it interesting. emily: i am sure you have given thought about what your third act might be, what will it be? graydon: i am taking time off to do that. i want to lie on my back is year to year. stare at the ceiling and think. emily: graydon carter, editor of "vanity fair." that does it for this edition of "best of bloomberg technology" and we will bring you the latest in tech through the week. tune in each day. remember, all episodes are live streaming on twitter. check us out at bloomberg tech tv on weekdays. that is all for now.
4:58 am
this is bloomberg. ♪ this is bloomberg. ♪ this is bloomberg. ♪
4:59 am
5:00 am
♪ >> announcer: the thrill of living well is in the pursuit. the pursuit of the rarest experiences. the pursuit of the finest products. the pursuit of quality in everything you do. and in all of these pursuits, you need the best intelligence to make the best decisions. >> we know that she sells for a lot, but what makes her important? >> it isn't easy. it's difficult work. announcer: welcome to "bloomberg pursuits," where you find information that helps you follow your inspiration. in this edition, utility meets luxury in three new suv's. hannah: immediate power. immediate response. announcer: master the offbeat etiquette of eating ramen.

6 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on