tv Bloomberg Technology Bloomberg March 26, 2019 5:00pm-6:00pm EDT
emily: i'm emily chang in san francisco and this is "bloomberg technology" with apple's big services announcement in the rearview mirror, it's ongoing legal dispute with qualcomm is that front and center. how apple just escaped an immediate import ban on its iconic iphone. bus, securing the vote. one congressman sounding the call to protect the 2020 elections from foreign interference. discuss his plan to getting it right next year.
venue, comcast investing $50 million into a stadium specifically designed of the next generation gaming. first, to the lead. apple has escaped a possible import ban on its iconic iphone. the decision coming after u.s. trade agency rejected a patent infringement claim filed by qualcomm in the second of two cases brought before the international trade commission. earlier today, a separate judge said apple infringed a different qualcomm patent and recommended a ban. our our guests tell me exactly what this means. second,start with the it came out about 50 minutes ago. this was a decision where they reviewed and administrative law judge's decision that said apple did in french a patent, but that
judge refused to issue a sale ban. that's a special relief that idc can grant. they reviewed that, we were thinking we might get some sort of analysis of whether a sales ban was appropriate given the concerns that it would diminish u.s. competition in that market. agency entirely sidestepped the that and ruled that the qualcomm patent was invalid, so the case is over. 5gdidn't reach those sticky issues. recommendeder judge a ban, saying apple did in french another wall, patent. qualcomm patent. french --id in
infringe another qualcomm patent. next the other one from around lunchtime was earlier in the process. courtill go to the higher and the itc for final ruling. the impact would be likely on the iphone 7 and7 plus that are due to be discontinued this year our next year anyway. next withwhat happens this, where the judge made the initial recommendation, and not on the side of apple? tamlin: we have a july 26 date when itc will review this decision and give its final ruling on this. after that, if it recommends a ban on these iphone models, there is a 60 day presidential
review where the administration could decide whether or not it would allow a sales ban to take effect, and it could overrule that. so we could potentially be looking at a sales ban by late september, if it all went in qualcomm half favor. favor.ualcomm's emily: we know they've been engaged in lawsuits around the world. is it clear which company has the upper hand? at ityou have to look from a consumer perspective, or at least that is how i look at it here it right now, qualcomm is where it is in terms of 5g. there's a reason why apple is unlikely to release a new iphone because they are using intel parts that don't have 5g and they will not happen until probably the beginning of next year. from that perspective, qualcomm is winning.
apple is not having to ban any phones in the u.s., so i would call it a draw at this point. emily: would you agree with that? mlin: qualcomm did get a pressure point to force apple to the table. what qualcomm really wants is a settlement. it wants apple to begin paying ayalties, and this gives potential lever point. upcoming trial in april will be another huge deal for both companies. , today it's good for them to get one of the rulings in their favor. emily: what are the company saying at this point about the most recent ruling, have we heard from them yet? -- q3 is when they come out with new iphones anyway. the last ones came out in 2016.
they are due to be discontinued around q3 anyway. it's not going to have wide-ranging impact. qualcomm put out a statement earlier today praising the judge's decision but we have yet to hear anything from either side on the second ruling. emily: globally, what is the next big milestone for either one of these companies in this ongoing legal fight? : i alluded to it, there's an april 15 trial scheduled for san diego. this is the huge, heavyweight bout between the two companies. apple initially filed the lawsuit alleging antitrust issues, breach of contract, and qualcomm shot back with claims of its own. three-weekotentially trial that starts april 15. that will be the next indicator of who may have the upper hand. thank you both for
weighing in. we will continue to follow every one of those decisions. coming up, can the u.s. government safeguard the 2020 presidential election from foreign interference? and what is silicon valley's role. will hear from a congressman with a plan to ensure they work together. that is next. check us out on the radio, listen on bloomberg.com and on sirius xm. this is bloomberg. ♪
investigation has wrapped. there is still plenty of work to do ahead of the 2020 presidential vote. congressman ro khanna of california has laid out what he believes needs to be done in a washington post op-ed, writing, completely preventing the injection of foreign government propaganda is impossible, but we impact of such message. from capitolow hill. thank you so much for joining us, good to have you back here on the show. it's time to secure the 2020 election, that's the title of your op ed. what do you mean, secure? thes bob mueller found, russians hacked into our email, they manipulated social media, they clearly wanted donald trump to win.
we need to make sure whether to the russians aren't any foreign country, they never do that again. there are some very simple things we can do. as far as technology companies, they can form a consortium to orre information about bots bad actors and make sure they are removed from those platforms. second, our law-enforcement withs can better interact those agencies. they need to work with law enforcement. a third point, we need to label these ads. the consumer needs to know are they and at that has been paid for by a foreign entity am and who is actually behind these online ads? emily: is there anything congress can do legislatively to make sure that coordination happens between the u.s. government, u.s. intelligence, and these tech companies? it seems like a lot is just falling through the crack's. rep. khanna: -- through the
cracks. with cybersecurity and fighting foreign interference, we do this all the time. we don't expect facebook to be responsible solely for their security. they may have private security, but they still have the protection of our military and police forces. they should also have assistance from our intelligence agencies to help them identify who the bad actors are on their platforms. then they have a responsibility to remove those bad actors and make sure they are not spreading propaganda. this is also a bipartisan issue. i've talked to people on the other side of the aisle about the need for congress to step in to make sure this doesn't happen again. emily: we just saw this live video of a mass shooting in new zealand go up on facebook's platform and nobody caught it for 17 long minutes. it diminishes faith in the ability of the tech industry to
take strong action on some of these things. do you think we are really better prepared now than we were in 2016 to prevent this kind of interference from happening on tech platforms? rep. khanna: i do think we are better prepared. i've spoken to tech leaders and they do take this very seriously. have instituted far greater safeguards into their platforms to make sure they are ready to act. you mentioned the new zealand shooting which was just atrocious and awful. it took maybe a few hours to remove the video from every site, but it is a hard problem. once the video is out there, if it has a million shares, it's not easy for anyone to remove it. we have to understand that this is a difficult issue that will require investment in artificial intelligence, it will require better coordination. many of the leaders understand the responsibility. tech: do you think big
gets how big an issue this is, and is there truly the will to invest in the human and technological resources to make this happen? rep. khanna: i do. they are citizens of our democracy. and you speak to them, they are of the black lives matter or parkland kids having social media as a platform to get their voice out, or how much they were excited about the arab spring. they also understand that these platforms have been abused for hate crimes, for suppressing human rights. they say they cannot do it alone. they need the help of law enforcement agencies and they need the help of the government to invest the resources. that said, they have a responsibility, and there are things they can do themselves. making sure they limit the virality of propaganda or hate speech. big tech isime,
getting bipartisan scrutiny of late. senator elizabeth warren calling for the breakup of big tech, senator ted cruz supporting her on that. do you think that is the right way to go? rep. khanna: i don't agree with them on that. i don't want china to have the only big tech companies. if alibaba,an irony tencent, and baidu were dominating world. you do need stronger antitrust protection. the government said microsoft could not privilege its own product. it could not tight internet explorer, and they prohibited that, but they did not break up microsoft. that led to the rise of netscape and google. the giants of the past like aol or yahoo! are often not the giants of the future. strong antitrust protection, yes, is breaking up -- yes, but breaking up a companies, no.
would you advocate on google, amazon, and facebook? rep. khanna: i would say you should not have anticompetitive platform privilege. you should not be able to prioritize your own products. let's take a concrete example. amazon should not be able to say that when you go search for a detergent you want to buy, the first thing you will see is amazon basics. they should make sure every competitor has equal access to the platform. those type of reasonable steps and strengthening antitrust laws is a good thing. that doesn't mean that we break up these companies into multiple tots and allow alibaba succeed and become the world's platform. emily: you represent silicon valley. have the executives at these companies reached out to you personally to express their concerns about government
interference or regulation? rep. khanna: i have conversations with them all the time. there are times when they think i'm going to far with my internet bill of rights, or even talking about stronger antitrust enforcement. but ultimately, they respect that, because it's intellectually defensible. but they don't like is just painting with broad brushes and the politics of demonization. tech remains very popular when you go around the country. people like tech products. they want tech jobs. they want smart regulation. tim cook said it best, what we need is well-crafted regulation. emily: we have the attorney general summary, are you satisfied with that or do you want the full report to be released to the public? do you think at this point congress should move on? rep. khanna: we definitely need
the full report released to the public. the american taxpayers paid for the report, we should see the report. we need to see the report on obstruction of justice. bob mueller did make a coup -- did make a conclusion about -- did not make a conclusion if the president used collusion. mueller wanted the american people to make the conclusion. he wanted congress to make the conclusion. we need to see the full report. emily: we appreciate you joining us from capitol hill. a headline coming out of the sec. a federal judge in manhattan has scheduled a hearing for april 4 in elon musk's contempt fight with the u.s. regulation agency. the judge wants to hear shouldts on whether musk
ofly: du has a new set digital copyright rules that could change the face of the internet. tech platforms will have to get permission from publishers before posting user content included in such uploads. but free-speech activists fear this could lead to censorship. president of the the european tech alliance. >> this is protection, for an
internet where everyone can compete at the same level. it's very important, and as rules, when you set new something can appear for coney and or too strong, but -- it can appear draconian. effective and a more right rule for all. emily: are you worried that this or other legislation could restrain the growth of european tech companies? because the absence of rules made enforceable in the last 10 or 15 years to grow european tech giants. market, theunion
single market, the rules we conditions toter growth the european tech giants in the future. emily: do you think these new copyright rules that the u.s. could adopt similar legislation? was an exampler out of europe. tried to makeon world thatn the real is normal. otherhe same for many rules. probably out of europe, some other countries can take this example as a good example to regulate the internet of the future. emily: there is still a fairly
decent threat that the u.k. could crash out of the e.u. without a deal. what do you think this kind of brexit would mean for technology in europe? sure, the u.k. will become a more attractive territory, because the u.k. needs to attract more tech companies and the tech giants of the future. it can be an opportunity for europe to set relationships that -- in an important economy. of course brexit will be the final points, because in this moment, we don't know how brexit will evolve. this, on top think of the regulatory push back tech is seeing in europe, will put
european tech at a disadvantage to u.s. and other tech industries? we have a digital industry that can compete at the global level. this is important also for other industries because without a strong digital industry, also manufacturing cannot grow in the right way. so everything is happening at this moment, it's a rebalancing of the past situation. probably we will observe errors in the next year that will be that the, but i think view ofeds a strong digital to be balanced. gdpr: what is your take on
and what the right side of history will be? has europe taken the right steps here, and is it something the u.s. should do as well when it comes to data privacy? was a road that came from the need to have more respect for the privacy of data protection of the people. privacy for the european culture is stronger than other parts of the world. gdpr was the first solution, and as for the other things that i , we will, for example see probably a rebalancing in the future. rules, we will not have a digital economy at the level
emily: this is bloomberg technology. just one day after apple's big services of it, the iphone maker barely escaped a possible import ban on its iconic smartphone. the u.s. international trade commission rejected a patent infringement claim filed by qualcomm, but apple is not out of the woods. that decision came hours after a separate judge set apple infringed a different qualcomm patent and recommended an iphone ban. subject to review by the full commission that is expected to complete the investigation by july. joining us to discuss, gene munster. it seems that apple gained some ground and then qualcomm gained
some ground and vice versa. how do you expect this global battle to play out? gene: so, it is going to play out over the small bumps in the road, the small roller coaster ride, country by country unfortunately. i think to put some context on this, the headlines that is most concerning -- the substance is this is purely noise. ultimately, to answer your question to how does this play out, we will see varying degrees of announcements both for qualcomm had for apple, but that does not change the trajectory of the relationship between apple and qualcomm is going. that relationship is moving in a different direction where they will eventually be separate. you can point to some of the hires apple has had, similar to an acquisition they did a decade ago with a started to build their own chips internally. they want to do the same thing around technology they currently
licensed or dispute with around qualcomm. they have an option of moving in that direction. the simple reason why this is noise is that in the future, apple will not be dependent on qualcomm. this irritation that is going on in the courts only accelerates that move for apple. emily: the iphone has been banned in other countries, in other rulings pertaining to qualcomm. i know that it mostly involves older models. even if it is just older models potentially being banned, do you think that is still just noise? gene: it is. i think there is some dispute about which models under this most recent announcement are going to be banned. apple uses intel chips for their most recent phones. most likely to your point, it will be for some of the older phones. if you think about the simple exposure to apple -- the phones, the iphone 7 and before banned
and those customers do not purchase any apple products, that has a five present headwind to the overall apple business. it is a measurable piece of the business, but i come back to the central theme that these customers likely are not going to make a decision based on a price point that is unavailable for them for $50 or $100 to jump to an android phone. apple has retention that has been steady for the iphone between 90% and 95% over the past five years. i think availability or lack thereof uncertain models will not change that number in the near-term. emily: i want to get your thoughts on all of apple's services announcement yesterday, but i want to start with training. we know that apple unveiled its original streaming plans with lots of fanfare. big celebrities. oprah, reese witherspoon, but a lot of unanswered questions of when we can watch this content. how much is it going to cost.
how big a deal is this new streaming plan that apple is working on, not knowing the details? fortunately, we can fill in the details and a great it is irritating -- agree it is irritating we didn't get a lot of the specifics. it will be very similar prices to what we see in the market today, around $15 a month. kind of a $10 per month. we can look at the number of ads they have had an apple music as some sort of benchmark for the next few years and think about where netflix is that in terms of their subs as another benchmark. you can build a case for this video segment to be somewhere between $10 billion and $15 billion a year in revenue. that would add around 5% to apple's overall business. it does importantly does not change the streaming
expectations. for the street to have services doubling over the next two years, you need to have these type of new products like video. it is an important step, video, definitely an important step, but it is needed for apple to hit its mark to the analysts have set out for. emily: what about the new apple news plus service, which builds on things apple has tried to do before, though they have not been raging successes? there is still some contention about how much content from each of these publishers that have signed on will actually be available in apple news plus. gene: of the four announcements, this was the one that was the most underwhelming. in part to resurrect the magazine business is a losing game. people can get a lot of that same kind of content and photos through the web at large. wall streetd, journal is kind of the central partner.
we think about the news opportunity, we think in five years that can be a $500 million business, much smaller than where we think their gaming segment and the credit card and with the video can be. emily: the last two -- apple arcade and apple card, perhaps the least expected but perhaps the most impactful of all of these announcements. what is your take? gene: arcade, we put a 15% probability that would come out. my take is it is a big market and that could be potentially a $3 billion a year business over the next five years. the part that got me most excited, kind of on the margin, was what is going on with apple card. for me, it is a step forward, a dramatic step forward. the other ones are variations, putting apple's culture in the gaming market and news market, but the credit card is something that is very unique. adding transparency to the credit card. i don't need to go through
feature by feature, but think about your circles and your bands and bars around daily fitness, imagine that kind of transparency with how you manage a credit card. successfulwill be and i think it will be another example of one of the subtle things people like about their iphone. not necessarily a huge business for apple, but helps maintain that higher retention rate. gene: don't you want a titanium credit card in your wallet? gene: can't wait. emily: gene munster, always good to have you with us. thank you. ok, comcast betting big on e-sports. the media giant unveiled plans for a new $50 million arena designed specifically for competitive video gaming. the philadelphia venue known as the fusion arena will have more than 2000 square feet of led screens, training facilities and private rooms for streaming. it will eventually house the
comcast owned philadelphia fusion, one of 20 franchises in activision's overwatch league. joining us to defeat -- discussed, dr. roberts. thank you for being with us. how will this arena be different from a traditional sports arena? tucker: thank you so much for having me. this is a tech building at its core even through the design of it. we wanted it to look kind of like the chassis of a computer. sports arenas are not known for being very technologically advanced. whether it is the wi-fi or whatever. that is not the thing you go there for. this is very different in that way. there will be leds and sound systems that are first in class. we really want to make it feel like this is a virtual experience that blows you away. designry core to the
that it is built with that in mind and i think that sets it apart from what people are used to when they go to sporting arenas. emily: do you think some of these e-sports leads can become as mainstream as the nfl or mlb? if so, when? tucker: i think it takes a lot forime, but yes, i think your examples, the nfl and mlb a really only watched in america. so, they don't have a lot of followers in china. they don't have a lot of followers in europe. e-sports and video gaming more broadly is a global phenomenon that transcends just a region like ice hockey being big in colder regions or football being only popular in america. two as your question, yes. i think it takes a lot of time though. the nfl is not as big as it is today because it has been around forever, but the average viewer of an nfl game is 50 years old
or more. the average viewer of an overwatch match is 27. it will take some time. making ag tech is bigger push into gaming. apple and google have announced their own game streaming platforms. how much do you think this could change the industry? tucker: well, i think -- i would not necessarily say they will change the industry, but it does not mean they cannot be successful. the gaming industry is much bigger than people realize. it is about $150 billion annualized revenue right now and expected to do over $200 billion. that is broken up into so many different business models. you have free to play games, subscriptions, premium titles. so, i think there is a place for it, especially with apple. they have gone a very apple way which is to say we will prioritize design and quality.
who cares what the industry is doing? that's what we are going to do. they will be able to carve out their spot in the market, but the market is huge so it is tough to change it. emily: philadelphia fusion president tucker roberts. thank you so much for stopping by. coming up, your electric car maybe gas free but if it catches fire, it could pose a new problem for firefighters. how first responders are dealing with the perils of this new technology. more of bloomberg tech to come. this is bloomberg. ♪
emily: i don't be is broadening its strategy to win over more corporate customers. the company announced a new software called experience platform which will unify acquisitions and connect them with new apps from third-party developers and customers. move echoes the salesforce strategy of acting like a hub for data. first responders are for -- quickly learning how challenging it is to end electric car buyers. fire extinguishers will not work and water is not even a sure bet. there may be only two ways to put up a lithium-ion battery fire. chester dawson has this story from detroit. you are focusing on this tesla car buyer in florida. what exactly happened there? vehicle basically, the
ran into a tree and the electric battery pack caught fire. the initial first responders, which were a couple of police officers, try to use their department issued fire extinguisher but it had no effect. even when the fire department arrived on scene and doused it, the vehicle caught fire again to more times as it was being towed to the lot. it shows you when you are dealing with electric powertrains, it is a completely different situation from your typical gasoline powered engine. unlessst responders, they are intimately familiar with the protocols, and got to learn how to deal with that as electric vehicles become more common. emily: what are the protocols? how do you put out an electric car fire? chester: as i think you mentioned in the intro, on your typical chemical in a fire extinguisher as little to no effect. the answer is to dump lots and
lots of water, like thousands of gallons. whereas hundreds of gallons would do it for a gasoline engine powered car. the other alternative is to let it burn out. tesla and others recommend that is there is a place, just let the vehicle burn. that that's another option. maybe the only option unless you've got thousands of gallons of water you can use to pour on or submerge the car or battery. emily: is it at all realistic to assume any firefighter will be able to access 5 -- thousands and thousands of gallons of water in emergency situation? chester: it is a good question. essentially, that is what is needed, to completely douse the fire. you can get rid of the flames momentarily, temporarily with lesser amounts of water, but these are the kind of questions fire departments will have to start asking themselves. are they properly equipped for this and what other equipment
they might need to make sure they can deal with these car fires as more accidents happen. it should be said that electric vehicles are no more likely to get in an accident or catch fire than a gasoline powered vehicle. some research shows it is less likely, but when it happens, it is a more difficult problem to deal with. emily: tesla in an email said they reached out to first responders to offer collaboration. is there any equipment that would make these fires easier to put out? it sounds like if you are in an electric car and it catches fire, you are kind of out of luck. chester: well, yes and no. an initial dousing will be enough to get the person out of the vehicle. there is a whole other range of issues that an electric vehicle -- such as they have high-voltage cables. if you are in a situation where
a person responder needs to help you get out of the vehicle, say the door is jammed. in a typical car, they could use the jaws of life pretty much anywhere. in an electric vehicle, they have to be careful that where the access the car, where they cut, there is no high-voltage cable because that could be potentially deadly for the first responder as well. there are other issues too with these types of vehicles in terms of where things are located and just being able to identify it as an electric vehicle. what it essentially requires is a whole other level of education for first responders. so they are aware and able to identify an electric vehicle, able to handle the unique challenges of those vehicles. it does not mean it is any more likely they will get in an accident, but when it happens, it is a matter of making sure the first responders are prepared enough to deal with them. emily: with more and more electric cars on the road, are first responders having that education?
you know if that training is happening? chester: it is coming in fits and starts, with companies like tesla. there are other electric vehicle makers, gm with its bolts an nissan with its leaf. these vehicles have very similar structures with its battery packs. as these become more common, first responders are getting more training. it is a bit -- you know, haphazard. there is no national standard for it yet, but there are certain departments that are maybe the ones that have seen more of these incidents a son where sales are highest. that happens in florida, california, those markets where ev's are more popular. according to one industry organization, a quarter of a million firefighters that had some level of training and about one million firefighters, or first responders in the u.s. about a quarter of them have had some training, but that does not mean they are all experts. emily: ok, chester dawson.
you can read his story on bloomberg.com and on bloomberg businessweek. hear more from the magazine's reporters and editors on bloomberg television and radio every weekend. still ahead, uber taking on the middle east. how acquiring a rival will affect's the region's ride-hailing competition. this is bloomberg. ♪
emily: nasa's historic all-female spacewalk has been put on hold because of a lack of fitted spacesuits. astronauts were scheduled to swap out batteries outside the international space station this friday to conclude women's history month, but according to the agency, both need a medium-sized spacesuit torso and only one is available. koch will be accompanied by nick hague. said theswoman washington post that an all-female spacewalk is inevitable.
nasa needs to get together and make that happen. after months of rumors, uber is acquiring middle east and rival careem in its priciest acquisition ever. it will buy the company for $3.1 billion, marking the first time it has bought one of its regional competitors. careem has expanded rapidly over the years, offered in more than 90 cities in 15 countries. joining us to discuss, david chao, in investor in careem and uber. dcm involved in making this acquisition happen? david: certainly, a lot of the investors in dcm are also in the deal. there were a lot of negotiations. emily: buber has tried to expand in other countries many times to great failure. what makes you think this is a good thing? david: i think this is a big victory for uber because in china and southeast asia, they withdrew. this time, i think the new
management team took a much more less adversarial position and really build a good rapport with the careem management as opposed to trying to beat them. i think the careem management team really believe that uber is going to let them be independent for a while. i think the deal was right for both sides. emily: what do you think this means for ridesharing in the middle east? david: i think the 700 million people in the middle east, it is a growing market. we believe there will be more competitors coming out, but i think for a while, the customer still have two choices and they are not going to be run completely the same. i think consumers will still have a great option. emily: what is your outlook on the uber idea? we know lyft is losing half as much money as it is making and uber has prioritize growth over profits at this point. do you think investors will buy
into this? david: first and foremost, everyone wants the lyft ipo to be a smashing success because i think it will legitimize this sector. i do think that this whole on-demand sector is going to see automation kick in. then, the labor costs, the largest chunk of the cost is going to disappear. emily: then all of these drivers are out of a job. david: yes, but it also means uber and lyft's profits will skyrocket. emily: maybe decades out. david: i actually think it is going to be much earlier than people think. it is not going to be 01, suddenly overnight everything goes automated. gradually, these companies profits will continue to rise. emily: you are also investors in lime and in cannabis. what do you see there?
david: we see that is on-demand economy also extends out to the cannabis market. people want delivery to their homes. i think a lot of cannabis dispensaries are not necessarily in great locations. so, for example, if you are at night, you're female wanting to buy cannabis, you would rather have it delivered than going to a store in the middle of the worst part of town. so, i think there is great upside. we also believe it will be federally legal in the next three to five years. emily: interesting. lots of evolving stuff there. dcm ventures cofounder david chao, good to have you on the show. thank you for stopping by. that does it for this edition of bloomberg technology. we are live streaming on twitter and follow our global breaking news network, tictoc, on twitter. this is bloomberg. ♪
i can customize each line for each family member? yup. and since it comes with your internet, you can switch wireless carriers, and save hundreds of dollars a year. are you pullin' my leg? nope. you sure you're not pullin' my leg? i think it's your dog. oh it's him. good call. get the data options you need, and still save hundreds of dollars. do you guys sell other dogs? now that's simple, easy, awesome. customize each line by paying for data by the gig or get unlimited. and now get $250 back when you buy a new samsung galaxy. click, call, or visit a store today.
haidi: welcome to daybreak australia. shery: i'm shery ahn in new york. sophie: i'm sophie kamaruddin in hong kong. we are counting down to asia's major markets open. ♪ haidi: here are the top stories we are covering in the next hour. stocks rally and treasuries fall again, with signs of easing. oil with energy gains as the s&p 500 surges. apple faces a partial iphone ban after losing a patent ruling