tv Bloomberg West Bloomberg August 11, 2015 4:30pm-5:01pm EDT
>> larry page and sergei brin started out wanting to make the biggest search engine in the world. now a reality -- a radical anotherzation that is nod to the future, alphabet. on this special edition of bloomberg west, we go in depth to change the world -- go in depth about a company that has tried to change the world in depth not once, but many times over.
up, what is possible at alphabet that was not possible at google before? we look at financial options. and how much is riding on moonshot? is significantly extending life even possible? all of that ahead on the special bloomberg west. first, let me tell you about the holding company under which google is just another branch. alphabet is what we once thought as google, but separated into more clear units. nest, capital, calico, x, home of the moonshot. some are calling it classical google, and it is include search and ads and youtube.
chrome who took over android operations and recently almost all of consumer android products. how we canto discuss is bradsh big things stone, bryan weiser, then leg, and om malik. why did they have to go this far? ever since larry was appointed ceo of couple of years ago, he has shown a little bit face for the grittier responsibilities of being chief executive, talking to shareholders, being on the quarterly conference call, talking to regulators and testifying before congress that is why gradually we has handoff more responsibility. what this allows him to do, and that sergei has already been
doing, is to look at the next twist in technology and let him handle all the stuff he hasn't wanted to deal with. it is not an easy job he is taking on. m: i do feel that classic goodwill is under attack for the first time in a very systematic way from all corners. people do not think i can county the attack is from facebook, from apple, from other internet services. google is a company that does not do anything very well. emily: google is a company that can do anything very well? om: because search. they won the categories. look at search performance. look at how we as human beings use google search, we have nothing exciting to say anything about it.
not like we did when his company started. emily: how do you respond to that statement, that google does not do a single thing well? i think there are elements of truth to that. but if vertical by vertical, other companies are picking up interesting bits of search. looking for hotels or flights, things like that. there is a reason that google gets chipped away at by lots of specials that -- specialists that do a better job than them. they have been to a lot of things quite well and there are many people that may be not as hungry as they might've been. why.: there is the but what about why now? what is this have to do with
regulation and what is going on in europe and the antitrust battles they are and needing to be more nimble and make it in a place like china? brad: larry and sergei want nothing to do with the antitrust battles. eric schmidt has been running that game plan. it hasn't been successful, no called of eric's, but the political climate in europe is terrible. soon google is known as the peacemaker. it came in with android when android was fighting under a lot of divisions and has integrated it. tohink he will soon try navigate google through what is a serious situation in europe. emily: the new cfo, does she have anything to do with this? how much of this is pressure from wall street? om: i think they acknowledged it in an fcc letter. they had to defend themselves and google executives did not really care about wall street
for the longest time. they had to file a letter and there they defended themselves against what these companies were saying, why they were not focusing. i think investors were asking where the focus was. i think investors were wrong for making them focus on the near term. a lot of companies suffer because they are forced to focus on the near term i wall street, which has a very industrial era understanding of business. emily: and now they are saying, we will not accept the new google. thank you both so much for joining us today. another developing story we have to mention, china is surprising global investors by devaluing its currency the most in two decades. cut could be welcome to apple suppliers, foxconn and package run.
emily: welcome back to our bloomberg west special on alphabet, google's new pair and company. sergei --ary and larry and sergei run a company? it is conceivable google could make large acquisitions if they decide to. and not only directly related to what google does today, but why not an entire new areas? there is nothing stopping google with this option they've created by combining operations focused businesses if they wanted to. emily: for more, i am joined by brian research in portland -- bryan weiser in portland. alphabet now has $70 billion on
its balance sheet to spend. how would they spend it? you've had some suggestions. om: i would say there was talk about partnering with tesla in the past. there was a book about it. it may actually make a lot of sense for google to actually take a substantial position in tesla, not entirely by outright, ownset's say the google 20% of that company. it removes pressure on wall street, on the company to deliver results. i think the technology needs some long-term thinking. tesla is not something that can be judged on a three-month increment. that basis,dging on
that would make a lot of sense. for tesla or for twitter? i spoke to someone a few months ago that would agree. it has been in decline for the past few months. it certainly becomes more plausible that google could buy them. emily: brian, you cover twitter. what do you think question mark how would you like to see google spend this money? brian: it is safe to say that if you were to look at it solely on the basis -- this basis, you thoseseparate it from businesses that are directly ancillary.
admire what they are trying to do, but allowing investors -- you might admire what they are trying to do, but allowing investors to invest capital in businesses, that is not they're going to do. they want investors to invest knowing they are investing in a larry and sergei company. i think if you read larry's note, and i'm just going off that, right toward the end he of vettingnsively entrepreneurs and founders with a long-term view. at the and of the day, he tells them clearly what they want to do with the money they have, the kind of investments they want to make. x.tify will need daniel it will not happen without him. emily: i wonder if there is a situation where daniel can come in and delete ceo, or jack
dorsey -- come in and still be ceo, or jack dorsey for example. i think this will be a large technology company figuring out how to expand opportunities for it. i've said time and time again, google is still a one trick on me. find the nextg to horses. they cannot buy talent like facebook baconschi lewis -- bought oculus and retain it. that is the problem. let them be and let them go. emily: brad, if you are mark zuckerberg or jet -- or jeff bezos, what are you thinking right now? maybe they are excited about this. mary is elevating himself above the core business, bringing potentially other companies into the alphabet umbrella, and arguably taking their eye off the ball that is the profit
business, the search engine. we haven't said anything about there a conflict executive, but no match for jeff bezos or zuckerberg. maybe this is an opportunity where larry really starts to look at other things and disassociates himself and we look back and say, here is where google started to lose itself. emily: brian, do you have a comment? brian: there are several. google is a one trick pony, they will probably do $10 billion this year. all the related success to double-click, it is massive. emily: didn't google secede a huge portion of territory there to facebook? purely mobile plays, their present -- their acquisition of at knob was in the space.
it's not about a mobile advertiser to a mobile device per se. facebook arewith the two hegemonic players in advertising. respond to that. google and facebook him if you want to measure them on any metric, it has to be on the attention grab. the attention of the average consumer is increasingly on facebook. today seems dandy. but if more people are spending more time in facebook, or in the ,o-called communication apps then you start to see that people are starting to shift their time on twitter two --o -- toplatforms t different platforms. i say one trick connie, they do really well. there is no match for them just yet. ahead of, facebook is
them. and they will increase the lead, because they have more path -- more personal data on that. and 20 minutes a day on facebook. brian, you're sticking with me. thank you for joining us today on this echelon edition of bloomberg west -- special addition of bloomberg west. moonshot on the newly formed alphabet. ♪
overnight tonight. yesterday, they announced a $4 uy in a chinese commerce group. yesterday they announced 692 lead dollars in in time retail. outrrow, be sure to check my interview with alibaba's ceo dano john right here on bloomberg television. now back to our special show about alphabet, the holding company for google. the heart and soul companies of this -- of the company. i spoke to the founder and asked him about calico. another audacious move by google. there is very little research to curing cancer.
it is a perfectly good proposition. let's give it a try. old age is a remedy for and dying, i would say that is fantastic for the world. emily: joining me to discuss, ryan betancourt -- ryan betancourt, and back with me is all malik, brian wiser, and brad stone. is it really possible to extend life to 200 years? ryan: without a doubt. when you look at extension of life, cynthia over at calico actually showed she was able to double the life span of worms with one gene mutation. emily: how are they doing this? calico is the most opaque version of google. we are all rooting for
them. ryan: we are all rooting for them. they're not necessarily outside the biotech space, but incredibly famous within it. ceo fromle know the apple, but he was the ceo of genentech. google in the past have said that they are looking at the long view. we think we can start to see quantification and success within the short term. it seems trivial to a corporate structures and we are talking about a company trying to extend human life. but what do you think the benefits are of calico, or even running it out as its own entity? inn: one of the big issues this space is allowing it to follow certain past that a search engine wouldn't follow. , especiallyxpensive
when you are talking about therapeutics. let's say, they identify couple of genes that may actually extend lifespan, delay the onset of alzheimer's, parkinson's disease. we are talking about multiple billions of dollars. brad: you'd would have to raise money on the public markets. ryan: on the public markets or maybe with joint partnerships. emily: do you wonder how they do all this? om: i don't, actually. i don't think we can quantify what google is doing with the moon shots in financial terms. if you think about it, look at the impact on the entire society. is there a way to quantify question mark i think the -- to quantify? i think the at&t of the past is already gone. identify what the
earnings will be a year from now. tourney ande for dollars into something useful for humanity. emily: we also have google ventures. bill meredith is running the financial arm of the company. take a listen. bill: wet with a -- start with a theme and with that 36% last year into life science companies. the goal is to help people not die from diseases, from congestive heart failure, cancer, or the things that affect lifespan. emily: can you give me a better idea of how they are extending life? ryan: looking at the disease itself. what is aging? it is gradually the onset of disease is that kill us, cancer, alzheimer's, cardiovascular disease.
once we have cured these, we should start to prolong. 120 years currently for the normal human lifespan. where google is involved, organogenesis, failing organs where they can be replaced. emily: what about the other moon shots? how successful have they been? brad: it is a mixed record. google glass was probably the one that got the most attention and it wasn't very successful. that moved over to the next unit. -- nest unit. there are other options to spread internet options in other parts of the world most of they are dealing with high wind at high altitude, so we will weather that is practical. we will see. everything else is kind of miscellaneous. to the extent that it frees up more capital for google x, that is a good thing.
we all want these things. will seeey promise we more transparency. they don't know just how transparent it will be stopped but what do you think it will look like an alphabet, google aside? om: five year from now, not too different. i think it is a company very much like berkshire hathaway. butaps not the same makeup, looking at big swings on the future of humanity or technology , not everything will work out. but they will have more companies under there. isefinitely believe there suddenly a revitalization of interest in google and what it can do in our ecosystem. stone,all malik, brad our, and brianwies er, thank you all so much.
(the lion sleeps tonight.) woman snoring take the roar out of snore. yet another innovation only at a sleep number store. john: i'm john heilemann. -- and i mark halperin. and with all due respect to rick perry, this one's for free. ♪ tonight, clinton, perry, paul, and cruise, but first, trump. as he leads the race, as we have seen, he dominates. hillarytalk about clinton. jeb bush plans to hit the big front runner in excerpts. he is quoted as saying isis grew while the united states disengaged and