tv Charlie Rose BLOOMBERG September 12, 2015 8:00pm-9:01pm EDT
>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we turn tonight to the nuclear deal with iran and other big foreign policy questions, including the rise of the issue of migrants. today, 42 senators have voiced their support for the agreement and it is expected to survive a republican opposition. wednesday, former secretary of state hillary clinton endorsed the deal in a speech at the brookings institution and said she would not hesitate to take military action if iran attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon. and this former vice president , dick cheney called the accord madness and argued a better deal was still possible.
meanwhile, ayatollah khamenei ruled out negotiations with the united states on a nuclear agreement. jeffrey goldberg, national correspondent for the "the atlantic" and national recipient for the award for reporting. pleased to have you. welcome. jeffrey: thank you. charlie: while i have been away, not much has happened. i want to talk about the issue of migrants. the pope is speaking to it, the president spoke in the last 24 hours. we'll talk about that, but, first, where are we? it's apparent that the president has enough democratic support. jeffrey: it's all over but there is a lot of shouting. the republicans are trying to engineer various last-minute maneuvers to try to sink the deal or delay the deal, there's this whole maneuver republicans are suggesting.
some of them are arguing the deal doesn't exist because they were supposed to have seen all the provisions of the deal and there are side agreements, the atomic energy agency, that they haven't seen because no one's seen and they say, therefore, the clock never even started on the deliberation process. they're throwing a lot of stuff against the wall and seeing what happens. but september 17, this deal goes into effect. obama has the votes in the senate. so sanctions are going to start coming off and iran is going to presumably start complying with the demands of the deal. charlie: do we know or do polls tell us that the american people, the more they've heard the less they like the deal? jeffrey: yeah, not very popular in the american public. there have been a lot of -- millions and millions of dollars of advertising going up against it. the issue of iran starts at a deficit. especially people older than 45, 50, think of the image of iran dating back to the hostage
crisis, so it is not an easy sale. it's not popular in the public. it's not popular in congress either. we forget, this is going to be voted down in congress, you know. charlie: right. jeffrey: a little political maneuver on the part of the white house has been sort of clever to frame it, well, we have enough votes to get this through. but actually, if they had a vote in the house tomorrow, 60% of the house would vote against it, i think 58 senators would vote against it, only a minority of legislators approve it. charlie: the president can veto the resolution. they don't have enough votes. jeffrey: the argument right now is between whether the democrats filibuster in order to avoid forcing the president to veto. the optics of the president vetoing this are not good. they have enough votes to filibuster and there is differing opinions on this within the senate. some democratic senators arguing we have to have an up and down vote, everybody has to be on the record. this is important. let's not just push this out of the public's mind.
we have to state what we believe and, so, that's where the argument is now. but the deal is the deal. the deal is going through. charlie: so what are the consequences of that? jeffrey: enormous. funny you should ask. [laughter] i mean, look, this is the first time that iran is going to be held to a deal that curtails their nuclear activities for 15 years, 10 years is one mark, 15 years is another. i'm amazed the number of people on both sides of the issue who are absolutely sure about what's going to happen. anybody who tells you that, well, x is going to happen because we've done y, they're kidding themselves, including the advocates of the deal. the advocates of the deal, this is what happens in washington, everything begins to get sold so hard that people lose a little bit of credibility because they are arguing fantasy. iran will probably comply with the deal for a while because they're going to get money and
keep the flow of sanctions relief coming. i bet they're going to cheat on the margins. i don't know if they're going to, ten or 15 years from now, move toward nuclearization. they're not supposed to, according to the terms of the deal. obviously, the opponents like dick cheney are arguing -- well, cheney is arguing a whole other level of drama. he's saying they're going to nuke us, that this deal leads to an inexorable pathway that they'll end up by sending nuclear weapons our way. putting that aside, a lot of opponents say this is a disaster, that this will lead to war. obviously, advocates of the deal are saying if we don't do this, there will be war. nobody really knows what's going to happen, though. charlie: how has the president been as an effective salesman of this deal? which -- go ahead. jeffrey: no, he doesn't like selling congress, it's not his favorite thing to do. he doesn't like calling up legislators and explaining to them patiently why they should do the things he thinks are right. we know that.
he has spent more time on this issue selling, sort of -- you know, artisanal selling of this issue than anything he's ever done with congress. he is better at arguing this case than the opponents of the deal are at arguing their case. that's my personal opinion. charlie: because facts are on his side? jeffrey: again, i'll show my hand. is the deal perfect? no. is the deal better than the alternative, which is no deal? that's the reality. charlie: and that's his argument. jeffrey: within the framework they've created for themselves and created for the world, that this is the deal, and if you don't do the deal, then bad things will happen, you know, yeah, the deals is better. i mean, if the deal didn't go through and now we're talking about theory because it is going to go through, if the deal doesn't go through, iran would be free to go pursue its nuclear ambitions, the rest of the world would look at america as sort of a feckless negotiate. charlie: with no more chance of sanctions. jeffrey: yes. a lot of republicans believe america is powerful enough on
the world stages to sanction iran. charlie: here's what's interesting to me. just today, cameron, hollande, merkel. why we support the iran deal. it is said one of the important turning point of the foreign ministers of the p5 plus one countries came and said we believe this is essential. we promise you if you vote this thing down, sanctions are over. jeffrey: right. this was not russia and china telling democratic senators sanctions are over. these are our closest allies.
so if the deal went down, in short what would happen is the republicans would demand sanctions on companies that do business in iran. that's not a realistic scenario. charlie: and they're all in favor of this deal saying the president did all he could, we couldn't have gotten more, this is a good deal -- not a perfect deal but a good deal. jeffrey: we'll never know if he can get more. the same is true if you go buy a car. charlie: all are saying that. no one's saying i'm opposed because the president -- jeffrey: no, that happens later when everything goes sideways but now everybody is as much for the deal as obama is for the deal. and in the other p5+1 countries they don't have the legislative drama going on here. charlie: what about the republicans opposing the deal
say they will drown the deal? jeffrey: i think that's an easy thing to say on the campaign trail, probably a harder thing to do once you get into the white house. if you get into the white house and you call up not china and russia again but britain and france and germany and saying, well, we're pulling out of this, it's not going to happen. charlie: russia and china are in favor of the deal. jeffrey: yes. charlie: the president said the russians are very helpful because they're included in p5+1. jeffrey: there is a larger question. if you're a republican president and you come in and say, deals organized by the executive position, we don't like it, so we're going to throw it away. one of the hallmarks of american power is our willingness to adhere to treaties and agreements that we sign. we are stable. we are not bipolar in that way. so if you go do that, who's going to negotiate with america
thinking whatever they negotiated is going to stand over time? that is a serious problem. therefore, i think that a responsible republican president would say, you know, well, i could bust their chops a little bit more on iran, i could watch what they're doing, have zero tolerance for violations, but i just can't throw out this entire deal arranged by the international community. charlie: there is also the idea that if there's a split between what the deal does and the rest of iran's conduct. that's what hillary spoke to, that's what the republicans are speaking to and is what the ayatollah spoke to. jeffrey: his statements betray a very nervous man. i mean, that man is very nervous about the consequences of the deal, which should give some kind of comfort to americans who are worried. if the ayatollah is worried, that's a good thing. he said, we pushed these guys out, america, through the front door, we're not letting them back in through the window.
that's literally what he's saying. he's saying, don't get any ideas about us moderating -- he's warning his people. he wouldn't have to say that unless he was worried that a lot of people even within his system are thinking -- charlie: who? jeffrey: rouhani, very careful guy. he's not talking about a new day and a new era. but i think that the clear signals from these so-called moderates are that we can talk about other things as well. charlie: my impression is the obama administration, while not saying it and while carefully saying iran's conduct is not part of this deal and carefully saying they will try to thwart iran's conduct as every step and perhaps even with a doubling effort, they believe that they have an opportunity here. jeffrey: right.
charlie: and that it's better to face an iran who doesn't have nuclear weapons as you're trying to curtail their activity than an iran that has nuclear weapons. jeffrey: president obama is very careful about talking this way. john kerry is a little bit less careful talking this way. but i think they both have at least a hope that this will set in motion a virtuous cycle in the relationship. iran will open up. americans and iranians will come into more contact. the moderates will be strengthened. it is about running an actual state will become a more responsible player. there is obvious hope. they believe 15 years is a long time and in 15 years anything can happen. i go back to the point that nobody knows nothing. that is perfectly plausible and perfectly plausible that iranian behavior gets worse in the coming years because the revolutionary guard corps gets a lot of money and gives it to has the law and everybody else.
-- give it to hezbollah and everybody else. and oil and everything else. all these things can be true. iran is complicated like the united states. charlie: and then there are the israelis. jeffrey: yes. charlie: the israelis made every effort they could to stop the deal. further deepening the conflict between the prime minister and the president. jeffrey: yeah. pretty dysfunctional. it's dysfunctional except it has to function. charlie: right. jeffrey: here's the way i have been thinking about it. the only reason there is a deal is because of benjamin netanyahu. for ten years he has been arguing lobbying and cajoling and threatening on the subject of iran. it was a combination of intense lobbying that got the american government to focus on this issue and got europe to focus on this issue. it was the threats that were judged to be credible by the pentagon, the threat of israeli unilateral action that got them
focused on we've got to get sanctions in place that allay the israeli fears. so the sanctions brocket us to -- brought us to negotiations. benjamin netanyahu is the father of the deal in some ways. charlie: he prodded us into sanctions and sanctions delivered the deal. jeffrey: he was hoping sanctions would deliver regime change and be so crippling that the regime would collapse on itself. that was probably not realistic. it certainly wasn't obama's goal. it might have been a republican president's goal. here's a guy who could have take an victory lap in the past several months and say we've gotten what we want, now i'm going to work with the president closely to make sure the provisions of the deal are as tough as they can be, but the man has a very black and white view of the world and that's reflected in the republicans. the issue is the idea of dealing with iran. the provisions of the deal are less important to the opponents including netanyahu and the republicans than the idea that
you can negotiate with evil. this is the way -- netanyahu does not believe any deal is worth the paper is written on because the iranians are by their nature eliminationist anti-semites that will destroy israel. charlie: what does the president say? if you say that to him, what does he say? jeffrey: i asked him about the anti-semitism of the regime. he believes, i think, i'll paraphrase what he said -- he believes yes they are anti-semitic, thuggish, obviously sponsors of terrorism, that's what the state department says. but they respond to pressure, they respond to incentive. i think he puts north korea and iran in different baskets. charlie: one is rational and one is irrational.
jeffrey: there is a self-interest and reality basis to what iran does, what the regime does. while he obviously signs the anti-semitism onerous and repulsive he finds it logical and instrumental, to curry favor among arabs opposed to israel. i don't think the president believes iran with some pushback would ever dare try to harm israel with nuclear weapons. he obviously is very careful about saying, look, i take the threat seriously and israel is a close ally, but he is not in the same camp, obviously, as netanyahu on this subject. he's not so apocalyptic. charlie: what did the ayatollah mean when he said he didn't want israel to exist in 25 years? jeffrey: he doesn't want israel to exist in 25 years. it is a bit ambiguous. the stated policy is the destruction of israel. they want israel to not be the jewish democracy in the middle east.
they believe that is a moral crime. they have been working toward that goal through their proxies , hezbollah and hamas for some time. they have a theological basis for this plate. -- for this belief. it was phrased passably enough. he walks a line when he says it these days. people in the system have been cruder in the way they have described it but his reiterating in these things, core principles of the islamic revolution. the revolution is built on anti-americanism and anti-zionism. he is reminding everyone, hey, we have a change. charlie: the majority doesn't believe in it. jeffrey: israel has the most pro american population in the middle east. after israel it might very well be iran. 30, 35 years of ayatollah rule has turned that country into a very pro american place. charlie: partly because they look at the social media and
they say, we want to be like them? jeffrey: i think -- i mean, this is not a formula for a policymaker but it's good enough for me. i think the best antidote to islamist rule is islamist rule. you know, over two or three or four or five decades, it becomes quite tiresome for most to have the population that doesn't want to live under clerical rule. so they look at who does the clerics hate most, america? there must be something to say for america in that case. ♪
charlie: shifting from that. iran is an enemy of isis. america is an enemy of isis. saudi arabia is an enemy of isis. israel is an enemy of isis. jeffrey: isis doesn't have a lot of friends. charlie: except sunnis in the anbar province. jeffrey: except in place where it it counts, yeah. this is one of the issues and i think this is why this issue is so complicated for people. we have shared interests with iran on a couple of fronts. in isis territory most obviously, and in afghanistan and in sort of keeping the taliban-- charlie: and in perhaps in syria. jeffrey: you know, the iranians
are so cynical in syria, they back bashar al-assad. bashar al-assad and the iranians combined with the russians have created this refugee crisis through their horrible behavior, and so, it's very hard to imagine iran being a productive player in that system. it's awful hard to imagine being a productive player as well. -- to imagine putin being a productive player as well. charlie: you have it interesting interviews with the president and you know the middle east and , the israelis especially, is the obama administration going to come up with a pretty good grade on how it's handled the nuclear negotiations? is there a very bad grade on how it has met the challenge of isis in the region? jeffrey: i don't want to give you the copout political answer on the first part, but we don't know yet. this iran deal would turn out to be one of the genius moves of modern diplomacy. it could. charlie: it could change the region.
jeffrey: it could. it could neutralize iran. what is his goal? his goal is to neutralize adversaries. in this case it's take away the most potent theoretical weapon the iranians could have from him and that's what the goal is and if it works, then it works, and he'll get credit for it. the issue is every presidency is a reaction to a previous presidency, right, and george w. bush went all the way into the middle east and the greater middle east and barack obama , came in and was elected to do one thing. the reason he is president is to extract. but the michael corlioni rule applies. just when i thought i was out, they pulled me back in. that is what happened in syria. this argument takes place every day, if we had done more in 2011 and 2012 to stabilize the syrian situation to move assad out before isis developed the way it did-- would that have worked?
asked the president that directly. this is where he gave the famous answer, you know, a bunch of dentists and carpenters and farmers and blacksmith -- is it blacksmiths? [laughter] all of them, obama had the view early on they'd never defeat the combined forces of hezbollah and the revolutionary guard corps. and he may have been right. but to go to your question, action and inaction has consequences. i think there is a fair critique to be made that we should have done, we and the rest of the world should have done more before we had the spillover effect. charlie: i don't think he ever saw the urgency of the deal and i think at every turn they would say, we have recognized what a challenge isis is and we're initiating something new. more cia, more special forces.
and then six months later they're saying it's really not working and we'll try this. jeffrey: he has an allergy. let me be fair to the president. two things he understands. one is every day that goes by where an american soldier isn't killed in the middle east is a good day. he understands if american soldiers are being killed in the middle east there is no other issue in the world. he can't deal with asia or africa. charlie: he wants to pivot to asia. jeffrey: and that remains the dream, obviously. the second thing is he knows, after iraq, he knows that there is close to zero public pressure in america to further engage in the syria crisis or the iraq crisis. charlie: but at the same time he must know, you know, that this thing is a threat. what is happening? jeffrey: look, eventually, jihadists decide that america is the enemy, right? this is the long-term problem.
the long-term problem is that we are one medium-sized terrorist attack, either in the american homeland or in the american target overseas, god forbid, we before we have to change policy and pivot toward something much more dramatic than we have now. so that's where we're at. we're always one incident away from further engagement. charlie: the other interesting thing about the obama administration is we now know that hillary clinton initiated, obviously with the president's support -- we don't know who is the mother or father of the idea -- but sending one of her key aides, jake sullivan and bill burns, deputy secretary of state, to see if there was a possibility. jeffrey: well, obama is the author. before he became president, he said -- remember the fight that they had. i'll talk to anybody, oh, that's
so naive. now she's saying she'll initiate this. we will untangle that. charlie: without that, they would not have had the agreement. jeffrey: no, and she's trying to do two things at once and it is complicated. she's both saying look at my forward leaning diplomacy that custard's but i'm not entirely point, pleased with the iran -deal. charlie: and i'll be tougher. on the non-nuclear issues. jeffrey: and i will be tougher on the issues and i don't like russia very much. and i am not going to be pushed around. this was in yesterday's speech. it was a hawkish speech. it was done within parameters, but it was definitely hawkish. charlie: i think she is more hawkish than he is. jeffrey: i did an interview with her last year. she said don't do stupid stuff is a model of a great nation. she didn't go that far this time but -- charlie: he had basically said,
"my forward policies is don't do stupid stuff." but that is not enough of a foreign policy. it is a good rule for life when you wake up in the morning. here is the split. [laughter] it is a good baseline. i don't always adhere to it. but here is a good way to think of it. i think that hillary clinton wakes up in the morning and says what can we do to make the world a better place? obama wakes up and says what can we do to make the world a better place and if we do that, what effect will that have? it is a disposition. before i do anything, let me just think about the ramifications. charlie: do you think obama thinks differently than most people? jeffrey: i think he is more of an innovative foreign-policy thinker. charlie: he is looking for creative ways to approach it
differently. jeffrey: to disengage from parts of the world, to hand off problems that shouldn't be ours, in his opinion. the chinese complaining that the u.s. had to do more in afghanistan because the chinese mines were under threat by the television. obama -- under threat by the taliban. the chinese want to protect their mining interests, they should protect them. the automatic disposition, we are the superpower, the hyperpower. this is us. everything has to be us. obama i think questions some underlying assumptions. one of the other assumptions, why do these small countries that are adversaries remain adversaries? cuba? burma was practice for cuba.
cuba was practice for iran. he is achieved more in terms of -- it is hard for him to articulate this theory because american voters and american politicians don't want to acknowledge there are limitations to american power. that doesn't get you an office. i think he believes that we have to pick and choose. the security of the world should not depend solely on the american taxpayers willingness to foot the bill for the largest military. charlie: and where you, the rest of the world? jeffrey: the constant question he asks. he was pushing britain. charlie: they are sending planes into syria and they were doing that before. jeffrey: he is pushing on that stuff, by the way. he is asking more of our lives. charlie: the big question, the flight of migrants. that has more emotional appeal.
you have the pope on the case, a whole range, the pope has taken a syrian family into the vatican. [laughter] jeffrey: it will be quite a lecture on the coat visits. charlie: i don't we can tolerate this kind of atrocity. jeffrey: two points. the first is no we can't tolerate this. people should have more of an open door. but, coming back to a point you made, we would not have this outflow of refugees from syria if the world, not just the united states, if the world had circled this problem earlier. the solution to the syrian crisis is in syria. you can't take cap the population and move them to other parts of the world. charlie: that is and what he says. jeffrey: it is a helpful thing. charlie: it is easy to beat up
on him. he is right. the u.s. has tried. john kerry has tried to get them together. you need russia, somebody who has influence with sod -- assad, to say look, it is time to go. it is not time for the allies to go, it is time for you to go. we are not prepared to support you anymore but we are prepared to play a role in the future. jeffrey: i don't think anybody knows what to do. charlie: i'm not suggesting what to do. i'm suggesting you need to get russia and iran involved. jeffrey: since they are lighting the fire. stop letting the fire. the migrant issue is a huge issue. it is terrifying. what is terrifying to europeans, i happen to speak
serendipitously to a european intelligence official, in an eu country, and what they are nervous beyond measure about is most of these syrians are males, fighting age males, they are coming in. it is hard to vet. the europeans are obviously -- charlie: it is an intelligence question. jeffrey: if in two or three years people who come into europe now are engaged in jihadist activities you will not see europeans crying so much for these refugees. charlie: so what should we do? jeffrey: you have to solve these problems at the source. we can take in 10,000 now. a minimal number. charlie: doesn't the intelligence question still
apply? jeffrey: i think we are better at vetting and we have more capabilities. we don't have an open border system the way the eu has. but obviously. charlie: what you think of the decision to take in more than he has before? we were taking in less than european countries. jeffrey: but more than the arab countries by the way. it is kind of stunning if you look at the numbers of refugees taken in by the arab states. zero. i don't mean to pick on saudi arabia but i will. it is amazing. the story of siri is a story of hypocrisy. he is responding to a pressing need. if you're the american president and you want to tell everybody, people are coming to america for advice you have to put up a little bit here. this goes to your question, the early decisions on syria.
charlie: history will look at them as a failed opportunity. jeffrey: if the story of the bush administration is overreaction, the obama administration doesn't want to be remembered as a story of under reaction. charlie: in terms of the arab spring which shows that it is a go to for success, -- it is your decision, we applaud democracy where we see it, go to it, keep us out of it. jeffrey: that is it. here is the formula. it didn't end up good. nothing ends up good. here is the simple formula. obama looks at the middle east and says in the last 12 years we have tried an experiment in full on intervention and it didn't work. we have tried partial
intervention in libya and it didn't work. we have tried nonintervention and it didn't work. can't we give it to asia? can't i deal with asia? this is management of bad situations keeping them from getting worse. charlie: and the argument is who won the iraqi war, the iranians. jeffrey: the iranians are good at winning. charlie: they didn't have a lot of skin in the game at that time. some argue because the middle east has cap united states preoccupied, china has on -- has had an opportunity in africa and other places. jeffrey: and we should be -- charlie: and we should have been more alert in the changes in asia and the velocity of change there. jeffrey: there are people in the administration who are frustrated by the fact that the
middle east takes up so much time and bandwidth and the united states is put on the hook for everything that goes wrong. would she like to give it more? there is nobody series in washington that doesn't think asia is the future. clearly yes. she is a more activist foreign policy leader. she sees a problem like libya and says what should we do, she says what should we do? charlie: take u.s. relationships a variety of places pre-china, is it better now than it was because of obama or less? how do you measure the u.s. china relationship. jeffrey: i don't know the answer to that question. charlie: cyber espionage is a huge question. it is a big issue that divides
them. jeffrey: it should be bigger probably. charlie: in terms of when they get together probably. any conversation with china in their region. i am asking this bigger question. where do you look at places and say because of the president's stewardship of foreign policy we're in a better place? cuba may be one. jeffrey: cuba is highly symbolic. it is important. he removed a stone from the shoe of american relationship with latin america. it is not something that latin americans can say look at your hypocrisy in cuba. the proof of the including, will cuba be freer than it was in five years? i hope so. if it is not then we had open relations for no moral purpose.
going back to china, i was approached at the china issue from the periphery of the country, here i would say that the obama administration has been fairly active. not as active as some have wanted, in buttressing the small but potent countries that bring china and live in fear of china. the vietnam, philippines, and so on. and billy a network of countries that can do the containment of china. china is quite aggressive. they are building islands to claim more sea for themselves. we don't push back. that will be a question in the debates. charlie: one of the themes of this madness opus you are writing, what is its title? jeffrey: i have no title. charlie: all books answering question. jeffrey: one of the things that has interested me for years, why the middle east undoes american presidents? charlie: because it is unsolvable. jeffrey: carter, reagan, bush, and this one hoping that it
i was also there. tim cook's company is the most valuable company in history. it makes some of the most desirable and easy to use consumer products ever. easy to use it turns out is not easy. josh is the editor of business -- bloomberg businessweek. he got a look inside the design studio where few people go. here is the cover of bloomberg businessweek. here is the inside we will talk about. what is the headline here? of this whole laying out of the newest version of apple's products? josh: the products themselves, the straight business headline is apple has taken the most profitable and successful consumer product in the world and found a way to separate itself from its competitors. they have a 3-d touch. they have added a third dimension to the phone. if you create pressure you can die then.
if you press your phone button and press harder it will show you who you want to call without having to go back-and-forth, using the home button. it is an amazing bit of technology. it pushes the experience more forward. apple invented this multitouch experience in 2007. you could swipe in touch. this takes it to a different level. you can still do those things but now with these amazing microscopic readings with pliable glass you can go anywhere within the phone. that is impressive. what i learned aside from that is how this actually happens. there is a method to the way apple operates. it is very unique. it is faith-based. i got a claims of both things and saw how the method actually
produces amazing technology. charlie: faith-based? josh tyrangiel they put more trust in designers than previously known. they are designed first properly -- company. apple has its september event, and four months out they begin to plan. what goes into the keynote is up to the designers. they don't make features for a date. they are making teachers. he will not push things until it is ready. johnny isakson said to me, it is amazing in this company of metrics and absolutes and financials, there is so much faith in designers. their method of combining designers and engineers with a lot of resources, the richest company in the world, will produce advances and innovations. they don't legislate it. they don't have defined
products. it is not on deadlines. charlie: some they look at and say we have a problem here, we will turn away and the new technology will come along and the local back to it. josh: now that they have a series of products they can take one technology and move it from place to place. 3-d touch, it debuted on the force touch on the apple watch. you press it and you get a different application. here it is much smoother. if that is an experience for you have nifty pressure, this is like waltzing with your phone. you know they have touchscreens on ipads. they have touchpads on imacs a.c.l. people use it on one product and it spreads. they have great ability to create efficiencies in these things. at the same time in order to get there they sit back and trust this method, not a lot of people, a couple dozen people working, they will make magic together. charlie: they did more than expected but this was not a
great place for where they brought on something like the iphone which is going to change the way people think about something. the same thing is true with the watch. a dramatic step forward. josh: there has only been one iphone. there were only ever be one iphone. as much as apple changed history the idea that first they put a computer in your pocket with the phone is remarkable. the idea to keep ahead in that space is amazing. the iphone said look what you can do. but they have incapable of doing with each of these smaller releases is they make purchasing a phone and unthinking decision. for most people when they are done and need a new phone, they don't think about what to get now. the iphone is going to be there. new features. i will know how to use them. charlie: they have a lot of eggs
in that basket. more than 50% of their revenue. josh: it is a huge amount. this is the ultimate rich man's problem. what a curse to have the most profitable and successful consumer product in the world. charlie: some will raise questions of saturation. josh: sure. i think that is legitimate until the next iteration comes about and they put more space between themselves and the competitor. so much of the iphone technology is spreading to ipad and macs but this devise invented in 2007 and started to be sold and has changed more behavior than most devices in the history of
mankind and it sounds crazy. charlie: we just beginning to appreciate what we do with it. josh: it is essentially an infinite devise. charlie: and photography, you can now -- apple live, live photos. you can take a picture like you do any photo, they have a mechanism where you can see what was happening with the subject for a second before. sometimes you don't capture the moment. you can see it. josh: i have a young daughter and i can tell you that the photo is always the worst moment. she's rolling her eyes are wishing it was over. they have managed to get a second of a half on either side of the rain. you get something closer to this snippet of memory. it is not an animated gif. it is an interesting new invention.
while no one would say i must have the iphone 4 that there are people who will they obviously they have stuff that no one else has have to get it. charlie: just when the ipad market is declining they come in with a new product. with brilliant pictures. you can multitask, see whatever you want to see and do something over here. josh: they can afford to experiment in ways that no other company can. they have produced a bigger ipad. they made it bigger. but what they would say directly to me is this is a devise for students, college students, for graphic design professionals. this is as close as you are going to get to replacing a laptop because you have the functionality. a good keyboard. my experience was it wasn't as smooth as i expected it. the stylus is incredible. charlie: the apple pencil. which you can paint with.
josh: if it doesn't work they are going to be fine. they can see if there is a segment that will pay a premium price for a product that nobody else could make and put some muscle behind. charlie: it is great. if you want to watch movies it is perfect. you pull it out of your briefcase and there it is. there is the watch and the ipad pro, there is tv. people have been waiting for them to do something about tv. this is not the something they have been waiting for them to do. this is an improvement. in apple tv as we know it. josh: right. i think there is an easy thing for them that they could do and have hinted they have done, make a beautiful television set and monitor that one could touch. they can certainly do it. it is not a great business. the tv monitor business is a disaster.
it is a race to the bottom. it is commodified at this point. certain people can make many more. they don't want to get into that business. what they did make, which is an improvement, the ability to order your broadcast options and streaming options and do it through siri. you can say i want to see clooney movies. it understands you and it will present you with the better clooney movies. josh: or clooney movies in the last two years. josh: sure, and it gets it. i don't know if you have done it recently that playing with the letters, it is a terrible experience. you end up watching something that is on tv. i think this will help the -- they have always done the same thing. they take something ugly and
hard and they make it pretty uneasy. with tv we are not all the way they are what you have this experience of sitting back and really having infinity. charlie: and they are not limited to the movies of one company. on amazon, you get what amazon has in its catalog. josh: a netflix is available. itunes is available. that is the power. even at a competitive situation. netflix is an itunes competitor. if you can go to either one. apple has so many eyeballs, you have to play ball. charlie: there is the question many people raise as well, amazon is in content, original content. netflix is in original content. as you suggested apple has $200 billion cash sitting around. josh: they are too smart to get in it.
original content is risky. charlie: content is more important than devices. josh: i am not sure that is right. charlie: you are in a minority to say that. josh: that's right. those people are in the advertising or subscription business. charlie: you are in the business of creating content. josh: apple is in a business where they sell hardware at a high price. then they get people hooked into the system of offerings delivered through their pipe. they have said what anyone says apple is interested in x, sure. they have to be. they have to know what is going on and be strategic.
interest has varying levels. my sense is if one comes to original content, the market is flooded. it is not a core competency to them. to get input take some time. i think they are happy in the businesses they are in now. it does not mean they will shut it down but behind the curtain there is a lot of stuff and development. a lot of it never works out. jonny i've said we have explored so many things and we couldn't make it pretty your work easier, or the business was terrible. they would have to get over it a lot of hurdles to get into original content to get over those three things. charlie: this is the cover of bloomberg businessweek written by josh tyrangiel. he knows this company better than anyone. he decided to talk about his personal life and his plans for apple, josh is the kind that he
announcer: "brilliant ideas," powered by hyundai motors. narrator: the contemporary art world is vibrant and booming as never before. it's a 21st century phenomenon, a global industry in its own right. "brilliant ideas" looks at the artists at the heart of this, artists with a unique power to astonish, challenge, and surprise. in this program, american painter and filmmaker ellen gallagher. ♪ zoe: ellen gallagher's work for