tv Bloomberg Technology Bloomberg August 20, 2018 11:00pm-12:00am EDT
♪ emily: i'm emily chang in san francisco, and this is "bloomberg technology." there are doubts brewing about tesla's ability to secure funding to go private. can elon musk take the deal across the finish line? has apple peaked? one analyst has slapped the company with a sell rating, warning 2019 could be disappointing. twitter, at a political crossroads. is the social media platform worried about angering conservatives? first, the tesla saga continues
or a third week as elon musk propels the company toward a possible rebirth as a private company. he says he will not stop working at his current relentless pace. board members and investors are growing more concerned about his health and stability. arianna huffington has encouraged musk to take time off. musk responded, "ford and tesla are the only american car companies to avoid bankruptcy. i just got home from the factory. you think this is an option? it is not." joining us, an analyst who has a buy rating on the company. and liam. pierre, we don't talk so much about a ceo's sleep atterns. what do you make about his own admission that he is not sleeping or, if he is, he is sleeping at the factory? does that give you confidence or lack thereof in his
performance? >> the first thing i would say that we haven't learned that much more in recent days or recent weeks. people who know elon musk, who know his work habits know that he has been behaving like that for multiple years. this is one tiny part of what makes him an exceptional ndividual. i think what we learned, especially in the interview he gave recently, i would qualify that as nothing new. he works very hard. his personal life is significantly affected by that. this has been part of his professional, entrepreneurial uccess in the last decade. emily: perhaps nothing new for elon musk, but it is certainly unusual for a ceo to tear up in the middle of an interview with
the new york times." the stock price has plummeted. is it increasingly unlikely that elon musk could take tesla private at this $420 per share price he was initially proposing? >> i think, on its face, and we still lack so many details that you would normally get with this kind of thing, but, on its face, it just seems unlikely that a buyer or set of buyers would come in and pay right now what would amount to about a 45% premium in order to take minority stake in an unprofitable company, and that stake also being pretty illiquid, too. i think the second problem that is kind of getting missed right now is that we still have a situation where it's looking increasingly unlikely that elon musk didn't have anything close to a deal locked down when he effectively told the market that he did, and that's just a problem that is still bubbling. if we did get close to some kind of deal, that is still a problem for anyone looking at investing in tesla. emily: the sec has initiated a rapid inquiry into what happened here, perhaps more quickly than they usually do. all this considered, pierre, looking at the stock price now, what do you -- what odds do you give this of elon being able to get this done? pierre: i would give odds close to zero, to be honest. i remain very positive on the stock price. i think tesla is at a turning point, turning the model three into an industrial reality. i don't think that this has wings. elon musk is extremely incentivized to do it. that is a personal preference. as a ceo, given his personality, given the situation within this community, it would be great for
elon to take the company private. but let's face it, if you are an investor in the company, there isn't that much value in being taken private. it would be like a downside in erms of liquidity. on top of that, the company would not benefit from anything tangible i could put in my company model in my forecast as a result of being taken private. pierre: i would give odds close to zero, to be honest. i remain very positive on the stock price. i think tesla is at a turning point, turning the model three into an industrial reality. i don't think that this has wings. elon musk is extremely incentivized to do it.
that is a personal preference. as a ceo, given his personality, given the situation within this community, it would be great for elon to take the company private. but let's face it, if you are an investor in the company, there isn't that much value in being taken private. it would be like a downside in erms of liquidity. on top of that, the company would not benefit from anything tangible i could put in my company model in my forecast as a result of being taken private. it's important to put all these things in perspective against each other. i think what happened is that, a couple of weeks ago elon musk had conversations with investors. on the back of that, he started thinking about a plan to take the company private, then he tweeted the idea. then he realized his tweets were
making him face significant liabilities. so because of that, he started a communication campaign. the interview with "the new york times" last friday was part of that, trying to increase his chances to defend himself against these liabilities. i think he is now trying to push for this idea that he is overwhelmed, that he is having a very tough time. that's going to come into the negotiation with the sec. whatever he has done, he did it in good faith. going forward, investors are not going to see value in paying a premium to the stock price and giving away liquidity. emily: meantime, liam, we have new information about the saudi sovereign wealth fund, which elon musk has said was the party
behind part of the tweet that said "funding secured." there are reports they are looking to take a $1 billion stake in another electric car company that would give them control of that company. lucid motors. they already have a 5% stake in tesla, but does that mean it's increasingly unlikely they would want even more of tesla? liam: i think it's hard to say whether a $500 million investment or $1 billion investment in another car company would rule it out, but i think what this illustrates is the bigger problem of musk's whole approach to this. he put out the tweet. then sometime later, we got this long explanation involving meetings with the saudi arabian sovereign wealth fund. he thought a deal was in the bag. in doing that, he effectively
handed saudi arabia a very effective tool to crush the tesla stock price, by simply leaking a story about being interested. it shows the level of risk that musk's approach has exposed the company to. emily: pierre, if this doesn't happen after all of this, do you see a big downside for the stock, or will investors be so happy, you could see it rise back up? if this doesn't go through, and you're not the only person to tell us there is a 0% chance here, what then for tesla? pierre: so, i think that could be probably the end of most of the ongoing storm and probably the stock would go back to a focus on fundamentals. we know the key fundamentals. we know the company has $2.2 billion of cash at hand at the oment. facing that is $1 billion that
can go away relatively rapidly n a confidence crisis. the company has refinancing deadlines in q4 and q1 that are relatively significant. the next question is, of course, is the model three -- does the cost improve? that's why we have a buy rating on the stock. emily: if the deal doesn't appen, what does that mean for the future of elon musk? t would be a huge public embarrassment, to be sure. liam: i actually think it's more
than that. there's a bigger question hanging over tesla as a result of all this. if you go back to august 1 at the results call, tesla claimed repeatedly it was on the cusp of profitability, cash flow positive -- positive cash flow. it's very odd to me that we went from that pretty bullish message to this rather bizarre episode about having the company taken private as a way to deter short-sellers. surely if the company is on the verge of that brighter future, that would be the surest reputation, and it would happen within three months. the biggest question for me is why did we segue from a positive message to this strange episode so quickly. emily: all right. liam, thank you so much. we will talk more about tesla
and the sec inquiry later in the our. pierre, stay with me. i want to mention that nutrient research has cut apple to sell, a material disappointment in 019. you are leading this team of analysts. what do you think is going to be so disappointing? pierre: what's going to be disappointing is the aftermath of how successful 2018 has been. our perspective is that the iphone x has been extremely successful, very well received by consumers. to such an extent that we think between 10 and 20 million consumers actually brought forward the replacement of their phone because they were attracted to the iphone x. we think that 10 million to 20 illion of these are actually
brought forward. when you fast forward to 2019, what happens is people who just bought an iphone x and do not replace their phone every year are not going to buy a phone. that's a very significant risk on expectations for 2019, in terms of iphone shipments and in terms of asp. as it happens, investors will realize that we are not done with the weakness in iphone. we are in a multiyear period of transition where iphone users still like their phone and use it every single day, but they replace it less often. this transition already happens in the pc market between 2012 and 2017, over five years. pc shipments declined by 30%
over that time. it's a very long and very tough headwind that weighs on iphone shipments. this is something investors have forgotten in 2018. mily: all right. pierre: [indiscernible] emily: all right. we are seeing a lot of buys, some holds, and you, pierre, with the one sell. we will be watching. thanks so much, pierre. as earnings draw to a close, where do some of the biggest names in tech stand as we go into the crucial fourth-quarter? we will discuss and get competing views on apple next. this is bloomberg. ♪
still at a bit of a crossroads, still making gains, but not without pullbacks in the market. where do we go from here? which names stand out? want to bring in jim souza. i want to start with apple. we just heard from pierre at new street, who now is recommending sell, saying that apple is going to be a material disappointment in 2019. you saw -- still have a buy rating on the stock. why? >> we have five reasons why we think apple can trade higher from here. one of them is what people are now looking at, growth outside the united states, specifically in india, where apple is setting up a supply chain in india to start to avoid some of those import duties and taxes. a phone in india can be several hundred dollars more expensive because they don't produce locally. we think that will happen in 019. emily: bloomberg just published a story where it talked about the major struggles apple has had in the indian market and that their way behind samsung and xiaomi and local competitors.
> that's what gives us excitement. their market share, 1% in india. it's tough to lose more market share when you are that low. compared to china, they have about 14% in china. once they set up production locally in india, then the prices of their phones become lower because of the tax and import duties they go into it, and people can afford the phone in india. we are not talking about the fancy phone you have now. we are not talking about the iphone 10. we are talking about the five and six, the older models, the new, introductory consumers that are net additions. we do think it is an opportunistic 2019 story. emily: what about the fact that this might be the end of the road for the iphone, that we are seeing the market saturated. apple doesn't have another iphone hit down its sleeve -- up its sleeve, i mean. >> you are spoiled. you live here in san francisco
where you get the latest, newest technology all the time and it is adapted into your home and life every day. a lot of the other parts of the world are still getting these phones for the first time. we believe apple still has growth opportunity. beyond the iphone, we believe things such as the air pod, apple home, and content over time are eventually going to catch up. here in san francisco, it feels like you've seen it all. emily: we've seen a pullback from that one dollar trillion -- $1 trillion market cap. do you think they will go back there? >> i think they will buy back a lot of stock on this eakness. they have announced $100 billion stock buyback, which is about 10% to 12% of their market cap. we know they will be buying back the stock on this weakness. emily: how much do you think the weakness in apple is impacting the broader tech market, or could it be tesla? >> we can talk about tesla in a minute, as you mentioned.
overall, i think people are a little afraid about the geopolitical environment. the tweets from the presidency, the uncertainty of the trade ars, trade war concerns. trade wars cause higher rices. higher prices cause a stall in demand. that's bad for technology overall. we don't want to see consumers hesitate their purchases. emily: what about tesla? i know you don't cover tesla specifically, but is the volatility around tesla in particular having a broader impact? >> tesla has been very disruptionary. many people thought the company would be a big failure. now we are finding other companies trying to catch up with it. the backup cameras, the sensors, the beeping, the collision prevention -- a lot of it has come out of the innovation from tesla. tesla, we believe, is shaking up the supply chain that is dying.
these future cars -- e believe that it's a good thing for the industry to make them more consumer safe. in all those cars, more technology, more sensors, more connectors. that's good for technology. emily: what about all this hubbub about going private or not going private and elon musk's questionable state of mind? >> the biggest thing you take out of this is how collocated it is to put together an item like a car or-- how complicated it is to put together an item like a car. if they don't get the right parts at the right time at the right place, the assembly line comes to a stall. in doing so, to be able to meet all of your deliverables, your milestones -- you have to have everything at the right time. tesla shows how complex these items are to put together, and we think it's exciting for echnology. emily: in terms of the broader
tech market, where do you expect to see the most pressure through the end of the year, consumer echnology like apple, like esla, social media, chip stocks, which have also been seeing pressure? >> it's about expectations versus what the company has guided to and where people are going to come out through it. we do see some definitely secular declines such as in the printing area. people are printing less pages at home, so that area is under decline. we are seeing that consumers are being -- purchasing more things online, as opposed to going into brick-and-mortar stores. those stores have to adapt their strategy to have a good price point and online shopping experience. out of all this, people say personal computers would die and go away. we just had the best pc growth in six years, and that's underscored by employment. whether you are in san francisco, new york, london, hong kong, employment trends, are strong so we are opportunistic for the second half of this year.
emily: i still have my laptop, or sure. where are you most optimistic? >> we are most optimistic about some of the networking stocks, such as arista and cisco. when companies like bloomberg hire people, they typically have to put in a lot of infrastructure to support them on their email, their badges to get into the building, the ability to communicate via wi-fi nd phones. plus, with 5g, which is in the future yet to come. emily: what about social media? it's obviously very controversial, whether it's twitter or facebook, with the election coming up. >> to be honest, what has happened is sad, but it also shows the importance of, apple has taken a big stance. they will not share their data. they will not let you use their ecosystem in their products for free in exchange for giving up all the information of where you are and what you do. apple has drawn its line in the sand, and we're finding that
coming back to help them, not to hurt them. a lot of people check the box, yes, i accept these terms, without fully reading them, and soon they discover, there's a lot of people watching where they are and what they are doing. i think consumers are becoming more sensitive to the privacy of what they give out. emily: jim, always great to have you here. thank you. much more coming up. "bloomberg technology" is livestreaming on twitter. check us out and follow our global news breaking network on twitter, @tictoc. this is bloomberg. ♪
emily: first lady melania trump told a cyber bullying conference that social media can be used in positive ways or destructive when used improperly. she was speaking at a tech onference. she highlighted her be best campaign, saying it will focus on teaching the next generation how to "conduct themselves safely in a positive manner in
an online setting." last week, the president called omarosa "a dog and a lowlife." several of the world's largest digital exchanges have joined an effort to stamp out bad behavior in the cryptocurrency industry. the virtual commodity association was created by bitcoin investors. among those signing up, bitstamp, bitflyer. the aim of the organization, to develop industry standards, to promote transparency, and work with regulators to prevent fraud and manipulation in digital asset market. a groundbreaking movie, "crazy rich asians," was a box office winner in north america over the weekend. the first hollywood movie in almost a quarter of a century with a largely asian cast took in $25.2 million. the shark movie "the meg" came in second. coming up, tesla versus the sec. we look at how the regulatory
designed to save you money. whether you use your phone to get fit. to find meaningful, thoughtful, slightly-weird gifts. or just to know which way you're facing right now. however you use it, your wireless bill is about to cost a whole lot less. ask how you get xfinity mobile included with your xfinity internet. so you just pay for data -- by the gig or unlimited. saving you hundreds of dollars a year. plus, get $300 back when you buy a new smartphone. xfinity mobile. it's simple. easy. awesome. click, call or visit a store today.
emily: this is "bloomberg technology." i'm emily chang in san francisco. it was a tweet that started it all. "i'm considering taking tesla private at $420. funding secured." elon musk turned tesla's world and his own upside down. since sending that tweet, the stock has been on a roller coaster as everyone tries to figure out what is going on inside the electric armaker. one of the most anticipated questions is what is the sec doing about this. there have been multiple reports bout a possible inquiry.
to get an inside view of what happens in a case like this, she was an attorney for the sec. thank you for being here. we don't know a lot, but it does appear the sec is moving quite quickly here with a subpoena already sent to tesla. what does that tell us about the possible level of seriousness of this inquiry or information athering, if you will? >> well, the inquiry is already pretty serious, if they are issuing subpoenas. that means there is a formal investigation in place. after the voluntary request, that's when you get the subpoenas. the sec is acting very swiftly, as you said, and quickly here, pursuing this investigation will force ahead, it appears -- full force ahead, it appears. emily: what's the most problematic part of the tweet? is it those two words, "funding ecured"? >> there are two sets of problems, the funding secured when it is not -- that's
problematic, because it's not true, which is fraud. that would be a fraudulent statement. there's another rule saying that you can't make a tender offer if you don't indeed have the funding to do so or reasonably believe that you do. so, saying that was problematic. then the blog indicating that funding was in secured, and then "the new york times" interview was alarming, in the fact that it appears the $420 per share offer price was really arbitrary, wasn't based on any kind of analysis, and it was better karma for $420 rather than $419. that was problematic. what was extremely alarming to me in that interview was that elon musk still doesn't seem to think he did anything wrong and doesn't regret his tweets, which i think the sec will look at very seriously as somebody who is continuing to act in this reckless manner without any idea
or concern about what he's done. emily: what penalties could must himself face, as well as the company face? as i understand it, each violation or each false statement to each person to whom it is made could count as a separate infraction. >> you are exactly right. every time he made a false statement, that itself is a eparate violation. fraud carries with it not only civil penalties at the sec, but potential criminal wrongdoing with the doj. you of course have the shareholder lawsuits here. another impact this could have with the sec is that they do -- if they do bring an enforcement action against him and they do settle, they could require admissions, admissions of guilt, which would have an effect in the shareholder and criminal suits as well.
emily: to each person to whom it is made -- does that include multiple different shareholders? is one statement one infraction, if you will? >> well, the one statement would e the infraction, but then the egregiousness and impact of it is based on all the various shareholders who were injured. here you have a very dramatic and expensive harm, financial harm. we saw the wide swings with the share price. you have tons of money that was lost by the shorts, tons of money lost by those who bought shares, thinking that there was funding secured for taking this private, and it seems as though funding is very far from secured, so you have them losing money. there is each violation of the statement, but also the collective financial -- huge financial ramifications from this.
emily: the subpoena also demands information from each of the board's nine directors. could any of them be liable? >> indeed, they could, and the company could be liable it self. we have elon musk, who appears to have gone off on his personal -- his own personal way of doing this, saying all of this in his personal capacity, but he's also the ceo. once he makes these statements, then the board collectively has to do its duty. i was surprised that i didn't see them make a very quick corrective disclosure as soon as these tweets came out, to clear up the confusion and chaos in the markets. they could also have some liability there. the sec does not look at anything in a vacuum, so it will be looking at everything, including these communications. so, what they were aware of the tweet before it happened, what was going on afterwards, if there was any intent there. you could see if there was
anything untoward, whether there was some effort to have an impact on the stock price and an intent there, whether or not they reacted reasonably and responsibly. so, you do also have the board having these responsibilities and acting on behalf of the company and could have liability itself, as well as elon musk. chairman clayton of the sec has indicated that it is more important to go after the individual wrongdoer, but by no means do i think that excludes the possibility that the sec could bring an action against the company as well as elon musk. emily: when you say there could be criminal ramifications here, does that mean -- what could that mean for elon musk ersonally? could that mean jail time? >> it's possible. that is a possibility. with fraud comes the possibility of jail time, as well as fines. fines are generally the means that the doj takes more often than jailtime, but it is definitely a possibility.
here you will look at the egregiousness, any intent that comes out through the investigation. they have tweets, snapchats, facebook. here is a lot of investigating that has to be done here. another consideration, too, as i said, the sec does not look at anything in a vacuum, so this opens up tesla and everybody involved to extreme scrutiny. they will not just be looking at this one issue in the tweet, "funding secured." they will also see what else they run across. they have to follow the evidence herever it takes them. if they run across whether there was some capital expenditures that would have required the stock price going up now, whether other people who knew the tweet was coming, if they knew it was coming, traded on hat information. there is a vast investigation that will come from this. emily: there's also reporting
that the sec had, before any of this happened, issued a subpoena to a tesla parts supplier, looking into whether they misled about their production roblems. how should we take then what's happening now in the context, a possible additional investigation? >> when it first broke that the sec had already issued subpoenas, it seemed very likely the sec already had a pending investigation. to initiate a formal investigation does take time, and the sec was able to move so swiftly that it led one to believe they could very well have an existing investigation. it's much easier to broaden an investigation. i think that's probably very ikely.
there have been a lot of problematic statements that the ec has been reported to be looking at with projections by tesla, even prior tweets by elon musk. it's definitely likely that they are looking at a myriad of various things. emily: interesting. teresa goody, ceo of the goody group, thank you so much for stopping by. well, twitter is in the midst of political backlash from the right and the left. the ceo lamented the difficult position the company is in, saying, "if the company took action on those with right-wing politics, it would still the concern -- stoke the concern of hose on the left." can the company endure the backlash? give us the highlights, selina, of this interview. selina: some of the broad, high-level issues he discussed was, a, twitter is a platform
with outside influence, but we don't have that many resources to deal with this problem. something i thought that was interesting was, he said we don't proactively look at content. we wait for them to be flagged. in the case of alex jones, reasons why we didn't take action early was because it hadn't been flagged to us. once it was, then we took action. that leads to a whole series of criticism. emily: that's not what facebook does, right? facebook has an appeals process. they have thousands of content moderators, right? selina: facebook and youtube have the resources to have thousands upon thousands of moderators. jack made clear in the interview that we don't have those resources. you can criticize us for that, but we don't have another ption. that being said, i did talk to some critics who said they find it very hard to believe that, in the whole interim period in which this has been a subject of debate, they didn't have people employed to actively look through them, and the fact that they didn't shows there was definitely something going on there.
emily: these remarks from jack dorsey, a day after the president tweeted, "social media is totally discriminating against republican conservative voices speaking loudly and clearly. we won't let that happen. oo many voices are being destroyed, some good, some bad. that cannot be allowed to happen. who is making the choices? i can already tell you that too many mistakes are being made. let everybody participate, good and bad, and we will have to igure it out." we sat down with president trump's campaign manager for 2020, who talked about the liberal bias that he saw at facebook and twitter. take a listen. >> it's up to me to be a person, as a leader in our party and someone who is running the campaign, to make sure those companies are held accountable, that they do everything they can to kill those internal biases and provide an even playing field for this country. emily: both of their points of view make clear what twitter and
jack dorsey are facing on the right, then you have folks on the left saying, how could you not ban alex jones, how could no one flagged that? selina: jack dorsey has admitted their employment base is primarily left-leaning, liberal, young people working at their offices. that's why they are taking all these steps to create these rules, so they can combat these iases and try to make as clear-cut decisions as possible. on the other hand, trying to come up with these universal rules about what is abuse, harassment, hate speech, that's a very difficult, fuzzy thing to define, and the moment they rule -- roll out these policies, there will be thousands of edge cases that don't violate those rules, but clearly are something many believe they should take action on. they are in a difficult situation where they are trying to be unbiased, but by making policies that are unbiased, they run into a host of other issues. emily: he talked about a lot of the things the twitter does badly, but is there any indication anything will change? selina: he did say that he is
willing to fundamentally rethink a lot of the core parts about the platform. for instance, they would consider deemphasizing accounts. they consider adding more context around tweets so the fake information doesn't start as quickly on the platform. this company moves extremely slowly. they've had adequate opportunity to make changes, and we still haven't seen fundamental shifts. hopefully we will see those soon. emily: all right. bloomberg's selina wang, thanks so much. bloomberg operates a global network on twitter, @tictoc. is netflix trying to reinvent the wheel? they're trying to use promos but users say they're commercials. ♪
emily: netflix is exploring new ways to promote its content. the streaming giant has confirmed it is running video ads for other netflix series between episodes, or as a number of netflix users have called them, commercials. users are complaining these cannot be skipped or muted. netflix said they were merely testing promotional videos which could be skipped. will this drop viewers -- draw viewers closer to the content? joining us, andre johnson and ucas shaw. andre, i was watching netflix over the weekend, and i saw one of these promos/ads/commercials, whatever you want to call them, between episodes, for a completely unrelated series. it was a little annoying, but that said, isn't netflix entitled to do this? andre: netflix is definitely entitled to do it. think it's more about content
recommendations and keeping users engaged, more so than trying to monetize the advertising, which is what everybody is talking about over the last 24 hours or so, but it's something that i think, if they can get right, could be valuable to consumers. emily: netflix is spending a lot of money on marketing. if they could figure out some other, cheaper way to market their shows, wouldn't that be a huge bonus? lucas: it's important to remember a couple things. one is that other networks already do this. if you are watching hbo, hbo promotes it shows before and after you watch an original one because it wants to remind its viewers what else they have to offer. netflix, which is making so many shows, these promotions are -- -- are if anything signs of talent. there have been murmurs in
hollywood of late. people feel like their shows are getting lost on netflix because there is so much new coming out every week. if netflix can find ways to remind viewers of new products, that seems like a win for everybody, especially since netflix lets you skip all sorts of things already, like the ntroduction to a show. emily: we've talked about whether we are in a tv bubble, and it seems like there are so many shows we've never even heard of, because there are just so many. do you think some good content is getting lost? andre: absolutely. i think there is good content that people can't find on netflix or amazon or hulu or any of the other destinations across over the top or even traditional television. one of the things that a subscription-based network like netflix looks at is what impacts their churn and audience retention. one of the things people talked about years ago was binge viewing, people watching multiple episodes of the same show continuously. one of the things that we found in data with some of the subscription networks we work with was actually watching multiple shows is more of an indicator of people keeping a ubscription.
one of the things this could also help is that mitigate the churn rate, as well as allowing consumers to find new content. emily: bloomberg is reporting that amazon is working on a live tv reporter -- recorder that would circumvent cable companies and plug into the fire tv box. is this something, andre, that you think will give amazon a bigger competitive advantage or ore of the same? andre: well, it's interesting for a couple of reasons. linear television and ott are onverging. it seems like it would be a natural evolution of amazon's go to market strategy to really attack television, to allow people to do both, but it's not overly exciting to me in any way, to be honest. there's no big differentiator.
emily: lucas, you know, on that note, is it content that still decides who is king? and could that crown easily be taken from netflix by anyone else who does a hit show, or is netflix just making so many that it would be difficult to steal? lucas: everybody is spending to try to take the crown from netflix. amazon spent a fortune on the rights to "lord of the rings." pple is spending millions. disney is getting started with its streaming service. there is an arms race happening in hollywood right now. most people seem to believe there will be anywhere from three to six services that can thrive. there doesn't have to be one winner, but netflix is certainly facing more competition online than ever before, both on-demand and from services. emily: andre, would you agree this is not a zero-sum game? if you had to choose three to six services, which ones would you choose to be the winner? andre: i'm probably not going to
disclose which three to six winners, or else the other 50 clients we have might be pretty upset. we work with a lot of these companies. what i will say, and this is absolutely -- this is something i've talked about for years now, netflix has no real competitive advantage relative to a tech arrier to entry. they have a lot of content, but still, none of the content they have holds the type of value that, say, disney has with some of their original content. i do think it's going to be more and more expensive for netflix, in terms of not only licensing content, it also producing original content. everyone is right. there's definitely going to be an arms race, which is, for the consumer, a win-win. emily: all right, andre swanston and bloomberg's lucas shaw. coming up, a bloomberg scoop. apple is revamping its lineup. details on that next. this is bloomberg. ♪
emily: bloomberg scoop. apple plans to release a new low-cost laptop and an upgrade to the mac mini desktop later this year. here to tell us more, bloomberg's mark gurman. who else but you broke this story? what do you know? mark: after a years -- after years of attempts to revamp mac, years of declining sales, they are planning to revamp mac mini, a new macbook. his is their lower-cost, sub $1000 laptop. they will be adding thinner edges to this year's model. emily: the macbook air got a lot of buzz.
what's the significance of them adding a lower-cost laptop now to replace it? mark: what apple has seen over the past few years is that their pro users are not loving their macbook pro. they have been updating it to try to mitigate that problem. they tried to do that in uly. there were concerns over the changes made to the keyboard. there were concerns over the speed of the devices. they ended up issuing an apology and a software update to fix some problems regarding the performance of the latest macbook pros. they seem, edition from hp and computers running the chrome book operating system -- they have seen competition from hp and computers running the chromebook operating system. this new laptop is sort of their response to that. it's interesting, because apple sort of pioneered this consumer laptop with the macbook air in 2008. steve jobs introduced it. he pulled it out of the yellow manila envelope.
10 years later, it is getting a significant overhaul with this year's model. emily: how does this fit into the upcoming phone lineup and add to this family of roducts? mark: what apple is planning for this fall is a very big blitz of new products that are going to be hitting several different markets, several different product categories over the next several months throughout the end of the year. that will include new versions of the apple watch with edge to edge, larger screens. three new iphones, macs, ipads, all sorts of cool new gadgets for the apple faithful and consumers at large. it's all part of the larger product rollout strategy for 2018. emily: thanks so much for bringing us that scoop. that does it for this edition of "bloomberg technology." i'm emily chang in san francisco. see you back here tomorrow. this is bloomberg. ♪ xfinity mobile is a new wireless network
designed to save you money. even when you've got serious binging to do. wherever your phone takes you, your wireless bill is about to cost a whole lot less. use less data with a network that has the most wifi hotspots where you need them and the best 4g lte everywhere else. saving you hundreds of dollars a year. and ask how you get xfinity mobile included with your internet. plus, get $300 back when you buy a new smartphone. xfinity mobile. it's simple. easy. awesome. click, call or visit a store today.
manus: a time of tightening. as some ofds the way the world's most crucial central banks and years of easy policy. what are the implications? yousef: and saudi arabia returns to growth. are goals still achievable? and money is pouring out of developing nations. what is going on? middle eastanus: markets are among the top report -- performers.