tv Best of Bloomberg Technology Bloomberg May 26, 2019 1:00am-2:00am EDT
emily: i am emily chang and this is the "best of bloomberg: technology." where we bring you all our top interviews from this week in tech. coming up, trade showdown. the simmering trade dispute between of the world's two largest economies is taking a toll on markets and the global supply chain. has the tech cold war already begun? plus, a fork in the road, tesla continues to get pummeled. one company calling it a code red. can the company weather the storm? and amazon is working on a device that can recognize human
emotions. is this the next breakthrough for voice recognition and ai? first to our top story, after months of predicting the trade deal, economists and financial institutions are growing increasingly pessimistic. the u.s. crackdown on huawei could make apples troubles in china even more difficult. they could take a big hit if china decides to retaliate against the united states. goldman sachs estimates a chinese ban on the sale could cut earnings by 29%. >> we think there is going to be an informal boycott of sorts. china is not fond of america right now and the trump administration because of how it will impact the economy. when these kinds of things happen, you see them latch onto
their own brands. huawei, in many respects, is the apple of china, people love it there. if people had to choose in china between a huawei or iphone device, they might lead towards huawei because of the tariffs in the trade situation. and what's going on with the u.s. bands. >> as someone running these numbers, we have heard tim cook blame the slowdown, to a certain extent, about the trade tensions. how real of a threat will this come in terms of the bottom line? >> i would agree 100% with what mark is saying about this boycott apple campaign that will start in china. but i want to put to rest some people's fears around trade tariffs and chinese putting that on apple products. like what goldman was talking about. i think that is unlikely.
we have recently spoken with a former u.s. trade official, and what is most important is even the people who understand the intimate workings of how these progressed, don't know how it will play out. but one thing that has been reiterated to me is that apple is an important partner for china. in total, about 3 million people's jobs are impacted by apple in mainland china. i think that, even though that captures a good headline about a tariff, i think it is unlikely it will happen. >> interesting perspective. mark, from what you are seeing, we know that huawei has already preempted this. they have three months of supply and have managed to preorder to make sure they are stockpiling. has apple been working on their supply chain? china is so important. >> i think apple shaking things up would take a matter of years.
5-10 years for a full transition. apple's manufacturing in china is not as simple as popping iphones out of china through foxconn and shipping them out. all the way to the united states and elsewhere. it is this vast network of suppliers, not only in china, but in taiwan, korea, other parts of asia. some stuff comes from the u.s., some from europe, pretty much all over the world that is sourced and funneled into china for final assembly. it is so much more than just one factory or a city. it is a vast array and all of those moving pieces pretty much make it impossible for any significant changes to occur. >> there is potentially some silver lining. just maybe. it is the element that google's android operating system is going to be hit by no longer being able to do business with huawei. is there a way in which international demand outside of china could pick up for apples
smartphones if the operating systems of higher end huawei is in some way hit? >> for sure. apple is not as strong as some of the other makers outside of the united states. in the u.s., apple is obviously the strongest provider. but in china, we see a proliferation of chinese brands. and in europe, huawei has a stronghold there, they are about 25% according to the latest statistics. if android goes away it will make huawei devices less appealing. so some customers will look for other devices. if you are in europe, you might not be going for chinese brands, you look at something like an iphone. from that perspective, apple has a lot of positivity. i just don't think it is going to move the needle. emily: bloomberg's mark gurman and gene munster. earlier, taylor riggs spoke with the head of international affairs at the u.s. chamber of
commerce about the ongoing trade war between the u.s. and china and what he is hearing from u.s. businesses. >> look, a lot u.s. companies sell into huawei. it is an important company and operates in over 100 countries, and has over 180,000 employees. at the same time, it raises legitimate concerns about security issues. we need to keep issues with respect to huawei separate from the commercial trade talks between the u.s. and china. what i am saying is that, at the end of the day that we are concerned about the overall environment between china and the united states. huawei factors into that, but we should not be surprised the government is taking a close look at huawei's operations. and how it impacts our security concerns. taylor: i like that you said to separate the national security concerns relative to everything else. so let's go to everything else. we were talking about companies like adidas and nike which have
started to come out and say we are concerned about the effect this is having on consumers. what other industries are you talking to that are also highlighting these concerns? >> those are good members of the u.s. chamber, but we do $2 billion a day between china and the united states. we have a huge economic relationship, you're talking about the two largest economic players in the global economy. so happens between china and the united states matters, and we are concerned about tariffs because they are a tax on consumers. they are a tax on manufacturers. and of course, the escalation of trade tension between china and the united states could hurt our economy, it will certainly hurt china's economy. but let's take a step back and recognize why we are here. we are here because china conducts unfair trade practices. it does not protect intellectual property rights, it forces technology transfers, it does not allow for a level playing
field when it comes to market access. there are a host of legitimate issues the administration is trying to tackle. i think we have to remember that, at the end of the day we need a trade agreement that is a high standard, comprehensive one. we do not favor tariffs as a tactic about that we do favor trying to address these issues in the bilateral relationship. it's something we will continue to push, both with the united states and the chinese government. taylor: what is the right tactic? you said you do not necessarily support trade or tariffs, but you are aligned with the administration on tackling some of the issues that you highlighted. like intellectual property theft, and on fair trade tactics. what is the right approach? >> there are a multitude of things that should be done and are being done. we need to bring our allies into the picture. europe and japan share our concerns. we also need to look at ways that we can address these issues in a confrontational way, but in a way that is pragmatic. at the end of the day, we need a
trade agreement with china and the united states because both countries need it. we need to put the relationship on stable footing, a positive trajectory. we are not there. there is a huge amount of distrust in the relationship that is not good for the united states, china, or the world economy. at the same time, the underlying tensions have to with having a competitive environment where there is a level playing field. we need to think about how to do that best in the context of these talks. i am hopeful talks will get back on track. i don't think that will happen until president xi and president trump meet in osaka, japan. at the end of june during the g20 meetings. but it is very important we bring the temperatures down and the two sides resume talks as soon as possible. taylor: you talk about bringing the temperature down, i want to ask, how tense does it feel? what is the sweat level of the room relative to previous discussions we have had in the last few months, really in the last few decades? myron: i have met with top
administration officials and vice premier liu he. i will tell you that we also had a deal on may 10 that they were 90% of the way there. the last 10% is the hardest part. what do you do with the tariffs that were in place? now we have seen an escalation with that with a tariff hikes on the existing 250 billion. but we also have to recognize that china has to come to the table in a meaningful, concrete way. backsliding, whatever china did with respect to the issues, there were 150 page text, seven chapters, these agreements have to be enforceable, verifiable. i think it was right that the administration was pressing for reform under chinese law and not just a state directive. so i hope we can get back to the table in the weeks ahead. i hope the two presidents during the g20 meeting will set the right tone. but we are at an impasse right now. and both china and the united
states will find it very difficult, they have boxed themselves in with the escalation and tension. at the end of the day, this is too big of a relationship to fail. there will not be any decoupling and we need to see these two governments get back to the table. it is in the interest of the countries, the economy, and the global economy. emily: myron brilliant with the u.s. chamber of commerce. coming up, qualcomm's lives after an unfavorable antitrust ruling. what that means for the chipmakers settlement with apple. and if you like bloomberg news, check us out on the radio, the bloomberg app, and in the u.s. on sirius xm. this is bloomberg. ♪
squeeze excessive licensing fees from phone makers and strangling competition. the chipmaker says it disagrees in the meeting and will seek an immediate appeal. we spoke with an analyst about the ruling. >> this is not just a nice little sideline for this company, we are talking billions of dollars of revenue that comes in every year. that money is used to fund an industry leading rmd asset. it gives qualcomm the best tips in the industry. if you want to buy a 5g phone right now or for perhaps the rest of this year, you will be buying a qualcomm chip that is very important and puts this company and a strong position. >> let's get a market perspective. stacy, your perspective on the severity of the selloff. is it in line with the severity of risk to the business model? >> in theory, yes. i am a little surprised that the magnitude because i would have
thought, if you were paying attention to the trial itself in january, the idea that they were likely to lose was probably not going to be a surprise. that seemed clear from the tones and manners of that emerged. i would say that maybe in the wake of the apple settlement, investors were hoping a judge might go easy on them. that does not seem to be the case. as i just heard said, it goes to the heart of the business model. now the risk is we will see what happens with the appeal, but the risk is that the fundamental drivers of the business model are at risk, given the remedies the judge has mandated. >> yes, as one of our colleagues wrote "it may reduce royalty payments." it has already rewritten its customer contract with apple. will that remain in place or
will that become a standard bearer what contracts look like going forward? >> two things here. there were no provisions's that automatically be triggered the recasting of contracts. that was some news we broke earlier today so we are sure about that. but back to what stacy was saying, it says that qualcomm has to go back and renegotiate any of its existing agreements which are based upon this bad behavior. so we really don't know yet. >> it comes at a very interesting time, stacy. given the pivotal role qualcomm plays within 5g, the race we have seen between china and the united states, the blacklisting of huawei, it all seems to be an opportune moment for potentially trump himself to weigh in and try and support what he hopes will be a beacon of growth for 5g in the u.s.
do you anticipate any government interference? >> it is possible, we have already started some interference in this case. the doj filed a statement of interest a couple of weeks ago, essentially asking the judge that, if she found against qualcomm, they were asking for another separate hearing to discuss remedies. the judge essentially dismissed that in her ruling. the judiciary is independent and can do what it wants. when qualcomm goes ahead and appeals to the ninth circuit, maybe there is another opportunity for other agencies to weigh in, trump to weigh in. maybe they will potentially find a softer go in the appeals case. emily: bloomberg's ian king and bernstein senior analyst stacy rasgon. coming up, the department of justice is leading against approving the $26 billion merger between sprint and t-mobile while the chair of the fcc has endorsed the deal.
emily: bloomberg was first to report the u.s. department of justice is leaning against approving t-mobile's takeover of sprint because the concessions the company has proposed do not go far enough to mitigate antitrust concerns. t-mobile and sprint are announcing a restriction on price increases to help secure regulatory approval. meantime, ajit pai recommends the deal be approved. for reaction we spoke with our correspondent who broke the story and the founder of boost mobile. >> approval from both agencies is needed here, as well as from the state's attorney general who are investigating the merger. it is common in telecom deals to have both the justice department and fcc review a deal. they both have different standards when considering approval.
the doj is focused on competition, will a merger lead to higher prices? the sec has a much broader standard, that's the public interest standard. typically, they come out on the same side of the deal and work closely together. here, it looks like the doj is leaning against the deal while the fcc chairman announced he intends to recommend approval. emily: interesting. obviously, this has been a long time coming. there have been many twists and turns. both companies have suggested concessions they can make. but it sounds like the doj doesn't think there is not enough. what is your perspective on whether this is good or bad? >> it is interesting, because i spend a lot of time meeting with the doj, the department of justice, and also with chairman ajit pai and commissioners. while they are concerned about the competitive nature, i was
quite surprised to read that article today on bloomberg because i thought that the divestments they offered was something the doj would have saw as a positive. i am not concerned about whether the new t-mobile will go after verizon or at&t. i think every one of them wants a high paying customer side. i think the commissioners have made the right decision because it really does protect the low income customers, which are the ones we need to be concerned about. the high end customers, you know that the new t-mobile will be fighting tooth and nail with verizon and at&t to get those customers. it is the prepaid part, which verizon does not play in. at&t has only started to warm up to it. and no doubt, t-mobile and sprint have the lion's share of those prepaid customers. i was surprised because i
thought the doj would have liked that. another part of was surprising was that the vestager of spectrum. i thought that was something the doj would have preferred to have happened. that would have been a much better condition for the merger to go through. i am surprised that was not mentioned, but having said that, they made the right decision. emily: and the promises they have made, as i understand it, the sale of the prepaid brand, advancing 5g, and pledging to not raise prices while that network is being built. where do those promises stand, including boost? >> except for the divestiture of boost, those of the promises and behavioral conditions the justice department has made clear it does not like. that was an issue that came up when at&t tried to buy time
warner last year and the justice department sued to block the deal. it is possible the companies could make additional the that would satisfied the doj. it is not unusual for the department of justice to look for a different remedy than another regulator. we saw there is sometimes a split with the eu and doj. that is possible, you can see another prepaid brand being sold, possibly spectrum. we have not reported on that. that is always a possibility as a way to get the justice department on board. emily: if this deal does not happen, what does that mean for your business and vice versa? if it squeaks through? >> the question has got to be asked, the statement they made about the divestiture of boost was like a 30,000 foot level statement. there is a lot of devil in the details. there is no point in spitting out boost and giving it a wholesale deal. the question is, who is allowed
to buy it? at&t and verizon, tracfone, a competitor, able to buy it? there are some questions that need to be asked. and then who will police those? who will ensure you get the best deal that you can get to be able to compete against the metro brand? there are a lot of details that have not come out yet. and then who will police that? who will make sure the deal the new owner of boost gets the right ability to compete? i'm still waiting to hear the details. what that just be left to t-mobile to sort out? is the sec going to play a role in that? if the doj comes on board, will they play a role? there are certain people who should buy it and certain people who shouldn't. so i am interested to see the details, because at this stage, they are very light. emily: meantime, the fcc would still need to vote on the deal.
even though the chair has said he would endorse it. we spoke to a commissioner earlier on bloomberg television, take a listen to what he had to say. >> part of our review at the fcc has been looking at the competition issues. when you look great now at combined sprint and t-mobile, they would have the same size and scale as verizon and at&t in terms of customers for the first time. when you have a third competitor on that scale, what our records showed is that there would be big benefits for consumers in terms of the new competition you are going to see. emily: sounds like he is in favor. and any indication about how the rest of the sec feels, despite the potential pushback from the doj? >> no, i think you would expect that the fcc is controlled by ajit pai. there are three republicans. he is backing a deal and it will
win approval, even if the two democrats on the commission vote against it. the difference is, the justice department, it is one man's decision. the head of the antitrust division. it's his and his only decision and there is no committee. he was aggressive on at&t and time warner. he really surprised a lot of deal-watchers when he sued to block the deal because those companies were not direct competitors. on its face, putting aside the promises of 5g, would be anti-competitive. it is combining two of the four national carriers. this is the deal the doj opposed that when it was proposed in 2014. emily: david mclachlan of bloomberg and peter of boost mobile. amazon's echo has been a hit for the company and they are hoping
welcome back to "the best of bloomberg technology." amazon is once again pushing the boundaries of what technology is capable of. the company is working on a voice activated wearable device that can recognize human emotion. bloomberg has seen internal documents and drawings that describe the product as a wellness product. they have microphones and software that can determine the emotional state from the sound of the voice. >> amazon thinks that with all of the data on voice that they contact that with indicators about how somebody is feeling. if they seem aggressive, docile,
what the pitch is like, and after putting that through their software algorithms, they can can put out what emotion the wearer is feeling and use that to talk to them. the skies the limit from there. emily: my next question is how well is this working. do we know how much progress they are actually making on this kind of technological breakthrough? >> we don't. they have been at it for quite some time. we know work on this continued last year and has been going on recently as a trial to make sure that the software can accurately tag emotions. there are concerns that may be a system like this would not be accurate when they roll it out. we don't know whether it will become a commercial product that will be released.
emily: amazon has been working hard to get alexa on the move beyond something pleasant on my kitchen counter to something -- whether it is headphones or other kinds of wearables, how much progress are they making? >> it is unclear. they don't have the install base of android or apple's iphone when we think about the smartphone coming with a voice assistant. amazon has been throwing everything at the walls to put amazon in other places. you mentioned the car device in earbuds that are supposed to feature alexa. they really want to make alexa anywhere. that strategy does not include a smartphone after their flop with the fire. they have been trying every other door. emily: with all of the concerns about privacy and our data and how tech companies are handling that data, how would amazon handle emotional data?
categorize it, store it? >> that is a great question. given that this might be a far off from commercial availability. they say we take privacy seriously. our reporting's on the folks who listen to and audit shows people should be aware that this is another source of data that tech companies are going to hold onto. once you have given up this technology to a tech giant, it is theirs to do with it what they will under their privacy policies. emily: there are a lot of unknowns. quickly, how soon might an alexa wearable hit the market? >> that's a great question. i wish i knew the answer. they have been announcing new alexa products toward the end of the year in september. i would not be surprised if
there is an event. emily: facebook for its biggest rattle yet with bad actors on the platform. the social media giant says they removed a record 2.2 billion fake accounts in the last quarter. that is after facebook saw a steep increase in the creation of fake accounts. they removed the majority of the accounts within minutes of being created. 5% of monthly active users are fake. mark zuckerberg said a shift to privacy made policing such content even harder. >> it is going to be harder to find the different types of harmful content. we will be fighting that battle without one of the very important tools, which is being able to look at the content itself. it's not clear if we will be able to do as good of a job as we can today with that tool. emily: joining us to discuss facebook is the vice president of global policy management,
monica. first of all, what is driving this steep increase in fake accounts? where are they coming from? >> some of it is coming from new tools that people are using to try to create large amounts of fake accounts in an automated way. understanding that, our engineers have invested in catching it. we have gotten better and we have seen those efforts paying off. emily: are they from any particular country or any particular groups? >> i don't have any other information to share on that. i would say that we see fake accounts created all over the world. when we build hours on tapping that at a global level. emily: we just heard what zuckerberg had to say about encryption on a call. will this shift toward encryption on privacy, will that erase some of the progress you're making?
>> i spent my career, before i came to facebook, i was a criminal prosecutor. i have seen the importance of law enforcement being able to access content using search warrants and other things in a valid and important way. we are mindful of that. that is one of the reasons that as we look to find what is the best privacy model for our community. we are also focused on what do we need to do to keep that community safe. emily: to that point, you have announced a new oversight board for all facebook content decisions. what will that look like and when will that happen? >> the oversight board is a new initiative we are trying to launch by the end of this year. basically what this will be is a group of people acting independently of facebook who can look at specific decisions we have made around specific pieces of content. somebody posted something and we
removed it. they asked us to take another look at it. we say we will keep it off our site. they can go to this external board and ask the board to take a look at it. whatever the decision the board makes, that will be binding on us. if they say put it back up, we will do that. emily: we have seen elections in india, very challenging. you had to moderate content in 10 different languages. what are some of the learnings there that you will take forward? >> we are focused on making sure that we are doing our part to keep elections free and fair. as part of that, we built a team that is talking to election commissions around the world and looking to understand what are the unique challenges they might face in different areas. emily: what are some of those challenges? speaking of india in particular, what did you learn in this most recent situation that could help you in other countries? >> well, in all of the
elections, we are learning different things. we have put out some posts in our newsroom where we have addressed the different actions being taken, including in india. but one learning we have had across the board is that people will try to use fake accounts in a number of different ways, including to spread spam and misinformation. and while most of that is not necessarily relevant to elections, it could be. one of the things we are investing in is removing fake accounts as quickly as we can. we remove more than a million accounts a day at the time of upload. emily: so we have a must-watch u.s. presidential election coming up in less than 18 months. how well-prepared do you think facebook will be by that point to avoid what happened two years ago? >> we are preparing now. we are working very hard to make sure we have all of the measures in place to make sure we are doing our part. emily: on the call various
executive spoke about the challenges of different countries and how you are expecting various governments to put certain laws into place about how content is moderated in their particular country, which will likely differ from country to country. how will you deal with different rules in different countries when there are 200 different countries? >> it is a real challenge. and this is in a new challenge for us. our policies are global, meaning that the rules we have for harassment or hate speech are the same in france as they are in south africa. so we are used to dealing with different norms around speech. when we look at different laws in different countries, the issue gets more and more complicated. it is one of the reasons we think it is important to have conversations with regulators early and help make sure that the regulation should be in place is thoughtful and informed legislation. emily: coming up, it was another rough week for tesla with the
emily: shares of tesla continue to come under pressure this week, trading at its lowest level since december of 2016. city highlighted negatively skewed risks as well as cash flow concerns. gene munster and craig weighed in. >> there are still some folks on the street who are too high with this stock, and that is problematic given what the citigroup analysts said this morning that sentiment is a real problem right now. the big concern that he flagged, that morgan stanley flag, all of these analysts who have stepped up to raise concerns about this name, is demand. this is a company that was having real production problems
last year. this year, the big story is deliveries and not being able to sell as many model threes as elon musk suggested there was demand for. the model s and model x are long in the tooth and very expensive. and that is causing real problems for deliveries and is what has everybody freaking out about this company right now. >> in a way they are too early to the party. we have not seen demands catch up. they are saturating the market. do you agree with that? will this play towards tesla's strength? >> eventually it will. it is important to stress that i am a believer in tesla. i think they will turn the corner and capture what will be a juicy growth curve around the electrification of vehicles. where 1% today, eventually 100% globally. 2019 will be a difficult year. they are going to miss their numbers, their target.
everyone knows that. i want to focus on what has happened in the last three weeks around the story. the stock is down 27%. it is down 24% since may 5 when trump tweeted twice about 25% tariffs. so there has been an acceleration on the downturn based on what has happened in the past few weeks. you mentioned analysts have largely not changed their opinion. the reason why the stock has dropped is ultimately, this gets back to the demand, the china piece is now more in question. i think there is risk. this is different than apple. there is risk that teslas are tariffed going into china. there could be consumer backlash going into the china brand. china was expected to be about a quarter of the sales for this year. if that number gets down to 12%, there will be more of a dramatic miss. i think it is investors getting comfortable with the china risk
that has thrown the stock into a tailspin more recently. >> has it fallen far enough, gene? i'm looking at a new story being posted with analysts adam jonas from morgan stanley being quoted as saying tesla is no longer seen as a growth story. they are seen as a distressed credit and restructuring story. >> in the near term, i don't know. in the next three weeks to six months, i don't know. i think it will be a difficult year. i think the stock could trade lower during that time. i think this is not a distressed stock story. there is just so much emotion around people who are following this. i think, stepping back from the emotion, there is an electrification, an autonomy piece that is important. with all of its flaws, this is not a distressed company. they have a recent raise of
cash, $2.7 billion. that will give them an extra two years of runway at $300,000 annual run rate, which is essentially the revised estimate. distressed means you are at risk of going out of business. this is not at risk of going out of business. >> we were looking at tesla's cash flow. craig, your perspective on the autonomous part of the equation. we had an analyst who was talking about safety records in autonomy makes it unfathomable we will get robo taxis in the next year. what is the that, question from your perspective? >> i think you heard gene talk about the concern of china. another one that i will throw out there that has fueled the selling has been this issue of another fatal crash in a tesla involving autopilot where the ntsb came out with a preliminary report last week. it was very similar to an incident a couple of years ago in a model s where a semi truck was crossing the road and the
tesla did not pick up on it and a person was killed. so elon musk has tried to take people's attention away from demand and the delivery issues the company has been having and talk about the future of robo taxis. and he has really sort of undercut, in terms of being able to make the case that we are on the verge of this robo taxi future, when it is a case of deja vu all over again of someone tragically dying in an incident involving autopilot. >> does elon have to be more transparent? >> no, i think he just needs to be more judicious about what he says and set better expectations at the core. it is unlikely we will get that anytime soon. whatever he says, dial it back by 40% and that is probably the right answer. ♪ emily: that was gene munster and
emily: retail startup very shop wants to bring back the joy of online shopping. is it possible to shake a marketplace that is already so crowded and dominated by one major platform? i caught up with the cofounder and ceo. before launching the company, he was the chief strategy officer at snap and a longtime investment banker at credit suisse. >> e-commerce is 9% of the retail market. over the next decade, 30-40% of all retail will be online.
there are not that many consumer choices when you are looking at buying branded product. so we think there is a lot of opportunity to innovate. if you look at markets like china, where 25% of the market is e-commerce, there are many more players in china than in the u.s. i think that is a better way to bring joy to the consumer mind. emily: you obviously focus on a younger audience. is there something you learned there in terms of the needs that were not being met in e-commerce? >> absolutely. millennials like to do more research before they buy something. they also care about responsibility when it comes to shopping. they care about economy. they care about sustainability. the consumer as an example, if you want to buy a sustainable product, where do you go? if you look at our platform, we have 200 different attributes.
so i am real excited to bring a new way of shopping to consumers. in the market is large. emily: what makes you think you can take on amazon, which already has scale and convenience. they are going from two to one-day shipping. >> i really admire amazon. i am a shareholder of amazon. however, i think as e-commerce goes from 10% to 40%, one company cannot solve everything. amazon is a juggernaut. they do software. there is a lot of different things. they are a brilliant market company but there are a lot of parts of e-commerce that have not been addressed by existing players. i think we can bring that. we can give consumers different ways to discover new products. emily: your wife and cofounder also worked at amazon for many years.
what sort of secrets does she bring to the table? >> no secrets. [laughter] i think, you know, amazon is a large company. she learned a lot from there. i think it is great to work with her. emily: so obviously you helped take snap public and took many companies public, including alibaba, another e-commerce company. i have to ask you what is happening in the markets right now. i'm sure you are watching uber from afar. what is your take on what happened? >> at uber? >> yes. >> i don't want to specifically talk about uber. one thing that stood out to me is -- versus the companies that will have to raise money again in the future. i think it makes sense. right?
we are in an economic cycle. you don't want to write unlimited checks to companies. so i think if you look at some of the companies that are profitable, zoom did really well. companies that are not making money did not do very well. i think the market is telling these companies that you have been around for a long time. at some point, you have to make money. emily: so do you think then there is a reckoning coming for tech companies that have gone to market without being profitable? amazon is one of them. >> amazon funded their business to their own cash flow. amazon did not have to go raise money. i don't remember when amazon went and raised capital. even if they raised, it was more of a point of strength than a point of weakness. we lived through 10 years of bull market. i think a lot of these companies are involved in many different
initiatives. but at some point, they have to prioritize on what will drive more profitability. emily: you spend a lot of time sourcing tech deals in china. how much do you think what is happening in the public markets is because of what is going on between the united states and china? >> in terms of china, i think trade war is not good for anyone. i think at some point, all trade relationships have to be based on mutual respect, which helps. and i think everybody agrees that over the last decade, some of the relationships were a disadvantageous situation. it makes sense that the u.s. will engage in a trade negotiation. i think it is of bipartisan viewpoint, this point we need more respectful, mutual relationships with china and our trade partners. emily: how optimistic are you that the relationship will get better?
>> i think it is in the interest of both parties to come into a relationship. there will be a relationship, but like any situation, it is a tough position. there are a lot of things to work through. i am not close to that situation, but i am optimistic of a good outcome. obviously it will take some time, and i think it is in the interest of both parties. emily: when are you going to launch? >> late june or july. emily: what will we see? >> number one is trust. when you're in a marketplace where anybody can list or post something, the platform is vulnerable to counterfeit and fraud. we saw that with ebay. we saw that with facebook. we saw that in china. what we are doing is equity all of the products from the brand. we are guaranteeing everything we are buying is real.
over the last 25 years, the internet was built on the premise that open platform. we saw that when everything is open and there are no rules that it brings chaos. second thing is discover. discovering new product. so we are giving consumers choices to discover products in different ways. and third is we will continue to make a big commitment on convenience. i know amazon does it but we will continue to do so. today free shipping, free return, all those things. we are excited. it takes a long time to build a business. hopefully we will continue to bring new product and innovation to the platform. emily: the cofounder and ceo of verishop. that does it for this edition of "the best of bloomberg
alix: saving the farm. the government unveils an aid package for struggling farmers. critics say it will not help soybean crops already at decade lows. market worries that china will ban exports on rare earth as the trade war keeps up. saudi aramco takes a 25% stake in sempra. i'm alix steel. welcome to bloomberg "commodie e