tv Best of Bloomberg Technology Bloomberg July 6, 2019 11:00am-12:01pm EDT
♪ caroline: i'm caroline hyde in for emily chang and this is the "best of bloomberg technology." coming up, tesla sets a new record for deliveries easily beating analyst estimates. we bring you the details. plus, we see a billionaire investor has advice about bitcoins' major swings in the past month and he tells us his
approach to this roller coaster ride. and after some fairly uneventful presidential debates, twitter is out with a new label that flags tweets that break the rules. the move might even make donald trump walk a fine line on the social site. tesla set a new record for quarterly vehicle deliveries, on handing over 95,000 vehicles tuesday to customers in the second quarter, beating average analyst estimates. this is due to accelerated shipments to europe and china. and u.s. consumers rushing to buy sedans before the tax credit is shrunk in half. elon musk told employees the company is close to setting an all-time record, urging them to go all out in the last days of june. taylor riggs caught up with an analyst and bloomberg correspondents on tuesday. >> on the model 3 side, this was a blowout quarter and exceeds
everybody's expectations. i think you sort of had this up-and-down quarter where you had a trough of everyone getting concerned about demand for the model 3. toward the end of the quarter, you started to see the analyst commentary pick up where people were a lot less concerned about that. on the model s and model x front, they still have a problem. 95,200 was the total for deliveries. less than 20% of that, about 17,650 of those were model s and model x. and those are the higher-margin, higher-priced vehicles in the lineup. what remains to be seen here is how much this jump in deliveries was at the expense of profitability. taylor: max, give me your take in san francisco. you have heard craig say it is good news but you wonder about the profitability. is this a clear win for elon musk or do we face headwinds on the horizon? max: any time you blow the
estimates out of the water this way, you have to look at it like a win. coming into the quarter, you have two concerns. one was demand, the other piece was kind of logistics. could tesla get the cars to people in a timely and cost-effective manner? and so, i'd say on the logistics piece, they are performing well despite some acknowledged difficulties. now, on the demand side, the real question is, what happens in the long run? you have consumers in the u.s. rushing to get these model 3's, to take advantage of this tax incentive that will shrink. you also have people not buying the expensive cars. we don't know how this will shake out. tesla is still a relatively new brand. it will be interesting to see what happens if and when they refresh these luxury lines.
that could be just the thing that causes people who were model 3 buyers to trade up. taylor: that tax credit, as it shrinks in half, how much of a headwind -- tailwind was that this quarter and, going forward, with that tailwind removed, how much do car sales slow? craig: that will be the big question on the conference call for earnings in a few weeks. the tax credit is going to go $3750 down. what we saw at the end of 2018, the fourth quarter was the previous record for deliveries and a lot of that ended up being , in hindsight, a lot of consumers going out to buy the and s and x. before the tax credit at that time was $7,500 before it was cut in half. i think people underappreciated
how much of that was demand into theld ahead fourth quarter of last year. that is part of what fueled the big dropoff this year, so that is the big question for the third quarter, can they sustain that momentum even with the smaller amount of support from the federal government? taylor: i now want to bring in in david whiston, a morningstar analyst joining me from chicago. , we've been having a discussion rate seems we are in the all clear. model 3's coming in better than expected. from your fundamental analysis, fold in the demand and profitability mix of the s and x, which are key given that they are higher-margin cars to get elon that profitability to where he needs to be. david: for all this controversy around the demand problem, i have never believed there was a model 3 demand problem.
but the model s and x seem to be getting old for consumers, so to speak. they do have an upgraded range. but you are right. volume is one thing, but it is also about profit and cash flow. we won't know until we get q2 results how much the shift matters. the x and s year-over-year, despite these good numbers, the s and x year-over-year was still down about 20%. taylor: david, what does your analysis say about the path to profitability for tesla? we have heard elon musk talk about this a lot. when do we get there? david: they did it for a couple of quarters last year. it is not impossible. it is hard to say exactly what is the tipping point because they are still growing internationally. you have the china factory coming online. you will have the european factory. you still have more new models coming out. the trick is, how do they balance profitable growth? it is very hard for any startup
to do and they are a pretty big startup now, so to speak. taylor: craig, is the chinese demand where it needs to be? craig: the demand we don't really know at this point, in part because they aren't set up with that factory going up near shanghai. once they do that, they will avoid those import tariffs that affect any car built outside of china. we don't have a true sense of demand for tesla in china. they are so priced out of the market. i think there is sort of a buzz in china of this brand and this aura around elon musk that we see around the world. but we don't really know yet how much sort of untapped potential there is for china. as david was saying, that isn't something that is going to come for free. it costs money to build up a plant. they are doing a lot of borrowing with local banks. there is a possibility it won't have a huge drag on the earnings of the company.
but that is something that will be more of a 2020 story as we see local production start. taylor: as we look forward to the end of 2019 and 2020, what do you see as the biggest left side tail risk downside? is it elon musk's tweets, is it profitability, the fact that they need to raise more cash, is it demand headwinds? what do you see as the biggest left side tail risk event? >> probably two things. one is general economic risk that applies to any company. we are late cycle for auto sales for example. at the same time, that is a new product. but the other point would be a bigger, longer-term happening of what happened in late may and early june when the sentiment and fear started to come into this name. this is a name that has always
traded on option value, what it will look like in 2025 and 2030. elon musk is brilliant. but when people start to freak out they have a lot of debt. , and they have billions in debt due, some of it is convertible and could get paid off, but if all of a sudden the street looks , at the downside reasons to fear tesla rather than being optimistic, the stock will get pounded pretty hard. caroline: coming up, half of the year is already in the bag and we have seen 22 tech companies hit the public market. will the momentum continue? we discuss. this is bloomberg. ♪
the tech companies that hit public market. on monday, we spoke about the interesting story. >> lyft spent $90 million on google ads in a single year. last year. those people went to an apple app,tore, downloaded the and when they opened it, google apps was powering the maps behind it. all of this was posted on amazon servers which has a $300 million contract with them through the next three years to pay for all of that. on top of it, google owns 5% of lyft and has a board seat. it is obvious that google and amazon are deep within the digital economy. but when you look at these filings, you see how concretely they are the infrastructure behind how many of these companies work. caroline: in some ways, this is a blessing. and in some ways, a curse.
mark, you focus on both amazon and google. from the blessing side, do you see it as a good element that these companies have so much riding on them, whether financially or from their future revenue stream? mark: there is good and bad. the benefits of cloud computing is that it allows startup companies to avoid a lot of infrastructure costs. you can treat all of your i.t. needs as variable costs rather than big fixed costs. , you don't need to buy and build up a very large i.t. department to scale up a business. that has been the magic behind aws, amazon web services, also behind microsoft azure and google cloud. in many ways, what they are offering is a real benefit to these companies. there's no doubt that in order to scale up on the internet, you probably need to pay one of those three cloud providers. and then, if you are a consumer
oriented service and you need to get consumers to use your service, get to know you, you will probably be spending money with google, facebook. probably just those two. that is how you get brand awareness on the internet these days. i don't know if they are toll-keepers, that might be too strong a word, but they are clearly the biggest channels out there. and you are going to be dependent on them. and companies that investors like to look at, like uber and lyft long-term, companies that can create brands that are strong enough that they can get paid without those channels. caroline: your piece also shows that some of these companies are mentioning google and amazon in their statement. is this something regulators are looking at? are they worried that if they down too hard or push for -- are they worried that if they clamp down too hard or push for breakups and the like that elizabeth warren is looking at that it could impact these companies downstream? >> on the one hand, you could say look how powerful these companies are, on the other hand, you could say they are not necessarily interested in
disrupting these smaller companies because they are their customers. they want them to keep growing. google wants lyft to keep growing and use google maps and pay more for it every year. you can look at it from both directions. as this argument comes forward, i think you'll see arguments from both sides. but i don't necessarily think that by breaking up these companies you would necessarily disrupt that web in a deep way. you can still buy google maps from google maps limited and buy google cloud services from google cloud services limited. we will see how it plays out, but i am sure this will be a topic of conversation when it comes to antitrust. caroline: before we go to the antitrust equation for the behemoths, i want to talk about the fact that you cover lyft and pinterest as well. when you saw that in their filings they do show competitive exposure and general exposure in terms of supply side needs from amazon and google, did you see that as much of a risk factor? does that worry you? would you like them to invest in their own independent service, for example? mark: i think the answer is no. i didn't see it as a risk factor. i had not thought about it in
the way you set up the question. if they didn't -- if they were going to have a cloud services provider, it was either going to be aws, azure, or google cloud. chances are, it would be aws. that is usually the lead cloud provider. they have almost 50% market share. if they didn't do that, then the p&l they would have gone public with would have looked a lot different. and you would have a lot more capex spending. it would probably be frankly a less attractive business model and you would also raise the question, why are you trying to vertically integrate, manage all those data centers, server stacks, when there are three companies doing a phenomenal job of allowing you to outsource it? i will just twist that question back at you, a great question that i had not thought about. but i don't see that as a competitive issue, i don't think that is a dependence risk.
and there is an option, by the way, of switching. we have seen companies. snapchat went public and migrated from google to amazon. as long as you can migrate, i don't think there is risk. caroline: what about the risk from a competitive perspective, from the regulatory viewpoint that we are starting to see coming from capitol hill upon amazon and google? do you think there is a risk that they are seemingly so intertwined with the rest of the tech ecosystem? mark: possibly. regulatory risk has clearly become a major investor issue across technology. we actually just hosted a call earlier today with an antitrust expert to talk about the risks these large platforms face, particularly google, but also amazon and facebook. i think the chances of these companies having to be forced to divest assets is extremely unlikely. i generally think if a company says they hold assets for multiple years, i think the government regulators would be
loath to unwind that and it would be very hard to do. i think you are looking at fines or modest changes in business practices. i would make one quick comment, we just listened to a weekend of presidential democratic debates. and big tech didn't really come , except for the one time it did was over concerns of whether amazon is paying its fair share of taxes. the issue of google or facebook's strong market positions didn't come up. that is probably the best political barometer. if it didn't come up in a presidential debate, it probably doesn't matter. caroline: still ahead, bloomberg's scoop of a potential deal with broadcom and a cybersecurity firm. analysts are divided over the strategy ahead. we will hear from one next. this is bloomberg. ♪
caroline: at&t is considering selling its regional sports network is a plan to reduce net. -- reduce debt. the sale would include tv rights to teams such as the pittsburgh penguins and the houston rockets. and another scoop, broadcom is in advanced talks to buy a cybersecurity firm symantec. it would mean profitable expansion. we spoke with an analyst for the details. >> i think symantec passes the smell test for broadcom. broadcom has 52% operating margins big for them to consider an acquisition, it has to be immensely profitable. there are not a lot of companies
that can reach 60% plus i would say would be the threshold for them to look at acquisition. the last deal they did which was computer associates, ca, is performing extremely well. and when we look at something like symantec, it has shares similar to ca. in terms of the two businesses, one already 50% operating margin and another with some tweaking could get to 60%. the other they could drop into this platform and strip it of costs mostly marketing and sales , costs, to drive operating margins further. from that angle, it would be a profitable deal and extension of the portfolio they have. caroline: interesting, because we have been waiting for years for what they would work out to go after ca and after qualcomm fell away. what makes symantec vulnerable to being bought out? reporter: there has been a lot of john mack at symantec.
the ceo has been ousted a few months ago. there had been an accounting investigation and an activist investor came on the scene, pressuring the company and got a few board seats. it is a vulnerable time for symantec for a takeover. caroline: we were talking about the t-mobile-sprint deal and regulatory issues, are there going to be regulatory issues with this particular deal considering broadcom in the past wasn't able to get past qualcomm? liana: before this, they had a singapore headquarters. they have now moved totally to the u.s. to alleviate that issue. but cybersecurity is a national security concern and symantec does do work for the u.s. government. so the review is something investors will be watching to see how it goes. there could also be an e.u. review. no slam dunk for any large deal where there is a national security element.
caroline: you really have spelled out why you think it is a perfect fit and why it might be good for the business. interestingly, other analysts or investors are questioning management's strategic direction here. do you think it is the right direction to be going more focused on cybersecurity? we have seen others do it. >> i think broadcom is focused singularly on capital returns to the shareholders. driving free cash flow, driving profitability. understand this was a company , that was on the cusp of 50% operating margin, which no other company in the past had been able to approach in the semi conductor land. with the ca deal, they were able to push it closer. now running about 52%. for them, to be able to expand and build on that, they need something outside of hardware, something outside of semiconductors.
typically, software companies tend to have extremely high gross margins and spend a lot of money acquiring new clients. the strategy with ca is dig deep and all-you-can-eat strategy. it is dig deeper into existing clients, don't worry about getting new clients. for example, in sears' case, there was about $100 billion of year so thosen a , costs went away. with symantec, it would be easy to go back to the same clients with a bigger portfolio and drive profitability. that is why we think it is a perfect fit. caroline: interesting. we have seen shares of symantec closing 14% higher. what sort of premium do you envisage? this is a company that has been under some duress. could there be a bidding war? could it go higher? harsh: it is possible other people could come in. i am not an expert on m&a or
investment banking aspects of the deal. but we think the premium of current prices would still work as far as broadcom's ability to take it and generate returns, particularly given the success they have had with software in the past. caroline: both of these companies have private equity background and history. will pe be in any way involved in this? liana: symantec's board has private equity representatives from bain and silver lake. they will definitely have to be involved somehow, they are major shareholders in the company. broadcom was also built up through private equity roots, originally they worked with silver lake and other firms. private equity does weigh heavy here, but we don't know the structure of the deal and how it they will participate. caroline: coming up, twitter announces rules that might hide tweets from president trump himself. will this set a new standard for other social media? and we are live streaming on twitter, check us out and follow
caroline: welcome back to "the best of bloomberg technology." the u.s. president routinely posts comments that might get a lesser-known person suspended. now twitter will hide rule -breaking content behind a warning label which will say the tweet has been left out because of legitimate public interest. the label to see the post -- users will need to click past the label to see the post. emily chang caught up with david kirkpatrick. >> there wasn't that moment where everyone was like, there
is this fake news going viral, and that is what facebook and twitter want. they want to have an uneventful debate. they had teams in place ready to pounce in case there was that moment. but as far as i could tell, there did not seem to be. emily: maybe they were doing their job. kurt: i guess that is the idea. emily: let's talk about this tweet flag for anyone with a 100,000 followers or more. what is your take? >> it is just politicians. who are also verified. it is even more specific to donald trump. two years ago, he tweeted at kim jong-un and said, rocket man, you will not be around much longer, some kind of threat like that. and people asked, wouldn't this normally get a user suspended? twitter's response was sometimes politicians have tweets that are so newsworthy we do not take them down. now, we will know which ones violate the rules but they label
is newsworthy and allowed to stay up. emily: you have been talking about how difficult it is for these companies to flag content that breaks the rules or crosses a line. do you think this will work? david: it is definitely a step in the right direction. we need to acknowledge that some very famous and powerful people are misbehaving, but twitter has rightly acknowledged up until now that certain people on twitter are of a different nature than others. it is also a lot of judgment calls required. even that tweet you cited about kim jong-un, i think could be debated whether that is a violation. is that a country threatening another country or an individual threatening an individual? nonetheless, this is the right kind of step to take, and i'm glad to see it happening. emily: the president is always
quick to talk about conservative bias on social media and there was an expectation he could get angry or tweet about this new rule from twitter. but as far as i can see, he has not mentioned it. is there any pushback or reaction from washington? naomi: it has been pretty quiet. but i would say it is a bit of a bold move for twitter given the accusations by republicans that tech companies are biased against them. they have held multiple congressional hearings on this topic. and polls show public trust for these platforms is waning. republicans have not showed signs of slowing those criticisms down. this looks like an issue where they just gave them more ammunition to continue making those claims. emily: meantime, one of the biggest flareups on social media recently was the nancy pelosi
video where she was slurred to make her appear drunk and it was kept up. mark zuckerberg said there was "an execution mistake." that the process by which it was handled was not necessarily perfect but they stand by the position. listen to what he had to say. mark: it took a while for our systems to flag it and fact checkers to rate it as false, which they did within an hour, but it took more than a day for our systems to flag it. during that time, it got more distribution than our policy should've allowed, so that was an execution mistake. i think we want to be improving execution. i do not think we want to go so far toward saying that a private company prevents you from saying something it thinks is factually incorrect to another person. emily: david, i would love to
hear your reaction to this is it another facebook sorry, not sorry moment? david: facebook probably did handle -- their rules are good on that. i don't think the pelosi video should have been removed. as he said in that same interview, which i happened to be at, there are so many gray areas that if facebook is being asked to make a universal determination of what is and is not legitimate, it will be extremely controversial. giving it less weight in the newsfeed strikes me as right. i would like to say nancy pelosi's reaction was very extreme and inappropriate, acting as if that proved they tolerated russian interference in the presidential election. it really was not that. they are trying hard to do the right thing. these are tough decisions. emily: that said, pelosi's
reaction is certainly an example of just how angry politicians are right now at facebook on both sides of the aisle, or they think it is politically expedient to act as if they are angry. naomi: republicans and democrats have bones to pick with facebook and other tech companies. what you see on the house side in particular is house democrats announced they were investigating the technology industry as a whole and looking at antitrust issues that might be going on. that could reveal -- that committee, the antitrust committee on the judiciary committee, might end up holding multiple hearings with facebook executives, google executives, twitter executives, and give them an opportunity to continue raising their criticism about misinformation, russian interference, and
discrimination on their platforms. emily: we have a tweet from representative jim jordan about twitter's policy change. what is next? why can't twitter respect free speech? kurt: it is a common theme to feel anybody who voices a conservative viewpoint is the enemy of twitter or facebook. the companies have said this is not the intent. we try to uphold these rules. these are private businesses and they have rules and community guidelines people need to follow. they are not held to the same free speech laws that the united states is. i think that is a tough distinction for some people to make, and i don't know what specific tweets he is talking about, but this has been a continuous conversation that has
dominated now almost three years since the last election. emily: facebook has said they are planning to create a content oversight board. zuckerberg has described it as almost a supreme court. could that work? david: i am not certain, but i think it is a step in the right direction. what we are seeing at twitter and facebook is because of the election of donald trump and the connection that has to abusive social media, so much scrutiny is focused on these platforms that they realized they have to do something, come up with more judicious approaches to content management. and i think an outside review board is a good idea. the execution will be excruciatingly difficult. caroline: bitcoin's turbulence continues. we will hear from the billionaire investor about the slump, next. if you like bloomberg, listen on the radio. this is bloomberg. ♪
caroline: now to a story we continue to watch, bitcoin continuing its roller coaster ride, so much so that a battle erupted over twitter. he caught up with both in taipei. >> facebook has been around for 10 years. what are the killer apps? there are none. 75% of these apps are casino games and ponzi games. rishaad: he was questioning your finances, and you were rather fragrant with him. >> he is a hater. he's a no-coiner. word that a new pejorative ? >> someone who doesn't have any bitcoin and watched the price rocket in their face. rishaad: a bit harsh, isn't it? >> it is true. caroline: they went head to head in a debate on wednesday.
taylor riggs also got a take with mike novogratz from galaxy investment partners over the phone on michael: we had a tuesday. spectacular rally. around $4000 for bitcoin two months ago, we traded up as high as $13,800. the last $3000 of that was a parabolic move where people got excited for real reasons. they got excited because of facebook, uber, mastercard, all saying we want to participate in the cryptocurrency world. it went from guys like nouriel roubini saying these are all tulips and the biggest companies in the world saying they will participate on top of yale, harvard, stanford. the question around institutionalization has been answered. now it is a question of taking the time to build out the
systems. people are rushing into front run institutional accounts. things are getting a little carried away. now we are in consolidation. we went up to $14,000, down to $10,000. i think we are at $10,800 right now. i think we will see the market consolidate between $10,000 and $14,000 for a while before it takes off for the next leg higher. that will probably come from the new institutions, the state of x, the state of wisconsin or the texas teachers union. until those guys start coming in, then you will see bitcoin go toward the old high of $20,000 or higher. taylor: when you say parabolic move, our ears perk up. talk to me about when you sold. arguably in hindsight, it was a very smart decision. you said you wish you had sold more. what is your next price at which you would be another seller? michael: by the time i was on tv, the market had fallen 20% so of course i wish i had sold more.
i did think we had gone parabolic and there was too much energy the market. and i think we are going to consolidate. i am a buyer below. i trade a portion of my corporate coin position all the time. i don't think i am selling the next time up to $14,000. i think the next time we get up there, the second time we get up there, i think it is probably closer to $20,000. i don't expect that in the next few weeks. i probably don't expect it towards the middle to the end of the fourth quarter. i think we will see kind of a period of consolidation. what is interesting is, nuriel lost the debate. i was with him in las vegas. i got it when it was $6,000. he has lost the debate because all of the biggest fish -- microsoft is building identity solutions on the blockchain. these are big companies. taylor: talk to me more about
critics like dr. roubini who came out at the blockchain summit and said he doesn't believe in it because there are massive amounts of price manipulation. how do you respond? michael: it is a new technology. there's lots of hype around it. there has been price manipulation. it is being weeded out. you are getting exchanges that are being regulated. you are getting real players in the game. you are getting more pipes. and more ways for people to participate. you can buy bitcoin on your td ameritrade account. that is a big deal, because the general population hasn't signed up and got a coinbase or circle wallet yet. we are going to see over the next three months, six months, 12 months, 18 months, there is more and more ways you can buy this stuff. i would bet you, in two years, mastercard and visa accept bitcoin with their credit cards.
visa has 50 million merchants worldwide. the fact that they are part of this libra, facebook coin, is a huge statement. taylor: talk to me about cryptok's entry into the market. does it give bitcoin and other cryptos legitimacy? michael: it does. it completely legitimizes the idea of crypto currency. it doesn't really compete against bitcoin directly. facebook is working on creating a stable coin that can be used for payments. currencies need to be relatively stable because otherwise, why would i spend a currency if i thought it would be worth a whole lot more in three months? you need lower volatility to be a paying currency. bitcoin, i think, is legitimized by being a real hard asset. it has a fixed supply. it is very difficult to change the rules around bitcoin.
it becomes like a digital gold. people don't own enough of it yet. i see the price going significantly higher over the next couple of years. if everyone buys just a little bit of bitcoin. taylor: you say the price would go higher over the next couple of years. do you have a call? michael: like i said, i think if we can get to the old high by the end of this year, every bitcoiner will be happy. once you get to $20,000, it opens up $40,000 next. and much higher over time. when i think about bitcoin, it has probably about a $150 billion market cap right now. gold has a $8.5 trillion market cap. so bitcoin has a long way to go before it replaces gold. it has very similar features. gold has a limited supply. you can take all the gold that has ever been mined in the history of the world and fill three olympic swimming pools. that is a crazy statistic.
we could build a cube of gold in central park and it would be worth $8.5 trillion. hard to get your mind around. and we don't use gold for much. jewelry, some, but mostly it sits in vaults. bitcoin is a digital gold. taylor: who do you see as the next big companies entering the market? we've talked about facebook, mastercard, paypal. who are some of the other big companies you see really starting to make an investment? michael: i think you will see in time the investment banks need to move into the space. we are trying at galaxy to carve out our niche before they all show up. at one point, the foreign-exchange desks are going to trade dollar-yen, the euro, the great british pound, libra coin, bitcoin, ethereum. and they will be parts of the financial infrastructure of the world. and so, i do think the
investment banks will end up moving into the space sooner than later. taylor: talk about the divergence in price action we have seen with bitcoin having a really big move year to date. some of the other big currencies like ethereum and ripple, not so much. what is your take on the diversions of the price action? michael: bitcoin has carved out a really interesting lane, which is digital gold. it doesn't need to change to fulfill its mission. the way it is today is perfect. it is perfect to be digital gold. gold has a big market cap. ethereum is fighting to be what i would call web 3.0, a decentralized supercomputer that will process tons of transactions. it is a really ambitious project. it is not finished yet. there is a lot of technical work that needs to be done for it to scale properly, for it to be usable on a wide range of things in a very fast way.
caroline: samsung has completed a redesign of its galaxy fold to fix embarrassing screen failures. they will debut the new phone in time for the crucial holiday season. canceledh was after problems with the screen were reported on test version. a number of big american companies may shift production out of china. according to nikkei, hp, dow, and amazon are considering to make the move. no one is commenting. last year, apple hinted they might have to raise prices because of tariffs. users swipe right and left to
find their next hook up on tinder, and it was feared it applicationnal would make it possible to find success in asia where dating rituals like arranged marriages are still common. that changed as tinder reinvents itself as a winner for asia. olivia: tinder is huge in the u.s. and has totally dominated the north american market. it is now owned by match group, another u.s. company which owns almost all of the big dating products in the u.s. thatw in the last quarter while tinder's users and subscribers are growing in america, they have almost 5 million subscribers based here. and they are looking for other areas where they could grow. looking around the world, there is no bigger opportunity than the asia-pacific region.
we heard from the company that there are more than 250 million single people in the asia-pacific region, most of whom who have never tried a dating product. tinder is looking to the asia-pacific is a huge potential area of growth. emily: how is the product and marketing of tinder different in asia than in the united states? olivia: in america, we all know it is a hook-up app. it is known for casual dating and casual sex among young and on collegees campuses around the country, where people connect and get to know one another. that was not going to fly in korea. the dating culture in korea, they would meet through blind dating where friends connect to different people who had not met one another before. tinder knew the hook-up reputation and casual dating
scene would not work in korea, so it decided to attempt to totally reinvent itself into more of a friendship app so it claims to be a social discovery network. if you look at the marketing, it is on the billboards outside university towns reading new year, new friendships, new you, so it is more around building friendships rather than dating. emily: will this fly in china where there is tough regulation on u.s. social media companies or are they focusing outside of china? olivia: they are not looking at china right now, but they are looking at different countries across the asia-pacific, a huge focus in korea, japan, and india where they have local managers on the ground trying to connect and learn the cultural customs. and we heard from the match group ceo that they are spending
more on marketing in korea, japan, and india than anywhere else in the world right now and are looking to potentially expand into taiwan, indonesia, singapore. but china is still on the back burner due to regulations. emily: what is the outlook for match more broadly, now owning all of these properties, although the original match app has been criticized for being sort of old and stale. olivia: one of the strategies is getting local managers on the ground to look for potential acquisitions. in japan, they have acquired the app called peers which is a model where only the men pay. that is really familiar and well-known in japan. it is the biggest online dating pp there. and they are trying to build up tinder as well. they are being strategic in
terms of trying to encourage the managers on the ground to look for acquisition opportunities, because some of these countries have different customs than what match is familiar with. in korea, dating apps do things pretty different than tinder. one app, in order to apply to be on the product, you have to get rated by the users out of 10. there is another app where men can only get on if they hold down a job as a doctor, lawyer, or for a major conglomerate company, or went to a prestigious university. caroline: amazon will hire more than 2000 workers in the u.k. to develop its latest technology ventures. employees will include engineers and data scientists. that will raise amazon's british workforce to almost 40,000 people by the end of the year. that does it for this edition of "the best of bloomberg technology."
we like drip coffee, layovers- -and waiting on hold. what we don't like is relying on fancy technology for help. snail mail! we were invited to a y2k party... uh, didn't that happen, like, 20 years ago? oh, look, karolyn, we've got a mathematician on our hands! check it out! now you can schedule a callback or reschedule an appointment, even on nights and weekends. today's xfinity service. simple. easy. awesome. i'd rather not.
viviana: coming up on "bloomberg best," the stories that shaped the week in business around the world. a trade truce at the g20 lifts the spirits of global markets. >> from an investor's point of view, i think this is very bullish. viviana: but tensions linger beyond hopeful headlines. >> we are talking $25 billion in tariffs, which starts to add up. >> protestors and police clash as unrest persists in hong kong. opec and allies extend curbs on oil production. eu leaders make a striking selection to lead the ecb.