WEBVTT - The FTC Sues Amazon and Biden Heads to the Picket Line

0:00:01.400 --> 0:00:06.160
<v Speaker 1>From Marhart where Innovation, Money and power Collie in Silicon.

0:00:05.800 --> 0:00:06.680
<v Speaker 2>Valley, NBN.

0:00:07.040 --> 0:00:11.080
<v Speaker 3>This is Bloomberg Technology with Caroline Hyde and Ed loved Love.

0:00:25.880 --> 0:00:28.840
<v Speaker 1>I'm Caroline Heidel Bloomberg's world headquarters in New York, and

0:00:28.880 --> 0:00:30.360
<v Speaker 1>I'm d Love Loo in San Francisco.

0:00:30.520 --> 0:00:32.680
<v Speaker 4>This is Bloomberg Technology.

0:00:32.200 --> 0:00:34.600
<v Speaker 1>Coming up Biden. He heads to the picket line. We

0:00:34.680 --> 0:00:37.440
<v Speaker 1>go live d Wayne County, Michigan, where the President joins

0:00:37.600 --> 0:00:40.960
<v Speaker 1>UAW workers on strike and discuss what it means for

0:00:41.000 --> 0:00:42.080
<v Speaker 1>the EV industry.

0:00:42.880 --> 0:00:45.559
<v Speaker 5>And we'll have the latest on big texts, antitrust battles

0:00:45.560 --> 0:00:49.320
<v Speaker 5>as the FTC prepares to sue Amazon, while Google's trial continues.

0:00:49.360 --> 0:00:53.000
<v Speaker 1>More ahead las Apple's biggest start of the year. No,

0:00:53.600 --> 0:00:56.680
<v Speaker 1>not its iPhone, of course, but it's its case being

0:00:56.760 --> 0:00:58.800
<v Speaker 1>panned by customers. Will have more on the product mis

0:00:58.920 --> 0:01:00.960
<v Speaker 1>far ahead. Now, let's get out to someone who knows

0:01:00.960 --> 0:01:02.440
<v Speaker 1>a thing or two about all to make has Ford

0:01:02.480 --> 0:01:05.120
<v Speaker 1>in particular and indeed, well how all of this affects

0:01:05.120 --> 0:01:07.320
<v Speaker 1>the EV transition. Just A Dawson, and I'm pleased to

0:01:07.319 --> 0:01:09.800
<v Speaker 1>say is with us, and we are awaiting the president

0:01:09.920 --> 0:01:12.959
<v Speaker 1>for well, I mean, in long as living memory, we

0:01:13.000 --> 0:01:15.640
<v Speaker 1>haven't seen a President join the picket line. How important

0:01:15.680 --> 0:01:17.960
<v Speaker 1>is this in terms of aligning himself with the UAW

0:01:18.080 --> 0:01:21.080
<v Speaker 1>and what that means for ongoing negotiations.

0:01:21.440 --> 0:01:24.959
<v Speaker 6>Well, that remains unclear. I mean, it's something that that

0:01:25.080 --> 0:01:28.839
<v Speaker 6>Biden is doing at the invitation of UAW head Sean Fain,

0:01:29.880 --> 0:01:33.679
<v Speaker 6>and he's clearly you know, casting his lot with labor.

0:01:34.000 --> 0:01:37.880
<v Speaker 6>We've seen a summer of a lot of labor unrested activity,

0:01:37.920 --> 0:01:40.160
<v Speaker 6>and it does feel like labor is a bit on

0:01:40.160 --> 0:01:42.640
<v Speaker 6>the upswing and this is clearly something the President feels,

0:01:43.440 --> 0:01:46.760
<v Speaker 6>you know, kind of dovetails with his message about better

0:01:46.800 --> 0:01:49.800
<v Speaker 6>wages for workers. It remains to be seen, however, if

0:01:49.800 --> 0:01:53.360
<v Speaker 6>there's any breakthrough in the talks, because the automakers and

0:01:53.520 --> 0:01:56.000
<v Speaker 6>the union seem to be at loggerheads over any number

0:01:56.000 --> 0:01:57.240
<v Speaker 6>of issues, including wages.

0:01:58.320 --> 0:02:01.840
<v Speaker 5>Chester Ford has been from the expansion of the strike,

0:02:02.400 --> 0:02:05.040
<v Speaker 5>you know, the UAW focus a little more in STILLANTIS

0:02:05.080 --> 0:02:08.720
<v Speaker 5>and GM. But yesterday evening the union was upset with

0:02:08.840 --> 0:02:10.600
<v Speaker 5>Ford about idling plants.

0:02:10.960 --> 0:02:12.560
<v Speaker 4>What is the latest tension there?

0:02:13.520 --> 0:02:14.160
<v Speaker 7>Yeah, that's right.

0:02:14.320 --> 0:02:16.560
<v Speaker 6>Ed Ford had said that it's going to hit the

0:02:16.600 --> 0:02:22.000
<v Speaker 6>pause button on an expected expansion of its electric vehicle

0:02:22.880 --> 0:02:26.240
<v Speaker 6>you know, production capacity at a new plant that was

0:02:26.240 --> 0:02:28.760
<v Speaker 6>to be built in Western Message, again with some key

0:02:28.760 --> 0:02:33.120
<v Speaker 6>support from a leading Chinese battery maker, c L. So

0:02:33.560 --> 0:02:36.040
<v Speaker 6>the reasoning for that is a little unclear, but it

0:02:36.120 --> 0:02:40.600
<v Speaker 6>comes a very delicate time with the EAZWAYW talks. So

0:02:40.800 --> 0:02:44.839
<v Speaker 6>it's something THEW has objected to. They see it as

0:02:44.919 --> 0:02:48.640
<v Speaker 6>kind of a preemptive strike by Forward to prevent the

0:02:48.720 --> 0:02:51.720
<v Speaker 6>unionization of those workers, among other things. So it just

0:02:51.760 --> 0:02:54.959
<v Speaker 6>shows you how volatile this whole mix is. That plant

0:02:55.000 --> 0:02:56.920
<v Speaker 6>was announced, you know, quite a while ago, and yet

0:02:57.320 --> 0:02:59.520
<v Speaker 6>here we are it looks like there's gonna be no

0:02:59.560 --> 0:03:01.120
<v Speaker 6>shovels the ground for the time being.

0:03:01.680 --> 0:03:04.880
<v Speaker 1>Ultimately, this is all sort of precarious balancing app not

0:03:04.960 --> 0:03:07.680
<v Speaker 1>only for corporate America, but also for the administration trying

0:03:07.720 --> 0:03:10.760
<v Speaker 1>to push companies to invest in a transition and at

0:03:10.800 --> 0:03:12.600
<v Speaker 1>the same time as having to share what have been

0:03:12.639 --> 0:03:15.640
<v Speaker 1>some decent profits with workers as well. Just what's the

0:03:15.680 --> 0:03:18.800
<v Speaker 1>investor reaction been, like? Have they been okay with the

0:03:18.880 --> 0:03:22.639
<v Speaker 1>idea that basically, for the short term, maybe these automakers

0:03:22.639 --> 0:03:24.959
<v Speaker 1>do need to realign where some of the money goes.

0:03:26.120 --> 0:03:30.080
<v Speaker 6>Well, yes, that's a very good question. The certainly public

0:03:30.120 --> 0:03:34.560
<v Speaker 6>opinion seems aligned with the workers. Where investors stand is

0:03:34.560 --> 0:03:37.520
<v Speaker 6>a little unclear. I mean, you know, these the stocks

0:03:37.560 --> 0:03:40.560
<v Speaker 6>of say GM and Ford in particular have kind of

0:03:40.560 --> 0:03:44.840
<v Speaker 6>been you know, under a microscope really dating back to

0:03:44.880 --> 0:03:49.560
<v Speaker 6>the start of these negotiations in Midsummer. So there is

0:03:49.600 --> 0:03:52.360
<v Speaker 6>a big question about how much they can afford and

0:03:52.400 --> 0:03:55.360
<v Speaker 6>still make all the investments they need. On the other hand,

0:03:55.440 --> 0:03:59.040
<v Speaker 6>there does seem to be some recognition that they're going

0:03:59.120 --> 0:04:02.200
<v Speaker 6>to have to compromise. Maybe they given on things like

0:04:02.400 --> 0:04:04.640
<v Speaker 6>no more share of buybacks. I mean that certainly seems

0:04:04.680 --> 0:04:07.600
<v Speaker 6>to be something that investors might be okay with the dividend,

0:04:07.680 --> 0:04:08.480
<v Speaker 6>that's another matter.

0:04:09.520 --> 0:04:12.440
<v Speaker 5>All right, Blombos Chester Dawson, who leads our industrials and

0:04:12.480 --> 0:04:14.440
<v Speaker 5>allt to make a coverage out of Detroit, thank you

0:04:14.520 --> 0:04:17.160
<v Speaker 5>so much. Look at the core of this is the

0:04:17.640 --> 0:04:21.440
<v Speaker 5>electrification of an entire industry, and what we're talking about

0:04:21.520 --> 0:04:23.960
<v Speaker 5>is where the money should go. Joining us now is

0:04:24.080 --> 0:04:27.160
<v Speaker 5>arkdisos In, our founder and CEO at Free Wire Technology

0:04:27.240 --> 0:04:31.960
<v Speaker 5>is a charging infrastructure company, energy solutions company. And the

0:04:32.080 --> 0:04:36.080
<v Speaker 5>union's argument is that lots of public money is going

0:04:36.120 --> 0:04:39.320
<v Speaker 5>into the infrastructure, it's going into the production capacity, but

0:04:39.360 --> 0:04:42.520
<v Speaker 5>the labor is not going with it. Your argument is

0:04:42.520 --> 0:04:46.200
<v Speaker 5>that those jobs on the assembly line can be reallocated

0:04:46.520 --> 0:04:48.080
<v Speaker 5>to your industry for an example.

0:04:48.240 --> 0:04:48.640
<v Speaker 4>That's right.

0:04:48.640 --> 0:04:50.599
<v Speaker 8>I think this is going to be a redistribution of jobs.

0:04:50.640 --> 0:04:53.000
<v Speaker 8>It's clear that the number of labor that it takes

0:04:53.040 --> 0:04:56.200
<v Speaker 8>to produce an electric vehicle is forty percent lower than

0:04:56.240 --> 0:04:58.400
<v Speaker 8>that of a combustion vehicle. Jim Farrelly has said this.

0:04:58.760 --> 0:05:00.160
<v Speaker 8>But the fact of the matter is of your at

0:05:00.160 --> 0:05:03.080
<v Speaker 8>the industry today. Three years ago, we have two battery

0:05:03.080 --> 0:05:05.800
<v Speaker 8>manufacturing plants across the US. Today we have thirty either

0:05:05.920 --> 0:05:08.720
<v Speaker 8>live or plan to go live over the next four years.

0:05:09.080 --> 0:05:10.920
<v Speaker 8>By the end of the decade, we have twenty times

0:05:10.960 --> 0:05:14.240
<v Speaker 8>the battery manufacturing capacity that we did in this country

0:05:14.400 --> 0:05:16.320
<v Speaker 8>at the start of at the start of the decade.

0:05:16.440 --> 0:05:19.200
<v Speaker 8>The fact is the redistribution of jobs will happen. It

0:05:19.200 --> 0:05:22.359
<v Speaker 8>won't impact everyone the same way. But going from jobs

0:05:22.360 --> 0:05:24.599
<v Speaker 8>that pay today eighteen to thirty two dollars an hour

0:05:24.760 --> 0:05:27.279
<v Speaker 8>to jobs that will invariably pay more in the battery

0:05:27.279 --> 0:05:31.840
<v Speaker 8>manufacturing sector, that's fundamentally what's happening. And the UAW strike

0:05:31.960 --> 0:05:35.680
<v Speaker 8>against the automobile OEMs is not fundamentally about their employees

0:05:35.760 --> 0:05:38.560
<v Speaker 8>or their labor it's fundamentally about the UAW because those

0:05:39.240 --> 0:05:42.760
<v Speaker 8>they will not be there to support battery manufacturing as

0:05:42.839 --> 0:05:45.120
<v Speaker 8>well as chip and semiconductor production.

0:05:45.440 --> 0:05:48.159
<v Speaker 5>You have hundreds of fast charges here in North America.

0:05:48.200 --> 0:05:50.920
<v Speaker 5>You're active in Europe as well. Are you in a

0:05:50.960 --> 0:05:53.840
<v Speaker 5>position where you're like, okay, the money's coming from the

0:05:53.880 --> 0:05:55.000
<v Speaker 5>Inflation Reduction Act?

0:05:55.320 --> 0:05:56.320
<v Speaker 4>Are you in a position to.

0:05:56.320 --> 0:05:59.200
<v Speaker 5>Offer jobs to those that are currently working on the

0:05:59.240 --> 0:06:01.599
<v Speaker 5>assembly line are worried about their future.

0:06:01.920 --> 0:06:04.320
<v Speaker 8>We have jobs that are available for UAW workers today

0:06:04.320 --> 0:06:06.000
<v Speaker 8>that are displaced, but the fact of the matter is

0:06:06.120 --> 0:06:08.000
<v Speaker 8>we won't be able to take all of the demands

0:06:08.040 --> 0:06:13.240
<v Speaker 8>that these OEMs have to give up. So there are

0:06:13.320 --> 0:06:16.200
<v Speaker 8>hundreds of companies in the space, from battery manufacturing to

0:06:16.320 --> 0:06:19.560
<v Speaker 8>charger technologies that are absorbing many of these jobs. And

0:06:19.560 --> 0:06:22.279
<v Speaker 8>similar to what happens in the transition from fuels to solar,

0:06:22.680 --> 0:06:24.720
<v Speaker 8>a lot of the jobs went into the solar industry,

0:06:24.800 --> 0:06:30.000
<v Speaker 8>high paying, distributed, dispersed jobs that are seeing great result

0:06:30.080 --> 0:06:30.480
<v Speaker 8>right now.

0:06:30.880 --> 0:06:33.159
<v Speaker 1>Oh god, it's interesting you bring up solar. So there's

0:06:33.160 --> 0:06:36.680
<v Speaker 1>another industry that was highly dependent on China, really and

0:06:36.720 --> 0:06:39.960
<v Speaker 1>you're seeing that same issue here at play with battery

0:06:40.000 --> 0:06:42.280
<v Speaker 1>making here in the United States. We're just hearing from

0:06:42.600 --> 0:06:46.000
<v Speaker 1>Justin Dawson about Ford being blasted by the UAW itself

0:06:46.040 --> 0:06:48.160
<v Speaker 1>at the moment for putting on ice that three and

0:06:48.200 --> 0:06:50.479
<v Speaker 1>a half billion dollar battery plant because it was going

0:06:50.520 --> 0:06:53.280
<v Speaker 1>to be working with coatl. How much are you having

0:06:53.360 --> 0:06:55.080
<v Speaker 1>to get supply chain from China? How much do you

0:06:55.120 --> 0:06:57.719
<v Speaker 1>think jobs in the US are dependent on an ongoing

0:06:57.800 --> 0:06:59.320
<v Speaker 1>somewhat friendly relationship.

0:07:00.320 --> 0:07:01.159
<v Speaker 4>That's right, Carolyn.

0:07:01.240 --> 0:07:02.839
<v Speaker 8>I think there is a concern that some of the

0:07:02.839 --> 0:07:06.760
<v Speaker 8>battery production and as well as chips and semiconductors charging

0:07:06.800 --> 0:07:10.040
<v Speaker 8>infrastructure will come from the Chinese market. But unlike solar,

0:07:10.200 --> 0:07:13.120
<v Speaker 8>I think the Biden administration has taken a good look

0:07:13.160 --> 0:07:16.200
<v Speaker 8>at that ahead of the blossoming of this industry. We've

0:07:16.240 --> 0:07:20.320
<v Speaker 8>already put certain tariffs in place on battery cells coming

0:07:20.360 --> 0:07:25.000
<v Speaker 8>in from China, and we've incentivized US domestic manufacturing of chips,

0:07:25.000 --> 0:07:28.840
<v Speaker 8>semi conductors, charging instructure, and batteries all across. That is,

0:07:29.080 --> 0:07:32.440
<v Speaker 8>so we expect this market to play out a little

0:07:32.440 --> 0:07:35.080
<v Speaker 8>bit differently than it did in the solar industry free Wire,

0:07:35.160 --> 0:07:38.000
<v Speaker 8>particularly because of the incentives that are in place. We've

0:07:38.040 --> 0:07:41.440
<v Speaker 8>transitioned all production out of China. In fact, we only

0:07:41.480 --> 0:07:44.440
<v Speaker 8>have one single supplier left from China for a small

0:07:44.480 --> 0:07:47.600
<v Speaker 8>inconsequential part. The vast majority of our other suppliers are

0:07:47.600 --> 0:07:51.240
<v Speaker 8>coming from the US and European markets, and more.

0:07:51.120 --> 0:07:54.200
<v Speaker 1>Broadly, therefore, you have seen incentives with which to do this.

0:07:54.280 --> 0:07:56.640
<v Speaker 1>Can the industry eventually be standing on its own two

0:07:56.680 --> 0:07:59.840
<v Speaker 1>feet without the necessary sort of help with an ILRA

0:08:00.160 --> 0:08:03.640
<v Speaker 1>or indeed ensuring that well you're getting the right labor

0:08:03.680 --> 0:08:06.080
<v Speaker 1>at the right time without the incentive process there.

0:08:06.560 --> 0:08:09.080
<v Speaker 8>Yes, I think so, and you can see that corollaria

0:08:09.160 --> 0:08:10.000
<v Speaker 8>happening in Europe.

0:08:10.080 --> 0:08:11.560
<v Speaker 4>Whereas in the US we use the.

0:08:11.560 --> 0:08:14.520
<v Speaker 8>Carrot via the incentives, in Europe they really use the

0:08:14.560 --> 0:08:16.880
<v Speaker 8>stick and said, by twenty thirty you're unable to drive

0:08:16.920 --> 0:08:18.880
<v Speaker 8>electric or you're going to pay twenty five pounds by

0:08:18.880 --> 0:08:21.120
<v Speaker 8>going into the city of London if unless you have

0:08:21.120 --> 0:08:22.360
<v Speaker 8>an electric vehicle.

0:08:22.360 --> 0:08:24.360
<v Speaker 4>And the business model there works.

0:08:24.640 --> 0:08:26.640
<v Speaker 8>You can see that as adoption ramps up in the US,

0:08:26.760 --> 0:08:29.000
<v Speaker 8>seven percent of all new vehicles sold last quarter, we're

0:08:29.000 --> 0:08:31.000
<v Speaker 8>fully electric. In the US twenty five percent of new

0:08:31.040 --> 0:08:34.800
<v Speaker 8>vehicle sold in California, we're fully electric. As adoption happens,

0:08:35.080 --> 0:08:37.880
<v Speaker 8>the business models start to turn and work. So I

0:08:37.920 --> 0:08:41.120
<v Speaker 8>am encouraged to see that while we do need incentives

0:08:41.160 --> 0:08:43.200
<v Speaker 8>to get through the next two to three years while

0:08:43.240 --> 0:08:45.839
<v Speaker 8>adoption is still low, we won't need them by the

0:08:45.920 --> 0:08:46.679
<v Speaker 8>end of the decade.

0:08:46.960 --> 0:08:50.440
<v Speaker 5>Well, it's your assessment, Arkada, of the lasting or near

0:08:50.520 --> 0:08:53.600
<v Speaker 5>term impact of this. You're hopeful, of course that more

0:08:53.640 --> 0:08:56.600
<v Speaker 5>people by electric vehicles and use your charges, But do

0:08:56.640 --> 0:09:01.760
<v Speaker 5>you see that this temporary halt talks between the UAW

0:09:01.880 --> 0:09:04.440
<v Speaker 5>and the OEMs is going to impact production for the

0:09:04.480 --> 0:09:08.320
<v Speaker 5>next year eighteen months and therefore the availability of EV

0:09:08.440 --> 0:09:09.319
<v Speaker 5>models right now?

0:09:09.480 --> 0:09:10.920
<v Speaker 8>That's right, but I think a lot of the demand

0:09:10.920 --> 0:09:14.200
<v Speaker 8>will shift to the to Tesla. Frankly speaking, they're still

0:09:14.200 --> 0:09:16.240
<v Speaker 8>one of the largest adopters, still one of the large

0:09:16.240 --> 0:09:19.319
<v Speaker 8>producers of electric vehicles. This is only going to solidify

0:09:19.360 --> 0:09:22.400
<v Speaker 8>their market dominance, and so while you will see fewer

0:09:22.880 --> 0:09:26.000
<v Speaker 8>makes and models of vehicles from the traditional big three OEMs,

0:09:26.320 --> 0:09:30.120
<v Speaker 8>there's still plenty of supply and capacity available for consumers

0:09:30.160 --> 0:09:30.920
<v Speaker 8>to pick up.

0:09:31.559 --> 0:09:33.600
<v Speaker 1>Wow, we're going to be combining all of those stories

0:09:33.640 --> 0:09:37.360
<v Speaker 1>with a discussion on Tesla's effect, well with EU subsidies

0:09:37.360 --> 0:09:39.760
<v Speaker 1>as well. Our codecersn't have absolutely great to speak with you.

0:09:39.800 --> 0:09:40.000
<v Speaker 7>Thank you.

0:09:40.120 --> 0:09:43.080
<v Speaker 1>Free Wire technologies on all thing uaw here in the US.

0:09:43.120 --> 0:09:46.480
<v Speaker 1>I mean, while speaking of strikes, look voice actors performers

0:09:46.520 --> 0:09:49.599
<v Speaker 1>who work in video games. They voted to authorize a

0:09:49.640 --> 0:09:52.800
<v Speaker 1>strike ahead of their contract negotiations this week. Like the

0:09:52.880 --> 0:09:56.760
<v Speaker 1>SAG after strikes, the concern for video game makers involved

0:09:56.880 --> 0:09:59.720
<v Speaker 1>how artificial intelligence can be used to recreate the actor's

0:09:59.760 --> 0:10:02.040
<v Speaker 1>voice and images at the moment that the vote only

0:10:02.080 --> 0:10:04.720
<v Speaker 1>authorizes a strike, and we're going to rebring you any

0:10:04.800 --> 0:10:08.199
<v Speaker 1>updates sis to whether they actually action on that authorization.

0:10:08.400 --> 0:10:11.680
<v Speaker 5>Ed All right, coming up, We're going to go from

0:10:11.720 --> 0:10:14.320
<v Speaker 5>what's happening on the ground with strikes, what's happening in

0:10:14.320 --> 0:10:15.120
<v Speaker 5>Capitol Hill.

0:10:15.160 --> 0:10:16.640
<v Speaker 4>Amazon versus the FTC.

0:10:16.720 --> 0:10:19.400
<v Speaker 5>We'll talk about the impact of the FTC's lawsuit on

0:10:19.520 --> 0:10:22.160
<v Speaker 5>the future of Amazon, but also big tech anti trust

0:10:22.200 --> 0:10:26.400
<v Speaker 5>at large. That's coming up next. This is Bloomberg Technology.

0:10:42.240 --> 0:10:46.079
<v Speaker 5>It's official the FTC is suing Amazon. FTC investigators and

0:10:46.280 --> 0:10:49.559
<v Speaker 5>Lina Khan's office have been working on the complaint for months,

0:10:49.600 --> 0:10:53.760
<v Speaker 5>which accuses the e commerce giant of monopolizing online marketplace

0:10:53.840 --> 0:10:58.600
<v Speaker 5>services by degrading quality for shoppers and then overcharging the sellers.

0:10:58.600 --> 0:11:01.880
<v Speaker 5>That's bringing Bloomberg's editing out of Seattle for more. And

0:11:02.120 --> 0:11:04.760
<v Speaker 5>this is the fourth suit that the FTC is put

0:11:04.800 --> 0:11:08.720
<v Speaker 5>in front of Amazon. Give us the specifics this time

0:11:08.760 --> 0:11:10.079
<v Speaker 5>around of what they're claiming.

0:11:11.200 --> 0:11:13.200
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, this is the big one that we've been waiting for.

0:11:13.240 --> 0:11:16.679
<v Speaker 2>The other three complaints were focused on the consumer protection

0:11:16.800 --> 0:11:19.400
<v Speaker 2>issues at the FTC say with Amazon, and this is

0:11:19.400 --> 0:11:22.480
<v Speaker 2>the big anti trust case. So, like you said, this

0:11:22.880 --> 0:11:26.360
<v Speaker 2>case focuses on two different aspects of Amazon's business, both

0:11:26.440 --> 0:11:30.960
<v Speaker 2>the way that the e commerce giant sells to customers

0:11:30.960 --> 0:11:33.160
<v Speaker 2>and also the way that sellers use the website to

0:11:33.200 --> 0:11:34.440
<v Speaker 2>reach their own customers.

0:11:34.600 --> 0:11:37.400
<v Speaker 1>We've been anticipating it. Amazon too had been anticipating it.

0:11:37.400 --> 0:11:39.800
<v Speaker 1>And we get the response from the company criticizing the

0:11:39.840 --> 0:11:43.640
<v Speaker 1>FTC lawsuit, saying it's wrong on facts on law, and

0:11:43.679 --> 0:11:45.640
<v Speaker 1>they said they look forward to making the case in court.

0:11:45.679 --> 0:11:49.000
<v Speaker 1>In fact, Amazon really says the FTC has quote radically

0:11:49.040 --> 0:11:54.320
<v Speaker 1>departed from consumer mission. From that perspective, this isn't This

0:11:54.360 --> 0:11:57.400
<v Speaker 1>isn't a realignment of how the FTC ces big tech,

0:11:57.480 --> 0:11:59.720
<v Speaker 1>isn't it. It's not just look what gets the consumer

0:11:59.760 --> 0:12:01.880
<v Speaker 1>that this price, but the way in which they go

0:12:01.920 --> 0:12:02.640
<v Speaker 1>about doing it.

0:12:02.720 --> 0:12:05.040
<v Speaker 4>So the sellers too, that's.

0:12:04.840 --> 0:12:07.000
<v Speaker 2>Absolutely right, and that's one reason why this case is

0:12:07.040 --> 0:12:09.720
<v Speaker 2>so interesting. You know, Lena Khan, the chair of the FTC,

0:12:09.880 --> 0:12:13.319
<v Speaker 2>as a law student at Yale, wrote her most famous

0:12:13.440 --> 0:12:17.439
<v Speaker 2>law review paper about Amazon's business practices and why current

0:12:17.480 --> 0:12:20.800
<v Speaker 2>anti trust law is inadequate to address that kind of

0:12:20.800 --> 0:12:23.599
<v Speaker 2>anti competitive measure. And this case is really going to

0:12:23.679 --> 0:12:26.000
<v Speaker 2>be the test of some of those theories whether or

0:12:26.040 --> 0:12:28.600
<v Speaker 2>not you can fit a different kind of business like

0:12:28.679 --> 0:12:32.040
<v Speaker 2>Amazon that didn't exist back when our current anti trust

0:12:32.080 --> 0:12:34.760
<v Speaker 2>statutes were written a century ago, whether you can fit

0:12:34.920 --> 0:12:37.640
<v Speaker 2>that kind of case into current anti trust law. So

0:12:37.640 --> 0:12:40.600
<v Speaker 2>this will be a really important case both to test

0:12:41.040 --> 0:12:44.079
<v Speaker 2>Lena Khan's legal theory and also Amazon's defense.

0:12:45.280 --> 0:12:48.120
<v Speaker 4>You know, Amazon's come out quickly in response to this.

0:12:48.200 --> 0:12:52.080
<v Speaker 5>Cara outlined their response that merchants on the site have

0:12:52.240 --> 0:12:55.400
<v Speaker 5>had this complaint against Amazon for a really long time,

0:12:55.720 --> 0:12:59.679
<v Speaker 5>that it's a one sided relationship. The FTC suit is

0:12:59.679 --> 0:13:03.440
<v Speaker 5>also conjunction with seventeen other states. How does it play

0:13:03.480 --> 0:13:05.400
<v Speaker 5>out from here? Anna, you know, is this can be

0:13:05.520 --> 0:13:08.640
<v Speaker 5>law long and drawn out and protracted or do we

0:13:08.679 --> 0:13:11.000
<v Speaker 5>expect sort of some quick decision to be made in

0:13:11.040 --> 0:13:11.559
<v Speaker 5>the courts.

0:13:12.640 --> 0:13:15.240
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, the solar aspect of This is really interesting because

0:13:15.280 --> 0:13:18.559
<v Speaker 2>for these third party merchants, Amazon is both a competitor

0:13:18.679 --> 0:13:21.880
<v Speaker 2>and a business partner. So that's one reason why these

0:13:22.000 --> 0:13:25.040
<v Speaker 2>merchants have long complained that Amazon has too much power

0:13:25.200 --> 0:13:29.079
<v Speaker 2>over their relationship with their customers. So we'll see how

0:13:29.080 --> 0:13:31.400
<v Speaker 2>this plays out in federal court. Like I said, this

0:13:31.440 --> 0:13:34.160
<v Speaker 2>is going to be an important test of this kind

0:13:34.200 --> 0:13:36.440
<v Speaker 2>of legal theory, and we do expect this to be,

0:13:36.840 --> 0:13:39.440
<v Speaker 2>you know, a long process. There will be plenty of appeals,

0:13:39.440 --> 0:13:42.440
<v Speaker 2>and Amazon had asked for Lena Khan to accuse herself

0:13:42.480 --> 0:13:44.920
<v Speaker 2>from this case because of kind of the past history

0:13:45.240 --> 0:13:48.439
<v Speaker 2>writing about and investigating the company. So you know, we'll

0:13:48.480 --> 0:13:51.000
<v Speaker 2>see what kind of defense they present in court. But

0:13:51.040 --> 0:13:53.040
<v Speaker 2>they also have been waiting for this for a long

0:13:53.080 --> 0:13:54.880
<v Speaker 2>time and they're definitely prepared to make their case.

0:13:55.040 --> 0:13:57.000
<v Speaker 1>Important times for you to be out there in Seattle.

0:13:57.000 --> 0:13:58.160
<v Speaker 1>We thank you, Anna Egeton.

0:14:06.960 --> 0:14:10.679
<v Speaker 5>SEC Chair Gary Gensler appearing before the House Financial Services

0:14:10.679 --> 0:14:14.400
<v Speaker 5>Committee tomorrow to testify about regulation of the crypto industry

0:14:15.080 --> 0:14:16.520
<v Speaker 5>of conversation that has.

0:14:16.520 --> 0:14:18.280
<v Speaker 4>Been ongoing for a little while.

0:14:18.320 --> 0:14:21.040
<v Speaker 5>Now joining us in the program Bloomberg Shnali Basset, but

0:14:21.120 --> 0:14:24.400
<v Speaker 5>also Caracalbot coinbase head of US policy.

0:14:24.480 --> 0:14:25.600
<v Speaker 4>Chanali, take it away.

0:14:25.680 --> 0:14:28.000
<v Speaker 9>Kara, thank you for joining us ahead of this pretty

0:14:28.040 --> 0:14:30.840
<v Speaker 9>critical hearing. The reality of the situation, though, is the

0:14:30.880 --> 0:14:34.080
<v Speaker 9>SEC has a lot on its agenda, crypto being just

0:14:34.200 --> 0:14:38.160
<v Speaker 9>one part of it. The lawmakers themselves also facing a

0:14:38.160 --> 0:14:42.200
<v Speaker 9>potential government shut down, a lot going going on. How

0:14:42.240 --> 0:14:44.520
<v Speaker 9>do you win the attention over to the needs that

0:14:44.560 --> 0:14:47.360
<v Speaker 9>you have for the crypto industry when there are so

0:14:47.440 --> 0:14:48.440
<v Speaker 9>many distractions.

0:14:50.160 --> 0:14:52.520
<v Speaker 10>Absolutely, well, thank you so much for having me today.

0:14:52.920 --> 0:14:55.400
<v Speaker 10>It's a really pivotal moment here in Washington. And I

0:14:55.440 --> 0:14:58.840
<v Speaker 10>think how we are doing this is we are bringing

0:14:59.000 --> 0:15:02.760
<v Speaker 10>the faces the voices the Americans who own and care

0:15:02.760 --> 0:15:05.480
<v Speaker 10>about crypto and they are coming to Washington for the

0:15:05.480 --> 0:15:08.960
<v Speaker 10>first ever Stand with Crypto Day tomorrow. So we have

0:15:09.040 --> 0:15:13.160
<v Speaker 10>more than fifty companies represented, representing more than thousands and

0:15:13.200 --> 0:15:16.120
<v Speaker 10>thousands of jobs across the United States. They are coming

0:15:16.160 --> 0:15:18.560
<v Speaker 10>to meet with their members of Congress to talk about

0:15:18.600 --> 0:15:21.920
<v Speaker 10>why they care about crypto policy. And that is historic.

0:15:22.240 --> 0:15:24.080
<v Speaker 10>And it just so happens that it's on the exact

0:15:24.160 --> 0:15:26.840
<v Speaker 10>same day that Chairman Gensler is testifying in front of

0:15:26.880 --> 0:15:28.480
<v Speaker 10>the House Financial Services Committee.

0:15:28.520 --> 0:15:30.760
<v Speaker 9>Well, what does this mean for the constituents that you're

0:15:30.760 --> 0:15:35.320
<v Speaker 9>bringing down to Washington when they're having conversations with lawmakers.

0:15:35.360 --> 0:15:36.440
<v Speaker 7>Are they mostly.

0:15:36.160 --> 0:15:40.600
<v Speaker 9>Preparing those lawmakers to grill Gary Gensler tomorrow or are

0:15:40.680 --> 0:15:43.560
<v Speaker 9>they trying to win back lawmakers that are not yet

0:15:43.600 --> 0:15:44.320
<v Speaker 9>on their side.

0:15:45.960 --> 0:15:48.080
<v Speaker 10>I think they're trying to educate, but I think it's

0:15:48.120 --> 0:15:51.840
<v Speaker 10>also really trying to help people understand why crypto matters

0:15:51.840 --> 0:15:54.280
<v Speaker 10>to the fifty two million Americans who own it today

0:15:54.320 --> 0:15:57.320
<v Speaker 10>in the United States, and that is something that there

0:15:57.360 --> 0:16:00.920
<v Speaker 10>are so many lawmakers that understand why YPTO is important,

0:16:01.200 --> 0:16:03.200
<v Speaker 10>but are there are a few outliers, and there are

0:16:03.200 --> 0:16:06.600
<v Speaker 10>some that are saying, including mister Gensler, that this industry

0:16:06.680 --> 0:16:10.040
<v Speaker 10>is rife with corruption and fraud. And these folks are

0:16:10.080 --> 0:16:13.040
<v Speaker 10>coming to Washington today to say, this is my job.

0:16:13.120 --> 0:16:17.400
<v Speaker 10>You're talking about my family, my economic situation, your state.

0:16:17.760 --> 0:16:21.160
<v Speaker 10>That really needs to consider how this industry as a

0:16:21.160 --> 0:16:24.680
<v Speaker 10>whole is influencing the country, is influencing the future of

0:16:24.720 --> 0:16:25.720
<v Speaker 10>the country and innovation.

0:16:27.320 --> 0:16:30.720
<v Speaker 4>Car I appreciate the education argument.

0:16:30.760 --> 0:16:32.880
<v Speaker 5>What is the end goal though, Is it sort of

0:16:32.960 --> 0:16:37.760
<v Speaker 5>specific oversight from a legislation perspective that you're looking for

0:16:38.280 --> 0:16:39.240
<v Speaker 5>at the end of the road.

0:16:40.840 --> 0:16:44.280
<v Speaker 10>Absolutely, I think Congress, is it an opportunity, has an

0:16:44.320 --> 0:16:48.200
<v Speaker 10>opportunity to pass legislation that will create a comprehensive framework

0:16:48.200 --> 0:16:51.360
<v Speaker 10>for crypto. It's what Americans are asking for. It's about

0:16:51.360 --> 0:16:58.240
<v Speaker 10>consumer protection, it's about enabling innovation, and really about US competitiveness.

0:16:57.040 --> 0:16:57.960
<v Speaker 4>As a whole.

0:16:58.240 --> 0:17:00.520
<v Speaker 10>And so what we're here to talk about both as

0:17:00.560 --> 0:17:02.640
<v Speaker 10>Coinbase and I think from the rest of the founders,

0:17:02.640 --> 0:17:05.879
<v Speaker 10>as we've had discussions across the country, they want to

0:17:05.920 --> 0:17:09.840
<v Speaker 10>see legislation, whether it's the Financial Innovation and Technology Act

0:17:09.880 --> 0:17:12.640
<v Speaker 10>for the twenty first Century, if it's the stable Coin

0:17:12.680 --> 0:17:14.800
<v Speaker 10>Bill that has been worked on in a biparisan fashion

0:17:14.840 --> 0:17:17.800
<v Speaker 10>over the course of the last year to eighteen months.

0:17:18.000 --> 0:17:21.280
<v Speaker 10>There is legislation on the table that I think Congress

0:17:21.280 --> 0:17:24.719
<v Speaker 10>really needs to consider and vote to pass. A vote

0:17:24.760 --> 0:17:27.800
<v Speaker 10>in November for this legislation is a vote for consumer

0:17:27.880 --> 0:17:31.200
<v Speaker 10>protection and for Americans who want to own and use crypto.

0:17:31.560 --> 0:17:34.560
<v Speaker 10>A vote against this legislation is really a vote against

0:17:34.600 --> 0:17:38.320
<v Speaker 10>the future innovation, jobs, economics. That is what is going

0:17:38.359 --> 0:17:40.399
<v Speaker 10>to carry a lot of these members through through twenty

0:17:40.440 --> 0:17:40.920
<v Speaker 10>twenty four.

0:17:41.960 --> 0:17:42.280
<v Speaker 4>Cara.

0:17:42.320 --> 0:17:45.440
<v Speaker 5>A few weeks ago, the Ripple co founder Chris last

0:17:45.440 --> 0:17:47.240
<v Speaker 5>And joined me on the program, and he said that

0:17:47.280 --> 0:17:52.040
<v Speaker 5>above Gary Gensler at the administration level, the Biden administration

0:17:52.680 --> 0:17:57.160
<v Speaker 5>has chosen to drive the crypto and blockchain industries offshore.

0:17:57.800 --> 0:17:59.920
<v Speaker 5>Is that a position that Coinbase share.

0:18:02.000 --> 0:18:03.679
<v Speaker 7>It is certainly having an impact.

0:18:03.800 --> 0:18:06.159
<v Speaker 10>Yes, there have been studies done where two percent of

0:18:06.240 --> 0:18:09.840
<v Speaker 10>developers are going overseas. That means a million jobs by

0:18:09.880 --> 0:18:13.199
<v Speaker 10>twenty thirty. And if you think about technology, I've been

0:18:13.240 --> 0:18:16.000
<v Speaker 10>working in technology for twenty years. You see startups, they

0:18:16.000 --> 0:18:19.440
<v Speaker 10>have knock on effects four to six jobs per small startup.

0:18:19.520 --> 0:18:22.320
<v Speaker 10>That means four to six million jobs that are going

0:18:22.359 --> 0:18:23.800
<v Speaker 10>overseas by twenty thirty.

0:18:24.040 --> 0:18:25.919
<v Speaker 7>So yes, it's having a very real.

0:18:25.680 --> 0:18:29.800
<v Speaker 10>Impact where unelected bureaucrats are making decisions that I think

0:18:29.800 --> 0:18:33.560
<v Speaker 10>Americans really rely on elected officials to do. And so

0:18:33.960 --> 0:18:36.800
<v Speaker 10>I think the administration and others really need to think

0:18:36.840 --> 0:18:39.560
<v Speaker 10>carefully about how they proceed in the next six to

0:18:39.600 --> 0:18:40.200
<v Speaker 10>eighteen months.

0:18:40.280 --> 0:18:42.720
<v Speaker 9>There's a lot at stake from Coinbase obviously as well.

0:18:42.720 --> 0:18:44.280
<v Speaker 9>When you think about your own suit when it comes

0:18:44.320 --> 0:18:48.000
<v Speaker 9>to the SEC what are you most looking for Congress

0:18:48.119 --> 0:18:51.880
<v Speaker 9>to tackle First? You have now a new stake in circle,

0:18:52.119 --> 0:18:54.960
<v Speaker 9>so that puts stable coins on the table more dramatically

0:18:55.320 --> 0:18:56.960
<v Speaker 9>and there's also the staking issue.

0:18:57.160 --> 0:18:59.000
<v Speaker 4>What do you prioritize.

0:19:00.400 --> 0:19:00.760
<v Speaker 7>All of it?

0:19:01.359 --> 0:19:05.480
<v Speaker 10>Honestly, I think the comprehensive nature of the legislation is

0:19:05.520 --> 0:19:08.720
<v Speaker 10>really important because at this point digital assets is not

0:19:09.280 --> 0:19:14.359
<v Speaker 10>a one size fit all ecosystem. We have commodities, we

0:19:14.440 --> 0:19:17.560
<v Speaker 10>have stable coins, and then we have what is I

0:19:17.560 --> 0:19:20.879
<v Speaker 10>think a fledgling industry right now with digital asset securities,

0:19:20.920 --> 0:19:24.719
<v Speaker 10>because there's no pathway to registration for the sec so

0:19:24.760 --> 0:19:28.080
<v Speaker 10>we really need a comprehensive approach. So by that nature,

0:19:28.119 --> 0:19:30.960
<v Speaker 10>we're really pushing for pieces of legislation in all three

0:19:31.000 --> 0:19:31.760
<v Speaker 10>of those areas.

0:19:32.680 --> 0:19:35.639
<v Speaker 5>All right, caracalvet Coinbase, Head of US Policy and of

0:19:35.680 --> 0:19:47.240
<v Speaker 5>course our own Shinali Bassett, Welcome back to Member Technology.

0:19:47.359 --> 0:19:49.640
<v Speaker 4>Ed Louvelow here in San Francisco.

0:19:49.240 --> 0:19:51.480
<v Speaker 1>And Caroline hid in New York. You have some pictures

0:19:51.600 --> 0:19:52.359
<v Speaker 1>we want to be brought up.

0:19:52.800 --> 0:19:53.080
<v Speaker 4>Yeah.

0:19:53.080 --> 0:19:58.240
<v Speaker 5>President Biden has touched down at Detroit Metropolitan Airport, Wayne County, Michigan.

0:19:58.359 --> 0:20:00.760
<v Speaker 5>As we know, Caroline is going to later meeting with

0:20:01.760 --> 0:20:05.680
<v Speaker 5>UAW representatives. Joining the picket line at the invitation of

0:20:05.800 --> 0:20:09.960
<v Speaker 5>UAW right now meeting with local representatives ahead of that,

0:20:10.440 --> 0:20:13.760
<v Speaker 5>and the talks ongoing between the UAW principally GM and

0:20:13.760 --> 0:20:18.000
<v Speaker 5>STILLANTIS the sticking point. Ford was spared from the expanded strike,

0:20:18.240 --> 0:20:20.520
<v Speaker 5>but there are issues over it, pausing plans for new

0:20:20.520 --> 0:20:24.080
<v Speaker 5>battery facilities in that state. President Brighten on the ground

0:20:24.119 --> 0:20:25.320
<v Speaker 5>there in Wayne County, Michigan.

0:20:25.600 --> 0:20:27.960
<v Speaker 1>Yeah. Meanwhile, let's get a quick check on the markets,

0:20:28.040 --> 0:20:30.879
<v Speaker 1>as we will discuss what's happening with autos, but more brawly,

0:20:30.880 --> 0:20:32.680
<v Speaker 1>as we see what's happening in the technology field. I

0:20:32.720 --> 0:20:34.240
<v Speaker 1>just want to be looking at the NASDAQ one hundred

0:20:34.280 --> 0:20:37.520
<v Speaker 1>still underwater. We're worried about consumer sentiment today, economic environment,

0:20:37.800 --> 0:20:40.080
<v Speaker 1>and we're rarely what the rowing costs are happening. Two

0:20:40.160 --> 0:20:42.560
<v Speaker 1>year yield we're getting actually a two year debata auction

0:20:42.640 --> 0:20:44.600
<v Speaker 1>later today. Two basis points on the highest side, still

0:20:44.640 --> 0:20:47.560
<v Speaker 1>above that five percentage point levels. Meanwhile, Bitcoin is on

0:20:47.600 --> 0:20:50.720
<v Speaker 1>the downside. The story of dollar strength, interestingly, even as

0:20:50.960 --> 0:20:53.960
<v Speaker 1>we've perhaps see some slightly weaker economic data, but that

0:20:54.080 --> 0:20:56.400
<v Speaker 1>dollar strength has really been a narrative that we've seen

0:20:56.480 --> 0:20:58.399
<v Speaker 1>in the last few training days. Move on, let's have

0:20:58.400 --> 0:21:00.879
<v Speaker 1>a look at what's happening on individual names. Bring you

0:21:00.960 --> 0:21:03.040
<v Speaker 1>t Mobile. It's one of the key out performers from

0:21:03.040 --> 0:21:05.560
<v Speaker 1>a point perspective, we're up eight tens of percent. They're

0:21:05.560 --> 0:21:08.720
<v Speaker 1>fighting Dish in court. They want new airwaves to be sold.

0:21:08.880 --> 0:21:10.359
<v Speaker 1>In particular, there seems to be a delay on the

0:21:10.400 --> 0:21:12.439
<v Speaker 1>three and a half billion dollars of airways purchase that

0:21:12.440 --> 0:21:14.280
<v Speaker 1>Dish is going to be doing from T Mobile. I'm

0:21:14.280 --> 0:21:16.639
<v Speaker 1>looking at Amazon on the downside, as we know, the

0:21:16.680 --> 0:21:20.639
<v Speaker 1>FTC making clear its intentions and deciding to of course

0:21:21.359 --> 0:21:24.719
<v Speaker 1>lay the focus on competition when it comes to Amazon.

0:21:24.760 --> 0:21:27.720
<v Speaker 1>Today we see the same with Alphabet and of course

0:21:27.760 --> 0:21:30.000
<v Speaker 1>we understand that Edieq is going to be giving evidence

0:21:30.320 --> 0:21:32.879
<v Speaker 1>over the Google trial as well. Today, let's get back

0:21:32.880 --> 0:21:36.040
<v Speaker 1>to Capitol Hill where Apple is testifying at the Google

0:21:36.080 --> 0:21:39.080
<v Speaker 1>anti trust trial to defend what is a lucrative deal

0:21:39.119 --> 0:21:41.920
<v Speaker 1>that made Google search engine. We understand the default option

0:21:42.000 --> 0:21:44.840
<v Speaker 1>on the iPhone, the DOJ alleging that Google has paid

0:21:44.880 --> 0:21:47.720
<v Speaker 1>billions of dollars to maintain a monopoly over the search

0:21:47.800 --> 0:21:51.880
<v Speaker 1>market via agreements with tech rivals like Apple. Let's bring

0:21:51.920 --> 0:21:54.360
<v Speaker 1>in many shirts for more now at the moment, and

0:21:54.760 --> 0:21:58.520
<v Speaker 1>we have I understand Eddieq actually currently talking at the

0:21:58.520 --> 0:22:02.840
<v Speaker 1>trial being that well, he just says it's a better

0:22:02.880 --> 0:22:05.359
<v Speaker 1>product and that's why they've taken payment and made it

0:22:05.359 --> 0:22:06.160
<v Speaker 1>the default search.

0:22:06.480 --> 0:22:09.119
<v Speaker 11>Yeah. Basically, what he's saying is, look, if we at

0:22:09.119 --> 0:22:11.119
<v Speaker 11>Apple could have made a better product, we would have

0:22:11.200 --> 0:22:14.919
<v Speaker 11>done it ourselves, like they do compete with Google on

0:22:15.080 --> 0:22:19.240
<v Speaker 11>other products like maps and on iPhone software. So Apple's saying,

0:22:19.400 --> 0:22:21.880
<v Speaker 11>we are happy to use Google as a default because

0:22:21.880 --> 0:22:23.120
<v Speaker 11>it's clearly a better product.

0:22:23.760 --> 0:22:27.360
<v Speaker 1>Can you outline just how many billions Google is paid

0:22:27.400 --> 0:22:30.359
<v Speaker 1>because is this just oh yes, here have a billion

0:22:30.440 --> 0:22:32.560
<v Speaker 1>or so, or is this actually take a percentage of

0:22:32.560 --> 0:22:34.840
<v Speaker 1>our advertising revenue? And that's actually something that's happening with

0:22:34.880 --> 0:22:35.680
<v Speaker 1>the competitive tute.

0:22:35.960 --> 0:22:39.280
<v Speaker 11>So these are being kept as confidential numbers. But what

0:22:39.320 --> 0:22:42.200
<v Speaker 11>we do know from some of the early court proceedings

0:22:42.320 --> 0:22:46.320
<v Speaker 11>was that by twenty twenty, Google was paying Apple four

0:22:46.359 --> 0:22:50.840
<v Speaker 11>to seven billion dollars for these for these for these agreements,

0:22:50.880 --> 0:22:53.760
<v Speaker 11>and overall they get about ten billion dollars annually in

0:22:53.840 --> 0:22:57.520
<v Speaker 11>these to be default, to be the default on web

0:22:57.600 --> 0:23:02.040
<v Speaker 11>and phone browsers. So it is significant chunk for them,

0:23:02.080 --> 0:23:04.520
<v Speaker 11>and then clearly companies like Apple, they get a cut

0:23:04.520 --> 0:23:07.120
<v Speaker 11>of the revenue that is generated in those search results.

0:23:08.000 --> 0:23:10.040
<v Speaker 5>Molly, good to see you if you're coming to this

0:23:10.119 --> 0:23:13.359
<v Speaker 5>story cold you'd be a bit confused, right, Okay, this

0:23:13.520 --> 0:23:17.600
<v Speaker 5>is about Google is decision by Apple to use Google Search,

0:23:17.640 --> 0:23:21.399
<v Speaker 5>But there's a much broader Google antitrust story. What are

0:23:21.400 --> 0:23:25.240
<v Speaker 5>the other battles that Alphabet, the parent of Google faces.

0:23:25.680 --> 0:23:30.440
<v Speaker 11>Well, the main battle really is about search obviously. For

0:23:30.600 --> 0:23:33.240
<v Speaker 11>right now we're talking about Search and Apple because of

0:23:33.320 --> 0:23:36.960
<v Speaker 11>Apple's iPhone. And but obviously you know Search and Google

0:23:36.960 --> 0:23:40.000
<v Speaker 11>Search is available on web browsers and on Android phones

0:23:40.040 --> 0:23:43.240
<v Speaker 11>and on lots of other you know products as well,

0:23:44.000 --> 0:23:46.720
<v Speaker 11>and it's not illegal for them to be dominant or

0:23:46.760 --> 0:23:50.959
<v Speaker 11>even to have a monopoly. But the problem is, and

0:23:50.960 --> 0:23:53.520
<v Speaker 11>what the what the DOJ is looking at is whether

0:23:53.720 --> 0:23:56.280
<v Speaker 11>you know, what kinds of agreements did they strike to

0:23:56.680 --> 0:24:00.080
<v Speaker 11>maintain that monopoly and did they harm their competitors like

0:24:00.160 --> 0:24:03.280
<v Speaker 11>Microsoft being and Duck dot Go that have been big

0:24:03.280 --> 0:24:06.200
<v Speaker 11>complainants in this case, did they harm them in the process.

0:24:07.280 --> 0:24:09.680
<v Speaker 5>All Right, Bloomberg's Molly Schuetz, thank you so much. Let's

0:24:09.720 --> 0:24:13.400
<v Speaker 5>keep the conversation going, and Brian Lee Hepner, legal counsel

0:24:13.720 --> 0:24:17.040
<v Speaker 5>of the American Economic Liberties Project, for more not just

0:24:17.080 --> 0:24:21.200
<v Speaker 5>on this specific specific focus on Google Search and iPhone,

0:24:21.200 --> 0:24:23.879
<v Speaker 5>but also of course we had the headlines from Amazon

0:24:24.240 --> 0:24:26.480
<v Speaker 5>and the FTC, and that's where I want to start lead.

0:24:26.640 --> 0:24:29.800
<v Speaker 5>The FTC has done what we expected, filed its suit

0:24:29.880 --> 0:24:34.600
<v Speaker 5>in federal courts against Amazon. Your reaction, but also thoughts

0:24:34.600 --> 0:24:37.320
<v Speaker 5>on the likelihood that the FTC wins in this case.

0:24:38.880 --> 0:24:40.800
<v Speaker 12>Yeah, and first of all, thank you so much for

0:24:40.840 --> 0:24:44.320
<v Speaker 12>having me. I'm glad we're starting off with FTC versus Amazon.

0:24:44.359 --> 0:24:46.760
<v Speaker 12>This is a case that a lot of people have

0:24:46.840 --> 0:24:50.240
<v Speaker 12>been waiting for. It's certainly been part of why cherolen

0:24:50.280 --> 0:24:53.200
<v Speaker 12>Na Khan has risen to prominence and become such a

0:24:53.280 --> 0:24:55.879
<v Speaker 12>leader of the Federal Trade Commission. You know, this is

0:24:55.920 --> 0:24:59.400
<v Speaker 12>a case where the FTC is alleging, really that Amazon

0:24:59.520 --> 0:25:02.440
<v Speaker 12>has viol the law not by being big, but by

0:25:02.520 --> 0:25:06.560
<v Speaker 12>preventing other rivals from getting big enough to challenge it.

0:25:06.560 --> 0:25:10.919
<v Speaker 12>It uses its vast market power to implement several strategies

0:25:10.960 --> 0:25:14.439
<v Speaker 12>simultaneously designed to keep rivals from gaining the number of

0:25:14.480 --> 0:25:17.440
<v Speaker 12>sellers and buyers that they need to compete to actively

0:25:17.960 --> 0:25:21.600
<v Speaker 12>compete with Amazon. One of those pieces that I think

0:25:21.600 --> 0:25:23.600
<v Speaker 12>we've heard a little a bit about earlier in your

0:25:23.600 --> 0:25:26.639
<v Speaker 12>program is the fee that they charge to small businesses

0:25:26.680 --> 0:25:30.840
<v Speaker 12>who sell on Amazon. That fee has risen dramatically over

0:25:30.880 --> 0:25:33.720
<v Speaker 12>the years and is now estimated at some fifty percent

0:25:34.080 --> 0:25:38.040
<v Speaker 12>of every item that you purchase on Amazon goes to

0:25:38.160 --> 0:25:42.359
<v Speaker 12>Amazon itself. Furthermore, those small businesses are prevented from raising

0:25:42.400 --> 0:25:44.679
<v Speaker 12>their prices on other platforms, meaning that they are just

0:25:44.840 --> 0:25:48.520
<v Speaker 12>losing that money. These are small businesses bunched by Amazon,

0:25:48.560 --> 0:25:50.200
<v Speaker 12>and that's really what this is about.

0:25:50.520 --> 0:25:54.600
<v Speaker 1>These are, though also perhaps beneficial for consumers in some

0:25:54.680 --> 0:25:56.800
<v Speaker 1>way if they're keeping prices low. That's what we heard

0:25:56.800 --> 0:26:01.120
<v Speaker 1>Amazon articulate, in particular the lawyer coming out and saying, look,

0:26:01.560 --> 0:26:04.400
<v Speaker 1>this could mean fewer products, this could mean higher prices.

0:26:04.440 --> 0:26:07.680
<v Speaker 1>And ultimately Amazon claims the SEC has radically departed from

0:26:08.040 --> 0:26:12.119
<v Speaker 1>consumer focused mission. What do you think the argument to

0:26:12.160 --> 0:26:14.560
<v Speaker 1>count that is at the momently right.

0:26:14.600 --> 0:26:16.800
<v Speaker 12>Well, first of all, Amazon has been able to raise

0:26:16.880 --> 0:26:21.080
<v Speaker 12>its price for Amazon Prime multiple times over the past

0:26:21.119 --> 0:26:25.440
<v Speaker 12>several years. Usually when the price goes up, consumers take

0:26:25.480 --> 0:26:28.840
<v Speaker 12>their business elsewhere. If Amazon is not losing market share

0:26:28.880 --> 0:26:32.800
<v Speaker 12>even though they are raising prices, that's indicative of monopoly power.

0:26:33.240 --> 0:26:35.800
<v Speaker 12>Customers are being hurt in other ways though, too, and

0:26:35.840 --> 0:26:39.800
<v Speaker 12>we are dealing with a new type of monopolist where

0:26:39.880 --> 0:26:42.359
<v Speaker 12>price isn't the only thing that matters. When you lose

0:26:42.520 --> 0:26:46.200
<v Speaker 12>things like innovation use, you lose things like product quality.

0:26:46.720 --> 0:26:49.479
<v Speaker 12>When you lose the ecosystem of small businesses that are

0:26:49.520 --> 0:26:52.560
<v Speaker 12>out there trying to innovate and create better products, that's

0:26:52.560 --> 0:26:55.200
<v Speaker 12>a real cost to the consumer too. There are costs

0:26:55.240 --> 0:26:58.960
<v Speaker 12>to workers who are being injured in Amazon warehouses. I

0:26:59.000 --> 0:27:02.240
<v Speaker 12>think when we start to think more broadly about the

0:27:02.280 --> 0:27:06.240
<v Speaker 12>external costs of what Amazon's business model entails, it's not

0:27:06.400 --> 0:27:09.639
<v Speaker 12>just about price. It's about the societal costs that ripple

0:27:09.680 --> 0:27:11.520
<v Speaker 12>out from Amazon's business model.

0:27:12.080 --> 0:27:15.560
<v Speaker 1>And let's therefore tie together what we were just discussing

0:27:15.560 --> 0:27:17.880
<v Speaker 1>when it comes to Google and Apple trying to vindicate

0:27:17.920 --> 0:27:19.840
<v Speaker 1>the payments that it takes to keep it as its

0:27:19.920 --> 0:27:23.159
<v Speaker 1>key search. But the argument goes is that look with

0:27:23.560 --> 0:27:27.160
<v Speaker 1>Google as a pretty dominant force, but a good dominant

0:27:27.200 --> 0:27:30.480
<v Speaker 1>force in terms of actually user interaction with search, but

0:27:30.640 --> 0:27:33.840
<v Speaker 1>ultimately it's stifling innovation because it hasn't allowed the others,

0:27:34.080 --> 0:27:36.440
<v Speaker 1>the competitors, such as being induct Dog, to be able

0:27:36.440 --> 0:27:39.040
<v Speaker 1>to access the data needed to become a better product.

0:27:39.560 --> 0:27:42.240
<v Speaker 1>How much is Search lost out because of that?

0:27:42.320 --> 0:27:45.600
<v Speaker 12>Do you think, yeah, it's a relevant comparison I mean

0:27:45.600 --> 0:27:50.240
<v Speaker 12>Google is a free product. People intuitively like Google Search.

0:27:50.600 --> 0:27:53.359
<v Speaker 12>I think the problem is compared to what there's no

0:27:53.640 --> 0:27:56.800
<v Speaker 12>real credible alternative to Google Search. They command ninety percent

0:27:56.840 --> 0:28:00.240
<v Speaker 12>of this market, and we're learning today with EDDIEQ on

0:28:00.280 --> 0:28:02.760
<v Speaker 12>the stand, your last speaker spoke a little bit about

0:28:02.800 --> 0:28:05.560
<v Speaker 12>what he was going to be testifying to really the

0:28:05.600 --> 0:28:09.640
<v Speaker 12>way that Google is able to degrade privacy protections and

0:28:09.720 --> 0:28:13.920
<v Speaker 12>to scrape information about users of Google Search. So anybody

0:28:14.000 --> 0:28:18.160
<v Speaker 12>who thinks that Google is providing a truly free product

0:28:18.280 --> 0:28:22.119
<v Speaker 12>is mistaken. They are gathering information from you and selling

0:28:22.119 --> 0:28:25.600
<v Speaker 12>it to advertisers who they are then abusing on the

0:28:25.640 --> 0:28:29.120
<v Speaker 12>other side of the market. So Google is a really

0:28:29.160 --> 0:28:31.880
<v Speaker 12>apt comparison of something that appears free but really has

0:28:31.960 --> 0:28:35.160
<v Speaker 12>a lot of costs, and we're learning about those details

0:28:35.160 --> 0:28:36.280
<v Speaker 12>in this trial right now.

0:28:37.720 --> 0:28:41.120
<v Speaker 5>When we had the Microsoft Activision deal, there were all

0:28:41.200 --> 0:28:44.920
<v Speaker 5>kinds of questions posed that had the FTC one, Lena

0:28:45.040 --> 0:28:47.520
<v Speaker 5>Kahan would go after many other tech companies and she

0:28:47.560 --> 0:28:48.640
<v Speaker 5>would have momentum.

0:28:49.320 --> 0:28:50.000
<v Speaker 4>In the end.

0:28:50.440 --> 0:28:54.600
<v Speaker 5>Activision Microsoft were able to proceed in this jurisdiction. There

0:28:54.640 --> 0:28:57.800
<v Speaker 5>was a feeling that Lena Khan was picking battles that

0:28:57.920 --> 0:29:01.000
<v Speaker 5>she couldn't win, and yet their proceeding this federal case

0:29:01.240 --> 0:29:04.440
<v Speaker 5>against Amazon. I say all of that to ask you

0:29:05.320 --> 0:29:08.680
<v Speaker 5>how strong is this FTC is a regulator? How much

0:29:08.920 --> 0:29:11.440
<v Speaker 5>likelihood does it have of being successful in the in

0:29:11.520 --> 0:29:13.560
<v Speaker 5>the actions it's choosing to take.

0:29:15.120 --> 0:29:17.360
<v Speaker 12>Well, let me start with just saying that the FTC

0:29:17.520 --> 0:29:20.920
<v Speaker 12>is appealing the decision in the Microsoft Activision case. That

0:29:21.000 --> 0:29:24.960
<v Speaker 12>case is not dead in the water, though Microsoft Activision

0:29:24.960 --> 0:29:26.600
<v Speaker 12>has prevailed in many jurisdictions.

0:29:27.560 --> 0:29:28.720
<v Speaker 4>You know, these are cases that.

0:29:28.680 --> 0:29:29.680
<v Speaker 7>Are difficult to bring.

0:29:29.800 --> 0:29:33.720
<v Speaker 12>You know, these are antitrust laws that were crafted over

0:29:33.800 --> 0:29:36.800
<v Speaker 12>a century ago to treat a different type of monopolist.

0:29:37.360 --> 0:29:41.040
<v Speaker 12>They have been eroded dramatically over the fifty years to

0:29:41.080 --> 0:29:45.000
<v Speaker 12>focus on things that are solely about consumer price, for instance,

0:29:45.040 --> 0:29:48.560
<v Speaker 12>while you know, completely ignoring other issues around the benefits

0:29:48.720 --> 0:29:51.360
<v Speaker 12>of competition and innovation in markets, and the value of

0:29:51.360 --> 0:29:54.840
<v Speaker 12>small businesses and the dignity of workers. So I don't

0:29:54.880 --> 0:29:57.239
<v Speaker 12>think this is as much about the FTC as it

0:29:57.280 --> 0:29:59.560
<v Speaker 12>is about the law itself and the way that it's

0:29:59.560 --> 0:30:02.480
<v Speaker 12>been cod by the courts. So, you know, these cases

0:30:02.480 --> 0:30:05.240
<v Speaker 12>are not easy to bring. The FTC is going to

0:30:05.280 --> 0:30:07.760
<v Speaker 12>have an uphill battle with Amazon as it did with

0:30:07.840 --> 0:30:10.880
<v Speaker 12>Microsoft Activision. I don't think that's a reason not to

0:30:10.880 --> 0:30:13.880
<v Speaker 12>bring cases about understewed monopolists in our economy.

0:30:14.320 --> 0:30:14.640
<v Speaker 4>A Lee.

0:30:14.720 --> 0:30:17.000
<v Speaker 1>I think what's interesting, though, is we actually have got

0:30:17.000 --> 0:30:20.000
<v Speaker 1>competition in the world of search and it's chat ChiPT.

0:30:20.360 --> 0:30:24.640
<v Speaker 1>Suddenly we have seen innovation although golgunctuan scale in artificial

0:30:24.680 --> 0:30:27.920
<v Speaker 1>intelligence and generative AI. So is that not some sort

0:30:27.960 --> 0:30:31.400
<v Speaker 1>of argument about the fact that, no, it hasn't stifled innovation,

0:30:31.640 --> 0:30:34.760
<v Speaker 1>this sort of well product that everyone really likes.

0:30:35.360 --> 0:30:38.520
<v Speaker 12>Well, I love this example, and we talked about this

0:30:38.560 --> 0:30:41.680
<v Speaker 12>a lot that AI is going to shake up Google Search,

0:30:41.720 --> 0:30:44.040
<v Speaker 12>It's going to shake up all these different parts of

0:30:44.080 --> 0:30:46.719
<v Speaker 12>our economy. I think when you look at the analyses

0:30:46.800 --> 0:30:48.840
<v Speaker 12>that are being conducted right now, you see that that's

0:30:48.880 --> 0:30:53.200
<v Speaker 12>actually not the case. Microsoft had a lead with AI

0:30:53.920 --> 0:30:56.880
<v Speaker 12>on its search engine and was not able to disrupt

0:30:56.880 --> 0:30:59.960
<v Speaker 12>Google's market share at all. I think what you'll see

0:31:00.080 --> 0:31:03.640
<v Speaker 12>with AI is that this new technology that is supposed

0:31:03.680 --> 0:31:07.280
<v Speaker 12>to spring a new innovation is just being grafted onto

0:31:07.280 --> 0:31:10.080
<v Speaker 12>the market structures of today. The monopolists are going to

0:31:10.120 --> 0:31:14.080
<v Speaker 12>control development of that technology. That's what the FTC or

0:31:14.120 --> 0:31:16.920
<v Speaker 12>that's what the case the DOJ's case against Google searches

0:31:17.000 --> 0:31:20.040
<v Speaker 12>right now is about how AI gets to develop over

0:31:20.080 --> 0:31:22.000
<v Speaker 12>the next quarter century. Is Google going to have a

0:31:22.040 --> 0:31:23.600
<v Speaker 12>stranglehold on that development.

0:31:24.840 --> 0:31:28.080
<v Speaker 5>Of the many actions the FTC has taken league quickly,

0:31:28.720 --> 0:31:31.280
<v Speaker 5>which do you think it legally has the best chance

0:31:31.320 --> 0:31:33.240
<v Speaker 5>of success against which company?

0:31:34.280 --> 0:31:36.640
<v Speaker 12>Well, I'm really excited about the Amazon case. I mean,

0:31:36.680 --> 0:31:39.200
<v Speaker 12>they've been laying the foundation for this for quite some time.

0:31:39.520 --> 0:31:43.720
<v Speaker 12>They've been methodically researching this. Many cases have been brought

0:31:43.760 --> 0:31:47.360
<v Speaker 12>in state courts that they are building on. I don't

0:31:47.360 --> 0:31:50.360
<v Speaker 12>think the FTC would be bringing this landmark case that

0:31:50.400 --> 0:31:52.200
<v Speaker 12>it filed this morning if it didn't think it had

0:31:52.240 --> 0:31:55.840
<v Speaker 12>a good opportunity to win. You can look at any

0:31:55.920 --> 0:31:58.360
<v Speaker 12>of the other successes that the FTC has already had.

0:31:58.400 --> 0:31:58.680
<v Speaker 6>Though.

0:31:59.720 --> 0:32:05.040
<v Speaker 12>This is actually remarkably effective commission. Despite a couple of

0:32:05.120 --> 0:32:08.280
<v Speaker 12>high profile court glasses, the FTC is doing a darn

0:32:08.320 --> 0:32:11.320
<v Speaker 12>good job, and I'm excited to see this Amazon case proceed.

0:32:11.760 --> 0:32:15.200
<v Speaker 1>Hepner, legal counsel at the American Economic Liberties Project. We

0:32:15.280 --> 0:32:16.400
<v Speaker 1>thank you for your time.

0:32:24.680 --> 0:32:25.840
<v Speaker 4>All right, time for talking tech.

0:32:25.880 --> 0:32:29.240
<v Speaker 5>First up can now Network Technology is officially filing for

0:32:29.280 --> 0:32:31.800
<v Speaker 5>its Hong Kong initial public offering the logistics unit of

0:32:31.880 --> 0:32:34.000
<v Speaker 5>Aali barber can Now would be the first of its

0:32:34.000 --> 0:32:36.920
<v Speaker 5>spinoff units to go public. Initial reports said the firm

0:32:37.000 --> 0:32:39.720
<v Speaker 5>was home and arrays at least one billion dollars. City

0:32:39.880 --> 0:32:43.840
<v Speaker 5>CITEC Securities and JP Morgan are the sponsors, and Roku

0:32:43.880 --> 0:32:46.720
<v Speaker 5>and Samsung are getting hit with a lawsuit targeting tech

0:32:46.720 --> 0:32:50.400
<v Speaker 5>companies for how they advertise. Both companies sell ads that

0:32:50.520 --> 0:32:55.320
<v Speaker 5>leverage automatic content recognition or ACR to collect user data

0:32:55.400 --> 0:32:58.480
<v Speaker 5>based on individual interests. The two investors behind the suit

0:32:58.760 --> 0:33:01.840
<v Speaker 5>say the methods use to collect the data violate six

0:33:02.240 --> 0:33:05.440
<v Speaker 5>of their patents plus. The European Union is urging social

0:33:05.480 --> 0:33:10.080
<v Speaker 5>media platforms to boost their efforts fighting disinformation. X formerly

0:33:10.120 --> 0:33:12.840
<v Speaker 5>known as Twitter, was cited as the biggest outlet for

0:33:12.920 --> 0:33:17.960
<v Speaker 5>pedlars of disinformation pertaining to Russia and pro Kremlin narratives.

0:33:17.960 --> 0:33:21.920
<v Speaker 5>European Commissioned Vice President Vera Jarova said platforms should act

0:33:21.960 --> 0:33:24.480
<v Speaker 5>swiftly ahead of elections over the next year.

0:33:24.640 --> 0:33:28.080
<v Speaker 1>Caroline, meanwhile, look the new material for Apple's eco friendly

0:33:28.120 --> 0:33:31.720
<v Speaker 1>iPhone cases, drawn some criticism from consumers. One review when

0:33:31.760 --> 0:33:34.120
<v Speaker 1>as far as calling it one of the worst accessories

0:33:34.160 --> 0:33:37.840
<v Speaker 1>Apples produced. Who Impag's mark German pretty sure is all

0:33:37.840 --> 0:33:39.720
<v Speaker 1>over it. And what is it that people don't like?

0:33:39.880 --> 0:33:41.640
<v Speaker 1>Apart from perhaps a slightly pricing point.

0:33:42.800 --> 0:33:46.160
<v Speaker 3>Well, I'm using a ClearCase, so no impact to me.

0:33:46.640 --> 0:33:49.000
<v Speaker 3>I had a feeling that the fine Wilbur case wasn't

0:33:49.040 --> 0:33:51.239
<v Speaker 3>going to be so hot, so I decided to get

0:33:51.240 --> 0:33:53.480
<v Speaker 3>a plastic case this year. In the past I used

0:33:53.520 --> 0:33:57.280
<v Speaker 3>the leather cases fine Wilbur. It is picking up stains

0:33:57.280 --> 0:33:59.400
<v Speaker 3>when you leave it on a table. If you go

0:33:59.440 --> 0:34:01.640
<v Speaker 3>into an our store like many of us did over

0:34:01.640 --> 0:34:04.200
<v Speaker 3>the weekend and you saw the fine woven cases on display,

0:34:04.560 --> 0:34:05.920
<v Speaker 3>a lot of them are scratched up.

0:34:05.920 --> 0:34:07.680
<v Speaker 7>I think people are taking their nails.

0:34:07.400 --> 0:34:10.759
<v Speaker 3>And scratching on it and pretending that it's like an

0:34:10.760 --> 0:34:12.080
<v Speaker 3>old school vinyl record.

0:34:12.160 --> 0:34:12.319
<v Speaker 7>Right.

0:34:12.360 --> 0:34:15.160
<v Speaker 3>It makes a similar sound, though it feels a little

0:34:15.200 --> 0:34:16.960
<v Speaker 3>bit like Swede and it feels a little bit like

0:34:16.960 --> 0:34:20.080
<v Speaker 3>a record. So clearly people are unhappy with the dirt

0:34:20.640 --> 0:34:23.719
<v Speaker 3>and the oil and anything from your fingers that it

0:34:23.719 --> 0:34:25.960
<v Speaker 3>may pick up. They don't like the feel of the material.

0:34:26.400 --> 0:34:30.200
<v Speaker 3>It just doesn't feel premium compared to leather, and it's

0:34:30.239 --> 0:34:31.800
<v Speaker 3>coming in at about the same price.

0:34:32.080 --> 0:34:35.040
<v Speaker 7>It's very understandable why Apple made this move, right.

0:34:34.920 --> 0:34:38.239
<v Speaker 3>They wanted to transition away from leather and all their accessories,

0:34:38.280 --> 0:34:40.279
<v Speaker 3>so they came up with a new material to do that.

0:34:41.040 --> 0:34:43.440
<v Speaker 3>I and many others just don't think that they landed

0:34:43.520 --> 0:34:47.120
<v Speaker 3>on that right material with fine woven. Perhaps there's other

0:34:47.200 --> 0:34:50.279
<v Speaker 3>materials they can use, like some of the materials and

0:34:50.320 --> 0:34:53.480
<v Speaker 3>fake leather as many car makers are using. So clearly

0:34:53.520 --> 0:34:55.799
<v Speaker 3>there may be an alternative that Apple we need to switch.

0:34:55.520 --> 0:34:56.200
<v Speaker 7>To in the future.

0:34:56.880 --> 0:34:59.360
<v Speaker 5>The problem mark is that during the one the last event,

0:35:00.480 --> 0:35:04.759
<v Speaker 5>they really emphasize the accessories moving away from leather to

0:35:04.880 --> 0:35:08.880
<v Speaker 5>sustainability of the new materials. But this strategy has not

0:35:09.000 --> 0:35:12.640
<v Speaker 5>gone down well with the consumer. It's part of basically

0:35:12.680 --> 0:35:16.279
<v Speaker 5>bigger picture sustainabilities and carbon reduction goals.

0:35:16.360 --> 0:35:18.960
<v Speaker 7>Right, Yeah, it's a long term thing.

0:35:19.280 --> 0:35:22.000
<v Speaker 3>So you know, if this fine woven ends up being

0:35:22.000 --> 0:35:24.480
<v Speaker 3>the failure that I think it is and then they

0:35:24.560 --> 0:35:27.120
<v Speaker 3>end up having to move away from fine woven, there

0:35:27.160 --> 0:35:30.160
<v Speaker 3>are alternatives. They can make a fake leather, they can

0:35:30.200 --> 0:35:33.000
<v Speaker 3>source a fake leather that feels like real leather. They

0:35:33.000 --> 0:35:36.560
<v Speaker 3>can improve this material significantly, Right, but what about all

0:35:36.560 --> 0:35:39.480
<v Speaker 3>the people who've already bought this case. I saw people

0:35:39.520 --> 0:35:41.000
<v Speaker 3>saying the best thing you can do with the fine

0:35:41.000 --> 0:35:43.440
<v Speaker 3>woven case. If you bought one is leverage the Apple

0:35:43.440 --> 0:35:45.680
<v Speaker 3>two week return policy and bring it back to the store,

0:35:45.760 --> 0:35:48.120
<v Speaker 3>ship ef back to the online store and get a

0:35:48.160 --> 0:35:50.400
<v Speaker 3>different type of case. Now, Apple does still sell the

0:35:50.400 --> 0:35:51.320
<v Speaker 3>silicon cases.

0:35:52.120 --> 0:35:53.960
<v Speaker 7>I have used those. I think they're pretty good.

0:35:54.000 --> 0:35:56.960
<v Speaker 3>The problem is if you are wearing tight jeans, the

0:35:57.000 --> 0:35:59.040
<v Speaker 3>case could really get stuck in your pocket. It picks

0:35:59.080 --> 0:36:01.120
<v Speaker 3>up lint very easily.

0:36:01.640 --> 0:36:02.880
<v Speaker 7>But they are quite protective.

0:36:03.080 --> 0:36:06.879
<v Speaker 3>And of course there's a pretty marketplace of cases. I've

0:36:06.880 --> 0:36:09.160
<v Speaker 3>already seen and used plenty of third party cases on

0:36:09.200 --> 0:36:11.400
<v Speaker 3>the fifteen. They're pretty good alternatives up there.

0:36:12.280 --> 0:36:15.040
<v Speaker 5>All right, Bloomberg's chief Apple correspondent with the show and

0:36:15.160 --> 0:36:18.000
<v Speaker 5>tell there, Mark German, thank you very much. Now coming

0:36:18.080 --> 0:36:21.279
<v Speaker 5>up here on Mania technology social media at Visco has

0:36:21.280 --> 0:36:24.400
<v Speaker 5>got a new CEO or conversation with Eric Whitman on

0:36:24.440 --> 0:36:25.319
<v Speaker 5>his vision for the.

0:36:25.280 --> 0:36:27.320
<v Speaker 4>Future of that platform. That conversation.

0:36:27.400 --> 0:36:30.920
<v Speaker 5>Next, this is Bloomberg Technology.

0:36:47.000 --> 0:36:50.120
<v Speaker 1>French billionaire Xavier Neil is investing two hundred million euros.

0:36:50.160 --> 0:36:52.560
<v Speaker 1>That's about two hundred twelve million dollars in you guessed

0:36:52.560 --> 0:36:55.359
<v Speaker 1>at artificial intelligence. He was the law top French AI

0:36:55.480 --> 0:36:58.880
<v Speaker 1>engineers back to their home country some of this investment

0:36:58.920 --> 0:37:01.560
<v Speaker 1>it's going to be for a few research labs relocated

0:37:01.600 --> 0:37:03.040
<v Speaker 1>in Paris, and I remember he's one of the people

0:37:03.040 --> 0:37:05.680
<v Speaker 1>behind stati on f in Paris as well a big

0:37:05.719 --> 0:37:08.240
<v Speaker 1>incubator there. Plus there's also going to be slack cloud

0:37:08.239 --> 0:37:12.200
<v Speaker 1>supercomputing capabilities powered by Invidio hardware, while the rest we

0:37:12.280 --> 0:37:14.000
<v Speaker 1>understand it's going to go for funding. Some of those

0:37:14.000 --> 0:37:15.720
<v Speaker 1>startups interesting with Mistral.

0:37:16.520 --> 0:37:18.880
<v Speaker 5>Yeah, one startup we've been talking to recently is Visco,

0:37:19.000 --> 0:37:21.600
<v Speaker 5>the photo and video editor tool that went viral a

0:37:21.600 --> 0:37:24.200
<v Speaker 5>few years ago on the back of the Visco girl trend.

0:37:24.560 --> 0:37:27.040
<v Speaker 5>Recently announced, of course, the appointment of a new CEO,

0:37:27.239 --> 0:37:29.680
<v Speaker 5>Eric Whitman, who was the president of the company up

0:37:29.719 --> 0:37:31.879
<v Speaker 5>until that point. I got up with him last week

0:37:31.920 --> 0:37:34.759
<v Speaker 5>to discuss the content create a battleground that counts the

0:37:34.840 --> 0:37:37.879
<v Speaker 5>likes of YouTube and x in the contestants, and how

0:37:37.880 --> 0:37:41.279
<v Speaker 5>he intends on growing Visco in that market. Have a listen.

0:37:42.200 --> 0:37:45.240
<v Speaker 13>It's a fairly dynamic landscape. Things are changing quite often.

0:37:45.760 --> 0:37:47.480
<v Speaker 13>I think if you take a step back and think

0:37:47.520 --> 0:37:51.600
<v Speaker 13>about creators first, which is very much our ethos, and

0:37:51.640 --> 0:37:53.920
<v Speaker 13>what their needs are, I think what you're going to

0:37:54.000 --> 0:37:57.719
<v Speaker 13>find that creators really want tools to help them make

0:37:57.760 --> 0:38:01.320
<v Speaker 13>things more quickly, more efficiently. They want a really healthy

0:38:01.360 --> 0:38:06.200
<v Speaker 13>community that isn't being manipulated by algorithms or advertisements, and

0:38:06.440 --> 0:38:09.320
<v Speaker 13>they want to be discovered by prospective clients or be

0:38:09.360 --> 0:38:13.040
<v Speaker 13>able to more efficiently manage their businesses and have great

0:38:13.080 --> 0:38:16.600
<v Speaker 13>relationships with their clients. So the platform that really does

0:38:16.680 --> 0:38:19.600
<v Speaker 13>all three of those things very well, I think that's

0:38:19.640 --> 0:38:21.680
<v Speaker 13>going to be the platform that wins, and that's very

0:38:21.760 --> 0:38:23.680
<v Speaker 13>much our mission and what we're trying to do here

0:38:23.680 --> 0:38:24.120
<v Speaker 13>at Visco.

0:38:24.280 --> 0:38:27.040
<v Speaker 5>In October twenty twenty one, The New York Times reports

0:38:27.120 --> 0:38:31.960
<v Speaker 5>that Pintrst is considering buying Visco. I think about some

0:38:32.080 --> 0:38:36.840
<v Speaker 5>similar properties Instagram and where it sits within Meta's portfolio.

0:38:37.800 --> 0:38:41.600
<v Speaker 5>The CEO now, strategically, would you be open to a

0:38:41.680 --> 0:38:45.440
<v Speaker 5>sale to a bigger platform to help Visco grow and

0:38:45.960 --> 0:38:48.360
<v Speaker 5>help is technology be more used?

0:38:49.880 --> 0:38:51.239
<v Speaker 13>Yeah, I think at the end of the day, if

0:38:51.280 --> 0:38:55.160
<v Speaker 13>it benefits our creators and if it helps us pursue

0:38:55.200 --> 0:38:58.200
<v Speaker 13>this bigger, more ambitious strategy and vision that we have,

0:38:58.600 --> 0:39:00.520
<v Speaker 13>then that's something that we would have a conversation with

0:39:00.520 --> 0:39:03.000
<v Speaker 13>our border beout and make sure it's the right decision

0:39:03.000 --> 0:39:03.359
<v Speaker 13>for us.

0:39:03.960 --> 0:39:09.960
<v Speaker 5>How does Visco culturally grow? You know, Visco Girl was

0:39:10.040 --> 0:39:13.479
<v Speaker 5>what people said and kind of the peak of Visco's use.

0:39:14.080 --> 0:39:16.880
<v Speaker 5>How do you position it culturally to give it traction

0:39:17.000 --> 0:39:20.359
<v Speaker 5>like TikTok, frankly has had at such a high level

0:39:20.400 --> 0:39:22.160
<v Speaker 5>here in the United States for a long time.

0:39:24.080 --> 0:39:24.400
<v Speaker 7>Yeah.

0:39:24.440 --> 0:39:28.240
<v Speaker 13>So for us, it's really about again focusing on creators

0:39:28.280 --> 0:39:31.760
<v Speaker 13>and their needs. And because we are a subscription business,

0:39:32.160 --> 0:39:35.080
<v Speaker 13>we were not trying to drive a different type of

0:39:35.120 --> 0:39:39.600
<v Speaker 13>engagement that's really promoting more ad driven business models, and

0:39:39.640 --> 0:39:41.840
<v Speaker 13>that gives us a lot of freedom to actually make

0:39:41.920 --> 0:39:44.120
<v Speaker 13>sure that we are actually paying attention to what their

0:39:44.160 --> 0:39:47.400
<v Speaker 13>needs are and their needs continue to change. We're hearing

0:39:47.560 --> 0:39:50.560
<v Speaker 13>more and more from creators today that they don't feel

0:39:50.560 --> 0:39:53.840
<v Speaker 13>that a company really has their back, that's really supporting

0:39:53.880 --> 0:39:57.040
<v Speaker 13>them first, and that's really going to continue to be

0:39:57.160 --> 0:39:57.760
<v Speaker 13>our focus.

0:39:58.200 --> 0:40:01.160
<v Speaker 1>Visco CEO that Eric Whitman. Meanwhile, look, that does it

0:40:01.239 --> 0:40:02.839
<v Speaker 1>to this edition of Bloomberg Technology yet?

0:40:03.560 --> 0:40:03.799
<v Speaker 7>Yeah.

0:40:03.840 --> 0:40:06.360
<v Speaker 5>Recap on our podcast wherever you get your podcasts on

0:40:06.400 --> 0:40:10.839
<v Speaker 5>the terminal as well as online, Apple, Spotify and iHeart

0:40:10.880 --> 0:40:15.400
<v Speaker 5>Big Fema. The show has been regulation oversight, what's happening

0:40:15.440 --> 0:40:17.719
<v Speaker 5>on Capitol Hill, What's happening with the FTC and a

0:40:17.760 --> 0:40:20.120
<v Speaker 5>number of big tech names and the world of crypto

0:40:20.560 --> 0:40:23.520
<v Speaker 5>in the crosshairs. That's all the focus on the Bloomberg

0:40:23.560 --> 0:40:27.040
<v Speaker 5>Technology podcasts from San Francisco and over in New York City.

0:40:27.080 --> 0:40:28.440
<v Speaker 5>This is Bloomberg Technology