WEBVTT - Silicon Valley Jobs and FTX Trial Latest 0:00:01.800 --> 0:00:05.480 From Marhart where Innovation of Money and Power Collie in 0:00:05.600 --> 0:00:07.080 Silicon Valley NBN. 0:00:07.440 --> 0:00:11.479 This is Bloomberg Technology with Caroline Hyde and Ed loved Love. 0:00:25.200 --> 0:00:27.960 I'm Caroline Hyde at Bloomerg's world headquarters in New York, ED. 0:00:28.240 --> 0:00:30.720 He's off today. This is new Meg Technology. Coming up, 0:00:31.040 --> 0:00:33.360 We're going to talk the state of hiring in Silicon 0:00:33.440 --> 0:00:37.320 Valley after yet another blowout US payrolls report, and we'll 0:00:37.320 --> 0:00:39.320 bring you the latest information from the trial of Sam 0:00:39.360 --> 0:00:43.159 Makmin Freed is the FTX co founder Gary Wang justifies 0:00:43.200 --> 0:00:46.040 that he and mgmin Free committed a multi billion dollar. 0:00:45.840 --> 0:00:47.200 Forward with customer funds. 0:00:47.800 --> 0:00:49.880 Plus, we'll wrap up the latest from Google's anti trust 0:00:49.920 --> 0:00:52.280 trial and bring you a new report that shows the 0:00:52.400 --> 0:00:57.560 US is warning the EU on his AI regulation and competition. First, 0:00:57.600 --> 0:01:00.520 so let's check in on these markets because look, blowout 0:01:00.560 --> 0:01:03.400 jobs number. We see the ramifications in the bond market, 0:01:03.480 --> 0:01:06.560 but actually tech managers to push on through after initial 0:01:06.640 --> 0:01:08.880 knee joke reaction to that three hundred and thirty six 0:01:08.959 --> 0:01:10.839 thousand jobs report, we actually see. 0:01:10.680 --> 0:01:12.640 The nasack managing to push on higher one point two 0:01:12.760 --> 0:01:13.400 percent higher. 0:01:13.480 --> 0:01:15.800 As we close out the week, US tenure those selling 0:01:15.800 --> 0:01:18.480 off were up some four basis points. Once again, we're 0:01:18.560 --> 0:01:22.120 heading like multi decade highs here since two thousand and seven. 0:01:22.160 --> 0:01:23.880 Four point seventy six is where we trade. 0:01:23.640 --> 0:01:25.880 Bitcoin actually on the higher side, so a little bit 0:01:25.920 --> 0:01:28.000 of a desire to get into the risk assets on 0:01:28.040 --> 0:01:29.640 the back of some of these numbers. But let's have 0:01:29.680 --> 0:01:31.280 a little look at what's happening in terms of the 0:01:31.319 --> 0:01:34.800 micro the individual stock movers in the world of technology PDD. 0:01:34.480 --> 0:01:37.880 Just on a tear. Is this team that's calling is. 0:01:37.920 --> 0:01:39.640 The fact that everyone's going to Halloween outfits for a 0:01:39.680 --> 0:01:42.319 cheaper price point. We are seeing outperform over the last 0:01:42.319 --> 0:01:45.240 few months and weeks and currently on the day up 0:01:45.280 --> 0:01:45.839 eight point eight. 0:01:45.720 --> 0:01:48.320 Percent as performer. On the last that one hundred adym. 0:01:48.040 --> 0:01:51.800 As well also happening helping really upset the Nasvack initial 0:01:51.840 --> 0:01:53.040 foulter on the job's data. 0:01:53.080 --> 0:01:55.200 We're up some four percent, so a lot of the. 0:01:55.240 --> 0:01:57.160 Chip makers managing to push on the higher side, and 0:01:57.280 --> 0:02:00.400 video also helping on the points perspective. And I'm looking 0:02:00.400 --> 0:02:02.200 at Tesla though on the downside it had been off 0:02:02.240 --> 0:02:04.080 more than multi percent at one point, we're now off 0:02:04.120 --> 0:02:07.560 by eight ten percent. This is thing once again, cut prices, 0:02:07.600 --> 0:02:10.160 particularly to the Model Y, the Model three up to 0:02:10.240 --> 0:02:13.760 two point two five one hundred, two hundred and fifty 0:02:14.040 --> 0:02:16.120 being pulled down in terms of a price point, just 0:02:16.280 --> 0:02:19.000 keeping on pushing that. Maybe as we see the bomb 0:02:19.000 --> 0:02:20.799 market sell off, let's have a little look at what's happening, 0:02:20.800 --> 0:02:23.280 though more broadly in the macro data, because maybe Elon's 0:02:23.320 --> 0:02:27.080 reacting to that jobs hiring, specifically in the tech sector. 0:02:27.320 --> 0:02:29.920 We want to be bringing in Daniel Zau, of course, 0:02:29.960 --> 0:02:35.600 who's lead economist senior manager at Glassdoor, and ultimately Daniel. 0:02:35.720 --> 0:02:40.280 We are seeing what has been a focus on, of course, 0:02:41.080 --> 0:02:44.519 an issue of hiring within the technology space, and I'm 0:02:44.600 --> 0:02:47.200 interested as to whether or not that's really being born 0:02:47.240 --> 0:02:54.240 out from a macro perspective. I think we're still waiting 0:02:54.280 --> 0:02:56.520 for our guests to be brought on, so we'll give 0:02:56.560 --> 0:02:59.080 him a moment to be sap. But we have been seeing, 0:02:59.160 --> 0:03:02.320 of course, what has been pretty buoyant numbers overall. We're 0:03:02.320 --> 0:03:05.079 seeing the fact that we're unemployment rate holding at three 0:03:05.120 --> 0:03:08.600 point eight percent after a surge of unemployed re enter 0:03:08.800 --> 0:03:13.200 this job's market participation participation remaining unchanged at sixty two 0:03:13.280 --> 0:03:15.360 point eight percent. We want to dig into some of 0:03:15.400 --> 0:03:17.600 the areas that we've seen some growth. I'm looking at 0:03:17.600 --> 0:03:21.640 hospitality and leisure, education, healthcare sectors which have really been 0:03:21.720 --> 0:03:24.400 leading some of these rebounds. But for us in the 0:03:24.400 --> 0:03:27.920 technology sector, we've just been talking about well, letting go 0:03:28.040 --> 0:03:31.400 of people, and now more broadly thanuel, we're seeing well, 0:03:31.440 --> 0:03:34.680 they're focus on maybe people starting to rehab in very 0:03:34.680 --> 0:03:36.080 specific spaces like AI. 0:03:36.240 --> 0:03:38.520 What do you see in your sectors, Well, we. 0:03:38.520 --> 0:03:41.400 Definitely are seeing that the tech sector the way that 0:03:41.480 --> 0:03:44.280 softest has manifested has shifted over the year because at 0:03:44.280 --> 0:03:46.200 the start of this year we saw this big wave 0:03:46.240 --> 0:03:48.120 of layoffs that company is large and small in the 0:03:48.160 --> 0:03:50.960 tech sector. But now it's more about that softness and 0:03:51.080 --> 0:03:54.080 hiring the difficulty in some of those laidoff workers from 0:03:54.080 --> 0:03:56.400 finding new jobs. And in fact, this is something we 0:03:56.440 --> 0:03:59.720 see reflected in how employees are talking about the tech sector. 0:04:00.000 --> 0:04:02.520 I've seen that employee confidence in the tech sector has 0:04:02.560 --> 0:04:05.880 measured on glass Door, is actually below fifty percent. That 0:04:05.960 --> 0:04:08.520 means that under fifty percent of tech employees actually have 0:04:08.560 --> 0:04:11.560 a positive business outlook for their employers. That's not really 0:04:11.640 --> 0:04:13.960 a great situation to be in for the industry. 0:04:14.400 --> 0:04:17.240 Can you give demographics on that regions on that the 0:04:17.320 --> 0:04:19.120 kinds of people who are nervous here. 0:04:19.640 --> 0:04:23.160 Well, generally speaking, entry level workers tend to be a 0:04:23.200 --> 0:04:26.240 little bit less confident than say, executives, and when you 0:04:26.279 --> 0:04:28.080 think about that, that totally makes sense. But I think 0:04:28.080 --> 0:04:30.560 one interesting cut of that is actually middle managers have 0:04:30.640 --> 0:04:34.240 seen a pretty dramatic decline in their business confidence as well. 0:04:34.279 --> 0:04:36.719 I think part of that might be because you look 0:04:36.760 --> 0:04:39.560 at companies that are cutting costs, while a lot of 0:04:39.560 --> 0:04:42.599 that pressure falls on middle managers who have to enact 0:04:42.720 --> 0:04:45.320 these cost cutting measures at the same time doing more 0:04:45.400 --> 0:04:48.520 with less as they tried to get those costs under control. 0:04:48.680 --> 0:04:53.880 How much is flexibility or a lack thereof faring weight 0:04:54.080 --> 0:04:56.560 at the moment. It's interesting that we're worried about participation 0:04:56.640 --> 0:04:58.960 rates in women. We've actually seen that recover now perhaps 0:04:58.960 --> 0:04:59.800 pull back a little bit. 0:05:00.040 --> 0:05:01.719 There's a lot of talk within the tech sector in 0:05:01.720 --> 0:05:02.640 particular that. 0:05:02.560 --> 0:05:05.479 We want you back in the office, and that impacts 0:05:05.480 --> 0:05:06.559 certain people more than others. 0:05:07.240 --> 0:05:10.680 Well, definitely, we know that flexibility is a really appealing 0:05:10.760 --> 0:05:14.800 feature for jobs beyond the tech sector, for really everybody, 0:05:14.880 --> 0:05:17.320 and of course it manifests in different ways. It might 0:05:17.360 --> 0:05:20.400 be flexible work arrangements in terms of location or in 0:05:20.480 --> 0:05:23.520 terms of hours. But it is absolutely something that we 0:05:23.640 --> 0:05:26.280 see employees care a lot about, job seekers care a 0:05:26.320 --> 0:05:28.599 lot about. But we are also seeing that a lot 0:05:28.600 --> 0:05:30.960 of employers are pulling back on those options as they 0:05:31.520 --> 0:05:33.520 really try to get cost center control and try to 0:05:33.520 --> 0:05:36.040 be as productive as possible. But on the flip side, 0:05:36.040 --> 0:05:37.960 you know, the evidence I think is mixed. 0:05:37.960 --> 0:05:38.159 There. 0:05:38.160 --> 0:05:39.960 There are a lot of employers who are getting by 0:05:40.400 --> 0:05:43.719 just fine and flexible in those flexible work arrangements. So 0:05:43.760 --> 0:05:45.880 it's really up to employers to figure out what the 0:05:45.880 --> 0:05:47.560 best way is to manage their workforce. 0:05:48.000 --> 0:05:53.599 Now we have seen really the oxygen within technology space 0:05:53.720 --> 0:05:56.880 just been sucked out of the room by artificial intelligence. 0:05:57.240 --> 0:05:59.680 What is happening from a training perspective, What is happening 0:05:59.720 --> 0:06:03.000 from job openings, and whether or not companies can fill 0:06:03.000 --> 0:06:05.839 those job openings for AI within their own labor forces. 0:06:05.839 --> 0:06:08.919 It exists, although they're having to reshuffle the benches a. 0:06:08.920 --> 0:06:09.440 Little bit here. 0:06:09.839 --> 0:06:11.520 I think that's a great question. I think it's a 0:06:11.600 --> 0:06:14.800 little bit early to say, because all of these new 0:06:14.839 --> 0:06:17.120 generative AI tools are pretty new and a lot of 0:06:17.160 --> 0:06:19.960 companies still haven't figured out exactly how to use them. 0:06:20.160 --> 0:06:22.800 They haven't figured out what their strategy should be for 0:06:23.120 --> 0:06:25.880 using and experimenting with these tools. So I think right 0:06:25.960 --> 0:06:28.320 now we're just seeing a lot of experimentation and there 0:06:28.320 --> 0:06:31.039 aren't really a lot of firm plans in place. But 0:06:31.080 --> 0:06:33.599 I think that training is a really great way that 0:06:33.680 --> 0:06:38.159 employers can reward the loyal employees that they have by 0:06:38.240 --> 0:06:41.960 giving them opportunities for career growth and skill development and 0:06:42.520 --> 0:06:47.080 really get access to a pool of talent that offers 0:06:47.120 --> 0:06:48.159 them a lot. 0:06:48.800 --> 0:06:52.119 Wage growth slowing from a macro perspective in the job's 0:06:52.200 --> 0:06:54.800 data four point two percent year of a year. 0:06:55.160 --> 0:06:57.320 What in wages looking like in the tech sector. 0:06:58.000 --> 0:07:00.719 Well, in the tech sector, we are seeing that wages 0:07:00.760 --> 0:07:04.039 aren't necessarily falling, but they're more stagnant year every year. 0:07:04.120 --> 0:07:06.000 And I think that also it's important to keep in 0:07:06.040 --> 0:07:09.720 mind that compensation is not just about your base salary, right, 0:07:09.760 --> 0:07:12.440 It includes especially in the tech sector, it includes bonuses, 0:07:12.480 --> 0:07:15.040 it includes equity, and that is a place where we 0:07:15.120 --> 0:07:17.280 have seen a little bit of a pullback. So it's 0:07:17.280 --> 0:07:20.520 not necessarily that people are getting their bonuses cut or 0:07:20.560 --> 0:07:23.320 their equity packages cut, but when they're looking for a 0:07:23.360 --> 0:07:25.840 new job, well, maybe the size of the package that 0:07:25.840 --> 0:07:28.120 they can actually demand is not as large as it 0:07:28.200 --> 0:07:29.480 might have been a year or two ago. 0:07:30.400 --> 0:07:34.600 What signals now do you look to Like you're measuring sentiment, 0:07:34.840 --> 0:07:37.680 which seems to be on the downside, Where do you 0:07:37.720 --> 0:07:41.000 look next? Because many in the macro perspective are thinking 0:07:41.120 --> 0:07:44.680 this job's market has to eventually start to cool, even 0:07:44.680 --> 0:07:48.080 though it defies that every single month it feels like well. 0:07:48.120 --> 0:07:50.400 I think it is important to see that marriage of 0:07:50.440 --> 0:07:53.440 hard and soft data together because we do see that 0:07:53.480 --> 0:07:56.280 the hard data is looking really healthy for the job market, 0:07:56.280 --> 0:07:59.840 in fact, almost shockingly healthy compared to what we were 0:08:00.040 --> 0:08:02.040 thinking coming into the year. But I think it is 0:08:02.160 --> 0:08:04.720 really important to look at that sentiment data, especially as 0:08:04.760 --> 0:08:07.720 we look at how employees feel. Because who knows businesses 0:08:07.720 --> 0:08:09.679 better than their employees who are on the front lines 0:08:09.680 --> 0:08:12.360 every day, who are interacting with customers, actually seeing how 0:08:12.360 --> 0:08:14.960 the business is operating. That's why we think you can't 0:08:15.000 --> 0:08:17.920 discount these soft sentiment indicators. 0:08:17.480 --> 0:08:20.040 Particularly from the middle management layer. Daniel, it's great to 0:08:20.040 --> 0:08:21.640 have some time with you. Thank you for the expertise, 0:08:21.680 --> 0:08:25.040 particularly in this sector. Daniels A of Glassdoor. 0:08:25.120 --> 0:08:26.880 We thank him. Meanwhile, coming up now, we're going to 0:08:26.960 --> 0:08:27.320 unpack the. 0:08:27.320 --> 0:08:30.960 Latest developments from Google's anti trust trial. Rebecca Allensworth, professor 0:08:30.960 --> 0:08:33.559 at Vanderbilt University Law School, going to be joining us 0:08:33.800 --> 0:08:38.520 speaking of antitrust. We are watching shares of Microsoft and 0:08:38.600 --> 0:08:42.400 indeed Activision. Remember next week the CMA, we're likely to 0:08:42.440 --> 0:08:45.760 get that announcement as to whether or not this deal has. 0:08:45.679 --> 0:08:47.920 Been rectified enough for them to allow it to go through. 0:08:48.000 --> 0:08:50.559 In fact, we understand reporting from the Verge saying that 0:08:50.880 --> 0:08:53.360 Microsoft certainly thinks that this deal will be completed as 0:08:53.360 --> 0:08:55.600 soon as next week, and we understand that there was 0:08:55.679 --> 0:08:58.040 Today was the last day that they could get any 0:08:58.080 --> 0:09:01.800 comments as to the CMA's points of this particular deal. 0:09:01.840 --> 0:09:15.760 We're trading higher from New York this Bloomberg Technology. This 0:09:15.840 --> 0:09:17.839 is a great bit of reporting Anna Bloomberg today that 0:09:17.880 --> 0:09:21.000 apparently new analysis from the US State Department is warning 0:09:21.040 --> 0:09:25.280 the EU policy makers about its proposal for generative AI regulation, 0:09:25.400 --> 0:09:28.559 saying that look, it's too vague, could foster in favoritism 0:09:28.840 --> 0:09:31.800 for big tech firms. Anna Edgerton, one of the key 0:09:31.840 --> 0:09:34.480 reporters on this, Seattle bureau chief for Bloomberg News. And 0:09:35.679 --> 0:09:38.480 what is the argument here that this head of the 0:09:38.559 --> 0:09:42.000 curve regulation that they use getting in before other countries. 0:09:42.040 --> 0:09:45.040 It seems seems to have favor big tech even. 0:09:44.800 --> 0:09:48.640 More than small Yeah, these are really interesting documents. You know, 0:09:48.760 --> 0:09:50.960 some of the arguments we'd heard before, but the level 0:09:51.000 --> 0:09:53.800 of detail in these documents was really interesting to see 0:09:53.840 --> 0:09:57.640 the kind of exchange between policymakers in the US and 0:09:57.679 --> 0:10:00.160 their current counterparts in Europe. Now the sources of we 0:10:00.160 --> 0:10:02.080 spoke with, so that this was offered in a spirit 0:10:02.120 --> 0:10:05.040 of cooperation and alignment of values. Does it not meant 0:10:05.040 --> 0:10:07.840 to criticize the EU when it comes to writing regulation 0:10:08.000 --> 0:10:11.360 for AI. It's really important that even the definitions of 0:10:11.440 --> 0:10:14.079 like what artificial intelligence is, what do we mean by 0:10:14.080 --> 0:10:16.720 foundation models, what do we mean by generative AI, that 0:10:16.840 --> 0:10:20.400 those definitions are aligned so that whatever policy has passed 0:10:20.440 --> 0:10:23.680 in the European Union can then be kind of working 0:10:23.679 --> 0:10:27.520 together with whatever policy is eventually passed in the United States, 0:10:27.520 --> 0:10:30.959 and that it's even possible for companies to comply with both. 0:10:31.440 --> 0:10:32.240 The AI act. 0:10:32.480 --> 0:10:35.320 I mean many had pushed back against it because it 0:10:35.400 --> 0:10:38.480 wasn't just about the underlying foundational models and how they're built, 0:10:38.480 --> 0:10:42.520 but then how they're applied as well. The original idea 0:10:42.640 --> 0:10:44.640 was that it would just be within their applications and 0:10:44.640 --> 0:10:46.440 when it's risky or not. But now they seem to 0:10:46.440 --> 0:10:50.200 want to have transparency about what's within the foundational model 0:10:50.240 --> 0:10:52.800 or how they built it. Is that the key issue 0:10:52.800 --> 0:10:54.760 of sort of competition here, is it because it's going 0:10:54.800 --> 0:10:56.960 to be so expensive to be able to give that 0:10:57.000 --> 0:10:58.040 sort of transparency. 0:10:59.000 --> 0:11:00.360 Yeah, there are a lot of issue US and like 0:11:00.400 --> 0:11:02.520 you said, it's really interesting to see how this conversation 0:11:02.600 --> 0:11:05.360 in Europe develops. Because the AI Act was pretty much 0:11:05.400 --> 0:11:07.560 ready to go at the beginning of this year. It 0:11:07.679 --> 0:11:10.400 was focused on the riskiness of that end use. Like 0:11:10.440 --> 0:11:12.800 you said, this is a risk based approach, which the 0:11:12.920 --> 0:11:16.199 US supports. But then with the release of chat, GBT 0:11:16.640 --> 0:11:19.640 and other consumer facing AI products, there was really a 0:11:19.760 --> 0:11:23.640 kind of growing concern that these the application of these 0:11:23.640 --> 0:11:26.400 tools wasn't enough to regulate, that there needs to be 0:11:26.480 --> 0:11:31.200 some kind of regulatory rules for the way these models 0:11:31.200 --> 0:11:33.120 are even developed in the first place. And that's where 0:11:33.120 --> 0:11:35.600 we started to see a lot of pushback from companies 0:11:35.760 --> 0:11:38.359 who initially, I think we're pretty open. 0:11:38.120 --> 0:11:38.800 To the AI Act. 0:11:38.960 --> 0:11:41.080 You know, they're open to this risk based approach, but 0:11:41.120 --> 0:11:43.280 what they don't want to do is to have regulators 0:11:43.320 --> 0:11:46.360 in Europe saying how they can or can't develop the 0:11:46.440 --> 0:11:49.080 underlying models. And that's where we see the United States 0:11:49.280 --> 0:11:51.680 kind of saying, you know, some of the way that 0:11:51.720 --> 0:11:55.360 this has written could cause problems for innovation for the 0:11:55.400 --> 0:11:57.720 little guys who are trying to catch up with some 0:11:57.760 --> 0:12:00.200 of the bigger companies that already have these models. So, 0:12:00.520 --> 0:12:02.439 you know, we know kind of how this was offard 0:12:02.440 --> 0:12:04.679 from the United States, but what we'll be watching really 0:12:04.720 --> 0:12:06.920 closely is how this has received in Europe. 0:12:07.120 --> 0:12:10.040 Anna Edgerton, thanks so much for bringing us this great story. 0:12:10.080 --> 0:12:13.240 We really appreciate it. Meanwhile, look, it's the same names 0:12:13.240 --> 0:12:15.080 that keep coming up time and time again. And of 0:12:15.080 --> 0:12:18.120 course who's building a foundational model Google and who's been 0:12:18.200 --> 0:12:21.800 under other anti trust viewpoints, shall we say, and potential 0:12:21.840 --> 0:12:22.839 regulation right here in. 0:12:22.760 --> 0:12:25.120 The US alphabet parentor Google. 0:12:25.280 --> 0:12:28.240 Let's just revisit what's been happening throughout this week, the 0:12:28.320 --> 0:12:31.360 trials that's underway, the assessment of also what's happening with 0:12:31.400 --> 0:12:34.640 Amazon to Rebecca Allensworth joins US professor at Vanderbilt University 0:12:34.720 --> 0:12:38.040 Law School. Boy, busy time in the world of anti trust, 0:12:38.040 --> 0:12:40.040 and we all knew it would come eventually. All seems 0:12:40.040 --> 0:12:42.920 to have arrived at once like buses. I'm interested, Rebecca 0:12:42.960 --> 0:12:45.479 on what you think about the alphabet case in particular. 0:12:45.679 --> 0:12:49.800 We've had some really phenomenal in terms of kind of 0:12:49.920 --> 0:12:53.560 shocking pieces of revelations coming from none other than CEO's 0:12:53.559 --> 0:12:55.280 of rival companies like Sati Nadella. 0:12:56.760 --> 0:12:57.240 That's right. 0:12:57.360 --> 0:12:59.360 So the big news out of the Google anti trust 0:12:59.360 --> 0:13:03.720 trial this week is the testimony of Sakunadella. He testified 0:13:03.720 --> 0:13:06.400 about what it was like to compete with Google and 0:13:06.760 --> 0:13:10.160 painted a very bleak picture, and so doing sort of 0:13:10.200 --> 0:13:11.960 seemed to paint a little bit of a bleak picture 0:13:12.040 --> 0:13:14.240 of his own company's ability to compete. So he must 0:13:14.280 --> 0:13:16.320 have been feeling like he was walking a fine line there. 0:13:16.720 --> 0:13:18.400 But his point was that you know. 0:13:18.440 --> 0:13:21.320 We could, we could approach Apple with the same billions 0:13:21.320 --> 0:13:23.520 and billions of dollars, and they were never going to 0:13:23.600 --> 0:13:25.800 take it. They were always going to go with Google. 0:13:25.840 --> 0:13:29.400 And it's basically impossible to compete with Google on search. 0:13:30.040 --> 0:13:33.160 But therefore does that play into Google's hand and at 0:13:33.200 --> 0:13:36.679 least his argument, well, Apple's argument has always been Google's 0:13:36.679 --> 0:13:39.679 a better product. It's not that they're just too big, 0:13:39.720 --> 0:13:41.400 it's that that that much better. 0:13:42.320 --> 0:13:45.120 That's right, But the rest of the testimony over the 0:13:45.120 --> 0:13:47.000 past few weeks, a lot of it has focused on 0:13:47.040 --> 0:13:49.360 this idea of scale and how scale is essential to 0:13:49.440 --> 0:13:53.440 build that better search product. So part of why Being 0:13:53.559 --> 0:13:55.240 was willing to pay as much as it was to 0:13:55.240 --> 0:13:57.600 be the default on Apple was that they wanted to 0:13:57.600 --> 0:13:59.520 get the scale. It was worse worth it to them 0:13:59.559 --> 0:14:01.760 to lose money on that deal in the short term 0:14:02.000 --> 0:14:03.920 if they could have the user data to build a 0:14:03.920 --> 0:14:06.200 product that could really compete with Google. 0:14:06.320 --> 0:14:07.280 And so the question in this. 0:14:07.280 --> 0:14:09.800 Case, one way of framing it is, you know, is 0:14:09.880 --> 0:14:14.520 Google better because it's big or is Google big because 0:14:14.559 --> 0:14:17.320 it's better. Google wants you to think the latter. They 0:14:17.360 --> 0:14:20.120 want you to think that they one and they're big 0:14:20.200 --> 0:14:22.160 because they have a better product. And I think the 0:14:22.200 --> 0:14:23.480 government is trying to tell a little bit of a 0:14:23.480 --> 0:14:26.280 different story, saying you kind of have to be big 0:14:26.560 --> 0:14:29.400 to be good. You ought to let other companies have 0:14:29.480 --> 0:14:30.760 a shot at becoming big. 0:14:31.600 --> 0:14:34.600 And I suppose this does push us forward to a 0:14:34.800 --> 0:14:37.920 and era in which perhaps Alphabet's Google is under some 0:14:37.960 --> 0:14:41.600 competitive threat because of generative AI, because we're starting to 0:14:41.640 --> 0:14:46.680 see well chatchebt open AI's relationship with Microsoft maybe bear through, 0:14:46.920 --> 0:14:49.640 Maybe bring people across to a different kind of search product. 0:14:49.880 --> 0:14:52.080 But more broadly, what did you make, for example, of 0:14:52.120 --> 0:14:54.600 the reporting around the AI Act, the worries that the 0:14:54.640 --> 0:14:57.440 smaller companies might not be able to compete with the 0:14:57.440 --> 0:14:59.760 big companies. How much of this just is a never 0:14:59.880 --> 0:15:02.840 en conversation when it comes to size and power. 0:15:03.920 --> 0:15:09.960 So absolutely, any kind of regulation, well, unfortunately most regulation. 0:15:10.000 --> 0:15:12.040 We won't say any regulation, but a lot of regulation 0:15:12.160 --> 0:15:15.720 does benefit big companies in the sense that compliance is expensive. 0:15:16.120 --> 0:15:18.680 It's expensive to comply with the laws, and sometimes that's 0:15:18.680 --> 0:15:22.240 something a small company can't do. It's another reason why 0:15:22.280 --> 0:15:24.680 being big is important and why we need to allow 0:15:24.800 --> 0:15:28.520 other companies besides behemoths like Google, at least in the 0:15:28.520 --> 0:15:31.440 search space, to get that kind of size and scale. 0:15:31.520 --> 0:15:33.640 What's a little funny about this, of course, is Microsoft 0:15:33.680 --> 0:15:36.360 is not a small company by any measure, but it 0:15:36.400 --> 0:15:38.240 is in terms of market share for search. 0:15:38.480 --> 0:15:40.560 Yeah, you've had the smaller players like Duck dot Go 0:15:40.680 --> 0:15:43.200 for example, giving evidence a CEO there as well, and 0:15:43.680 --> 0:15:46.280 interesting revelations as to who might have bought who at 0:15:46.320 --> 0:15:50.280 what point. Rebecca moving on to what's also been front 0:15:50.320 --> 0:15:52.640 and center for us has been the FDC's analyzation of 0:15:52.680 --> 0:15:56.040 Amazon in the marketplace. What's also interesting is the CMA 0:15:56.200 --> 0:16:00.960 over in the UK also looking into well interpretation of 0:16:01.080 --> 0:16:04.480 cloud and how Offcom has felt that perhaps is not 0:16:04.600 --> 0:16:07.400 much competition in that space either. Can you just paint 0:16:07.440 --> 0:16:10.240 a picture of how regulation is evolving here? 0:16:10.680 --> 0:16:13.520 UK? EU? Is everyone fighting the same fight? Here? 0:16:14.840 --> 0:16:16.960 Everyone is fighting the same fight in the sense that 0:16:17.120 --> 0:16:21.640 everyone's recognizing the market power of these platforms, the way 0:16:21.640 --> 0:16:24.760 that technology is changing fast, and therefore the competitive conditions 0:16:25.360 --> 0:16:28.040 are changing fast and wanting to be adaptive in their 0:16:28.080 --> 0:16:32.400 regulation to foster competition in all these new areas. The 0:16:32.560 --> 0:16:37.480 suit against Amazon is represents the third major strike by 0:16:37.520 --> 0:16:41.800 the government against a major American platform monopoly, and I 0:16:41.800 --> 0:16:43.680 guess the last one left is Apple. 0:16:45.400 --> 0:16:49.320 Indeed, and I think to that point, when you're drilling 0:16:49.320 --> 0:16:52.280 in on the likes of Amazon and Amazon also getting 0:16:52.280 --> 0:16:54.720 into other people's competitive space, of course, it's becoming an 0:16:54.760 --> 0:16:57.160 advertiser in and of itself and being able to draw 0:16:57.320 --> 0:16:59.120 that away from perhaps some of the social. 0:16:58.840 --> 0:17:00.000 Media giants out there. 0:17:00.360 --> 0:17:04.960 How do you see ultimately these sorts of inquisitions going. 0:17:05.040 --> 0:17:07.880 Do you think in any way that the FTC will 0:17:07.920 --> 0:17:10.800 win out and bedrout or lay ultimately not even need 0:17:10.840 --> 0:17:13.040 to win this case to change the direction of the 0:17:13.040 --> 0:17:16.080 way we think about monopolies and power and regulation. 0:17:17.720 --> 0:17:19.119 Both things are possibly true. 0:17:19.200 --> 0:17:21.040 So, first of all, it's too early to say that 0:17:21.119 --> 0:17:23.880 the FTC and the DOJ's attempt to brain in big 0:17:23.920 --> 0:17:27.440 tech has been unsuccessful. They've had some disappointing losses in court, 0:17:27.720 --> 0:17:30.000 but they've also had some small wins. And it's also 0:17:30.080 --> 0:17:32.040 only been a couple of years since they've been trying 0:17:32.080 --> 0:17:34.600 to do this. We look back at the seventies when 0:17:34.800 --> 0:17:38.439 in retrospect antitrust turned on a dime, but actually it 0:17:38.520 --> 0:17:41.119 really took many years for that to crystallize. And so 0:17:41.160 --> 0:17:44.199 I do think it's too early to say. And I 0:17:44.240 --> 0:17:48.920 think as far as the long run prospects for these imperatives, 0:17:49.000 --> 0:17:51.600 I think that it depends on the political will. Law 0:17:51.720 --> 0:17:55.359 is not impervious to what the people want, and I 0:17:55.359 --> 0:17:57.800 think people are starting to be more skeptical of market 0:17:57.840 --> 0:17:59.560 power by major tech monopolies. 0:18:00.480 --> 0:18:04.080 They send me r And in that respect, we will, 0:18:04.560 --> 0:18:08.119 of course aware that the FTC investigation of Amazon is 0:18:08.160 --> 0:18:11.199 going to take well at least eighteen months even to start. 0:18:11.800 --> 0:18:14.560 Do you think the timeline is here in any way 0:18:14.560 --> 0:18:15.520 you know, in an. 0:18:15.359 --> 0:18:18.320 Investors' mindset, something that they should be thinking about. 0:18:18.920 --> 0:18:20.560 Well, you sort of said it before when you said 0:18:20.680 --> 0:18:23.920 you have to win to change, to change the situation, 0:18:24.080 --> 0:18:26.040 and I think that the delay is kind of a 0:18:26.080 --> 0:18:28.800 part of that explanation. So, yes, it may not be 0:18:28.880 --> 0:18:30.720 true that you file a suit and then you know 0:18:30.800 --> 0:18:33.200 six months later there's a resolution and you have an outcome. 0:18:33.320 --> 0:18:35.320 In fact, it might take so long. 0:18:35.240 --> 0:18:37.720 That the competitive conditions change and the thing that you 0:18:37.760 --> 0:18:40.879 were suing about isn't really true anymore because the market's 0:18:40.920 --> 0:18:43.000 moved on. That was true about the Microsoft case. It 0:18:43.040 --> 0:18:46.720 took too long to really allow Netscape to survive. But 0:18:46.840 --> 0:18:49.239 that doesn't mean it doesn't have a detern effect. If 0:18:49.280 --> 0:18:52.640 these companies know going forward, going into their business dealings, 0:18:54.440 --> 0:18:57.440 then that they're gonna sorry. 0:18:57.240 --> 0:18:59.520 Sorry, Rebecca, I'm gonna have to end you there because 0:18:59.520 --> 0:19:01.280 we've just got warning that the president is walking out. 0:19:01.320 --> 0:19:03.960 Rebecca Allensworth there, Let's now go to president on the 0:19:04.040 --> 0:19:04.800 Jobs Office. 0:19:04.880 --> 0:19:10.080 We've created thirteen point nine million new jobs. Heard me 0:19:10.119 --> 0:19:11.679 say it before, and we're gonna keep saying that. My 0:19:11.760 --> 0:19:14.720 dad had an expression, it's a joey. Your job's about 0:19:14.720 --> 0:19:17.840 a lot more than the paycheck. It's about your dignity. 0:19:18.359 --> 0:19:20.480 It's about respect, It's about being a Look your kid 0:19:20.480 --> 0:19:22.439 in the eyes, honey, it's going to be okay, and 0:19:22.600 --> 0:19:26.119