Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news from.
The Heart where innovation, money and power. Collie in Silicon Valley and beyond.
This is Bloomberg Technology with Caroline Hyde and Ed Loved Love.
Live.
This is Broomberg Technology.
Now we get to direct TV in the dish, become the PTV provider in the United States. Plus, Beijing steps up pressure on domestic companies to ditch in video chips, and California Governor gab Newson Brooks proposed AI safety bill
Center West the bill. But first, let's check in on these markets at the moment, because as I battle perhaps some technical issues with my microphone will crently seeing the Nasdaq one hundred off by a quarter of a percent at the moment that we're all awaiting fedshare Pal what he will be saying regarding the economy post of course those FED cuts. We're looking at the Dragon, Golden Dragon Inecks.
Over in China though, up another four percent. Tech stocks on fire amid the stimulus and of course a feeling of fomo continuing to perpetuate in the market. We are the highest on these Chinese related names in more than a year. Look at some individual movers though, because We have got a merging Monday on our hands, and a lot of stocks are being impacted. AT and T for one,
only up about a tenth of a percent. But this has been long in the making, DirecTV and Dish combining to create the biggest PATV provider in the United States. AT and T is part of the deal while it's
selling its seventy percent stake in Direct Tv to TPG. Meanwhile, that earns seven point six billion dollars Echo Star, as you'll see, under pressure, the owner of Dish and Sling especially dodging bankruptcy here according to BlueBag Intelligence, by offloading the debt associated with PayTV assets, and is set to sell more shares itself.
Let's discuss all of this.
Shell Davis, who throughout has been following this deal. You take a victory lap because you're ahead of the curve on this. This is why AT and T isn't moving that much, because we'd anticipated it's offloading of Direct TV. But just remind us what they're creating here by merging the two companies.
So, as you just said, you know, this deal has been a long time coming, and there's a lot happening here.
The news all came out this morning.
Through a series of five six press releases filings, and what's happening is that Dish and direct TV are going to combine. Direct TV is acquiring Dish to form if it gets approved, the biggest paid TV provider in the US, and the way they're doing that is Direct TV is paying one dollar in equity and then assuming ten billion dollars of Dish debt in order to acquire the business.
As part of that, though, Dish or Direct TV has to get Dish bondholders to agree to take a haircut on some of their debts.
So if this goes through, it.
Will mean a stronger balance sheet, you know, behind those lenders that are agreeing to this, But the bondholders have to agree to take that haircut.
And that is why some of these bond prices are significantly under pressure today. It's not just a stock of Echo style. For example, EchoStar meanwhile is going more into the infrastructure side, into the five G side, and into selling about five billion dollars worth of stock. That's why it shares full on the day. There are some of the outstanding debt that's involved in this dead exchange. But why then at and T exit it's holding of DirecTV, does it not see the future potential of a bigger deal.
So this is all.
Part of a bigger theme that we're seeing in M and A and in corporate America, where companies are increasingly looking to simplify their businesses. AT and T has done a bit of.
A three sixty years ago, they.
Got into the content game, and you'll remember a couple of years ago they spun out and sold Warner Brothers to Discovery. Now with DirecTV, you know, they're looking to exit that and they say that this is all about them wanting to focus on what their core is, which is wireless broadband. They don't see you know, value in content the way that they had before.
And under TPG.
With this this TV that they have, DirecTV has done really well because TPG has been able to cut costs and so the thought is maybe it's better in their hands than a split you know deal.
I like the fact that you're saying this is all part of a trend to simplify, because you're also on the byline for Verizon's story today where we're seeing a three point three billion dollar deal to basically sale and then lease back access to its towers.
Why do that for a Verizon?
So it's a way for a Verizon to get some cash. They announced a deal themselves a couple a couple of weeks ago to buy Frontier, which is a big broadband internet player. And we're seeing just a big theme of the wireless players tapping out on kind of you know, cell phone and seeing we need to find ways to get more customers and the way to do that is by offering internet access. So this is a way for them to pay for that without you know, boosting their
average as much. It gives them a little bit of cash.
Michelle, which has been busy, we appreciate it. Meanwhile, let's talk about this in the broader market context. Empower's chief investment strategist, Martin Norton is here for more and Marta, look, we do have a feeling of m and a Monday on our hands. Are we going to see more deals go through as we see rates get lower?
Well, listen, I mean we have seen some pickup in deals this year, and I think one of the challenges has been higher rates. And so the expectation that you know, as if FED enters a definitive cutting cycle, we're going to see some shifts broadly, and that can impact the
M and A environment as well. There's also the regulatory angle and of course getting deals through and that's been harder in recent years, and so that remains something that you know, is something that investors and companies are going to have to continue to contend with. But certainly lower rates are a bit of a tailwind.
What's interesting is when you felt perhaps M and A and indeed IPOs there, we say it are all going to be held back until post the political anxiety that is the US election, That doesn't seem to be holding it back right now. Is that your view?
Marta?
Well, you know, I do think that regulatory impact has been felt. That doesn't mean that companies aren't going to engage in deals when it makes strategic sense. I think that's what we're seeing with the Dish Direct TV deal. But I do think that there's potentially been less activity than there otherwise would be, and so I think that as we turn the elective corner and start to have some clarity on what that looks like, we may start to see a pickup in activity on the M and A front.
What about activity and ownership of big tech right now? Because we're down on the day on the NASDAC. There is talk that hedge funds are selling out of technology names to get into lumberhold Chinese companies. How are we seeing that play out in terms of people's desire to stay committed to the Magnificent seven?
You know, it's such an interesting question because a lot of times when we're talking about the environment that we're in, there's really been two drivers of returns in twenty two. For of course, there's been the AI theme, and of course that's really benefited the big tech space. And there's also been this soft landing theme, and now we're adding the cunning cycle to the mix. So I think that's really within the US broadening out the trade, not necessarily
meaning that folks need to abandon big tech. I mean, lower rates aren't necessarily bad for big tech, but it certainly brings other areas, like the small cap area into
the front of investors' minds. Now what's happening in China is so fascinating because this has been an area that has been under pressure, it's had multiple false dawns, and now, as Bloomberg has recorded, so clearly there's the monetary and the fiscal side coming together to push these stocks higher, and so I think that's giving a lot of investor
enthusiasm to assets that have been really depressed. You can find some very healthy, big tech names in China, but the overhang there has just been made it very difficult for investors to want to get involved.
We've already seen the Faumo kick in the rallying of the names we can only have on the screen the Ali Baba's, the JD dot COM's, the by Dos. Is there still juice to go hair or do you wait to see how bigger impact the stimulus actually has.
From a fundamental perspective.
I'd argue that the valuations are still there. I mean when you take a look at something like Crane shares etf that's shocking the China market, and you look at where it peaked in February twenty twenty one, it was around one hundred and thirty and it's come down all the way down to about eighteen at one point now in the thirties. It potentially won't go all the way back up to something like one thirty, but you can see a little bit room left on the valuation side
because the sentiment has been so bleak. I mean, there's been numerous seal side research pieces out over the past several years saying that this is a no go space. And so now that you have kind of the support for the demand side, I'm not saying there aren't still issues. There are plenty of issues left, but I think that's take at least some of the concerns away from investors' minds.
And we have had such a US is the only game in town for technology trade?
Is that still the case?
Well, it's hard to find similar opportunities from kind of a financial resilience or health or dominance perspective in what you have in Silicon Valley. There is a lot of uniqueness to those types of names. But the closest corollary that I see really is in China, where you have some of these similar types of companies with really healthy balance sheet. So I think that this is the competitive trade.
But of course they have, you know, concerns around the regulatory environment, there are geopolitical risks, there are a number of other things that kind of spoil the apple cart a little bit there. But from an asset perspective, they're pretty competitive.
I just want to double click on that in terms of regulatory concerns, because they're actually geopolitical regulatory concerns as well. With China pushing back against the video chips, that's benefited Chinese chip makers today. We've got to talk about it much more in a moment, Marta. But how much are you factoring in for your investors the idea that China US tensions will continue.
I mean, I think that is one of the kind of exaginous events that's out there and affects a course tech, but it also affects the broader market. And you know, we have talks of tariffs and the like as well, so there's a lot of questions around kind of the cooperation of different countries and how they'll play well. And then something like AI and thinking about kind of the
security risk how that factors into things. So I think there is you know, something of a when folks are thinking about these assets to think about the valuation and whether it's accounting for that type of risk. And as we're taking a look at big tech today, even post summer storm, I'd argue that valuations are a bit high and they're not really taking into account some of these outside events that could be problematic for.
Some of these companies.
Empower's chief investment strategist Martin Norton. Great to get your take.
Thank you.
Now let's turn our attention to US and China. Now, Bloomberg has learned that Beijing is stepping up pressure on domestic companies to ditch in Vidia processes for lo called alternatives that are cent shares of China chip maker camanicn technology is absolutely soaring today. Let's discuss more with bluemg's Mackenzie Hawkins, who help break this story on Friday evening around the pushback against Nvidia. This is today's market reaction.
Mackenzie just remind us as to why they are trying to curtail these not the most powerful chips from video, that's for sure.
So Beijing for years has been aiming for self sufficiency in semi conductors, which are the critical electronic building blocks of every advanced technology, including artificial intelligence, and Chinese chip makers have been trying to make strides against their foreign rivals but have struggled to keep up. And videos chips are still the gold standard, even the slightly less powerful ones that the company is allowed to sell to China
under US restrictions. So Beijing, on the one hand, wants to prop up these domestic companies and encourage Chinese AI developers to use Chinese chips. On the other hand, they don't want to handicap these Chinese AI startups, so they're not fully banning them from buying the best chips on the market, which are in Vidias, but saying if you can please buy local.
Interestingly, I think a quote on camera was Jensen Hwang on Friday as well in Washington. He's doing all he can, he says, to support sales in China.
China is an incredibly important market market for Nvidia and pretty much every other chip maker. The US restricted sales of advanced ships made with any type of American technology to China in twenty twenty two and has been increasingly cracking down on those sales over the past couple of years. But in Nvidia and other companies responded by trying to design new chips for the Chinese market, which the US Commerce Department then cracked down on those, and Nvidia designed
even less powerful chips. And this is still a huge electronics market. Obviously, an enormous amount of manufacturing happens there, and companies are trying to bide buy restrictions from Washington while maintaining access to a critical customer base.
Mackenzie Hawkins, thanks so much.
Meanwhile, sticking with China manufacturers, there selling the fewest electric cars in eighteen months to customers across Europe, registration is actually falling by nearly half in August from a year earlier. Pett the most credudel here for us from London. This is a continuing theme, Craig.
Yeah, that's right.
I think this is a case where we still have yet to see tariffs come into place and actually be implemented.
You know, there's been a provisional additional charge put on vehicles, but it won't actually be charged until November, so you know, this is maybe a little bit of an early taste of the impact that these additional tariffs could have on Chinese manufacturers and you know, international car companies like Tesla that are facing you know, additional tariffs as a result of the fact that the EU is concerned about you know, just how much lower costs are in China and how
much you know, companies exporting out of China maybe have a leg up over local manufacturers.
MG and Brown that had a lot of success that's feeling the heat byd as well. We're currently looking at some American auto companies as well, though, because all of this comes in the context Craig of a very tough environment for automakers.
Still Antos the latest.
Today, Yeah, that's right, and stillentis. The profit warning today was really dramatic. They went from seeing a more than ten percent profit margin for the year to five to seven and a half percent margin for them to lower that and also really dramatically reduce their expectation for free cash flow. Initially they were seeing that to be positive. Now they're saying a negative five billion to negative ten billion. That is really something that has caught the market off guard.
I think it was well understood that this company was having some real issues and particularly with their inventory getting a bit out of whack in North America. They've been making way more cars than they have man for. But for them to come out and really have this sort of clearing event and you know, worn in a very dramatic way, I think has really alarmed investors and analysts today the context.
Thank you from Craig Rudell. Meanwhile, coming up, we're going to be joined by orchestro CEO Neil Lustig for his insights on the potential East Coast port strikes, what the impact is likely to be on the supply chain. More broadly, we'll bring you that next. This is buly Meg Technology.
I urge us MX and the ILA to come in an agreement. It respects workers, that ensures the flow of commerce through our ports, and the stake are very high. The potential for disruption is significant.
New York Governor Kathy Hokeel earlier this hour union workers along the East Coast and Gulf Coast ports threatening strike tomorrow over a new contract. Bloomberg's Danny Berger joins us now from right outside Newark Shipping Port and New Jersey on the latest, And Danny, we're hearing actually in a Facebook post from the ISLA that USMX continues to block the path forward to a settlement.
They currently are saying, and this.
Coming from the International Longshoreman's Association, it feels like a deal is not near done.
No, they are still a long ways away. And given that post, it seems like the strike will likely be on twelve am, one minute past midnight on Tuesday is when the contract expires and when a strike will happen. Forty five thousand members to this union. That is some thirty six ports. It's about half of the goods imported into the US. The sticking points are two very big ones. Caroline, it is one pay. They want a some eighty percent pay rise over the next six years. Say the current
offer that they are being given is quote stingy. They also want language drafted into the contract that prevents more automation on these sports. Automation I should say that is very prevalent elsewhere. It is in Asia, it is in places like Amsterdam. But they don't want that over fear of losing their job. So the head of the Longshoremen's Association, the union representing them, saying that come Tuesday morning, they are ready to in his words, awaken a sleeping giant.
And we saw that awakened on the West coast, but a year or so ago, Danny, and a lot of that came down to technology, to innovation, as we say, alliance and container Carries, direct Employers and Port Association basically the United States Maritime Alliances who they're up against anything from that side in terms of their talks with the ISLA.
Well, I mean this is a problem that we've heard from many unions. I mean, you can even refer to what's happening, what happened in the Hollywood strike over fear of technology. And when it comes to the West Coast, it is a separate union, so these talks are different. Now you could look at the West Coast and say if this is a model for how talks can go and even abroad of how talks can go to incorporate automation. Essentially, they want guarantees put in that workers will be protected.
That's the kind of language they want it. More automation does come. Now, there has been some hope that maybe if goods can't come through the East Coast, they can come through. The West Coast is still open. Unfortunately, the capacity there is not enough, and the head of the unions on the East Coast has said that there's been solidarity and that some of the workers there won't accept the shipments coming in. So, yes, it is that sticking point of technology. But many people say, look, this is
a tide that cannot be stopped. It is automation that is necessary. It makes a job easier, quicker, and yes some jobs will be lost, but it's not reskilling. That's really necessary to make sure that that doesn't happen and people stay employed even if there is automation.
Dotty Baga live from York. We thank you.
Meanwhile, let's talk more ultimation technology helping us in this current supply chain issue.
Neil Lusting joins us. He's the CEO of kestro so predict.
Procurement platform powered by AI gain theory, which helps companies proactively reroot those shipments and secure alternative supplies before well, perhaps these disruptions are.
Going to be felt.
I have a feeling you're getting a few calls.
It's a tough time to be a supply chain executive this week, and I think most of our customers right now are focused on alternatives. Right there where you find new routes, how we're going to move things through air. This is something they would have been focused on for a few days already at this point. If you haven't figured this out, you're a bit late, and longer term, your job is to figure out how to make yourself
more resilient. Software like Orchestro can't predict black swan events like this, but they can't help you become more adaptable respond much faster. So our customers can reach out to hundreds and thousands of contractors suppliers in order of magnitude faster, And really, this is what this is about, is from our customer's perspective, is adapting to the issue. Our customers
aren't going to be involved in the labor discussions. But how do you adapt and adjust quicker than you did in the past, and more importantly, quicker than your competitors.
Will they likely though, be feeling money lost. We're expecting a big economic impact from this.
Absolutely, there's no question this is going to be damaging to everyone. There is enough alternative There are enough alternative suppliers or alternative channels. This is not the capacity. So this makes it twice as important for you to be the first one to move. Yes, and if you move, as I said, this is kind of like the joke with the bear in the woods. You don't have to outrun the bear, you have to run your buddy. And if you can adapt faster than your competitors, you can
find those alternative roots. You can arrange airshipping for critical imports. It's a short term bit, but speed matters.
Well, let's talk about the speed and how machine learning or how game theory are raging your client puts them able to front run hand right.
So AI is good at a few things in the enterprise market. AI is good at sifting through large amounts of data. And AI is good at automating things that otherwise a human being would have had to do, like reaching out and managing a code process for finding an alternative ship or finding alternative supplier, and so being able to take that and shrink that time to twenty percent of what it was before means you can now do this just more five times as much as you could before.
Our customers are finding For example, we had a customer who a few months ago went out to the entire North American trucking market at once four thousand lanes, three hundred and fifty carriers. A job that would have taken nine months and a dozen people was collapsed into three people three weeks.
And so this is the.
Kind of nimbleness that AI gets you broadly, and what our customers delivering for our customers in supply.
Chain, how do you respond to a sudden wave of demand on your end? Does anything get stressed or stretched? Do you have to think about investing in your own platform?
So We're lucky. We use a set of cloud based platforms that do it's called auto scaling, so our infrastructure is able to expand and contract dynamically. So for us, this is actually not a crisis. It's an opportunity.
This is what you're built for. Orchestra Ceo, Nil Lastig. Great to have you here on a very busy day. Meanwhile, coming up, we're going to be joined by California Senator Scott Wiener to weigh in on the AI Safety Bill, which was just vetoed by California Governor Gavin Newsom.
That's next. This is Blue Big Technology.
This is an AIPC, a new generation of personal computer with specialized processors for AI tasks. It also has an AI assistant software that's pre installed. We tried out Adell XPS thirteen and a Microsoft Surface Pro. They both run Windows eleven on Quodcom chips, a combination of CPU, GPU and NPU or neural processing unit. That's the new bit. There's also a button or key specifically for Microsoft's Copilot
Tap and boop upcomes the AI assistant. Copilot acts like a chatbot, fielding questions, it creates images, and it can quickly draft schedules or summarize dense text in web browsers. Copilot answers questions about web page or summarizes news articles. The AI tech still has a lot of limitations, but battery life that was great in both PCs three or four days on a full charge, chatting with copilot, rendering
images even if you push the limits with gaming. In the Dell's case, that's thanks to Snapdragon's MPU, it can run forty five trillion operations per second, so multiple AI apps simultaneously without a hit to performance or battery life. Like pieces of old, there's gremlins, but on the whole it does what you'd want from a PC. There's still a question, how do aipcs change how we work and.
Play more on AI?
Because California Governor Gavin Newsom has vetoed what would have become one of the most comprehensive policies governing the safety of AI in the United States. The bill, which would have held AI developers accountable for any severe harm caused by their technologies. It drew strong criticism from the likes of Open Ai, VC firm and Recent Horowitz and many more, who warned it could stall innovation in the States.
Democratic California Senator.
Scott Wiener, who introduced the bill, called Newsom's veto a setback and a missed opportunity. In a statement on X, says, quote, we are all less safe as a result.
He joins US now for more.
Along with Bloomberg Showene Gafari and Senator I start you you'll reaction disappointment, But why less safe?
Sure?
Yes, the governor's veto was very disappointing. This was a very thoughtful, focused piece of legislation that would have addressed catastrophic risk from only the largest, most powerful models, and what it did was very basic. It would require the largest AI companies, the largest HEAD companies, to perform safety evaluations on massive powerful models before they release them, and also to be able to shut down those models if
something goes awry. They've all committed to perform these safety evaluations. But instead of just trust us, we want to put it in statute. So there was nothing extreme or unreasonable about this, and the veto unfortunately sends a very bad message about the future of AI safety.
And Senator what do you make of Governor Newsom's rationale for vetoing this bill? He said that he's worried it would provide a false sense of security that smaller models could be exempt. We also saw Nancy Pelosi put out a statement about how she's happy to beat bill has been meted to what do you make of their rationales?
Well, respectfully to the governor, I'm first of at least the governor acknowledged that these risks are real, because some of the opposition throughout we're saying, oh, this is just science fiction. It's not science fiction. These are very, very real, tangible risks that these models could help facilitate. So the governor did acknowledge that, which is good. I didn't fully
understand the governor's VETO message. It said, well, the bill is too broad, but the bill is also too narrow, So the veto message, it's unclear what the governor actually wants, and we'll see with this working group that he's setting up what comes out of that. But I and many others are committed to really moving forward to support AI innovation because AI can make the world a better place, but trying to get ahead of the risks posed by this very powerful technology.
Right and talking about that working group, So the governor has said that he's consulting with outside experts, including Faith A Lee and some others, to potentially come up with guardrails, maybe even new legislation. It sounds like in a future session, what do you make of that? Do you think those
are the right people for this group? Some people have brought up that Faith A Lee does have funding for a startup from Interries and Horowitz, the VC firm, which has been very vocal against a SB ten forty seven. What do you make of that group? Are they the right people to be addressing this well?
They also he put a Tino Quaar on there, who's a former California Supreme Court justice who I admire greatly, and I have a lot of respect for Faith A.
Lee.
She's an incredibly smart, talented person. And it's also important that folks who technologists who so ported the bill also be involved because we had some of the greatest minds in AI who were supporting the bill. I hope that they are included as well.
Right, Senator, What of the influence though, of those that were against?
What of the lobbying did it make an impact?
Well, it did not have significant impact in the legislative process. The legislature with very strong votes in both the Senate and the Assembly passed this. So Democrats overwhelmingly supported this legislation despite the intense lobbying by large tech companies and by large venture capital firms. You know, the governor went through his own process, and I am confident was hearing a lot both support and opposition and ultimately made his decision.
I strongly disagree with the governor's decision, but again, at least he acknowledged that these risks are real and that they're not made up.
When you reintroduce SP ten forty seven in the next session.
We're going to evaluate next steps. We certainly want to engage with the Governor and with others. This issue is not going away. It's important. Congress has shown no signs of acting. Congress could not even get it together to pass an election deep fakes bill before this election. So California, as the heartland of tech and AI innovation, has a responsibility to lead on AI safety.
So, Senator, while this bill didn't pass, it did spark a national even international conversation about AI legislation. What do you think the impact has been, As it surprised you how big this is. The debate over this bill became and how much a divided the tech community.
Yeah, I knew this bill would be controversial, any tech regulation bill is. I did not anticipate the scale of the conversation. But I have to say it's always disappointing when a bill fails or gets vetoed, But sometimes you have to introduce a big, controversial bill to spark a
long overdue conversation. I've seen that happen in some of the housing work that we've done, where you pass, you introduced a huge bill, it doesn't pass, but it moves the conversation forward, and I think the same is true here.
The fact that the governor issued a very, very lengthy and detailed veto message, the fact that he acknowledged that the risks were real, and the fact that he committed to forming not just forming a working group, but saying specifically who's going to be on it and what it's going to focus on. That's a big step forward. And so, yes, it's disappointing that this veto happened, but this issue isn't going away, and we're going to get the job done.
California Senator Scott Reena, we thank you, Amblubos Sharene Gafari I think Gaines is expanding its anti trust fight with Google. Now the gaming john is accusing the Android with conspiring with some Sung go this to block rival apps on its marketplace by default globally.
For more, multi Nac is here with it.
And this is yet further anti trust fight with Alphabet, the parent company of Google. And of course the Android offering's a stake here for Epic.
So this is very interesting because you know, the fight is coming after last year's trial where Epic fought against Google's app store policies, challenged them, and then one jury trial where you know, the jurors found that Google Play policies.
Were anti competitive.
So now we have this new move, the latest move where Google says sorry.
Epic says that while.
Google, a judge in the Google case, is figuring out remedies on how to fix Google Play policies, it wants Google wants Samsung to sort of block gamers from finding their games easily. So it's sort of an interesting sort of a new effort, you know, that's happening while a judge is actually about a rule anytime on how to change Google Play policies to make them, you know, less of a monopoly. Which which was which is what a jury found. Ury jury found last year that that the Google Play Store was a.
Monopoly multi Samsung in July said all of its phones will have this default setting.
They say it's basically.
To prevent what malware, but ultimately it blocks downloads of Android apps that compete with the Google Play Store. So what is Samsung saying that it's actually doing here? What does Google say that it's actually doing here? Not constraining competition?
Sure, so the lawsuit was.
Just file this morning, and Samsung says this auto blocker feature that Epic says is now blocking gamers from downloading Epic games and Epic products is actually something that Samsung says.
Users have an option to turn it on or turn it off. It's up to them.
But according to Epic, in July, Samsung turned this feature into a default. There was a default setting after an update where now every time you know, you turn on your phone, auto blocker is automatic, automatically on, So it's not up to the user anymore.
And that's what Epic says is anti competitive.
So Samsung says, hey, you know, our users can still turn off this feature if they want, and we haven't heard from Google. Yet the lawsuits file just this morning, so waiting to hear their response. It shouldn't be interesting because you know, this is sort of the next fight after a fight that is already ongoing, so it'll sort of be interesting to see what happens.
Representative from Google decline to comment, and we plan to vigorously contest if it gains basis claims, so says Samsung Malty Nayak. Thank you so much for bringing us the latest in the antitrust fight. Meanwhile, how does it for this edition of Bloomberg Technology.
Do not forget to check out our podcast.
You can find it on the terminal as well as online on Apple, Spotify, and high Heart.
From New York, this is Bloomberg Technology.