tv Bloomberg Technology Bloomberg August 8, 2019 11:00pm-12:00am EDT
emily: i'm emily chang in new -- san francisco and this is "bloomberg technology." uber tanks, shares plummeting after hours after missing estimates across the board. what is the path to profitability? we've got full analysis. plus, craft landing page. several advertisers tell bloomberg the software system used to run campaigns on facebook and instagram is crashing regularly for hours, if not days. we will tell you what is going on.
and double digits, softbank announced its second vision fun after its wildly popular first tech fund. how it is changing up the landscape. first, our top story, uber out with second-quarter results including a $5.2 billion loss. sales, bookings, and monthly users all missing estimates. shares down to the lowest level since may. here to crunch the numbers and break down uber eats an active users is mandeep singh of bloomberg intelligence. payment fairly disappointing, what is your biggest take away? >> i think it was just a revenue miss, and part of that was related to the use of subsidies in their ridesharing business, i the food business. i think they have been using subsidies for a while. they have been seeing pricing pressure because uber eats is a very fragmented market. on the core ridesharing side, i think they're doing fine. it is just the law of large
numbers is catching up. to me, it looks fine. emily: i should add that the adjusted loss was lower than anticipated, $656 million versus the $979 million that analysts had estimated. monthly users are below estimates. 99 million, the street was looking for more like 101 million. what do you make of that? mandeep: the fact is, uber is a global company. they may choose to focus on more regions more than others. this, to me, was a small mass. it's really the user subsidies that caused the big revenue miss. that is a sign that uber is more focused on market share gain. lyft is trying to curtail their -- businesses. lyft is not going to expand geographically. uber is trying to take market share globally for ridesharing
and delivery. what was a positive day yesterday, they beat across the board. emily: uber has lost against that they may today going into this. do you see a path to profitability? mandeep: i think if you look at their core business, they give better disclosures than lyft. there was a sequential improvement. what it tells me is, if they wanted to make these businesses profitable, especially the mature businesses like the ridesharing business, they can do it. right now, they are focused more on market share in terms of adding new services and using subsidies to gain market share, in food delivery, that is the big one. i think that's going to help them in the long run. emily: we are listening to the
uber's conference call happening right now. mandeep singh, thanks so much for that instant analysis. sticking with uber results, we want to bring in tom white, with a neutral rating on uber and a buy on lyft. he joins me on the phone. , our otherttle guest. the same question to each of you, do you see a path to profitability? tom: yeah, we see multiple ways that management can move toward profitability. we see near-term drivers in the form of reducing driver and rider promotions and incentives. we also think they are things they can do in terms of helping move the company toward profitability in the near to midterm. longer-term, we see additional upside in the move toward autonomy as being a key
component in reducing costs and moving companies more toward profitability. emily: except that autonomy is just so far out. tom, you started to say that losses would decline next year. uber indicated the price wars between them would subside. why do you have different ratings on uber and lyft? neutral on uber, buy on lyft. tom: first of all, thanks for having me. our neutral view on uber really just comes down to limited visibility. it's a company fighting a lot of battles on a lot of fronts. on one hand, they have the big balance sheet and the scale to probably outlast a lot of players it is competing with. on the negative side, it is reacting and responding to a lot of the aggressive promotional activity from some of the ridesharing players and some of the online food delivery players it is fighting with.
it creates a situation where it is harder to get comfortable with forecasting the financials. we think it is probably pretty challenging for the management team themselves, to give investors of clear and specific and precise 12-month view of where the financials are going to be. our ratings are based on a 12 to 18 month time horizon and we think the visibility and the share gains in the north american ridesharing market are kind of over the edge. emily: so, assad, let's talk about food delivery, because on the call, they've been focusing on the competition not just in ride-hailing but in food delivery, seeming to indicate that is the super competitive part of the business now. obviously, uber eats has competitors not just in the united states but different competitors globally. what is your outlook for uber eats and how it can boost or not boost the business going forward?
asad: i think this quarter's results really speak to just how competitive the food delivery landscape is, not just a mastic -- domestically, but internationally. uber eats is competing with a whole host of competitors that are really well-funded. companies like door dash and postmates that have received large amounts of funding from deep-pocketed investors like softbank that are not afraid to go after the market in a big way. that is to the detriment of profitability in the near to midterm and that is hurting companies like uber which is facing so much pressure from investors to show a clear pathway to profitability. in the near-term, we are encouraged by some positive signs we see. if you look at the take rate, which is the commission that uber takes on growth transactions within food delivery, we have seen that trend upwards over the past three quarter sequentially. that is something we are encouraged by.
we are also incrementally more positive based on signs of consolidation in the space with their rival door dash acquiring caviar. is a positive development and when we hope to see more of. talk about when we profitability, a lot of investors will point to autonomy and the future of self driving cars which uber and lyft are investing in. but isn't that just so far off that it is difficult to include it in any sort of near or midterm model? tom: i tend to agree with you. we think in five years, vehicles incar hi rideshare are still very much on the margin. a very select group and specific geographies with clear weather, not a lot of fog, so very much in the margin. the reality is that until the
technology advances to a point where it can be more broadly and widely deployed, over will need -- uber will need a lot more human drivers, not less. that continues to be one of the big challenges for both of the platforms. how do they demonstrate a path to profitability by making sure that drivers are attracted to the platforms, but making sure they don't raise prices so much for consumers that it eats into the number of use -- services that people use them for. emily: never short of drama, uber versus lyft. ussein, weand asad h will keep listening to the uber call and bring you headlines as we have them. the u.s. is holding off on granting licenses to businesses to supply technology to huawei. remember, the u.s. has
blacklisted huawei, prohibited u.s. companies from sending critical technology including software and chips. the u.s. was considering granting licenses to certain u.s. businesses to restart sales to huawei, but now we hear that the u.s. is holding off on granting licenses after china halted buying u.s. agricultural products. a lot has happened in between. the u.s. labeled china a currency manipulator and of course, the trade war between the two countries only escalating. this is one more ratchet up. we will continue to follow that story and bring you any updates as we have them. coming up, facebook's ad network is creating major headaches for digital advertisers. is the social network at risk of those ad dollars? -- risk of losing those ad dollars? check us out on sirius xm. this is bloomberg. ♪
manager isbook's ad having technical difficulties. several advertisers have told campaign ise ads crashing regularly, some say every month. according to advertisers, outages can last days at a time. one said there have been at least a dozen system failures in the last year alone and speaking of digital ads, the justice department is scrutinizing google's digital ad and search operations as authorities gear up a broad antitrust review of the market power of giant internet companies.
joining us to discuss is kirk wagoner and mark bergen. the doj storyth because this just crossed. we could assume google was at the top of the list. mark: looks like they are looking at google and google's business -- biggest business which is research and advertising. what we reported today is looking beyond the usual suspects of characters and rivals in yelp, oracle, they have been complaining about google for years. sounds like we have reporting the doj is talking to other news publishers, other ad tech industries that have complained more quietly about google's display advertising business. it is so dominant there, and they make the claims that google has been behaving anti-competitively. google is being
investigated, but we don't know if facebook is being investigated. kirk: if they're looking into the broader ad industry, facebook is number two to google. emily: let's talk about the ad averages that sound pretty awful. it doesn't sound like they're good for facebook's bottom line. kirk: no, they are not. and they are really bad if you are an advertiser. the whole point i was told to set the reason you do these campaigns is because you want to do them accurately. if a certain image or video you're pushing is not actually resonating, you want to be up to take that down right away and replace it with something else or put money behind a different ad that is working. when the system is down, you can't do any of that. not only can you not start the new campaign, but you cannot adjust existing campaigns. that can lead to people spending money on campaigns that are not actually working. emily: it is down for days? kurt: it could be. leading up to thanksgiving was kind of the biggest issue i heard. black friday last year, you may recall there was a big outage that freaked everybody out because like friday is one of the biggest retail days of the year, to not being able to prepare your ad campaigns, it
was a huge issue. every year since then you have seen these with more regularity. that was the tipping people but it can be a long process. -- point, but it can be a long process. emily: facebook statement -- and apologize for the frustrations this has caused. they go on to say they are committed to getting better. put it in context for us. obviously facebook and google are the biggest players, what -- in the digital ad business. what does it mean that now you have got the justice department investigating the way google runs the system. do you think that will impact google's market share or give facebook an advantage or not? >> the ftc looked at google years ago and and dropped the case. the eu has a different approach to antitrust. the eu has turned on the idea that behavior affects the market. not necessarily consumer harm because historically in the u.s., google and facebook will
say show us the consumer harm. a lot of people are talking about if the doj starts to change the definition there, that could be something that has a big effect on these companies. what you see in the eu, and we are still waiting for the is a have forced google to change business practices. if the doj can do that with google and facebook, then they might be able to change the market. emily: kurt, you are reporting on another issue with whatsapp flaws. allowing hackers to manipulate whatsapp messages? that sounds scary. kurt: it sounds a little scarier than it is. i think of it more as a product flaw than a security flaw. you know how when you reply to an email, you can go down and maybe edit what the email you are replying to looks like? it's kind of that situation with whatsapp. you can reply to a message and change what the message looks like in your reply. it creates some concern for sure.
especially for companies like facebook and whatsapp that are battling fake news, it's not the kind of product you want to have out there, the kind of feature you want out there, but it's a little different than hacking in and changing the message. emily: perhaps explains facebook's response. it is false to suggest there is a vulnerability with the security we provide on whatsapp. which is a big deal for whatsapp because it is the encrypted messaging service facebook likes to tout. for them, it is important for people to know that they don't see this as a security issue, but again, this could be a big issue for things like fake news. if i am doctoring what a message looks like, that could be misleading to people. in some parts of the world, that has caused some really serious consequences. emily: all right, while i am sure it will be just a couple more minutes before we have more google and facebook news. thanks so much for keeping us updated. kurt wagoner and mark bergen. coming up, silicon valley's latest unicorn scale ai has secured $100 million in new funding. how the company is using the investment to teach computers to
emily: netflix has signed the "game of thrones" creators to a multiyear theater and film deal work $200 million, according to reports. as part of the deal, they will no longer be producing shows for hbo where they were show runners and riders on "game of thrones" for its entirety and will work on projects exclusively for netflix. they were also reportedly in talks with disney and amazon. artificial intelligence companies are spending millions of a year hiring people to teach dollars computers to see. among their tasks, identifying photos so they can do the same thing. it's a costly process that could take anywhere from 10 minutes to a couple of hours. the startup scale ai wants to change up the process.
the software company takes the first look at photos before passing them on to humans for review. it already has several customers uber, and the company has been valued at more than thank you so much for $100 million. joining us. >> it gives the data they need what are you -- what are you doing for these companies? >> ai is built on top of data requiree algorithms billions of examples of label data to be able to perform in a safe, reliable way. aat we have done is build platform that allows these companies to get the data they need to be able to build these algorithms in a safe reliable way and they use the data to build their self driving cars. emily: what kind of data? what kind of algorithms are they building using your software? alexandr: one of the big problems and machine learning is
perception, being able to fully understand the environment around you using machine learning. we've prosperous a lot of data and for other companies, we process text data or tabular data, or speech data. emily: is the work you doing going to improve the safety of self driving cars? there is a lot of concern about how quickly they can come to market, even if they work some of the time, it has to be perfect. alexandr: even further than that, the work we do is critical to building safe autonomous vehicles, for example, because without the data we are able to provide to these companies, they would not be able to build algorithms that could perform in any manner that is safe and reliable. emily: so there are thousands of human beings necessary to do the
job now. in the future, how much of that work can ai really take on? it certainly seems that there will always need to be some sort of marriage between humans and technology. you cannot eliminate humans altogether. alexandr: i definitely agree with that. i think ai is about augmenting humans with technology and making them more effective and more efficient using technology. in particular, for a lot of the problems that we work on where ai plays a critical role, you -- in self driving or medical imagery, etc., you really want to make sure that humans are part of the process to ensure that the systems are performing safely and reliably. emily: so there are other companies that are trying to do what you do. uber bought a company called money ai. amazon has its own labeling services. what differentiates you from the competition and how does the market evolve? alexandr: i think one view we have taken is how do we solve it in the most tech enabled way possible?
how do we use as much machine learning and technology on our side to make the process as efficient and high quality as possible? that is a very differentiated view. many of the other efforts are much more human powered than technology powered. emily: do you have a view on which company will get a self-driving car to the mainstream market the fastest? alexandr: unfortunately, i cannot really comment on that. emily: but you have a view. alexandr: i think it is very exciting that all these companies have incredible technology and it is getting better and better every single year. we are really getting closer and closer to solving the problem. emily: i have to ask, you are 22 years old -- alexandr: i am, yeah. emily: you have been doing this for how long? alexandr: three years. emily: how did you get here at 22 years? alexandr: i was really lucky. alamosup in los in new mexico, but was able to come out here in the valley and
mark as a software engineer. that exposed me to a lot of these problems where ai and machine learning are really core. i went back to school for a year and after that year i dropped out and started this company. emily: should everyone drop out? is it something you recommend? alexandr: i think if you know what you want to do, more and more these days, you don't need a degree to be able to accomplish what you want to do. people care a lot more about what can you accomplish and what are your skills? ai, alexandr wang thank you. coming up, the top story of the moment. cooper shares taking after hours after big earnings miss. we will have more on that, next. this is bloomberg. ♪
emily: this is "bloomberg technology." i'm emily chang. uber is out with second-quarter results, and they are not too pretty. after our shares still in the red following the company's sales miss and a $.2 million loss. ceo addressed how they are handling the competition. >> the competitive environment and our position in the ridesharing space continues to be stable to improve. we will take some of that improvement to continue to lean eats business, where we see plenty of competition and significant investment but incredible potential. emily: i want to bring in
someone who has comments on the business strategies of both uber and lyft. you are a professor of accounting at the university of illinois. we sort of expected a big loss due to stock-based compensation tied to the ipo, other ipo expenses. what did you see in these numbers that you didn't expect? >> first of all, i had expected them to at least beat the revenue estimates. kind of looking at what they did kind of in the last quarter and trying to kind of extrapolate out, say ok, if they could at least beat the earnings, the revenue estimate for june, so at least continue that upward trend with respect to the revenues, but they did not. so if you look at last quarter, revenue came in at about $3.1 million. this quarter, it is about $2.87 million. -- $2.87 billion.
last quarter, there was, you know, a big percentage increase compared to the last quarter of the year before. there is still an increase this quarter compared to the quarter of the year before, but when you look at the two quarters side, -- side-by-side, there is a bit of a dive. emily: what does that tell you? >> this raises the question of how they are going to finish out the year with respect to revenue, which is their topline performance metric, especially uber and ipo's making huge losses in revenue. in the case of uber, they have adjusted net revenue, growth -- gross bookings, and number of riders as key metrics. the question is what will revenue look like for the next couple of quarters. emily: both lyft and uber are sort of signaling that they price wars, irrational competitive environment,
incentives for riders are going to decrease. do you believe that? adjustedok at uber's net revenue number, where they actually start back out there driver incentives, when you amount of driver incentives compared to the revenue number, it is actually from the last two quarters. it is rounding out at 10% to 11%, so actually, this quarter is slightly lower. 10.2% compared to 10.9% last quarter. there is revenue growth, but it does not seem to be necessarily driven by providing access to driver incentives. emily: what about eats? , their driver incentive last quarter actually tripled, which is interesting. the key thing to watch there is kind of overall, driver incentives seems stable, but if
you look at the businesses within their core platform, whether it is ridesharing or uber eats, where exactly is the increase in driver incentives coming from? right now, it seems like it might be stable across the board, but when you dig into the numbers, for uber eats, it might actually be increasing to generate more revenue on that end. emily: associate professor at the university of illinois. we continue to follow more uber headlines as they come, and we will be watching to see how shares open tomorrow. thank you very much. speaking of uber, before going public, the company raised billions backed by general atlantic and softbank's vision fund. softbank's profit from the original fund jumped big in the first quarter thanks to bets on slack and door --. now softbank is at it again with a second vision fund that will expand investment in enterprise technology and cloud computing.
to discuss, we are joined by ed from new york and in tokyo, david, cofounder and general partner at dcm. thank you for joining us. david, what is your take on vision fund 2? will there be enough places for softbank to place all these big bets? >> i think there are. obviously the first fund focused on the on demand sharing economy, and i think they will now focus on cloud computing and enterprise software, which obviously has been growing quite well. in 2016, the multiples of revenue for their market cap. for example, software service was about five x, now it is 10 and. i think they are trying to follow where the money is and where the multiples are higher. emily: is there a lot of money to be made in enterprise startup investing? perhaps more than in consumer
technology these days? >> i would say consumer gets all the headlines, everyone talks about uber but the reality is, you can't have those companies without cloud computing and enterprise software and developer technology. my perspective would be if you are in the fortune 500, you cannot be in the fortune 500 unless you are a technology company. everyone is investing in cloud computing and developers and engineering and that is what is driving returns today. look at zoom, october. 2019 numbersing at still. most people don't know those names but that is where the returns will be in the future, as well. emily: david, as an investor who has made a lot of consumer investment, what is your reaction to that? >> i think it is natural, the whole advent of mobile phones and smartphones. access tonsumers had
the technology first, while the enterprise was still using laptops and desktops. growth in the consumer side was actually natural, and there has been a lot more business innovation around consumer on the smartphone as a platform initially, and i think now, that is being penetrated into businesses. obviously, fueled by cloud computing. therefore, now, it is really the turn for businesses to leverage the smartphone and the mobile revolution. emily: are there enough places for softbank to really place all these bets, even in enterprise? i have heard investors complain there's not a lot of great things out there right now. ed: i would say yes and no. if you look at the number of $100 million and above rounds that have happened over the last
two years, i think last year alone, 130he u.s. billion dollars was raised but half of that was from $100 million and above rounds. the enterprise is different from consumer. you can't just throw a couple hundred million dollars and expect to win. money is not the competitive advantage. there is money from every pocket of the world. there is public equity folks, private equity firms investing, venture capital firms have scaled up. unlike consumer, where you can throw marketing dollars and see media growth, there is a lag time for a lot of these enterprise businesses to increase sales, for enterprise to adopt their technology. my answer would be yes, there will be plenty of opportunities, but, no, it is not the same effect. money is not the main aspect of what will win in the enterprise space. emily: how have softbank and the vision fund changed up the vc landscape? many of the things in vc were the same for so long, then you have softbank coming in with a lot of money.
does that change your strategy? david: i think it has been a very positive thing for early-stage vc's. i think softbank is allowing some of the early-stage vc's to exit. the market has changed over the last five years, where much larger, late stage funds have prolonged their exit because they have been paying high prices and they still expect pretty good returns. but i think the vision fund, fundamentally changed the landscape because typical late stage funds expect 2 to 3x over a three to five-year period, and whatnk what soft --'s samsung is doing is going to entrepreneurs and saying i am willing to bet long-term and i will write a bigger check so you can change the competition and
beat the competition and i will stick with you longer. i think that is very appealing to entrepreneurs. based on the check size they write, they typically win the deal because the late stage folks are looking for a little bit more short-term and their check size is smaller. emily: it is great for early-stage vc's, great for entrepreneurs, but i wonder if there is a risk of companies being kept afloat that should not be kept afloat with this much money flowing into the system. ed: absolutely. there is a long lag period in the private to public markets and lots of money is not necessarily a good thing. the difference between $100 million and $200 million, will you hire more sales and marketing folks? i think too much money coming into a sector means returns will eventually go down. a lot of times, founders may not do smart things with too much capital, so that is definitely one thing to worry about in the enterprise space, and that keeps me concerned as well. emily: david, you you are in tokyo.
go ahead. i was going to say, on the contrary, enterprise software, you need a lot of salespeople to get to the companies to sell, whereas consumer, you can use the social networking to go grab customers. and i would disagree that you actually do need more money to go acquire customers in the enterprise space, and it takes longer for the enterprise software, enterprise customers to sign on. so you do actually need more money for certain sectors. emily: it is a good thing my seo she signed a long-term deal. ed: may i interject? emily: quickly. between $100rence million and $200 million on that
scale, you could raise questions how much money someone needs. secondly, the way you sell today has gone bottom-up. companies are more efficient than they used to be. they need the balance between both. emily: we will let you guys continue this conversation off air. david and ed, thanks for the debate. the deal that was then wasn't, is now once more. broadcom says it has agreed to buy symantec. broadcom's ceo weighed in on the deal saying, "this next step in our strategy. the deal is expected to close in broadcom's first quarter ending in january. coming up, fighting terror online. the white house wants to gather technology leaders to fight terrorism online. the latest on the meeting that has been called for friday. this is bloomberg. ♪
emily: u.s. transportation safety officials have demanded data from tesla on autopilot crashes, a move that may be the start of an investigation into the electric carmaker. we will have more on that story coming up on "bloomberg technology." the two most recent mass shootings in the united states have sparked questions on the way people are being radicalized online. more than 73% of the time, social media played a role in radicalizing people towards extra missed ideologies in the u.s. in general. fromis from a study 2011-2016. the previous five years, the number was just over 26%. to discuss in washington, we have the ceo of the internet association, a tech lobbying group that includes facebook, google, and twitter, and the reporter who covers social media for us.
what do we know about this meeting at the white house scheduled for tomorrow? >> it is supposed to be a way to get companies to come together to talk about how they will confront the idea of domestic terrorism. the companies have had a system to deal with international law makers and for years, they have worked on developing a way to share that information about posts and videos that go up, and they are able to quickly take it down across all the participating companies. it would be interesting if they come to some kind of conclusion like that. the flipside is, the white house has also been on the company's -- the companies' case about anti-conservative bias. a lot of the rhetoric about white nationalism has ties to that kind of rhetoric, too, and the worry is that they will end up censoring things. emily: michael, you are going to
the meeting. there has been a lot of debate, especially in light of these recent shootings, about online violence but also the availability of guns, racism, and a lot of issues at play. what's the argument you and these companies plan to make? horrificthese are crimes that happen in the off-line world, but our companies are committed to do in oversized role on the internet to help take down extra missed content and takedown hate speech and work with people in communities and work with law enforcement to help ensure these things don't happen. but as you mentioned, crimes like this have happened before the internet. if you look at global statistics, the united states ranks number 15 in social media penetration, but i think we all know where we rank in mass shootings. we are happy to be part of the solution and have a constructive conversation with the white house tomorrow. emily: several companies have gotten together to form a coalition to fight terror
online, but there's a lot of question about how productive the coalition has been. take a listen to congressman max rose questioning companies after the christchurch shooting. this is what he had to say about the coalition. >> i'm getting to the fact that you are not taking it seriously because there's no public building, no staff, no public poc's until after the christchurch shooting. that is what i am speaking to. how is anyone supposed to think you all take this collective action problem seriously if you have no one working on it full-time? this is not something technology alone can solve. this is a problem we are blaming the entire industry for, rightfully so. emily: is this coalition actually making progress? michael: yes. our companies have worked incredibly hard both independently amongst themselves and with law enforcement and national security agencies around the world to help fight
terrorism and help fight extremism and all these other terrible things that have existed in our society for a very long time. i am proud of the work they have done. the congressman i think is a little off base in some of his accusations and the work this -- these companies have done has made a huge difference in the united states and around the world. sarah: the problem is the companies have not agreed on a definition for what kind of content constitutes this white nationalist extremism. i guess i'm curious what the conclusion is about how they will work together in the future. facebook talked to me about how they took down things after the fact, when a manifest you -- a manifesto went up, they were able to scrub that from platforms. but anything proactive they can do? emily: that is certainly a question a lot of people are asking.
you have the doj looking into google's business. , the ftca tech review investigating facebook, criticism from the president and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, these mass shootings. what is your job like in washington these days he act of -- these days? michael: our companies are under scrutiny and i don't think they get the recognition, the credit that they deserve in some of these cases. are they perfect? no. can they do better? absolutely, but these are major problems with huge, complicated questions in our society as a whole, and companies are doing things to tackle them, but sarah pointed out a great point. a lot of the speech and content people are trying to post on the internet and talk about every single day is first amendment protected speech. each platform has a different set of community standards. i think it is perfectly reasonable and correct in these
circumstances for companies to say we don't want white supremacists or hate speech on our platform. and we will take it down. there are many that don't agree with that. many in congress and elsewhere have said companies should not take that down and should just, you know, put their hands up, but i think it is perfectly reasonable for a company to have community guidelines and community standards that clearly state that hate speech and white supremacists and all this kind of violent content are removed from the platform and do not have a place on the platform. that is not the case with everybody. when you look at our members, they are good actors working to solve a lot of these complicated and difficult issues we have, but there are many bad actors out there. you hear about 8chan and some of these bad actors. they have a different perspective on it. emily: the question is where do you draw the line? have you back.o we will check in with you after the meeting at the white house. and sara, thank you. still ahead, we will talk about
emily: plenty to discuss in the world of cybersecurity coming out of vegas at the black cat conference. apple said it will start distributing special iphones to security researchers to help them discover flaws before malicious hackers do. and offer the money, as well. meantime google security , a researcher on stage exposed some vulnerabilities and apple's messaging and email. for more on the latest, i want where alexas vegas is standing by. what has been the most impactful to you? alex: it is just amazing to see the increased collaboration between enterprises and hackers and security researchers coming together to form solutions.
you mentioned great examples of security researchers from google helping a competitor in this space to point out security flaws. we are relying on hackers to find bugs that exist. that is powerful in keeping all of us safe. emily: how optimistic are you about the sort of white hat hacker movement and the ability of good guys to sort of identify the vulnerability, given that there seem to be so many more powerful bad actors out there? alex: i'm completely convinced this is an essential part of building trustworthy software and keeping consumers safe. in the last five years, friendly hackers identified 125 thousand vulnerabilities and been awarded over $60 million by enterprises, tech companies, and financial services organizations. every one of those is an important feedback loop to have one less bug out there that a
criminal can take advantage of. the more we see that type of collaboration occurring, the safer we are. in the last year, the number of vulnerabilities have -- emily: before you go, we have about 30 seconds left. i just want to know what you think the biggest emerging threats are. alex: the types of things researchers are diving into, there was a lot of research into how we detect and combat deepfakes, which will be very dangerous coming into the upcoming election cycle. researchers are doing research into security vulnerabilities in building seven 87th, something we depend upon, vulnerabilities disclosed in mobile devices all of us have. really, every enterprise is becoming a software company and software's have bugs and we need cap -- we need hackers to keep it safe. emily: that does it for this edition of "bloomberg technology."
program. the opinions and views expressed do not reflect those of bloomberg lp, its affiliates, or its employees. >> brought to you by rare collectibles tv. ♪ >> our country was founded on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. representing this idealism is our american eagle. chosen inagle was 1782 to represent the united states because of its long life, majestic looks, and great strength.